What's Wrong With Saul Alinsky?

Lurker said:
How is this different than any organized protest? I would posit that the Tea Partiers "attacked apathy" and "disturbed the prevailing patterns of complacent community life". Nothing wrong with that, is there?
Click to expand...
So if they have such effects, they are equal to the Alinsky method, regardless of whether the method is the same or different?

No.

The phrase "Alinsky method" implies there is a method and that it has attributable characteristics identifiable by said phrase "Alinsky". One would presume these were laid out in a book by Alinsky entitled "Rules for Radicals".
 
Actually, since you continually refuse to say a single thing about what Alinsky has written, all we have is your unsupported claim that you "read stuff".
 
mhaze said:
Yeah. Because I can like, read stuff, you know? Things with all those letters and stuff. That makes me one of those Smart People. Well, in some circles at least. Yeah dude. Yessir.
Click to expand...

And also, you use big fancy, book-learnin' words like "irregardless" and make clear, concise arguments that aren't at all jumbles of cognitive dissonance.

I am particularly impressed by the depth of knowledge about Saul Alinsky you have displayed in this thread.
 
johnny karate said:
And also, you use big fancy, book-learnin' words like "irregardless" and make clear, concise arguments that aren't at all jumbles of cognitive dissonance.

I am particularly impressed by the depth of knowledge about Saul Alinsky you have displayed in this thread.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

Irregardless of all that, least you misunderestimate the goings on here, I'm waiting, for the class to open up their textbooks. Then the class will begin.

:rolleyes:

In the meantime, yes, we'll see the usual banter, giggles and stuff that goes on between classroom sessions. I do have to apologize that we could not find any radical left liberals to teach the subject and had to make do with one of those nasty repulsive conservatives.

And it's just an introductory class, using the textbook "Rules for Radicals". We won't get into the Industrial Areas Foundation, the Bamster's involvement with it, or the several academic thesis and dissertations on Alinsky, or Hillary Clinton's fascination with Alinsky.

Those are in the advanced class.
 
Last edited:
If you indeed think you should teach the advanced class we just would like to see your teaching license. Also known as at least the ability to summarize the basics. Which you have not done so far.
 
Moss said:
If you indeed think you should teach the advanced class we just would like to see your teaching license. Also known as at least the ability to summarize the basics. Which you have not done so far.
Click to expand...

I can do that most easily for you. The basics include nuts, and cynicism. But mostly nuts. You've been warned.

:)
 
Well, just passing by, thought I'd drop into the thread.

What I have learned: Saul Alinsky is inexplicable.
 
I've learned that people who make the most noise about their genius-level knowledge of something are really the least likely to actually know anything about it - at least, not at any level they're capable of articulating.
 
MHaze, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the chapter "A Word About Words." Specifically, this passage from early in the chapter:

Saul Alinsky said:
The same discolorations attach to other words prevalent in the language of politics, words like power, self-interest, compromise, and conflict. They become twisted and warped, viewed as evil.
Click to expand...

How is this not equally applicable to, say, the demonizing of the word "liberal," and by extension the concept of liberalism? Are we then to say that the talking heads of conservative media are Alinsky-ite radicals?

ETA: To be clear, the entire chapter deals with this, conceptually, but since mhaze has been rather...demanding in terms of specifics I felt that specific passage from the introduction to the chapter served as a fitting abstract of sorts.
 
Last edited:
A Laughing Baby said:
How is this not equally applicable to, say, the demonizing of the word "liberal," and by extension the concept of liberalism? Are we then to say that the talking heads of conservative media are Alinsky-ite radicals?
Click to expand...

Your point, after all, is exactly true, it's been the "conservative", which is really "radical reactionary" tactic for about 30 years now, and by using the word "liberal" as hate speech (and also by tarring moderate conservatives as "liberal" they can call Obama, who is to the right of Dwight Eisenhower, as a "socialist" despite the obvious lie involved), they have swayed many people.

