• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me (Parts I-V) (VI added now)

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me
2009 August 16

by David Horowitz


Glenn Beck will be on vacation this week but when he returns on the 24th he has invited me to come to New York to talk to him on camera about Saul Alinsky, the strategy guru of the Obama era. For the the Hillary-Soros generation of johnny-come-lately radicals and their ACORN footsoldiers, Alinksy is their Sun-Tzu and his book Rules for Radicals is the field manual for their struggle. I thought while I’m refreshing my acquaintance with this destructive fellow and re-reading his text, I would share my thoughts with you, serially over the next week.

For this first post, let’s just focus on the dedication of the book — to Satan:

“Lest we forget, an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical:” (Pause there for second. Now continue): “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.”

So Alinsky begins by telling readers what a radical is. He is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer. This is something that in my experience conservatives have a very hard time understanding. Conservatives are altogether too decent, too civilized to match up adequately, at least in the initital stages of the battle, with their adversaries. They are too prone to give them the benefit of the doubt. They assume that radicals can’t really want to destroy a society that is democratic and liberal and has brought wealth and prosperity to so many. Oh yes they can. That is in fact the essence of what it means to be a radical — to be willing to destroy the values, structures and institutions that sustain the society we live in. Marx himself famously cited Alinsky’s first rebel (using another of his names — Mephistopheles): “Everything that exists deserves to perish.”

This is why ACORN activists, for example, have such contempt for the election process, why they are so willing to commit election fraud. Because just as Lucifer didn’t believe in God’s kingdom, so the radicals who run ACORN don’t believe in the democratic system. To them it is itself a fraud — an instrument of the ruling class, or as Alinsky prefers to call it, of the Haves. If the electoral system doesn’t serve all of us, but is only an instrument of the Haves, then election fraud is justified because it is a means of creating a system that serves the Have-Nots — social justice. Until conservatives begin to understand exactly what drives radicals and how dishonest they are — dishonest in the their core — it is going to be very hard to defend the system that is under attack. For radicals the noble end — creating a new heaven on earth — justifies any means. And if one actually believed it was possible to create heaven on earth, would he not willingly destroy any system hitherto created by human beings?

The many names of Satan, by the way, are also a model for radicals who camouflage their agendas by alternatively calling themselves Communists, socialists, new leftists, liberals and most consistently progressives. My parents, who were card-carrying Communists, never referred to themselves as Communists but always as “progressives.” The Progressive Party was run by the Communist Party and split off from the Democrats in 1948 (because Harry Truman opposed Stalin), but rejoined the Democrats in the McGovern campaign of 1972 and with the ascension of Barack Obama has become the Democratic Party.

Alinsky’s tribute to Satan as the first radical, and as the model of radicals to come, should cause us to reflect on how Satan tempted Adam and Eve to destroy their paradise. If you rebel and violate the law that has been laid down for you, “You shall be as gods” the serpent told them. You think Rahm Emmanuel was listening?

Oh, and let’s not forget this — the kingdom that the first radical “won” was hell.

http://newsrealblog.com/2009/08/16/alinsky-beck-satan-and-me/
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
[This is part two of the series "Beck, Alinsky, Satan and Me]

Picking up where we left off, Obama/ACORN strategy guru Saul Alinsky began his manual for leftists by dedicating it to Satan, “the first radical known to man” who “rebelled against the establishment, and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom.” We noted that the kingdom Alinsky thought was some kind of achievement to inspire other radicals was in fact hell. Here, in a nutshell, is why conservatives are conservative and why radicals are dangerous. Because conservatives pay attention to the consequences of actions, including their own, and radicals don’t.

And there’s a reason for that. What they are trying to do is not to improve the lot of all of us or even some of us, but to fill up a cosmic emptiness, an emptiness they feel in their core. As Alinsky himself puts it, they are seeking to answer the question “Why am I here?” — a question which traditional religions attempt to answer but whose answers radicals scorn. Modern radicalism is a secular religion, and its hunger for meaning and hope and change cannot be satisfied by anything less than grandiose, totalizing schemes to transform the world. To bring up their failures, the enormities they are guilty of, the crimes committed in the name of their religion, is to strike a blow at hope itself, which is why they cannot and will not hear it.

