Blogging Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: Prologue
Alinsky begins with his nihilist, self-absorbed picture of society. (Read part one of this series here.)
(All page references: Rules for Radicals,
Just a couple lines into Rules for Radicals, I heard the voice of Rahm Emanuel:
You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. What I mean by this is it’s an opportunity for you to do things you could not do before.
Just as Obama, Emanuel, and their compatriots are doing, so too did radical Alinsky decades before. In 1971, he observed the counterculture (“the revolutionary force”), saw a rudderless movement, and set out to to chart a course for the next generation of radicals to follow:
These words are written in desperation, partly because it is what they do and will do that will give meaning to what I and the radicals of my generation have done with our lives (p. xiii).
Alinsky bemoans the vanguard of young radicals having to start “almost from scratch,” because of the McCarthy “holocaust” of the early 1950s. Holocaust? Six million deaths in Nazi Germany vs. the McCarthy hearings and the trial and execution of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg for espionage?
Alinsky’s description of life in America is suffocatingly dark and nihilistic. Looking through his charcoal-colored glasses, there is no joy among the adult middle class. These people are materialistic, mindless sellouts with superficial values whose relationships and lives end in destruction and decay (xiv).
The disaffected youth spawned of these miserable creatures see their parents clearly and also are preternaturally wise enough to see the “almost unbelievable idiocy of our political leadership” at every level.
We are all — well, except for Alinsky and his “happy few” youthful radicals — hypocrites and failures.
The world is “utter bedlam,” and American youth have no sense of meaning or purpose. Alinsky notes that:
Men have always yearned for and sought direction by setting up religions, inventing political philosophies, creating scientific systems like Newton’s, or formulating ideologies of various kinds,” but life is as random as “the changing pattern in a kaleidoscope” (xv).
As discussion fodder, this statement is loaded. There’s the sense of ideologue Alinsky somehow not seeing his own ideology as part of the kaleidoscope. There’s the glaring fact that the purposelessness of which he speaks is not a collective sin — that the responsibility of finding meaning and purpose is an individual problem, not something to blame on society. Finding meaning and purpose has always been as simple and available as volunteering at a soup kitchen, reading to a hospitalized child, or tutoring an inner city student.
What stands out: The emptiness of atheism. The solipsistic response of the human heart where there is no God. Alinsky — just as I and other former radical comrades — supposes that if you aren’t living the philosophically nihilistic life of a radical then you are a mindless automaton with no human vitality, creativity, or value.
Self-absorbed, he seems completely unaware that during the social upheaval of the 60s and 70s, millions of people were leading quietly ordinary — and often sacrificial — lives: getting married, working, raising families. They thought themselves happy, productive, and satisfied.
But what did they know?
When I came out of my political radicalism and finally began to relate up close and personally with conservatives, this was indeed a startling revelation. Until then, I believed my entire generation was counterculture — well, except for a few pathetic purposeless souls as defined by Alinsky. As a conservative, I was gratified to find I had been in the minority — as I found at my 40th high school reunion in 2005, where it seemed that most of my classmates had had their heads on straight while I was living large the Rules for Radicals life.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Barbara Curtis is a wife, mother of 12, and author of nine books, including Reaching the Left from the Right: Talking About Social Issues with People Who Don't Think Like You. Visit her at www.barbaracurtis.com or at her blog www.MommyLife.net. Her fourth son will begin Marines OCS in January.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
35 Comments
1. Thomas_L.....:I often used to ponder on the strange similarity between the far left and the far right where there should have been a complete dichotomy. To resolve this apparent contradiction, I would come to the conclusion that if you went to far in either direction, yes I’m a sci-fi fan, you’d end up in the same place. But wait! Perhaps if, as we see, it’s the left that are the progressive collectivists and the right that are selfish individualists, we’ve merely been hoodwinked into thinking some left wing ideologies were somehow extreme right. The great collectivist experiments of the 20th century were all disasters and the blame had to be spread around. Logically and in actuality, those of the extreme right would be single individuals or small groups of like thinking people taking their individual rights very seriously. To the extent that they totally oppose the collective. Randall McMurtry in One Flew Over a Cuckoo’s Nest. The anti-union, Hank Stamper in Sometimes a Great Notion. Down With Big Brother!
Oct 31, 2009 - 5:22 am 2. BackwardsBoy:Alinsky, like Ayers, has nothing in his heart but disdain for his fellow man. Disdain, condescention and a false feeling of superiority are the markers pointing to an empty soul.
Oct 31, 2009 - 6:29 am 3. Jeff R:Empty souls fill that void with their own ego. “Follow me, I, alone, know the answer to the riddle of life. I’ll be your saviour.” Well, thanks but no thanks.