Mhaze is, I think, from his or her own actions, well and truly aware of this, and is doing what he does conciously and with ill intent toward America.
 
jj said:
Your point, after all, is exactly true, it's been the "conservative", which is really "radical reactionary" tactic for about 30 years now, and by using the word "liberal" as hate speech (and also by tarring moderate conservatives as "liberal" they can call Obama, who is to the right of Dwight Eisenhower, as a "socialist" despite the obvious lie involved), they have swayed many people.

Mhaze is, I think, from his or her own actions, well and truly aware of this, and is doing what he does conciously and with ill intent toward America.
Click to expand...

Further, one of Alinsky's central points (in Chapter 1, no less, in case mhaze would like the direction) is that dogma is more dangerous than ideology. In specific, he says (bolding mine, of course):

Saul Alinsky said:
Dogma must be watched for and apprehended at every turn and twist of the revolutionary movement. The human spirit glows from that small inner light of doubt whether we are right, while those who believe with complete certainty that they possess the right are dark inside and darken the world outside with cruelty, pain, and injustice. Those who enshrine the poor or Have-Nots are as guilty as other dogmatists and just as dangerous. To diminish the danger that ideology will deteriorate into dogma, and to protect the free, open, questing, and creative mind of man, as well as to allow for change, no ideology should be more specific than that of America's founding fathers: "For the general
welfare."
Click to expand...

How is it possible, then, to claim that Obama is simultaneously an Alinsky-school radical and dedicated to the creation of a welfare state in service to the poor? Is this not contradictory to one of Alinsky's central theses?

ETA: Of course I am not claiming that mhaze is making this assertion. I'm not one to build strawmen (at least on purpose). I'm saying that many people, essentially the pundit circuit, are fond of saying that Obama is an Alinsky radical, as well as saying that he seeks to distribute all wealth with the goal of creation of a welfare state. I'm generalizing by saying this and am fully aware I am doing so. My main point is that it seems that Alinsky, in an act of ultimate irony, has been decontextualized from his full work and become a sort of ethereal boogeyman representing all that is bad about the monster of American Liberalism.
 
Last edited:
I had never heard of Saul Alinsky. But thanks to this thread I now know:


  • The Right hates him
  • They have no idea why exactly
  • This nebulous animosity has me liking him
  • He is being forcibly linked to Obama
  • Thus Obama is the man
 
Travis said:
I had never heard of Saul Alinsky. But thanks to this thread I now know:


  • The Right hates him
  • They have no idea why exactly
  • This nebulous animosity has me liking him
  • He is being forcibly linked to Obama
  • Thus Obama is the man
Click to expand...
After watching Republican campaigns over the past 10-15 years I noticed some things. For one, when they run a smarmy, over the top negative campaign and lose, the lesson they learn is it wasn't smarmy or over the top negative enough.

Expect to see the Obama guilt by association tactic revisited this summer and fall.
 
It must drive Republicans absolutely nuts that they can't find a decent scandal with which to smear Obama.
 
odeed said:
My opinion is that a fart-in would have been less effective than the ****-in he had planned for O'Hare airport.

Link to the Alinsky Playboy interview a few months before his death http://www.progress.org/2003/alinsky14.htm.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link to the Alinsky interview. I'll have to read that later when I have a bit more time.

To paraphrase another forum member, mhaze only exists for me in quoted form, but it is interesting that he has said something of Alinsky's tactics. Yet, this still misses the point of the OP as not even Newt Gingrich is saying that the (false) choice is between a president who believes in American exceptionalism and one who intends to organize fart-ins at orchestral performances.

Or at least I think Newt Gingrich is not saying this.
 
A Laughing Baby said:
MHaze, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the chapter "A Word About Words." Specifically, this passage from early in the chapter:


Originally Posted by Saul Alinsky
The same discolorations attach to other words prevalent in the language of politics, words like power, self-interest, compromise, and conflict. They become twisted and warped, viewed as evil.​

How is this not equally applicable to, say, the demonizing of the word "liberal," and by extension the concept of liberalism? Are we then to say that the talking heads of conservative media are Alinsky-ite radicals?
.....
Click to expand...