One kind of hell or another is what radicalism — progressivism — has in fact achieved since the beginning of the modern age when it conducted the first genocide during the French Revolution. In a fever of revolutionary enthusiasm the Jacobins had changed the name of the cathedral of Notre Dame to the “Temple of Reason,” and then in the name of Reason proceeded to slaughter every Catholic in the Vendee region to purge supersitition from the earth. It was the precursor of Lenin’s destruction of 100,000 churches in the Soviet Union and the creation of a People’s Church to usher in the kingdom of socialist heaven, which led to the murder of 100 million people in Russia and China and the bankrupting of a continent before it mercifully collapsed — with progressives cheering it all the way and mourning over its demise. It was also the precursor of Pol Pot’s decree that every Cambodian who wore glasses be killed in order that Cambodia be rid of bad ideas.

Not every progressive hell is a genocide, but many come close. The crusade to rid mankind of the scourge of DDT launched by the American environmentalist Rachel Carson wound up killing 100 million children – mainly black Africans under the age of 5 — between 1975 and the present, and the killing is still going on. The crusade of the left to liberate gays from a “sex-negative culture” destroyed the public health system’s ability to control domestic epidemics and led to the deaths of more than 300,000 gay men in the prime of life.

The left’s crusade to build a welfare utopia destroyed the inner-city black family, spawned tens of millions of fatherless black children, and created a mass intractable and violent underclass which is still with us and growing today.

The leftist monopoly of the public school system in America’s major cities is daily destroying the lives of millions of poor black and Hispanic children while filling the coffers of the Democratic Party machine which keeps their oppression going.

But progressives never stop for a moment to look at the horrors they have wrought.

Look at the defense Alinsky’s disciples are making of the Obama socialized medicine plan as they ask distressed constituents at the townhall meetings, do you have Medicare and do you like it? That’s a government health care system that works. Oh? So why is it going bankrupt? Isn’t that the reason for the new system? This one of course is much bigger, so the bankruptcy will be much more painful and destructive. But there wouldn’t be a need for this “solution,” and the price of medical care wouldn’t so outrageous, if progressives hadn’t devised the present system in the first place.

So one rule for conservatives should be this: Don’t be so polite. When progressives propose their progressive solutions, remind them of the hell they have inflicted on the people they claim to want to help — gays, blacks, Hispanics, children. And that’s just for starters.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Part III

Part I: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me

Part II: Hell On Earth.]

Conservatives think of war as a metaphor when applied to politics. For radicals the war is real. That is why partisans of the left set out to destroy their opponents, not just refute their arguments. It is also why they never speak the truth. Deception for them is a military tactic in a war that is designed to elminate their opponents.

Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is first of all a broadside against the New Left. What Alinsky attacks about the New Left is its honesty — something I”ve always regarded as its o–nly redeeming feature. While American Communists — the Old Left — pretended to be Jeffersonian Democrats and “progressives” and formed “popular fronts” with liberals to “defend democracy,” we in the New Left disdained their deception and regarded it as weakness. To distinguish ourselves from these Old Leftists, we said we were revolutionaries and proud of it.

“Up against the wall motherfucker” was a typical New Left slogan, telegraphing exactly how we felt about people who opposed us. The most basic principle of Alinsky’s advice to radicals is, lie to your opponents and potential opponents and disarm them by pretending to be moderates, liberals. This has been the most potent weapon of the left since the end of the Sixties. Racists like Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright posing as civil rights activists, radicals like Henry Waxman and Barney Frank posing as liberals. The mark of their success is how conservatives collude in the deception. Even Fox’s Megan Kelly, brilliant in all other things, still refers to the congressional socialists holding out for a total government takeover of the medical system as “liberals.”)

