I have repeatedly tried to explain that Progressives are following the teachings of Saul Alinsky, and that they are intentionally using these tactics to destroy our system of government (and our society). This is the first of what will become a series of real-life examples that illustrate how Progressives employ these tactics in real life. In most cases, this series will cite one of Saul Alinsky’s teachings in Rules for Radicals, followed by a clear example of how that tactic is implemented in our society. Today, we are dealing with the following Alinsky tactics:
(You really need to read this story to understand the rest of this post.)
“An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing…. To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations….” pp.10-11
(In this case, Hahn is not concerned with reality or objective truth. All that matters is his talking points and agenda.)
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat…. [and] the collapse of communication.
(In this case, Hahn is staying on point and keeping to his talking points (i.e. cliches) because he knows his followers do not understand reason and objective truth and, if he allows these things to enter the debate, it puts him and his followers outside their area of expertise.)
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
(In this case, Hahn is trying to get the host and the other guest to operate in the setting of his artificial reality, a world of cliches and dogma that is totally irrational and in which the host and other guest are ill prepared to operate because they adhere to the established rules of reason.)
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”
(In this case, Hahn is ridiculing Limbaugh without ever addressing Limbaugh’s points/arguments. This is fallacious reasoning, and it supports my assertions in connection to rules #1 and 2.)
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
(In this case, Hahn knows that his followers enjoy the tactics he is using because they know their opponents get frustrated when they have to deal with irrational people who refuse to acknowledge objective reality. Have you ever wondered why some people in the blogosphere never seem to acknowledge any truth – no matter how obvious? Well, this is why: they are trying to beat you down and they enjoy seeing those of us who understand right reason get frustrated in the process.)
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…
“…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’
(In this case, Hahn practices this tactic as a matter of reflex. This tactic has become so common place, we now call it ‘political correctness.’ Here, Hahn is trying to isolate Limbaugh and place the focus of the interview on him, assuming Limbaugh has already been sufficiently polarized that the audience will just accept his ridicule – and thus, his unsupported claims. He is also doing the same thing in connection to his assumption that the audience will just accept the assumption that Republican are anti-immigration and racist.)
Finally, in evaluating whether or not the host, Megyn Kelly, is correct in her assertions of what is and is not objective truth, I refer you to her bio from Utah’s post, Who’s Sexist Now?
After high school, she pursued an undergraduate degree in Political Science from Syracuse University and later pursued a J.D. from Albany Law School; she served as an associate editor of the Albany Law Review while enrolled at Albany Law School. Following her graduation from Albany Law School in 1995, Kelly practiced law for nine years at Jones Day. She first worked as an associate in the Chicago office of Bickel & Brewer LLP, during which time she co-wrote an article for the American Bar Association’s Litigation journal titled “The Conflicting Roles of Lawyer as Director.”