I’ll listen to my conscience instead.
Ms. Curtis has done a masterful job making accessible Alinsky’s underlying motivations. The word that comes to mind when considering the combination of Alinsky’s solipsism, nihlism and cunning is evil.
“Alinsky strongly believes in working inside the system…”
There is, as is often the case, an ordinariness or blandness to acts of evil, and to evil people themselves. Alinsky certainly fits the bill.
Oct 31, 2009 - 8:51 am 4. Sherab Zangpo:Thank you for the excellent job of commenting.
You go very deep into the dark mindset of this typical nihilist.
It seems to me that the scariest point is that the nihilists substitute the QUEST for the Truth (i.e., the Quest for God) with a search for ANY meaning for human life (AT ANY COST). This opens the road to a dogmatic and absolutistic frame of mind…BECAUSE the nihilists NEED their ideologies TO SURVIVE psychologically: without their ideologies they would probably fall into some kind of (open, as opposed as their usual covert) depression.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Oct 31, 2009 - 9:07 am 5. Dave K.:“Barbara Curtis is a wife, mother of 12″
So how much money have you received from the US Government, you welfare queen?
Oct 31, 2009 - 11:24 am 6. Bonzo:Dave K: “So how much money have you received from the US Government, you welfare queen?”
Gee, Ms. Curtis acceptance/non-acceptance of any Gov’t assistance certainly has a lot of bearing on whether she’s capable of critiquing the Alinsky theoretics, huh.
Yet more evidence that Lefties are incapable of intelligent topical discussion and must instead, when confronted with an argument they cannot refute, rely on the “politics of personal destruction” Hilary hypocritically bemoaned years ago
Oct 31, 2009 - 12:13 pm 7. frank grimes:good article.i was relieved that it was not a hit piece.
Oct 31, 2009 - 3:05 pm 8. blotto:dk: That was your rebuttal? That’s it? Didn’t get your quotes and ideas from Kos/CAP early enough so you had to use your own brain. Such a thing to waste.
Your hall pass will be revoked for a month.
Oct 31, 2009 - 5:30 pm 9. Hilary:Interesting. Am looking forward to each segment of this series.
PS Dave K–Barbara isn’t a parasite. But anyone that has 12 kids and is a mom MUST be a parasite. LOL what a silly, angry, hatefilled little man.
Oct 31, 2009 - 6:33 pm 10. David Thomson:“He takes 60s radicals to task for trashing the American flag (xviii) and for setting up any barriers to communication through attachment to counterculture symbols like long hair.”
Saul Alinsky was also unbelievably successful in convincing Roman Catholics that his class war social philosophy was reconcilable to theirs. So much so, papal loyalist Jacques Maritain bizarrely wrote that his concept of People’s Organizations shows “the manner in which one of our great problems—how real leaders can emerge from and be chosen by real people—is to be solved…Saul Alinsky’s book (Reveille for Radicals) is specifically American.”
Oct 31, 2009 - 7:15 pm 11. ipw533:“There is, as is often the case, an ordinariness or blandness to acts of evil, and to evil people themselves. Alinsky certainly fits the bill.”
I disagree, to a point. Hannah Arendt certainly showed–well, the banality of evil–in her same named-book, but I think she’s too focused on the evildoer within a certain kind of closed system. In the open and free world evil shows its true genius–and one of it’s greatest tricks is fool people into thinking that it doesn’t exist while simultaneously hoodwinking them by proclaiming their complicity in evil whether Original Sin or harboring lustful thoughts about a woman on a bus on the way to church.
Banality, in a truely evil context, is camoflage. True evil is cunning, as you accurately point out, but in the end cannot resist being boastful. Someone unconsciously or unwillingly acting on evil’s behalf will remain silent and guard their secret–either out of ignorance or shame.
Alinsky simultaneously trumpeted his evil while attempting to conceal it. He was exposed only because he succeeded as well as he did–had Lucifer just muttered under his breath he might still be in Heaven….
Oct 31, 2009 - 7:35 pm 12. AST:Whittaker Chambers had a lot to say about this kind of thinking. His main point was that when you start to believe that the mind of man is the greatest thing in the universe, you end up with people like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. who manage to convince others to join the religions in which they, the dictators, are gods. The truth is that men have to serve something greater than any imperfect, fallible human being. In Browning’s words, A man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?
It’s instructive that Lucifer, in the Judeo- Christian tradition, sought to become higher than the most high and was cast out and in the end devotes himself to destroying mankind in a futile attempt to hurt God. Milton has Lucifer saying that it is better to rule in Hell than serve in heaven.