Sharpton-Obama

wright-obama2

Frank-Obama waxman-obama

Alinsky chides New Leftists for being “rhetorical radicals” rather than “realistic” ones. New Leftists scared people but didn’t have the power to back up their threats. Alinsky’s manual is designed to teach radicals how to manipulate the public into thinking they’re harmless, in order to accumulate enough power to achieve the radical agenda — to burn the system down and replace it with a socialist gulag.

Make no mistake, this — a totalitarian future — is the real objective of Alinsky and his radical disciples who call themselves liberals and bore from within. Alinsky writes of “the “revolutionary force” of the 1960s, that its activists were “one moment reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians yet they also urge violence and cry ‘Burn the system down.!’ They have no illusions about the system, but plenty of illusions about the way to change our world. It is to this point that I have written this book.” Radicals who call for burning down America’s democracy “have no illusions about the system”! They just don’t know how to go about doing it.

Alinsky’s book could be called Machiavellian Rules for Radicals, because it is all about deception, about keeping others in the dark about your intentions until it is too late. Alinsky even acknowledges Machiavelli as his model: “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be.” These are the famous lines that Michelle Obama made in her own Democratic Convention speech.

michelle obama

Alinsky continues: “The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. [I will have more to say about these Haves in the next blog.] Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

Alinsky’s agenda is the same agenda as that of the radicals who called for “Revolution Now” in the 1960s. He just has a more clever way of doing it. If you want socialized medicine, don’t say you want socialized medicine. Say you want “Medicare for all,” as though transforming a partial government insurance for the indigent into a total system system required for everyone wouldn’t transform the program into a pillar of the totalitarian future.

Actually there’s nothing new in Alinsky’s strategy of appearing moderate in order to disarm your opposition. That was what Stalin’s popular front was all about — communists pretending to be democrats and forming allinaces with liberals in order to acquire enough power to shut the democracy down. And, in fact, it was Lenin’s idea too, which is where Alinsky got it in the first place. Lenin is one of Alinsky’s heroes — Castro is another — and he invokes the master in the course of chiding the rhetoricdal radicals of the New Left over a famous Sixties slogan, which was itself lifted from Mao. Mao’s slogan said political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. Comments Alinsky:

“‘Power comes out of the barrel of a gun’ is an absurd rallying cry when the other side has all the guns. Lenin was a pragmatist; when he returned from what was then Petrograd from exile, he said that the Bolsheviks stood for getting power through the ballot but would reconsider after they got the guns.”

In other words, vote for us now, but when we are the government it will be another story. One man, one vote, one time. This is the political credo of all totalitatarians, including Hitler, who was elected Chancellor and then made himself Fuerher and shut the voting booths down.

Lenin was not a pragmatist (how fatuous): he was a Machievellian monster who was engaged in a total war which justified every means to achieve its goals. Alinsky is marching to the same drummer. What he really means is that Lenin was a realist and understood how to use the power he had, and, when it was not enough to crush his opposition, to make up for its deficiencies with deception. “These rules [for radicals]” Alinsky explains, “make the difference between being a realistic radical and a being a rhetorical one who uses the tired old words and slogans, calls the police ‘pig’ or ‘white fascist racist’ or ‘motherfucker’ and has so stereotyped himself that others react by saying, ‘Oh he’s one of those’ and promptly turn off.” Get the power and then you can call them (and do with them) what you want.

Rules

“This failure of many of our younger activists to understand the art of communication has been disastrous,” writes Alinsky. What he really means is their failure to understand the art of mis-communication. This is the art that teaches radicals who are trying impose a socialist health care system in a country whose people understand that socialism destroys freedom, not to sell it as socialism, but to sell it as a “public option,” or as “Medicare for all.”

What this adds up to is a call to revolutionaries who want to destroy the system, to first work within the system until you can accumulate enough power to destroy it. In the movement, we used to call this the strategy of “boring from within.” Like termites, you eat away at the foundations until the building collapses.

Alinsky’s advice is: Don’t confront the system as an opposing army; join it and undermine it as a fifth column force: “‘That means working within the system.” That means that “any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people.”

