Look what crap can be found on the NEA’s website:
Recommended Reading: Saul Alinsky, The American Organizer
An inspiration to anyone contemplating action in their community! And to every organizer!
Saul Alinsky wrote the book on American radicalism – two books, in fact: a 1945 best-seller, “Reveille for Radicals” and “Rules for Radicals” in 1971. The “Reveille” title page quotes Thomas Paine… “Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul.”
Saul Alinsky, who was a labor and civil-rights activist from the 1910’s until he died in 1972, has written here a guidebook for those who are out to change things. He sets down what the goal is: a society where people are free to live, and also aren’t starving in the streets. A society where there is legal and economic justice. Then he sets out to say how to get there.
Alinsky spends a lot of time critiquing the idea that “The end does not justify the means.” What end? What means? He feels that there are circumstances where one can and should use means that in other circumstances would be unethical. I am not sure I agree, but Alinsky certainly speaks with the voice of experience.
Alinsky’s goal seems to be to encourage positive social change by equipping activists with a realistic view of the world, a kind of preemptive disillusionment. If a person already knows what evil the world is capable of, then perhaps the surprise factor can be eliminated, making the person a more effective activist. Alinsky further seems to be encouraging the budding activist not to worry to much about getting his or her hands dirty. It’s all a part of the job, he seems to say.
Alinsky, the master political agitator, tactical planner and social organizer didn’t mince words…
“Liberals in their meetings utter bold works; they strut, grimace belligerently, and then issue a weasel-worded statement ‘which has tremendous implications, if read between the lines.’ They sit calmly, dispassionately, studying the issue; judging both sides; they sit and still sit.
“The Radical does not sit frozen by cold objectivity. He sees injustice and strikes at it with hot passion. He is a man of decision and action. There is a saying that the Liberal is one who walks out of the room when the argument turns into a fight.
“Society has good reason to fear the Radical. Every shaking advance of mankind toward equality and justice has come from the Radical. He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous. Conservative interests know that while Liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, Radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of Conservatives.
“Radicals precipitate the social crisis by action – by using power. Liberals may then timidly follow along or else, as in most cases, be swept forward along the course set by Radicals, but all because of forces unloosed by Radical action. They are forced to positive action only in spite of their desires …
- “The American Radical will fight privilege and power whether it be inherited or acquired by any small group, whether it be political or financial or organized creed.
- “He curses a caste system which he recognizes despite all patriotic denials.
- “He will fight conservatives whether they are business or labor leaders.
- “He will fight any concentration of power hostile to a broad, popular democracy, whether he finds it in financial circles or in politics.
- “The Radical recognizes that constant dissension and conflict is and has been the fire under the boiler of democracy. He firmly believes in that brave saying of a brave people, “Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!”
- “The Radical may resort to the sword but when he does he is not filled with hatred against those individuals whom he attacks. He hates these individuals not as persons but as symbols representing ideas or interests which he believes to be inimical to the welfare of the people.
- “That is the reason why Radicals, although frequently embarking upon revolutions, have rarely resorted to personal terrorism.”
Alinsky practiced what he preached. He said, “Tactics means doing what you can with what you have … tactics is the art of how to take and how to give.”
He uses eyes, ears and nose for examples…
Eyes
“If you have a vast organization, parade it before the enemy, openly show your power.”Ears
“If your organization is small, do what Gideon did: conceal the members in the dark but raise a clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more that it does.”Nose
“If your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place.”Alinsky devised and proved thirteen tactical rules for use against opponents vastly superior in power and wealth.
1. “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. “Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. “Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. “A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. “Keep the pressure on.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. “Major premise for tactics is development of operations that will maintain constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.“The real action is in the enemy’s reaction. The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength. Tactics, like life, require that you move with the action.”
Alinsky was hated and defamed by powerful enemies, proof that his tactics worked. His simple formula for success…
“Agitate + Aggravate + Educate + Organize”
Does anyone else need more proof that the NEA cares more about politics then educating your children?