Alinsky seems to be claiming that he is serving the poor by helping them topple the “power structure” of society or at least shake it down. But as you say, it’s a nihilistic vision, without anything noble, uplifting or transcending; defined by goals that really don’t give people anything lasting. He’s obviously the model for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
As I’ve read about Alinsky, I’ve been reminded of Tom Wolfe’s report from 1970, “Mau-mauing the Flakcatchers.” But what has Obama achieved by following Alinsky’s methods? He’s become the flakcatcher-in-chief and really has nowhere to turn, because he may have succeeded in seizing power, he really has no clear idea of what to do with it. He capitalized on popular unhappiness with George W. Bush, but now we’re finding that he had no plans or concepts beyond passing a series of big spending bills and hoping for the best.
Oct 31, 2009 - 11:10 pm 13. RebeccaH:Alinsky was right insofar as the far left is indistinguishable from the far right. Both believe in manipulating the masses for their own extremist ends, and both share a mutual contempt for the ordinary, centered mass of humans. This contempt and conscienceless penchant for manipulation gives rise to movements like communism in an earlier era, the violent religious fundamentalism that is most notably evident in Islamic militarism, and the present totalitarian-leaning environmentalist movement. All of these philosophies completely subvert the humanitarian principles they ostensibly trumpet.
Alinsky might have deplored the views of Timothy McVeigh, or the various and sundry Jihadis, but he would have applauded their methods.
Oct 31, 2009 - 11:15 pm 14. History Geek:The dedication in the first edition of “Rules for Radicals”–hmmmm, wonder why they changed it?
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: From all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
Nuff said!
Oct 31, 2009 - 11:36 pm 15. vivo:For “Barbara Curtis is a wife, mother of 12, and author of nine books,” she must be an admirable person. I can’t visualize someone with 12 kids to write books and blogs unless you are a master in productivity and organization with great intellectual capacity.
She as the gift for writing. That alone provides her with adequate cash flow. Her husband’s business is a good source of support. He surely works hard. She found the secret of having a numerous tribe as another source of income through tax exemptions, deductions and credits. Don’t get me wrong. It’s all under the flag of entrepreneurship and capitalism. She really knows the system.
But, returning to our subject of this article, I find it boring.
Oct 31, 2009 - 11:50 pm 16. Anonymous:Alinksy should’ve gotten into playing the ponies. He and everyone else would’ve been happier.
Nov 1, 2009 - 4:15 am 17. RT:Thanks Barbara. I have sent out your web address to my friends and we will follow your review.
Nov 1, 2009 - 4:32 am 18. nmewn:Dave K and vivo,
“In 2009, one certainly sees this naked contempt from the highest White House echelons to the teensiest trolls who prowl conservative blogs with vicious personal attacks and little substantive discussion.”
You both were spanked by “mommy” before you could get your thumbs out of your mouths…mom’s are like that ya know…now go to your rooms…LOL.
Nov 1, 2009 - 6:26 am 19. vivo:18. nmewn:
“to the teensiest trolls who prowl conservative blogs with vicious personal attacks and little substantive discussion.”
Who’s the troll here?
Nov 1, 2009 - 7:07 am 20. nmewn:vivo,
Do you believe her comment was directed at me???…LOL.
I believe it was directed…specifically…at trolls who make comments on conservative blogs…comments perhaps like this;
“She found the secret of having a numerous tribe as another source of income through tax exemptions, deductions and credits. Don’t get me wrong. It’s all under the flag of entrepreneurship and capitalism. She really knows the system.”
Being a troll and attacking the messenger, in this case Barbra Curtis (or being thin skinned and attacking a defender of Mom & Apple Pie) are glaring examples of what’s wrong with the democrat party today.
Good luck with that junior, but by all means, please continue
Nov 1, 2009 - 7:22 am 21. Thomas_L....:“The teensiest troll”. I wonder which one it is. Perhaps we should have a vote. But first, is it the teensiest in terms of insignificance, smallness of stature or of intellect? Or is it their, well, you know? For teensiest troll, even though vivo is is actively campaigning for it, I vote for the simpering David S. followed closely by the truly moonfried, Now and Then.
Nov 1, 2009 - 12:38 pm 22. Donna V.:it is clear that the intent was not recognition of fellow human beings in their diversity, but exploitation of another class which might otherwise be lost to the radical agenda. Almost 40 years later, we’ve seen solidarity between the radicals and working class — delivered by union bosses — become an almost impenetrable political fortress. Think SEIU.