It is first necessary to sell the public on “change,” the “audacity of hope,” and “yes we can.” You do this by proposing moderate changes which open the door to your radical agendas. Says Alinsky:

“Remember: once you organize people around something as commonly agreed upon as pollution, then an organized people is on the move. From there it’s a short and natural step to political pollution, to Pentagon pollution.”

Not an accident that the new Green Czar appointed by Obama to jump start the anti-pollution revolution, Van Jones, is a self-described communist.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
To Have And Have Not: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part IV

Links to the first three Alinsky blogs:

Part I: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me

Part II: Hell On Earth

Part III: Boring From Within

The epigraph for the first chapter of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals which explains that “The Purpose” of the rules is from the book of Job: “The life of man upon earth is a warfare…”

For Alinsky and his Machiavellian radicals, politics is war. No matter what they say publicly or pretend to be, they are at war. They are at war even though no other factions in the political arena are at war, because everyone else embraces the System which commits all parties to compromise and peaceful resolutions of conflicts. For tactical reasons, the radicals will also make compromises, but their entire mentality and approach to politics is based on their dedication to conducting a war against the System itself. Don’t forget it (although if history is any indication, Republicans almost invariably will).
machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli

Because radicals see politics as a war, they perceive opponents of their causes as enemies on a battlefield and set out to destroy them by demonizing and discrediting them. Personally. Particularly dangerous in their eyes are opponents who are wise to their deceptions and realize what their agendas are; who understand that they are not the innocents they pretend to be but are actors whose reality is masked. (It is no coincidence that the pod people in the Invasion of the Body Snatchers were inspired by radicals in the Communist era). Thus it is precisely because Glenn Beck is on a mission to ferret them out, that they are determined to silence him and have organized a boycott to drive him off the air. Sarah Palin is another conservative they consider extremely dangerous and therefore have set out to destroy, personally. The list is as long as there are conservative leaders. This is because when you are in a war — when you think of yourself as being in a war — there is no middle ground.

A war by definition is a fight to the finish. It is waged against enemies who can’t be negotiated with but must be eliminated — either totally defeated or effectively destroyed. Conservatives don’t really have such an enemy and therefore are not mentally in the war at all, which is why they often seem so defenseless or willing to throw their fellow conservatives over the side when they are attacked.

The war Alinsky’s radicals conduct is for tactical reasons a guerilla war, as his manual is designed to explain. Conservatives are not at war with the system, but are determined to defend it, including its rules of fairness and inclusion, which provide a protective shield for cynical enemies willing to exploit them. Conservatives embrace the system and believe in the constitutional framework which guarantees opponents the right to declare war not only against them but against the system itself. Consequently, there is no real parallelism in this conflict. One side is fighting with a no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners battle plan against the system, while the other is trying enforce its rules of fairness and pluralism (which of course does not mean that individual conservatives never break them).

What makes a war a war, is the existence of an enemy who cannot be negotiated with but has to be driven out of existence. For Alinsky and his radicals that enemy is the “oppressor,” the (alleged) “ruler” of the system, the Establishment, the ruling class (or race, or gender as it now happens), those who sit on the top of the “hierarchies” — the “Haves.” According to Alinsky, America is a “Have society.” His rules for radicals are rules for those who want to take the Haves’ power away.

“The setting for the drama of change,” Alinsky writes, “has never varied. Mankind has been and is divided into the Haves, the Have-Nots, and Have-a-Little, Want Mores.” (p.18)

This is the Manichean bedrock of radical belief, the foundation of its destructive agendas — that the world is divided into the Haves and the Have Nots, the exploiters and the exploited, the oppressors and the oppressed, and that liberation lies in the elimination of the former and the dissolution of the dyad. “In this book,” Alinsky explains, “we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people.” (p.3) Power has to be “seized” because the Haves will defend what they have (and thus deprive the Have-Nots of what they want). That is why radicals are organized for war.

communist manifesto - cover picture

This myth of the Haves and the Have-Nots is the radical version of the religious division of the world into Good and Evil. If all deprivations and all the social misery in the world are attributable to the greed and selfishness of one group — the Haves — radicals would have a righteous cause. But it happens to be false, and the radicals’ claim to be fighting in the cause of justice a lie. It is the precise lie with which Marx begins the Communist Manifesto.

