Saul Alinsky Tactics and the BLM War

Canada Free Press – by Timothy Birdnow

The internet has been buzzing for the last few days with hysterical hypocrisy from the Left over some remarks made by Clive Bundy, the Nevada Rancher who recently staved off a paramilitary assault by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Bundy made a comment that perhaps black people were better off slaves (as opposed to the neo-slavery of benevolent government.) He was roundly thrashed for his remarks.  

First, this is textbook; Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals rule #12

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”

See, the Left cannot win any argument on the merits of their beliefs; they have to attack the personalities involved. The Politics of Personal Destruction Bill Clinton once called it – while being a master practitioner of the tactic himself. As the old legal adage says, if the facts are against you argue the law, if the law is against you argue the facts, if both are against you attack the parties involved. This last is what Liberals do, because they have neither facts nor laws on their side. They have to impugn people’s motives.

This instance dovetails with rule #4

“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)”

The Left knows that Conservatives champion civil rights, and always have. So they produce isolated incidents that can be interpreted as racist, knowing full well that sympathy for the individual under assault (Bundy in this case) will dry up quickly. There will be no defense of a guy like Bundy and the end result will be a tarring of the entire movement.

And then there is rule #9

“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

And indeed it already has, as conservatives and GOP Establishment types are now running from not just Clive Bundy but the whole BLM land grab issue, terrified of what the Left MIGHT do.

Second, Bundy’s remarks were stupid but one cannot conclude they were racist. Heclarified them in a way that suggests a man who is more ignorant than evil. He seems to have little understanding of the horribleness of chattel slavery. The man spoke pure idiocy. But there actually is a reasonable point in this instance; the hard bondage of slavery was changed for the soft bondage of governmental paternalism. While the paternalism may be a far easier existence, it is still an existence on a short leash, not a real life. Choices are made for so many black people by outside forces who seek to feel good at their expense. Slaves cannot quit their jobs, but then neither can wards of the State; the welfare system holds men in bondage as well.

And stupidity does not abrogate your civil rights; if it did everyone who voted for Barack Obama in the last election would find theirs forfeit. Even racists have civil rights.

Which is what this argument is supposed to be about. Does the government have the right to usurp property rights just because they can. This is not and should not be about Clive Bundy’s personal views. Bundy as an individual does not matter here; what matters is a fundamental principle.

The Liberals know this, and they know they will lose if they have this discussion. They HAVE to turn this into a food fight.

They have been trying to do this in other areas as well; see The Daily Kos comparing Bundy with Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty. The Robertson family has been off the reservation from the beginning, and the Left cannot allow an openly Christian, morally conservative group to flourish. So they attacked Robertson in the same way.

The fact is that Bundy and the other Nevada ranchers were there first, and they have improved the land – the fundamental principle of land ownership as defined by John Locke. They had long-standing contracts. They have enforceable rights. The BLM came along and, as government always does, started off slowly, with modest fees and “common sense” regulations. Like a wildfire the winds began to blow and the controlled fire turned into a conflagration. Environmentalists managed to get the BLM to drive the cattlemen out (this dovetails with the Left’s war on food, something I’ve discussed previously.)

This is about property rights. This is about contracts. This is about the Rule of Law as opposed to the rule of force. This is about standing up to an agency which is supposed to work for the People and not the other way around. It is about being safe from paramilitary forces goosestepping over your property. It is about core American principles.

It is not about the person of Clivn Bundy. The statists have made it so because they cannot win a free and fair exchange of ideas on this issue.

Strangely enough, the very same voices shouting “RACIST!” remained silent when their own have made remarks as bad or worse. Consider Barack Obama, who sneeringly referred to his grandmother as “a typical white person” and who said the police “acted stupidly” in the altercation with his buddy at Cambridge (he admitted to having no facts but since a gentleman of color was involved…)

What of Joe Biden’s comment;

“You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent.”

or Biden’s wonderful commentary on Barack Obama;

“I mean you’ve got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and nice-looking guy.”

How about Hillary Clinton’s snide remark;

“Mahatma Gandhi “ran a gas station down in Saint Louis.”

And then you have Harry Reid making the observation that Obama is;

“‘light-skinned’ African American with ‘no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.’”

In point of fact the people who champion leftist causes are chock full of racism. Seehere here for more.

For decades they supported Robert Byrd, former Ku Klux Klan leader. Anyone remember his remarks about white n****r’s?

So any tears shed by these people are strictly of the crocodile nature. Where was their outrage? Their oh-so-holy righteous indignation? Their rigid moral code only seems to apply to those who are damaging to their own cause.

This indignation is a red herring, one clearly designed to turn the discussion from one of fundamental rights to a contest to see who can urinate the farthest. We should not fall for it.

Nor should we concede defeat before the battle has been well engaged. Too many people are ready to do just that.

I would remind everyone that Saul Alinsky admonished his troops to not use a tactic that drags on too long. The fact that the Left has to keep going back to the racism well is proof they are out of quivers.

We can win this fight if we stick to first principles.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62674