Alinskyism (Day 14)

Note to readers:  This is another of the sporadic posts which I have categorized as “community destabilization.”   Immigrants and refugees offer a continuous supply of ‘Have-nots’ for whom radicals can wage a war against the ‘Haves.’    Community instability is necessary to bring about “change.”


To Saul Alinsky the world breaks down along clean lines of  ‘Haves’ and ‘Have-nots.’   Radicals are always on the side of the ‘Have-nots’ and never let conscience or morality get in the way of fighting the ‘Haves.’ 

He says you don’t love humanity enough and you are too concerned for your personal salvation, if you stop short of doing everything possible for the ‘Have-nots’—-no matter how many dirty tricks must be employed!

Certainly one of the major differences (maybe even the biggest difference from the standpoint of strategy) between Leftists and Conservatives is how the issue of ‘means and ends’ are treated.   Conservatives I know personally are concerned that they wage their battles large and small trying at least to maintain their integrity and behave ethically (I thought of John McCain here).  Alinsky thinks this is complete B.S. and that one should use any means necessary to wage a war against the “Haves.”

Look at this paragraph from Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals:”

The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe’s “conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action”; in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind.  The choice must always be for the latter.  Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation.  He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of “personal salvation”;  he doesn’t care enough for people to be “corrupted” for them.

He has no patience for those he calls the “means-and-ends” moralists.   Other little nuggets:   “Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times.”  “….consistency is not a virtue.”  “….in war [on behalf of Have-nots] the end justifies almost any means.”   There is more where those came from in “Rules…..”

Now go back to what I said at the end of the previous post here.  If it turns out that Bill Ayers wrote Obama’s memoirs they will not lose a minutes sleep over any ethical breach, because the ends justify any means.    They got Obama elected for the good of the ‘Have-nots’ and that is all that matters!

Spread the love

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *