Obama, Hillary Clinton, Saul Alinsky and Rules For Radicals

DIARY Redstate.com / Donald Ayotte // Posted at 9:11 pm on January 13, 2012 by Donald Ayotte cross posted in www.delawarepolitics.net

IMG_20160714_163413_Ayotte 2016 yard sign

Saul Alinsky’s book. “Rules For Radicals,” was first named “Rules For Revolution,” and has caused untold controversy since Alinsky published the book in 1971. I realize that one diary will not be enough to communicate the content of destruction this book holds for our Republic.

When I first bought the book, I vowed to read it cover to cover before donning my pencil to write even one word. Alinsky opens in the book’s prologue by writing, “The revolutionary force today has two targets, moral as well as material. Its young protagonists are one moment reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians, yet they also urge violence and cry, “Burn the system down!”

Alinsky’s tactics were based not on Stalin’s revolutionary violence, but instead on the neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian communist. Relying on gradualism, infiltration and the, “dialectic process” rather than bloody revolution. Gramsci’s transformational Marxism was so subtle that few even noticed the deliberate changes.

At this point, I would like to define, “dialectic process:” Reasoning in which question-answer approach (dialectic) is used to examine the correctness, legitimacy, or validity of an assumption, idea, opinion.

Alinsky writes on page 10, “A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into a new social order, or the “dictatorship” of the proletariat and finally the last stage, the political paradise of communism.” A letter from Saul Alinsky’s son David States: “Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we his approach 100th birthday.”

Obama taught workshops on Alinsky’s theories and methods for years and in 1985, he started working as a community organizer for and Alinskyite group called, “Developing Community Projects.” While building coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama was criticized for not attending church and decided to become an instant Christian. He then helped fund the Alinsky Academy. Obama was a paid director of the Woods Fund, which is a non-profit organization used to provide start-up funding and operating capital for Midwest Academy, which teaches the Alinsky tactics of community organization. Obama sat on the Woods Fund Board with William Ayers, the founder of the, “Weather Underground,” a domestic terrorist organization.

Hillary Rodham as a student at Wellesly in 1969, interviewed Saul Alinsky and wrote her thesis on Alinsky’s theories and methods. She concludes her thesis by writing, “Alinsky is regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such he has been feared, just as Eugene Debs or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most radical of political faiths, “democracy.” Alinsky offered Hillary a job upon graduation from Wellesley but she decided to attend Yale Law School where she met her husband Bill Clinton.

“Rules For Radicals,” page 113, “From the moment the organizer enters a community he lives, dreams, eats, breaths, sleeps only one thing and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army. Until he has developed that mass power base, he confronts no issues.”

Page 59, “But to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation. It is making a deal, getting that vital breather, usually the victory. If you start with nothing, demand 100 percent, compromise for 30 percent, you’re 30 percent ahead.”

In closing, I would urge every conservative or constitution minded person to know your enemy. Buy and read this book. Your adversaries have memorized it and are using the principles within its covers to destroy our great republic. Make no mistake, the Progressive Liberals or Radicals’ goal is to tear down the republic and shred the Constitution. The problem is, they have nothing to replace it with; they are only bent on destruction.

A Nation can only be disgraced by the failure of its citizenry to take action in the face of tyranny Donald Raleigh Ayotte August 2010

42 thoughts on “Obama, Hillary Clinton, Saul Alinsky and Rules For Radicals”

  1. Whew, I was worried that you had such a severe attack of the vapors when your sign was stolen that you would never recover. I should have known better. You hunkered down to rummage through your files and found the perfect re-entry essay. Maybe you could find an autographed first edition of this book, set up an auction, and fund your campaign that way? Just sayin’.

  2. @Jaded Observer
    I wouldn’t believe you would be able to understand the principles that Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals” present. You’ve probably never read it or even heard of it.
    But, you have learned enough in life to become sarcastic!

  3. There are two types of Socialist-Democrats; the ruling elite- the so-called “intelligentsia”- and their dupes, who just don’t seem to comprehend that free stuff runs out once there’s no one else to steal from.

    Let’s look at the history of the “workers paradise”… USSR, Cuba, N. Korea, Venezuela. Yes, such rousing success stories.

    Some people just can’t face the fact that people are not equal in intelligence, ambition, determination, fortitude, thrift and so on, any more than they are equal in height and weight.

    Eventually, we’ll have to fight the leftist bastards in the streets.

  4. @Rick
    You are absolutely right but these people don’t underhand that. They just want free stuff, without responsibility. They will ride the train until it runs out of fuel, them blame the government and start a revolution, but they want free stuff and they want it NOW!

  5. So Don, what did you read or who did you interview in 1969? Did either shape views that you have today?

    1969 was a different era. I am sure that many young people were effected by that period and held beliefs at that time that are far away from what they believe today- 47 years later. I certainly am one of them.

  6. @Mitch
    In 1969, I was twenty-three and there was much dissension in America over the Vietnam war. I was discharged from the navy in 1971 and veterans were not in good esteem with the young culture of that era.
    I wasn’t political at that time in my life and was interested in traveling around as much of North America as I could.
    The music was great and the nation wasn’t as violent as it is today. Yes, I agree the culture was completely different.
    I still love America and fear the total loss of what we now know as freedom. I fear a civil war that will cost many lives, most of them, “innocent lives,” if that term is still possible.

  7. @Jaded Observer

    I read the article to the link you offered and agree in principle with what it says. It is the reason that I am now the Chairman of “The Independent Party of Delaware.”
    The Republican Party has become a “white nationalist” party and excludes others by innuendo and subtle backroom gossip. In Delaware it is especially prevalent and onerous.
    The GOP reared its Medusa headed policy against Trump in the most hateful manner I’ve ever seen a political party do to its own candidate. If a candidate actually wants to represent the people who elect him, the GOP immediately makes him or her an outsider or pariah. It’s like the Amish shunning a person that doesn’t follow all the rules they have sworn to live by.

  8. “the nation wasn’t as violent as it is today.”

    I mean this is flagrantly false… But whatevs Don, do you.

  9. @Falcor
    “I mean this is flagrantly false… But whatevs Don, do you.”

    It is not blatantly false Falcor. It is merely a difference of opinion.

    I lived in the sixties America and those days weren’t even close to being as violent as America has become! I was born in the mid 1940’s, and have seen America develop into a hellhole during the Obama Administration! This president is not only inept but he is totally evil.

  10. “the nation wasn’t as violent as it is today.”

    I mean this is flagrantly false… But whatevs Don, do you.

    “Flagrantly false.” How so?

    You could hitchhike in ’69.

    You could board an airplane without removing your shoes.

    Schools weren’t kill zones.

    The “Knockout Game” hadn’t become popular.

    The left has always promoted violence as a means of achieving the police state they desire. Hollywood operatives- “liberals”- profess egalitarianism yet produce the most violent filth imaginable. Why? Because a violent society needs to be disarmed and well-policed. For the “protection” of the citizenry.

    Of course, a disarmed citizenry is reduced to defenseless impotence. The Founders knew this. And so do today’s Marxists, hiding behind the facade of the “liberal” Democrat Party.

    Google “American snipers Hindu Kush.” Click “images.” These guys will never be Obamaites, and a few of them, properly placed, could shut-down New York and Washington for days, as the power and water are cut-off. Chaos ensues.

    Be careful what you wish for, Socialist-Democrat-Marxists. You may get more than you bargained for.

  11. Obama, Hillary, The Left and the Plan

    If the Socialist-Democrats have their way, the above will be our way. They are the great seers, the know-it-alls, adherents of a failed 19th Century economist-philosopher-bum who lived off the alms of others. This, they call “progressive.”

  12. Alinsky was not a progressive, he was an all out Marxist that proposed a Marxist state and a two-class society that only included a few elitists at the top, while the remaining millions of people made up the proletariat class.

    Saul Alinsky had both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as followers and this political philosophy is what both Clinton and Obama are in favor of instituting in America if Hillary can force herself into office. (by hook or crook)

    Alinsky’s tactics are clear in his Book “Rules For Radicals,” which was previously named “Rules For Revolution” that there is only one end that these “New Wave” Marxists want to follow and it still exists in the persons, of the Clintons and the Obamas.

    There is only one person to vote for in this election if Americans want a Constitutional Republic and that person is Donald Trump.