Not by way of a chapter that only deals with the emotive extensions of four words. But to apply his logic to the word "liberal" is not to consider it demeaning and to slither around it, but to embrace being "a liberal" and use the word explicitly...as a "strong word" and without regard for the negative connotations. By this theory, you'd not dance around a subject like "redistribution" but walk right in and state you want to take from the "haves". The study of how words become emotive hot buttons is not a right or left wing dichotomy. Yes it is allied with propaganda techniques and with linguistics.

Alinsky notes correctly that self-interest usually is behind avowed statements of public good or varieties of altruistic statements. This is of course just a prelude to his blatant justification of "the ends justify the means".

But to argue that conservative talking heads are Alinsky radicals as used in the book would imply that they were engaged somehow in "community organizing" as that phrase is used in the book. Incidentally, the phrase has no other common usage than I am aware of other than this book's definition. It follows then a level of profound ignorance is implicitly in a statement such as "Obama was a community organizer. So what did he have to do with Alinsky?"

It is of course true that if the concept of "Alinsky method" could be diluted or watered down such that it applied equally to party A and party B then, one might think, it's negative coloration on party B would be minimized. Misinterpreting or flat out lying about what comprises the Alinsky method would allow that and be in line with the Alinsky method.

Thank you for providing an example of the method.
 
mhaze said:
Not by way of a chapter that only deals with the emotive extensions of four words. But to apply his logic to the word "liberal" is not to consider it demeaning and to slither around it, but to embrace being "a liberal" and use the word explicitly...as a "strong word" and without regard for the negative connotations. By this theory, you'd not dance around a subject like "redistribution" but walk right in and state you want to take from the "haves". The study of how words become emotive hot buttons is not a right or left wing dichotomy. Yes it is allied with propaganda techniques and with linguistics.

Alinsky notes correctly that self-interest usually is behind avowed statements of public good or varieties of altruistic statements. This is of course just a prelude to his blatant justification of "the ends justify the means".

But to argue that conservative talking heads are Alinsky radicals as used in the book would imply that they were engaged somehow in "community organizing" as that phrase is used in the book. Incidentally, the phrase has no other common usage than I am aware of other than this book's definition. It follows then a level of profound ignorance is implicitly in a statement such as "Obama was a community organizer. So what did he have to do with Alinsky?"

It is of course true that if the concept of "Alinsky method" could be diluted or watered down such that it applied equally to party A and party B then, one might think, it's negative coloration on party B would be minimized. Misinterpreting or flat out lying about what comprises the Alinsky method would allow that and be in line with the Alinsky method.

Thank you for providing an example of the method.
Click to expand...

Is this intentional or accidental irony?
 
A Laughing Baby said:
Further, one of Alinsky's central points (in Chapter 1, no less, in case mhaze would like the direction) is that dogma is more dangerous than ideology. In specific, he says (bolding mine, of course):
...
How is it possible, then, to claim that Obama is simultaneously an Alinsky-school radical and dedicated to the creation of a welfare state in service to the poor? Is this not contradictory to one of Alinsky's central theses?

ETA: Of course I am not claiming that mhaze is making this assertion. .....My main point is that it seems that Alinsky, in an act of ultimate irony, has been decontextualized from his full work and become a sort of ethereal boogeyman representing all that is bad about the monster of American Liberalism.
Click to expand...

On the contrary. I'm sure you have heard many on "on the right" use the phrase "ideologue" to describe the Bamster. They don't say "that dogmatic Obama....". This would imply that he was a better organizer than any who were more dogmatic in their approach (as some on this forum that just spew whatever the latest talking points might be).

Thus the "right" correctly describes the Bamster as a "ideologue" whose goal is the conversion of the US into a European style welfare state. And they correctly describe him as a "Alinsky style radical", and he is well understood to have used those concepts as a "community organizer".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom