More Radical Lessons from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, Part 2

Picture of Saul Alinsky

Saul Alinsky

This is Part-2 of my 3-Part series on Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

Alinsky Part 1

Alinsky Part 3

Alinsky Infographic

What is an Organizer? Alinsky writes that “The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach-to create, to be a “great creator, to play God.”

“The function of an organizer is to raise questions that agitate”

“He is challenging, insulting, agitating, discrediting. He stirs unrest, dissatisfaction and discontent.”

“The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy”.”

Given Alinsky’s own words, it isn’t hard to see why so many on the left considered then Senator Obama a savior. As a self-professed professional “community organizer”, an Alinsky acolyte, Obama was, in leftist circles, literally a “great creator”.

Alinsky teaches that there are three types/groups of people in the world (Alinsky’s Words in Bold and Italics):

The Have-Nots” Democrats exploit this group of Americans the most, advancing progressive policies designed to make and keep them dependent upon government. Minorities, women and children top their list.

“The Have-a Little, Want-Mores” This group of Americans is basically the middle class.

“The Haves” During the Obama administration Democrats branded these Americans as the “1%”. President Obama himself seems to believe that you become the 1% when your income grows to $250K/year. Most of the Democrat Political leadership (Clintons, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Deblasio, Gore, etc.) is extremely wealthy, as are their donors (George Soros, Hollywood Actors/Actresses/Directors, Union Bosses, etc.). As shown in my previous Alinsky post, there is no such thing as hypocrisy to Alinskyites.

Look for progressive policies couched in these three groups. It’s essential that they be pitted against one another, agitated, insulted, discredited and stirred up for the organizer to move his/her agenda. Division, not unity, is Alinsky’s calling card.

COMPROMISE: The clarion call of the progressive, and an essential component to a successful radical. How often do we hear politicians, in both parties, talking about compromise, as if that is the only thing that matters. Compromising where one’s principles must be abandoned, one’s security is diminished, or one’s country weakened, isn’t a good deal at all. Obama’s Iranian negotiations stand as a prime example.

“to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise for 30 per cent, you’re 30 per cent ahead.”


“Conflict is the essential core of a free and open society.” Alinsky teaches how to create it. Ferguson, MO is a case study in how it’s done, and how devastating its effects can be.

“Before men can act an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convinced that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition are 100 per cent on the side of the devil. He knows that there can be no action until issues are polarized to this degree.”

My final blog in this Alinsky series will contain the specific tactics Alinsky teaches organizers to employ.

Top 10 Stories of the Week (5 Apr – 11 Apr 15)

1. US World’s Largest Oil and Gas Producer in 2014

2. Better Not Call Her Hillary

3. Better Not Use These Words to Describe Hillary

4. Arab Nation Donations to Clinton Way Beyond Other Charities

5. Florida Bobcat Pictured Catching Shark

6. Russians Hacked the White House, After Hacking the State Department

What’s the likelihood that Hillary’s private email server was hacked first (experts believe high chance that it was hacked), providing Russia access to the State Department, and from there, the White House???

7. Texas Judge Keeps the Illegal Amnesty Stay In Place

8. Obama’s $800B Tax Hike Explained

9. Gov Scott Walker Honors Veterans in Speech to the NRA

10. Illegal Alien In Pinal County Deported 20 Times


Radical Lessons from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, Part 1

Cover of Saul Alinsky's Infamous Rules For Radicals

Cover of Saul Alinsky’s Infamous Rules For Radicals

Saul Alinsky is the criminal mastermind behind today’s Democrat Party machine and his radical lessons are in play each and every day. Many people have heard about his book Rules for Radicals, but most don’t want, or have time to read it, and for good reason. Well, now you don’t have to. A series of 3 posts will summarize his major teachings, which constitute the progressive movement’s American “play book”, and they follow it religiously!

Alinsky Part 2

Alinsky Part 3

Alinsky Infographic

This is what Americans are up against folks. Sun Tzu, the great Chinese strategist said:

“Know your enemy as you know yourself and you will never be defeated in a thousand battles.”

We need to de-cloak Alinsky in order to understand why progressive democrats can take such seemingly hypocritical, and Anti-American positions.

Alinsky teaches his disciples (ex. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton…) that morality is open to one’s interpretation. Mold morality to cloak one’s radical actions and intentions. Could this be the reason behind why progressives attack Christianity?

Specifically Alinsky Preaches that:

Machiavelli’s major weakness was his blindness “to the necessity for moral clothing to all acts and motives.”

“All effective actions require the passport of morality.”

“Morality, so-called, becomes the continuum as self interests shift.”

“Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.”

Alinsky teaches 11 variations on Machiavelli’s “The Ends Justify the Means.” With this many variations, what actions CAN’T be justified? Practical examples in the Democrat Party abound. How about Harry Reid justifying his lies on the Senate floor during the 2012 campaign when he claimed that Romney did not pay taxes? Reid’s “ends justify the means” morality: “Romney didn’t win, did he?”

Alinsky’s 11 Rules of Ethics of Means and Ends: Nuances to “The Ends Justify the Means”

  1. “One’s Concerns with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.”
  2. “The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.”
  3. “In war the end justifies almost any means.”
  4. “Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.”
  5. “Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.”
  6. “The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.”
  7. “Generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.”
  8. “The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.”
  9. “Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.”
  10. “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.”
  11. “Goals must be phrased in general terms like “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”,”Of the Common Welfare”,”Pursuit of Happiness”, or “Bread and Peace.”

Latest – 15 March, 2017: “A citizen’s initiative called Stop Operation Soros has also published a white paper alleging U.S. money has been funding violent riots in the streets, as well as a Macedonian version of Saul Alinsky’s far-left handbook Rules for Radicals.Fox News

What Does Iran Think of the Nuke Deal?

Iran’s chief negotiator, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, says that Obama is lying about the details of the nuclear agreement.  Not surprising.  When you get in bed with snakes, don’t be surprised if you get bit!  If true, it proves how bad the deal is, that the White House is to embarrassed about its details to let them come out.  If Zarif is lying himself, it says all that we need to know about Iran’s intent to uphold their end of the agreement.  If they don’t agree as to the manner of the negotiations minutes after the meeting let out , imagine the confusion 2, 4 or 10 years from now!

Update:  More Iranians calling US Negotiators/Obama Liars