The Alinsky offensive

Joseph Klein explains the left’s unhinged response to Trump’s immigration policies. Quote:

Quote:[..]President Trump?s enemies successfully exploited misleading images of children separated from their parents or other adults who had crossed the border illegally with the children. Due to legal restrictions resulting from a combination of legislation and judicial decisions on the ability to keep children under custody with their purported parents who are being prosecuted for illegally entering the United States, President Trump faced a dilemma. He could either continue the ?catch and release? policies of the Obama administration, or incarcerate the adults for illegally entering the country pending their court hearing, while providing government care for the children in the interim. The president chose the latter course. However, after days of rising outrage in the country fueled by an irresponsible press and demagogues, he decided he had no choice but to issue an executive order putting an end to family separation. Nevertheless, he is proceeding with his zero-tolerance law enforcement policy even if it means keeping adults and the children who accompanied them together in a detention facility while the adults? cases proceed.End of quote.

Trump’s back down was a big mistake in my opinion. Quote:

Quote:[…]The pro-illegal immigration advocates demand that the adults and children be immediately released, adding them to the millions of illegal immigrants already here. They are utilizing Saul-Alinsky-style tactics to press their demands.

Saul Alinsky, Obama?s and Hillary Clinton?s idol and an inspiration for 1960?s student radicals and for radical protesters ever since, developed and popularized the political tactics of social action confrontation and “community organizing.” His two best known works were Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals. Alinsky?s most famous tactic involved portraying one?s political opponent as the essence of evil. ?A war is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play,? said Alinsky. ?In our war against the social menaces of mankind there can be no compromise.” He added, ?Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it?. [T]here is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks.?End of quote.

As Vox Day points out in SJWs Always Lie, this is the same tactic Social Justice Warriors use. Quote:

Quote:The pro-illegal immigration advocates have followed the Alinsky playbook by portraying the detention facilities used by the Trump administration to temporarily house children as akin to Nazi concentration camps. President Trump is compared to Hitler and the president?s supporters are demonized as Nazi sympathizers. MSNBC’s Donny Deutsch last Friday, for example, made this insane comment: “If you vote for Trump, you are ripping children from parents? arms. If you vote for Trump then you, the voter, you, not Donald Trump, are standing at the border, like Nazis, going ?you here, you here.’?

[…]?Moral rationalization,? Alinsky said, ?is indispensable to all kinds of action, whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means. All effective actions require the passport of morality.?End of quote.

Alinsky was big on the means justifying the ends. In fact, saying that is like saying Phil Twyford has a big ego. While true it doesn’t really grasp how true it is. For instance, Alinsky’s philosophy with regards to ethics was if you had more than one choice you picked the most ethical one. But if you only had one choice then you picked that, no matter how unethical the choice. ?Moral rationalization? is something we’ve seen here from health nuts justifying calls for more taxes in the name of ?public health? and banning someone because of ?health and safety? concerns, to Nicky Hager attempting to justify using stolen emails in the name of ‘public interest’. Quote:

Quote:A co-owner of a restaurant that refused to serve White House press secretary Sarah Sanders on Friday reportedly cited morality and living up to “certain standards? as justification for discriminating against Ms. Sanders because of her political association with Trump administration immigration policies the co-owner disagreed with. This incident took place after President Trump had signed his executive order ending family separations.

?This feels like the moment in our democracy when people have to make uncomfortable actions and decisions to uphold their morals,? the restaurant co-owner said. The same people so quick to condemn the devout Christian bakers who refused to bake a customized cake for a same-sex wedding for religious reasons are no doubt rallying behind the restaurant co-owner?s self-proclaimed moral right to refuse to serve someone she despised for political reasons at a business that is supposed to be open to the public at large.

Referring to the belligerent harassment of Department of Homeland Security chief Kristjen Nielson at a D.C. restaurant, and then outside her home, California Congresswoman Maxine Waters called for more of the same Alinsky-style confrontations against Trump officials. ?Already, you have members of your Cabinet that are being booed out of restaurants,? she said to an enthusiastic crowd, ?who have protesters taking up at their house, who say, ?No peace, no sleep. No peace, no sleep.’?

[…]Finally, the pro-illegal immigration advocates have adopted the Alinsky tenet of clubbing the enemy ?to death with their ?book? of rules and regulations.? They are counting on congressional inaction, leaving the loophole laden current legislation in place without effective border security. Efforts by Republican leaders in the House of Representatives to craft a compromise immigration bill, seeking to combine protections for Dreamers and children with more border security, are foundering, thus playing into the hands of the pro-illegal immigration advocates. They are relying on judicial intervention to force their open borders agenda upon the country incrementally through victories for the so-called ?Dreamers,? court orders protecting children and their parents from deportation and possibly requiring their release into American communities, and upholding of broad undeserved claims of asylum. So far, the pro-illegal immigration advocates have been succeeding.End of quote.

Seen through an Alinsky lens, Time Magazine’s credibility-ending decision to publish a misleading cover becomes understandable. Trump is the enemy. They had no other choice. I’m sure if Time had an actual photo of a child crying because its parents had been taken away by border guards they would have used that, but hey, the ends justify the means. Same with the media using photos from 2014.

Dozens of children sit inside a wire cage at a detention center in Arizona in 2014 after being locked up by the Obama administration

Alinsky also believed that the hustle never ends. Here we see health lobby groups (it’s never just one individual – Alinsky’s ?Rules for Radicals?, as well as being a war manual, is a manual on how to organise) pushing for a tax on sugar. First, it’ll be sugar, then starch and salt, then processed food etc. Same with calls for warning labels on alcohol. Remember, if it’s coming from a lobby group using Alinsky tactics you know it’s just the beginning. Warning labels today, complete prohibition tomorrow.

In other words, never give them an inch.