  13. Marx and Engels clearly stated that the foundations of a capitalist society- family, religion, traditional education, private property and general morality- must be incrementally undermined so as not to shock the population. Then, a socialist foundation can be instituted, gradually, eventually leading to the utopian communist state.

    The average moron Democrat doesn’t seem to realize that “socialism” is a temporary, transitional state. The ultimate goal is one-party rule.

    Stalin: “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We don’t allow our enemies to possess guns. Why would we allow them to possess ideas?”

  14. @Rick
    You’re correct about the average democrat not understanding the gradualism and injection of socialism being forced on a Constitutional Republic but Alinsky understood it completely and so far, thanks to people like Obama and Hillary, it has rapidly accelerated toward a socialist state.
    Eight more years of Obama style government under the totalitarian rule of Hillary will seal the fate of our Constitutional Republic.

  15. “I lived in the sixties America and those days weren’t even close to being as violent as America has become! I was born in the mid 1940’s, and have seen America develop into a hellhole during the Obama Administration! This president is not only inept but he is totally evil.”

    Yeah, I mean statistically speaking that’s incorrect. This isn’t a matter of opinion. There’s less violent crime now than the period you’re referencing, and it has had a downward trend for a while now.

  16. Yeah, I mean statistically speaking that’s incorrect. This isn’t a matter of opinion. There’s less violent crime now than the period you’re referencing, and it has had a downward trend for a while now.

    So let’s see the “statistics.”

  17. Source: FBI

    United States Violent Crime Rate, per 100k people;

    1960 160.9
    1969 328.7
    1992 757.7
    2012 386.9

    What is shocking is the doubling of the violent rate in one decade, the 1960’s. The peace and love Hippy era. Yeah, right.

    The era of which Don was speaking (1969) did indeed have a lower violent crime rate than “today” (actually, 2014, the latest the FBI posted), although not significantly.

    I guess the reason that the very high- incredibly high- violent crime rate fell after Clinton got elected was because he decided to jail fifty percent of black males under the age of 35.

    I wonder what the violent crime rate is if black-perpetrated crime is removed from the statistics? Probably cut in half, at least.

  18. Yes, FBI stats show that the rate of violent crime was lower in the 1960s than in recent years. But they also show that the rate of violent crime has generally been on a decline since it peaked at 758.2 in 1991. In 2014, it was 365.5.

  19. The era is which Don was talking about was his traveling the United States post-discharge in 1971.

    Violent crime rate in the 5 years following his discharge:

    1971 – 396
    1972 – 401
    1973 – 417
    1974 – 461
    1975 – 487

    Violent Crime in 2014: 375.7

    It’s declined from 457.4 in 2008, despite an economic crisis sprinkled in there. Sure seems like the world hasn’t ended.

  20. @Falcor
    I am familiar with statistics and you and I both know that that statistics can be bent to project anything the professional wants it to be. A great example would be unemployment figures, which 90 percent of Americans know to be perversely skewed. Instead of the current figures of 6 or 7 percent unemployment, most people know that it is closer to 21 percent nationally.

    I’ve personally seen the crime rate rise year by year as lawlessness is on the rise. You may quote any statistics you like but if you include both domestic terrorism and Islamic terrorism, it would make the statistics you quote look foolish.

    I can tell you, the Feds cherry-pick what they include in crime statistics. After all, they must appear to be doing their jobs.

  21. He also said this; I lived in the sixties America and those days weren’t even close to being as violent as America has become!

    Don grew up in an era where the crime rate was much lower than subsequent decades. Look at the rate in 1960- or ’62 or ’64.

    What happened? The rejection of civility and American traditions, as manifest by the leftist Hippy movement and their sycophants in the media and Hollywood. A doubling, tripling and quadrupling of the violent crime rate doesn’t just happen for no reason, and the reason lies in the lap of the left.

    Yes, it’s better today than the 90’s, but still 2-3X the ’60 rate.

  22. “I’ve personally seen the crime rate rise year by year as lawlessness is on the rise.”

    My opinion is what I believe in as Gospel!!!!

    I mean it’s declined for… 8. Straight. Years.

    But sure Don, I’m sure there’s been a nationwide conspiracy to under report violent crimes. The murder rate is down too Don, is there a vast conspiracy to un-find bodies?

