Saul Alinsky and "wise as serpents"

The superb Bill Vallicella at Maverick Philosopher on Saul Alinsky:

If you want to understand the Left, their tactics, their ruthlessness, and their imperviousness to ethical considerations, then you need to read Alinksy. Summary here. You will then understand what is behind the outrageous attacks of leftist scum bags, such as this guy, on conservatives. They see politics as warfare, and they believe the end justifies the means.

Alinsky was a genius, on a level with Gramsci, who championed the left's wildly successful "march through the institutions."

Alinisky was a monster, a deeply evil man who has damaged our civilization in profound ways. His influence 30 years after his death is huge: Hillary Clinton did her (laudatory) senior thesis at Wellesley on Alinski, and Barack Obama cut his teeth in the Alinsky organization in Chicago.

Alinski's masterwork is "Rules for Radicals", a short book on revolutionary and political tactics. It is a brilliant work. Alinski dedicated 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“

A Christian may ask: is it right to learn from Alinski and emulate Alinski's tactics?

I believe yes and no. Alinski's insights are deep, and his tactics are very effective. The atheist left already understands this stuff, and we hamstring ourselves if we remain ignorant of it. We must not emulate Alinski's immorality, but many of his ideas can be adapted for good. We are asked by our own Community Organizer to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves".

We can learn from Alinsky, and ethically apply some of his insights. Here's a nice synopsis of Alinsky's tactics, with my comments:

Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" explained

Union organizers are often highly trained. In many unions this training includes indoctrination in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals."

There is actual formal training in this stuff.

Saul Alinsky was a ruthless radical organizer. He would stop at nothing to win. Before he passed away in 1972 he published a book called "Rules for Radicals" in which he outlined his power tactics and questionable ethics...

These tactics work.

This can be very valuable information. As one expert observer points out "Rules for Radicals are reversible and can be used against the Left."

Here's a brief summary of the rules. We are indebted to the Public Service Research Foundation for this information.

Rules for Power Tactics:

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

Much of this war is psychological, and a central tactic is to manipulate atheists' perceptions. Atheism's contact with reality is loose at best, and it is essential that we fight on our terms. It causes them to respond in predictable ways, and the goal of this battle is to keep them reacting the way you want them to react.

It's also essential to understand that they're trying to do the same thing to you.

2. Never go outside the experience of your people.

Keep the debate on your terms. Debate what you and your allies know. Do not stray into the atheists' expertise unless you know exactly what you are doing. It's like the old trial lawyer adage: never ask a witness a question that you don't already know the answer to.

3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.

Most atheists are incompetent in broad fields of knowledge-- philosophy, theology, history, even science outside of their narrow expertise. If they knew a lot, they'd be on our side. Stay outside of their narrow competence, and keep them stammering. Limit their replies to profanity and wikipedia quotes.

4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

'OK atheists, let's talk reason and science. How can you ground science if you assert that nothing ultimately has a reason for its existence...?'

5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

Alinsky's most important rule. His full comment is:

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”

Ridicule is devastating. We are blessed with enemies who are arrogant rhetorically incompetent prigs who have generally have been insulated from sharp criticism of their ideology throughout their academic careers. They're smug bullies, not savvy street fighters, despite their bluster. They are easy targets for ridicule-- sitting ducks. When ridiculed, they stammer and stumble and spit. Which makes the ridicule even more effective.

Ridicule is entertaining (even Darwinists chuckle at spoofs of Dawkins) and utterly infuriating (our enemies are generally humorless). Critically, as Alinski notes, ridicule is virtually impossible to counterattack. Reciprocal ridicule is often the only option, but atheists are surprisingly poor at effective ridicule, and degenerate to spite and childish taunts that make them look even worse. Atheist ridicule generally comes across as arrogance and sneer, which is what we ridiculed them for in the first place.

Ridicule is a neutron bomb against scientism and atheism. They are utterly defenseless, and their reply is often as effective for us as the original ridicule.

6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

This is fun, guys. Atheists are like nasty chained dogs. Atheism is the chain that constrains them. If they were really smart, they wouldn't be atheists. Think of Richard Dawkins' face when Stein was calmly flaying him at the end of Expelled. Fun. Enjoy it.

7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

Keep hitting them from different angles-- their ignorance of philosophy, their ignorance of science outside of their narrow expertise, their arrogance, their ignorance of history, their intolerance, their irrationality, etc. Keep it mixed up. Make them keep googling different stuff trying to figure out how to respond to you. Keep it fresh.

8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

Relate current events to this debate. Censorship, academic freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, North Korea. Keep it salient.

9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

They are frightened of us. Otherwise they wouldn't be so angry. They understand the threat we pose to their dark little world. Their fear helps us, because it spurs them to react irrationally.

10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

No respite. When they advocate atheism/Darwinism/materialism in the public sphere, they must know that there will be immediate and persistent blow-back. We don't let lies build up speed.

11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.

If it becomes crystal clear that atheism is bullshit, theism becomes the common ground for discussion. A major victory.

12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

This is easy for Christianity; people have been abandoning atheism and coming to Christ for 2000 years. It is not as easy for ID. The integration of explicit design science into biology is a major task against a heavily fortified defense. Gonna be tough.

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Alinsky's second most important rule, after ridicule. Effective arguments aren't just facts and logic. Effective arguments are coherent credible stories. Debates at this scale are an exchange of stories, and stories are only effective with clear protagonists.  Demolition of atheism needs faces-- political atheism needs Stalin, scientific atheism needs Dawkins or Myers. A thug or a prig or a bully needs to be the face of atheism and Darwinism and scientism. It needs to be frozen-- people need to immediately think of Stalin when they think 'is atheism politically benign?'. They need to think of Dawkins when they think 'is Darwinism open-minded science?'. They need to think of Myers when they think 'is atheist discourse civil?'.

We have a big advantage here. They have tried to smear us as Adam-and-Eve-rode-dinosaurs-fundies, but outside of the atheist-academic-MSM loony bin, that's been a hard sell. Public acceptance of intelligent design and skepticism of Darwinism is way up. It's hard to paint Bill Craig and Stephen Meyer and Alister McGrath as semi-literate snake handlers when on the logic and facts they routinely destroy atheists.  That's why atheists flee debates like they've taken up sprinting.

When Stalin is the face of atheist politics, and Dawkins is the face of atheist humility, and Myers is the face of atheist civility, we win. Frozen, personalized, polarized. A coherent utterly credible story. The true story. Very powerful.


Continued tomorrow...