How did the world get in such a mess? Saul Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals,” publicly embraced by two of the last four democratic presidential candidates (and millions more unknowingly), says in essence—If you can’t win in a discussion, instead destroy your target via innuendo and character assassination.
“Blame YOU!” It “works” to do that, say the statistics!
Alinsky’s book begins with a nod to Lucifer, Satan, as his inspiration. “An acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.”
The Primary Rule: “Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It, and Polarize It”
This is the cornerstone of the tactic of Alinsky. To win an unwinnable argument, you must shift the focus away from ideas and facts, and toward incriminating or casting suspicion on specific individuals.
“Here’s the thing about feelings: they are so much easier to manipulate and control than facts”.
-Matrix 4
Alinsky says,
• Pick the Target: The person who represents the opposing side.
• Freeze It: Don’t let them talk, flood the zone with accusations.
• Personalize It: Attack the person, not the ideas. Alinsky argued that “people hurt faster than ideas.” By making the conflict personal, you bypass thoughtful discussion, and trigger emotional responses.
• Polarize It: Alinsky famously wrote, “One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” You must paint the opponent as a villain to eliminate any “gray area” or middle ground that might lead to compromise or sympathy. Don’t worry about if they are right or not. Paint them as “evil” and then facts and truth no longer matter to a fearful observer. It becomes too much trouble to think and consider at that point.
Rule 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
Alinsky argued there is no defense against ridicule. It is “irrational” and “infuriating,” and its primary purpose is to provoke the opponent into a reaction that makes them look foolish or unstable, thereby casting doubt on their credibility.
Rule 3: Create “insecurity, anxiety, and uncertainty.” By attacking in a way the opponent doesn’t expect—often through personal or social pressure rather than discussion of facts—you can cause them to retreat and fear.
And it is totally OK to lie and harm others because:
Alinsky embraced the idea that “corrupt methods” (like defamation or personal attacks) were not inherently wrong — if they served “a just cause.” He stated: “In war, the end justifies almost any means… He who fears corruption fears life.”
In other words, stoop as low as you want, lie or do harm as much as is necessary to accomplish your goal.
What a miserable way to live. Quite different is the Prince of Peace.