The history of all previous societies, Marx declares, is the history of “class struggle.” He then describes this class warfare in this way:

“Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight,…”

In our epoch, according to Marx, capitalists are the oppressors and are pitted against proletarians who are the oppressed. But to compare capitalists to slaveowners, or feudal lords and serfs, as Marx and his disciples down to Alinsky do, is ludicrous. There are tens of millions of capitalists in America, and they rise and fall with every economic wave. Where are the Enrons of yesteryear, and where are their bosses? If proletarians can become capitalists, and capitalists can be ruined, there is no class struggle in the sense that Marx and his disciples claim, no system of oppression and no need for revolution.

witches

The myth of the Haves and the Have-Nots is just that — a myth; and a religious one at that, the same, as I have said, as the myth advanced by Manicheaans who claim that the world is ruled by Darkness, and that history is a struggle between the forces of evil and the forces of light. The category “Haves” for secular radicals is like the category “Witches” for religious fanatics and serves the same function. It is to identify one’s enemies as servants of the devil and to justify the war against them.

It is true that there are some haves and some have-nots. But it is false to describe our social and economic divisions this way, and it malicious and socially destructive to attempt to reverse an imaginary hierarchy between them. In reality, 0ur social and economic divisions are between the Cans and the Can-Nots, the Dos and the Do-Nots, the Wills and the Will-Nots. But to describe them this way — that is, accurately — is to explode the whole religious fantasy that gives meaning to radical lives.

Because the radical agenda is based on a religious myth, a rational person reading any radical text, including Alinsky’s will constantly come across absurd statements, which only a co-religionist could read without laughing. Thus, according to Alinsky, “All societies discourage and penalize ideas and writings that threaten the status quo.” This statement of course is lifted directly from Marx’s German Ideology: “The ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class.” Alinsky then goes on to this howler: “It is understandable therefore, that the literature of a Have society is a veritable desert whenever we look for writings on social change.” According to Alinsky this is particularly true of our society which “has given us few words of advice, few suggestions on how to fertilize social change.” (p.7) On what planet did this man live and do his disciples now agitate, that they could miss the culture of “resistance” and “revolution” which is now actually the dominant theme of our culture?

Continues Alinsky : “From the Haves, on the other hand, there has come an unceasing flood of literature justifying the status quo.” Really? The curriculum of virtually every Women’s Studies department, Black Studies department, Peace Studies department, Gay and Lesbian Studies department, Asian and Native American and Chicano Studies department, virtually every anthropology and sociology and often English and comparative literature department in the country, is dedicated precisely to social change. Promoting social change is embedded in the mission statements of major universities and is the subject of innumerable commencement addresses which are often given by anti-capitalist radicals and even unrepentant American communists and terrorists (Angela Davis, Bernadine Dohrn), while the mission statements of virtually every college of education training teachers for our K-12 schools advocates social change and even explicitly promotes the radicals’ agenda of “social justice.”
Angela Davis

Angela Davis

And since we now live in an Internet age, we should not fail to mention massive websites such as Huffington Post and Daily Kos and MoveOn.org, which are dedicated to promoting the Alinsky program of seizing power from the Haves and giving it to the people. And then there is the inconvenient fact that our president, a radical organizer and leader of an Alinsky organization (ACORN) himself, and an intimate and comrade of revolutionary extremists, ran his successful campaign on a platform not of defending the status quo but of changing it.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Links to the first four parts of the series:

Part I: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me

Part II: Hell On Earth

Part III: Boring From Within

Part IV: To Have and Have Not

Saul Alinsky came of age in the 1930s as a Communist fellow-traveler (as his biographer Sanford Horwitt tells us in Let Them Call Me Rebel), but his real social milieu was the world of the Chicago mobsters to whom he was drawn professionally as a sociologist. In particular he sought out and became a social intimate of the Capone gang and of Capone enforcer Frank Nitti who headed the gang when Capone was sent to prison in 1931. Later Alinsky said, “[Nitti] took me under his wing. I called him the Professor and I became his student.” (p. 20) While Alinsky was not oblivious to the fact that criminals were dangerous, like a good leftist he held “society” — and capitalist society in particular — responsible for creating them.