  23. @Ayotte: Could you kindly provide sources claiming that 90% of Americans know that unemployment figures are perversely skewed and that most people know that it’s closer to 21% nationally? Thank you! I’ll check back tomorrow.

  24. @Honi
    I’ve already stated in a comment what I think about statistics that are contrived by the Federal government. Now you ask me to provide some statistics!!!! What’s wrong with you and your selective reading ability???

  25. @Ayotte: There is nothing wrong with me. I didn’t ask you to provide some statistics. I instead asked you to provide the sources of the statistics that you provided.

    So much for selective reading.

  26. @Falcor
    ” The murder rate is down too Don, is there a vast conspiracy to un-find bodies?”

    Can’t understand your logic Falcor. Cops are being murdered five at a time in some states. Since the first of the year, the crime rate has jumped because of lack of respect for law enforcement officers. The toll continues to be devastating on the number of officers being murdered by thugs. People riot, burning their own neighborhoods and looting from their own local businessmen. Screw your false statistics.

  27. @Ayotte: Got it. You give some stats. I ask where you got them from. You deflect. I think it’s a pretty good bet you made the stats up. Show me I’m wrong.

  28. @Honi
    “@Ayotte: Got it. You give some stats. I ask where you got them from. You deflect. I think it’s a pretty good bet you made the stats up. Show me I’m wrong.”

    You haven’t got anything right. If you had read my comments correctly, you would realize that I did not derive my opinion from statistics, that I don’t trust.

    I did however, derive my opinion from life experience, which I consider to be better than false statistics from the federal Government. Next time you comment on my post, please read it thoroughly as well as the comments, so you might have a complete understanding!

  29. @ Ayotte: If–as you say–you do not derive your opinion from statistics, then don’t use them to buttress your arguments when it is convenient to you.

    You cited 2 statistics: 90% of Americans know that unemployment figures are perversely skewed and that most people know that it’s closer to 21% nationally.

    If if you do decide to use statistics as support for your arguments, then be prepared to show where they came from.

    You’ve given no reason to conclude that you can, so I have to infer that you simply invented those two statistics.

    Man up to them or back off of them.

  30. @Ayotte: Readers will remember I hope that you declined multiple requests to provide sources for statistics that you cited.

  31. Yes, and they will remember your ignorance in failing to read and understand what was being communicated, instead of what you what you wanted to understand.l I’ve met people like you, but have always have failed to understand your debauchery.

  32. Now I stand accused of debauchery simply because I asked you several times to let readers know where your statistics came from? Immoral behavior involving sex or drugs? I’m not going to continue with your foray into theatrical farce. G’day.

  33. @Soit
    Now I stand accused of debauchery simply because I asked you several times to let readers know where your statistics came from?

    I’ve stated many times that I wrote from personal experience and not from statistics; if you are too hardheaded to understand that simple concept, you need help. If you want to further comment, please choose another subject matter.

  34. The “unemployment rate” does not include those who have given up looking for a job. Thus, the numbers are skewed.

    Look at the labor participation rate to get a clear idea- or even better, use your own two eyes.

    In most polls, the economy is the issue of first concern for voters. This indicates the real health of the economy, and it is weak.

    The stock market has been performing well, and this is because investors must put their money somewhere.

    U.S. corporations pay the highest tax rate in the world. And we still have a $19-trillion deficit. As Socialism progresses, there becomes less and less people to steal from.

    Eventually, the Socialist-Democrats will “administer” 401k accounts. The government will steal your mo ey, and replace it with IOU’s, just like the do with Social Security. You will then be “allowed” a yearly stipend, based upon your need. Upon your death, the government will “inherit” the balance of your money. You see, there’s no way your average Socialist-Democrat politician can see that much cash on the table and not make a grab for it.

    Whereas capitalism is simply an agreement between men to freely sell and buy products and services, with everyone reliant upon themselves for their own needs, Socialism is legalized theft with government bureaucrats deciding who gets what, and how much. And of course, the government gets their cut- which is excessive.

    But, Socialism is a great system for lazy bums, career parasites and the ever-growing state and its “public servants.” Until there’s no one left to steal from.

  35. What personal experience has given you reliable enough information to determine that the real unemployment rate is 21%?

    Or that 90% of Americans, 45+ percent of whom will be voting for a candidate you can’t stand, agree with you?

Comments are closed.