Saul
Alinsky’s Rules
for Radicals
is a handbook for pursuing and achieving political power over
an institution, city or country or a manipulatable group of people. Takuan
Seiyo’s own “Rules
for Radicals
” is all about maintaining that power, once it has been seized
by groups who are no longer “radicals,” but represent the establishment.
Seiyo’s
essays can be found on the always-informative Gates of Vienna site, here
for Part I, and here
for Part II. They are engrossing in the literal sense: Once read, they are
etched into one’s mind, as when one signed or “engrossed” a petition to the
Crown to repeal the Stamp Act and signed by American colonials in 1765.
Together,
the essays are called “Oppression Instead of Admission.” I suspect that “Takuan
Seiyo” is the pseudonym or pen name of a native Californian, now living in
Tokyo, who doesn’t want to be identified and found. I doubt he ever will be
found in a city of 27 million. He would be as impossible to find as a needle in
a haystack the height of Mt. Fuji.
Seiyo extrapolates his formulae of liberal/left dominance in
Western political society from Lawrence Auster’s “First Law of
Majority-Minority Relations
,” found on the View From the Right site, posted
in November 2002, a year and change after 9/11:
Having read Ann Coulter’s column
on the media’s amazing attempts to downplay the fact that John Muhammad is …
um, a Muhammadan, I think it may be time to re-state Auster’s First Law of
Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society:
[Auster’s embedded link
to Coulter’s column is to her bio and Townhall credits, not to the cited
article itself, “Media
Muslim Makeovers
!” I had to search for the article, in which Coulter dwells
on the complicated mental and verbal gymnastics of the mainstream media to
avoid identifying Islam as the motive for the Maryland-Virginia shootings in
2001.]
The worse any designated
minority or alien group behaves in a liberal society, the bigger become the
lies of Political Correctness in covering up for that group. Thus, instead of
the revelation over the last 14 months of Islam’s dangerous and savage
character leading (as would happen in a rational world) to a major discrediting
of Muslims, or at least to a more skeptical attitude toward them, it has led to
their being more favored, more coddled and more protected
from criticism than ever before. They now get a whole new level of solicitous,
sycophantic treatment, ranging from PBS “histories” of Islam that are more full
of uncritical celebration of their subject than a tourist travelogue, to the
media’s constant attacks on the rest of us for indulging in an anti-Muslim
backlash which has somehow never occurred.
Except in
the form of the written and spoken word, which the Liberal establishment wishes
to suppress without calling it censorship, for “sensitivity,” “defamation,” or “victimization”
reasons.
That last point leads us
to the first corollary of Auster’s First Law of Majority/Minority Relations in
Liberal Society: The more egregiously any non-Western or non-white group
behaves, the more evil whites are made to appear for noticing and
drawing rational conclusions about that group’s bad behavior.
The First Law and its corollary
are intrinsic to liberalism. Once the equality of all human groups is accepted
as a given, any facts that make a minority or foreign group seem worse than the
majority native group must be either covered up or blamed on the majority.
Islamic spokesmen, in the battlefield of ISIS or from the safe
confines of CAIR’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., are insensitive to the
feelings of members of other faiths, regularly defame those other faiths and
their iconic “prophets,” and play a variety of “victimhood” cards while raping
Yazidi women or beheading foreign journalists or preying on native Jews and
infidels in so many Western countries.
In Part II, Seiyo offers his own “Rules (or Habits) for the
Liberal Elite,” or,
Takuan’s “Laws of
Designated Minorities’ role in Liberal Society,” which are:
1. Liberal Society
approaches all majority-minority issues with a quadruple blindfold.
Presentism is the first blindfold. All past attitudes and deeds relative
to any minority are judged by present standards.
Relativism is the second blindfold. All judgments relative to past or
current attitudes and deeds toward any minority are applied to White society
alone.
Outlyism is the third blindfold. Any negative statistical fact relative
to the mean or majority characteristics of any designated minority is shouted
down by quoting the far-outlying exceptions to that statistical fact.
Sentimentalism is the fourth blindfold. All negative hard or statistical facts relative
to any minority group are shouted down in preference to cuddly feelings about
that group or implanted feelings of guilt relative to it.
Before moving on, let’s
tackle the four blindfolds, that is, translate them into recognizable
instances.