Alinsky never joined the Communist Party but instead became an avatar of the post-modern left. Like other post-modern leftists he understood that there was something deeply flawed in the Communist outlook, but like them he never really examined what those flaws might be — in particular never interrogated the Marxist view of society and human nature, or its connection to the epic crimes that Marxists had committed. Instead, Alinsky identified the problem as “dogmatism” and the solution as “political relativism.” The Alinsky radical has one principle — to take power from the so-called Haves and give it to the so-called Have-nots. What this amounts to, we shall see, is a political nihilism (Rules for Radicals, p. 110) — a destructive assault on the established order in the name of the “people,” which delivers power (and wealth) into the hands of a radical elite and makes them feel good about themselves in the process.

http://newsrealblog.com/2009/08/20/post-modern-leftism-alinsky-beck-satan-and-me-part-v/
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Health Care

HCAN runs as a 501 (c)4. Here are all the principles involved in creating this organization.



ACORN, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, AFT, Americans United for Change, Campaign for America’s Future, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Campaign for Community Change, Children’s Defense Fund Action Council, Communications Workers of America, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), MoveOn.org, NAACP, National Council of La Raza, National Education Association, National Women’s Law Center, SEIU, UFCW, USAction, Women's Voices, Women's Vote and Working America.


Media
oreilly-20070423-chart.jpg


In 1979 Soros established the Open Society Institute (OSI), which serves as the flagship of a network of Soros foundations that donate tens of millions of dollars each year to a wide array of individuals and organizations that share the founder's agendas. Those agendas can be summarized as follows:

* promoting the view that America is institutionally an oppressive nation

* promoting the election of leftist political candidates throughout the United States

* opposing virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government, particularly the Patriot Act

* depicting American military actions as unjust, unwarranted, and immoral

* promoting open borders, mass immigration, and a watering down of current immigration laws

* promoting a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes

* promoting social welfare benefits and amnesty for illegal aliens

* defending the civil rights and liberties of suspected anti-American terrorists and their abetters

* financing the recruitment and training of future activist leaders of the political Left

* advocating America's unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending

* opposing the death penalty in all circumstances

* promoting socialized medicine in the United States

* promoting the tenets of radical environmentalism, whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner has explained, is "not clean air and clean water, [but] rather ... the demolition of technological/industrial civilization"

* bringing American foreign policy under the control of the United Nations

* promoting racial and ethnic preferences in academia and the business world alike

* promoting taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand

* advocating stricter gun-control measures

* advocating the legalization of marijuana

Organizations that, in recent years, have received direct funding and assistance from George Soros and his Open Society Institute (OSI) include the following. (Comprehensive profiles of each are available in the "Groups" section of DiscoverTheNetworks.org):

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Organizations%20Funded%20Directly5.htm

The Shadow Party



According to Richard Poe, co-author (with David Horowitz) of the book The Shadow Party:

"The Shadow Party is the real power driving the Democrat machine. It is a network of radicals dedicated to transforming our constitutional republic into a socialist hive. The leader of these radicals is ... George Soros. He has essentially privatized the Democratic Party, bringing it under his personal control. The Shadow Party is the instrument through which he exerts that control.... It works by siphoning off hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions that would have gone to the Democratic Party in normal times, and putting those contributions at the personal disposal of Mr. Soros. He then uses that money to buy influence and loyalty where he sees fit. In 2003, Soros set up a network of privately-owned groups which acts as a shadow or mirror image of the Party. It performs all the functions we would normally expect the real Democratic Party to perform, such as shaping the Party platform, fielding candidates, running campaigns, and so forth. However, it performs these functions under the private supervision of Mr. Soros and his associates. The Shadow Party derives its power from its ability to raise huge sums of money. By controlling the Democrat purse strings, the Shadow Party can make or break any Democrat candidate by deciding whether or not to fund him. During the 2004 election cycle, the Shadow Party raised more than $300 million for Democrat candidates, prompting one of its operatives, MoveOn PAC director Eli Pariser, to declare, 'Now it's our party. We bought it, we own it.…'"