What is glaringly obvious is that the Left’s phoney concern for “the working man” turns into snarling hatred and contempt as soon as the working man ceases to follow marching orders from the leftist elites. (Just as Dems revert to their racist origins just as soon as uppity blacks leave their plantation.) Alinsky’s book was written before the blue-collar “Reagan Democrat” emerged in 1980. Now it is quite common for blue-collar whites to be described as “trash,” “racist,” “rednecks” and so on. The days of “The Grapes of Wrath” and Woody Gutherie are long gone.
Good article, Barb. Your 12 children are blessed to have parents with their heads screwed on straight.
Nov 1, 2009 - 2:24 pm 23. Donna V.:AST:
Thanks for bringing up Chambers, an anti-Alinsky if ever there was one. “Witness” is one of the great books of the 20th century – and a reminder that he faced even darker times with courage and resolve.
Nov 1, 2009 - 2:29 pm 24. Dave K.:Dodeca-mom, a creature more disgusting than octo-mom, wrote:
“What stands out: The emptiness of atheism. The solipsistic response of the human heart where there is no God. Alinsky — just as I and other former radical comrades — supposes that if you aren’t living the philosophically nihilistic life of a radical then you are a mindless automaton with no human vitality, creativity, or value.”
What stands out: The emptiness of religion. The need to have an imaginary entity to prevent oneself from behaving like an animal is not only sad, but also immature.
To quote a great philosopher:
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.
Nov 1, 2009 - 4:27 pm 25. Donna V.:Dave K.: I’m so sorry your mother never loved you.
It’s the only explanation I can think of for why you are such a ugly, hate-filled bigot.
Poor Dave.
Nov 1, 2009 - 6:54 pm 26. vivo:20. nmewn:
‘“She found the secret of having a numerous tribe as another source of income through tax exemptions, deductions and credits. Don’t get me wrong. It’s all under the flag of entrepreneurship and capitalism. She really knows the system.”
Being a troll and attacking the messenger, in this case Barbra Curtis’
I guess you don’t understand taxes. If you analyze her own statements about her life and résumé, this is not an attack. Ask her yourself. Then tell me.
Nov 2, 2009 - 12:09 am 27. nmewn:vivo,
“I guess you don’t understand taxes.”
As a matter of fact I do.
It is you who don’t understand what income is. Income are your earnings. Look at your statement again. After taxes are what you are “allowed” to keep by the state. You cannot derive “income” through deductions…you can only keep MORE of what you EARNED to begin with.
I always know I’m talking with a leftist moonbat when I see a comment like “he/she/they got another source of income by doing X with the tax code”.
No, they kept more of what they originally “earned” as it is THEIRS to begin with.
Goodbye vivo.
Nov 2, 2009 - 3:52 am 28. deguello:nmewn
Alinsky really looks the part of the pseudointellectual rationalizer for mass murder.In fact, he looks like that other famous radical,Heinrich Himmler.Just picture Sol in an SS uniform;he and Heinrich seem to have been separated at birth!
Nov 2, 2009 - 5:42 am 29. deguello:#15 VIVO: You can’ refute Ms. Curtis, so you attempt to demean her decision to have a family, and imply that she’s not credible because she’s a mother. You are a “CL ASS ” act VIVO! But then, How can you expect someone who knows that his feminazi mother considered aborting him ,to understand maternal love. After reading your posts,she should consider aborting you retroactively.
Nov 2, 2009 - 5:50 am 30. vivo:27. nmewn:
U still don’t understand 1040 stuff, and didn’t ask her.
Nov 2, 2009 - 6:04 am 31. rvastar:The Left is elitist and disdainful of those who don’t agree with them?
Nah.
As the quotes above certainly demonstrate, Leftists are paragons of caring, compassion, and selflessness.
Nov 2, 2009 - 7:19 am 32. Dave K.:Donna V.@25:
“Dave K.: I’m so sorry your mother never loved you.
It’s the only explanation I can think of for why you are such a ugly, hate-filled bigot.
Poor Dave.”
I only had two dads, actually.
Nov 3, 2009 - 6:54 am 33. deguello:#32 DAVE spewed: “I only had two dads actually”. Yes, and they were both syphillitic.
Nov 3, 2009 - 8:51 am 34. Dave K.:deguello@33:
“#32 DAVE spewed: “I only had two dads actually”. Yes, and they were both syphillitic.”
Despite all the hardship, we remained positive. HIV-positive, that is.
Nov 3, 2009 - 8:58 am 35. Tex Expatriate:RebeccaH (#13) links the left and “far right” with the same tactics, but in fact there is no viable far right in the United States. Conservatives do not use the tactics of socialism. Conservatives embrace the U. S. Constitutional approach to governance.
Nov 3, 2009 - 10:04 am