Thursday, March 15, 2012


We will be putting together a series exposing the tactics and philosophies of Saul Alinsky and how these tactics have been put to use over the years.

The Purpose

Alinsky claims that mankind is divided into three parts:

the Haves
the Have-Nots
the Have-a-Little, Want Mores.

The goal is to teach the Have-Nots how to take power and money away from the Haves.

Alinsky's favorite word is "Change".  He said, "man's hopes lie in the acceptance of the great law of change."

By change, he means a massive change in our socio-economic structure.  Alinsky teaches the Have-Nots to hate the establishment of the Haves because they have power, money, food, security, and luxury. He states that they "suffocate in their surpluses while the Have-Nots starve."  He claims that "justice, morality, law, and order, are mere words used by the Haves to justify and secure their status quo."

President Obama LOVES to makes these same claims.  Then Senator Obama said in June 2006,

 "We need Christians on Capitol hill.  Jews on Capitol hill.  Muslims on Capitol hill.  When you've got an estate tax that is talking about a TRILLION DOLLARS being taken out of the social programs to go to a handful of folks who don't need it...we NEED an injection of morality into our political debate."

Alinsky states that his goal is to teach the Have-Nots "how to organize for power: how to get it and to use it."  To Alinsky, "organizing" meant revolution.

President Obama's friend and Weather Underground founder, Bill Ayers, said:

I mean, I think the people who practice white supremacy
and who benefit from it are going to have to be stopped.
And I think that's a huge undertaking and I think it takes a revolution.

Enter COMMUNITY ORGANIZING  (link takes you to a video from  A group with the SEIU.  The video itself is put together by IAF affiliates MICAH and PICO)

Community organizing is a means of achieving social change through collective action by changing the balance of power.  It is distinct from other strategies (advocacy, mobilizing, activism) because with community organizing, you are building an organization.  It has rules, it has structure, it has legal standing, it has ownership, it has leadership and it has members.  People who pay dues.  Change isn't going to happen after one march or helping one person.  You don't get the kind of power you need without this kind of ongoing organization.

Creating well organized groups with different focuses (immigration, women's rights, environment, healthcare, education) by building trust and managing them in such a way that they can all work together at a moments notice is pure genius.  This way, when someone like Barack Obama comes around to run for President, or groups in Arizona want to protest bills such as SB1070 or teachers want to promote a sales tax increase "for the children", there is an instant army of people to draw from who are willing to pound the pavement for the cause.  Because, ultimately, they all want the same thing.  POWER.

After all, Alinsky taught that true revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism by creating open insurrection. Instead, he taught his followers to "cut their hair, put on a suit and tie and infiltrate the system from within."  He also said:

As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be - it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system. (Alinsky 1972: xix).

(Look to the example of Randy Parraz.  He often encouraged his followers to dress in business attire when attending meetings in front of various committees and councils.  He even attempted to sound civil when he spoke as opposed to his angry, bullhorn carrying persona.  Other examples point to the fact that many of these followers have already infiltrated City Councils, School Boards and Committees that affect government policy)

Alinsky did an interview in 1972 and made the following statements:

ALINSKY: ... if there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell.
ALINSKY: Hell would be heaven for me. All my life I've been with the have-nots. Over here, if you're a have-not, you're short of dough. If you're a have-not in hell, you're short of virtue. Once I get into hell, I'll start organizing the have-nots over there.
ALINSKY: They're my kind of people.

What better way to fan the flames of injustice by garnering the support of the "have-nots" and combine it with enough of the "have a little-want mores" in an effort to attack the "haves".

Is it any wonder why far more Americans today see our country divided along economic lines than just 25 years ago?

Over the past two decades, a growing share of the public has come to the view that American society is divided into two groups, the "haves" and the "have-nots." Today, Americans are split evenly on the two-class question with as many saying the country is divided along economic lines as say this is not the case (48% each). 
In sharp contrast, in 1988, 71% rejected this notion, while just 26% saw a divided nation.
Of equal importance, the number of Americans who see themselves among the "have-nots" of society has doubled over the past two decades, from 17% in 1988 to 34% today. In 1988, far more Americans said that, if they had to choose, they probably were among the "haves" (59%) than the "have-nots" (17%). Today, this gap is far narrower (45% "haves" vs. 34% "have-nots").

As Margaret Thatcher once said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money".