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Part VI

For the Previous Parts of the Series:

Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me: Part I

Hell on Earth: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part II

Boring From Within: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part III

To Have And Have Not: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part IV

Post-modern leftism: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part V

The wisest thing Lennon (John, not Vladimir) said about revolutionaries was a line in the song which declared (sort of) his parting of the ways with them: “You say you want a revolution, well, you know, we’d all like to see your plan.” Lennon went on to say that radicals could count him out if they were preaching hate. (But then, the Beatles caved and changed the lyric so that it said both “you can count me out — in.” Well, who in in his right mind over the age of 30 looks for wisdom about reconstructing society to an art form in which “singing doo wah diddie diddie doo wah do” is regarded as genius? But don’t get me wrong, I love this stuff).

We’d all like to see your plan. Yes indeed we would.

The fact is that revolutionaries beginning with Rousseau and Robespierre and Marx have never had a plan. The ones who did and tried to build little utopian communities failed. But the really serious revolutionaries, the ones prepared to burn down the system and put their opponents up against the wall, they never have a plan. What they have is a vague idea of the heaven they propose to create on earth — in Marx’s case “the kingdom of freedom,” in Alinsky’s “the open society” — which is sentimental and seductive enough to persuade their followers that it’s alright to commit mayhem and murder — usually in epic doses — to bring it about. Otherwise, revolutionaries never give two seconds to the problem of how to make a new society work. How to keep people from committing crimes against each other (the Alinsky answer: capitalism makes them criminals), and how to get people to actually work, to produce. From Marx to Mao to Castro, revolutionaries have never had a clue. (Their excuse for the monstrous poverty and human suffering they create? — the capitalists are responsible, it’s the U.S. embargo.)

So if there is no plan, the devil is in the detail of the methods you use to get there. Each step of the way constitutes another block in the foundations of the world you are creating. The means tell you what the ends will be.

Alinsky’s biographer with the following anecdote about Alinsky’s advice to students wishing to protest the appearance on their campus of the first George Bush, before he became president, because he was America’s representative to the UN during the Vietnam War:

“College student activists in the 1960s and 1970s sought out Alinsky for advice about tactics and strategy. On one such occasion in the spring of 1972 at Tulane University’s annual week-long series of events featuring leading public figures, students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations, a speech likely to be a defense of the Nixon Administration’s Vietnam War policies [Note: the Nixon Administration was then negotiating with the North Vietnamese communists to arrive at a peace agreement-- DH] The students told Alinsky that they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush’s address. That’s the wrong approach, he rejoined — not very creative and besides, causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school. [Not likely -- DH.]

“He told them, instead, to go hear the speech dressed up as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards, reading ‘The K.K.K. supports Bush.’ And that is what the students did with very successful, attention-getting results.” (Let Them Call Me Rebel, pp. xv-xvi)

This anecdote tells you everything you really need to know about this mentor to Hillary Clinton and the Obamas, and the ACORN radicals. Lenin once said that purpose of a political argument is not to refute your opponent “but to wipe him from the face of the earth.” The mission of Alinsky radicals is a mission of destruction. It doesn’t matter that the Vietnam war was not a race war — that millions of South Vietnamese were against the Communists, that the South was eventually conquered by North Vietnamese armies because the Viet Cong failed to win the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese people. It doesn’t matter who George Bush actuually is or what he believes. Because your purpose is to erase him and the system he is alleged to represent. Therefore pick the symbol of the greatest evil that Americans — a small minority of Americans — were ever associated with, and use it to obliterate everything good they ever did in the service of your cause, which is to destroy the system which created them. If America’s cause in Vietnam is the Ku Klux Klan, it is evil and America is evil. If George Bush is the Ku Klux Klan, that’s it. Nobody needs to listen to him, he is non-person, a symbol of evil. Inside every radical is a Manichean at war with the forces of darkness and evil. In such war every means is justified, as we shall see.