An example of Presentism is not judging the behavior of a group – say, Muslims – by their
actions and those of their predecessors. The actions of past Muslims may have
been bad, even murderous, but that doesn’t mean living Muslims are capable of
murder, rape, destruction – evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
Novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand called the conscious omission or evasion of a
truth “blanking out.” With regard to discussing in public Islam’s horrific
record of conquest and death, this could be called “enforced blanking out.” Muslims
who wage jihad against Westerners, such as in recent incidents of  “car jihad,” 
and “knife or machete jihad,” or random “knockdown” attacks against Jews
and other infidels, are regrettable instances of “violent extremism,’ or were
committed by “mental patients,” or have nothing to do with Islam, even when the
perpetrators say it has everything to
do with Islam.
An example of Relativism is turning a “negative”
accusation or truth about a minority group back against the accuser. If Islam
is said by a critic to be a “patriarchal” ethical or political system that
oppresses women and treats them as chattel, then the same could be said about
Western society with its “glass ceilings” that oppress women (a la The Stepford Wives),
and “White privilege” that allegedly favors a “Caucasian” or European viewpoint
over that of “people of color,” who are invariably portrayed as “victims” of
cultural “imperialism.” That reason, logic, and an adherence to truth are not
the monopoly of “whites” is an argument summarily dismissed.
In an example of Outlyism is when a critic of Islam cites
the history of Islam as one of fourteen centuries of religious persecution and
slavery and cruel punishments for heresy or leaving Islam, the counter-argument
by Western liberal apologists for Islam (with a little assist from
organizations like taqiyya-ready CAIR)
will be that the West practiced slavery and had the Inquisition and burned
heretics at the stake for being witches or sorcerers or for bad-mouthing God,
that is, for blasphemy. 
This diversionary tactic
saves the apologists in politics, in the MSM, in academia (and their taxi squad
of Islamic spokesmen) from having to observe and acknowledge the embarrassing
fact that the West eventually separated church and state in its politics, while
Islam went through no such evolution, and refuses to undergo it. Islam isn’t
even reluctant to take the first steps to “moderation.” It would rather adhere
to the literal meaning of its sacred texts, the violent verses together with
the banal, which sanction jihad, conquest, slavery, compulsory mental stasis
under the threat of death and every other criminal act imaginable than concede
that its creed is psychotic and homicidal and inculcates passivity in its
believers from date of birth to date of death.
An example of the Sentimentalism blindfold is, instead of
stressing Islam’s long “rap sheet” and excoriating Islam as a dangerous,
recidivist totalitarian ideology dressed in primitive religious garb, to “reach
out” to Muslims and embrace them as lovers of peace dedicated to interfaith
amity and tolerance for all. After all, goes the standard spiel that could have
been lifted from the “Officer Krupke” number in West
Side Story
, it is a symptom of racism and bigotry to look askance at Muslims
just because their home-grown and foreign-born 
brethren are “misreading” the Koran and forming rape gangs in Britain
and Europe, attacking magazines with assault weapons, non-Muslims by the score
in Nigeria.  Muslims and Islam are merely
“misunderstood” and there is “good” deep down in them. The number of actual and
publically proclaimed excuses for why “violent extremist” Muslims are so “misbehaved”
is more than the Jets’ mere four conceived of by Stephen Sondheim.  
Sondheim was mocking the
Liberal philosophy that was gaining ground in 1957, when West Side Story debuted on Broadway; Islam, Muslims, and terrorism
were too likely the furthest things in his mind in that era. But his concretes
as dramatized in “Officer Krupke” were easily transferable to the Liberal
establishment’s bag of rationalizations from that time forward to the present.
Seiyo’s laws are
presented as abstractions. I have no argument with them except for their
unfamiliar nomenclature. It has been my philosophy of political and cultural
commentary to prefer the concrete over the abstract. All abstract hypotheses
are founded on concretes, arguing from the particulars to the general. I think
that is the best way to communicate the power of ideas. If there are no
concretes or particulars to instance, then no matter how broad the abstraction,
there is no idea to communicate, and no abstraction to contemplate or reach.
Seiyo provides concretes in Part I as an overture to Part II.  
A watched pot never
boils, especially not when there is no flame beneath it.