Saul Alinsky and "wise as serpents", part 2

Continued from yesterday...

Because Alinsky was sensitive to criticism that he wasn't ethical, he also included a set of rules for the ethics of power tactics. You can see from these why his ethics were so frequently questioned.

Rules to test whether power tactics are ethical:

1. One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue.

Here we see Alinsky's depravity. Our personal interest as Christians in this issue makes it even more imperative that we behave ethically. The end does not justify the means. Atheist ethics is about ends. Christian ethics is about means.

2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.

I'm not sure what Alinsky means here, but it's evil.

3. In war the end justifies almost any means.

No. No end justifies evil means, and in (ideological) war one must be especially careful of this temptation. Vital ends require extraordinary scrutiny of 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.

There are eternal truths that are not altered by chronology. If we find ourselves thinking 'it's only ethical to use this tactic in this situation', we need to rethink the tactic.

5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.

Yes. Ethical reflection frequently suggests means not previously considered, and proliferation of means warrants careful scrutiny of ethics.

6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.

The opposite is true. The more important the end, the more care is needed to police the means.

7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.

'Winners write history" is presumably what Alinsky means here. Bastard.

8. The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.

Ethics is independent of the order of battle.

9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition to be unethical.

That is true of atheists and Darwinists.  When we win, they howl.

10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments.

What a clear synopsis of Alinsky's ethics. Bastard.

11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."

Atheists do this incessantly: "Science", "Reason", "Good Science Education".

We do this too, of course, in our own way, but we are telling the truth.

It's important to note that the tactics I'm referring to here are only appropriate to the blogsphere. This war is fought on many fronts-- in politics, in churches, in schools and universities, in homes, and in each of us, at times. Ridicule and "freeze, personalize, polarize" are extraordinarily effective in the blogsphere. They are likely inappropriate for a discussion at work between friends.

Understanding Alinsky is essential for protagonists in this war. It is not natural to Christians, for whom the Sermon on the Mount is our ethical ground. But Alinsky's tactics are the currency of our current struggle, and we ignore him at our peril. We need to understand Alinsky. Unfortunately, it means a long deep look into a cesspool.

Christians must understand the tactics atheists use against us, and we must use some of those same tactics-- those that can be employed ethically-- in defense of the Truth.

Shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves. Matthew 10:16