Blogs at Orbys.net
Of course, the politicial writings of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin are also recommended, right?
Right?
figures that they want them reading this crap. the teachers union protects teachers that should never be in a classroom. one of my sons middle school teachers should be put out topasture. she loses their work, forgets to record, then sends these reports home that state theya remissing half their work then you get all this corrected work back and its the stuff she still insists is missing. you have to ram the papers under her nose and then she says she is still trying to learnt he grading? are you freaking kidding me? she has taught longer than i have been alive. and she is very into the leftwing bull. she demanded that my son redo a paper on sotomayer, singing her praises of course because she said his wasnt turned in. my sons paper referred to her as a bigot, and underquailified due to her lack of impartiality. well low and behold when she still had the paper marked as missing and i was holding his corrected copy in my hand she said it was inapropreate.
A critical question to ask would be “recommended reading” for whom? If it is recommended for teachers, particularly high school teachers who might be addressing issues of history, government, revolution, Marxism, the American civil rights movement, etc. then the books could be justified in the same manner as reading Lenin, Marx, Hitler and John Maynard Keynes.
If the books are recommended for classroom use then I’d say only under the most controlled circumstances and in AP courses.
Alinsky’s “13 rules” could easily have been penned by Sun-Tsu or Machiavelli!
“Know Your Enemy” is a great philosophy to adopt.
“The American Radical will fight privilege and power whether it be inherited or acquired by any small group, whether it be political or financial or organized creed.”
SO WHEN WILL THEY BE ATTACKING AL GORE, NANCY PELOSI, ETC?
Alinsky devised and proved thirteen tactical rules for use against opponents vastly superior in power and wealth.
—–
I like them actually. WE should use them too! muuuu hahahaha
By those unwilling and unable to accept the Constitution, and are in too weak of a position to use the tools within it to change it. (By getting the majority of Americans to see the benefit of their proposals.)
They know damn well no one with their head on straight would accept what they have to say, unless couched in lies, and/or unless they are bribed into it. (IE Politicians who then implement it by fiat or regulation.)
Patvann,
There is nothing wrong with reading the philosophy of your opponents. You can’t beat an enemy you don’t know or understand. It has nothing to do with being “unwilling or unable to accept the Constitution” or having “their head on straight”.
If I’m going to teach government (which I do despite a rather checkered past as a career fighter pilot), then I will probably be a bit better at it if I can discuss Mao and Lenin and Alinsky and Che with actual knowledge of their theory, tactics and goals.
If a teacher is going to try to teach a class how to live and work for success in business and in the American political process then knowing what your enemy is likely to do can only be a benefit.
OTOH, recommending Alinsky to primary school teachers for their classes, school administrators as policy guidance, and students at less than the highest levels is, exactly as suggested in the original posting, an attempt at indoctrination of that population.
Blinding yourself to your enemy either means your own ideas can’t stand the challenge of comparison or you are preparing to lose the battle. Maybe both.
4. “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”
This rule only works under the assumption that the “enemy” has morals, a conscience and honesty.
Today’s unwashed masses have such short, selective memories and vulnerability to “spin” that I would doubt this is effective against Libs and Rads.
@Ed
I agree 10% with you, good zoomie-sir, as I have it on PDF, and along with the work of Ayres, have taught my kids how to recognize their work.
You wrote:
OTOH, recommending Alinsky to primary school teachers for their classes, school administrators as policy guidance, and students at less than the highest levels is, exactly as suggested in the original posting, an attempt at indoctrination of that population.
It is in light of this, that I made my comment.
4. “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”
This rule only works under the assumption that the “enemy” has morals, a conscience and honesty.
————
Sounds like you describe the enemy quite well.
Today’s unwashed masses have such short, selective memories and vulnerability to “spin” that I would doubt this is effective against Libs and Rads.
——-
Making them live up to their rules of immorality, un-consciencous and dis-honesty (which wouldn’t be so arh actually) would put-off even the most vacuous hooplehead!
Sry…RE #9. That was supposed to be 100%, not 10…
(stoopid metric system)