For anti-capitalist radicals — as indeed for zealots generally — the ends justify the means. It has ever been so — for the Jacobins, the Communists, the fascists and now the post-modern Alinsky/Obama left. And that is because of the very nature of those ends as radicals conceive them. A world without poverty, war, racism, or “sexism” is so noble, so perfect in contrast to everything that has preceded it — that it would be criminal not to deceive, lie, and even murder in order to advance or protect the cause. As Nietzsche once observed: “Idealism kills.”

When your aim is to overthrow the existing order including its moral rules, you must be willing to break the rules to do it. Therefore, to be a radical is to be an outlaw. During the Sixties, I had a conversation that veered unexpectedly into this territory. It was with SDS radical Tom Hayden about the non-political Sixties counter-culture. Hayden was contemptuous of Hippies — because they were non-political — but he was convinced their drug culture had a political use. Once you get someone to break the law, Hayden said, they are on their way to becoming revolutionaries.

In the Sixties, radicals generally shared Hayden’s idea and were proud to do so. The Sixties political culture embraced criminal icons like John Dillinger and films which celebrated outlaws like The Wild Bunch and Bonnie and Clyde. Abbie Hoffman’s Steal This Book was a manifesto of the creed, and Obama friend and Weatherman leader Bernadine Dohrn’s tribute to psychopath Charlie Manson was its extreme expression.

This romance is reflected in radicals’ affinity for criminals and their causes at home and abroad, in their apologetics for terrorists and solidarity movements with totalitarians, in their “Free Huey” and “Free Mumia” and “Free Leonard Peltier” causes, and their glamorizing of Hip Hop thugs like Tupac Shakur, and in Saul Alinsky’s early attraction to Al Capone’s enforcer Frank Nitti. The Stalinist historian Eric Hobsbawm gave this kinship an academic imprimatur in a book he wrote about the mafia and other Sicilian criminals whom he described as “primitive rebels” — in other words revolutionaries avant la lettre. Its text included a chapter on “Social Bandits” who in his description are avatars of “social justice” –their activity “little more than endemic peasant protest against oppression and poverty” (p.5 Google edition) and the claim that the activity of the “mob” was “always directed against the rich” — in other words okay. (p.7) The French radical Pierre-Joseph Proudhon — whom a jealous Marx infamously referred to as the “Jewish nigger” — gave license to radicals to steal and destroy in what has become socialism’s most famous epigraph: “Property is Theft.” In reality, of course, it is socialism that is theft.

Another reason why radicals believe that their goals justify criminal means, and also why they can be relied on to lie and steal and, in the right context, either commit actual murder or justify murders when committed by their political friends, is because in their own minds they are engaged in a war for “social justice” and other noble ends, and are opposed by an enemy who is an implacable oppressor, in fact, the embodiment of evil. In war, when one’s own survival is at stake, any means can seem both attractive and necessary. Radicals think of themselves as soldiers in a war to save mankind — and to save the planet. If that is your responsibilty and aim, quibbling over the means to accomplish those objectives can easily come to seem immoral itself.

Rules for Radicals is about tactics in a war where the enemy is the “Haves” who are defending the status quo and all its manifold evils. It is a war that pits noble, planet-saving radicals against the entire social, moral and legal order. The radical goal is saving mankind, and the arguments of his critics are naturally that his means are unpatriotic, subversive, deceptive, violent, illegal and immoral.

Consequently, to brace his radical disciples against their opposition and supply them with self-justifying rationales, Alinsky devotes an entire chapter to the problem of “Means and Ends” — of how a radical can justify breaking the moral order in order to achieve radical ends (pp. 24 et seq). In his handling, there are 11 rules for radicals to explain how radical ends justify radical means. The chapter is explicitly an effort to answer those liberals who refuse to join the radical cause saying “I agree with your ends but not your means.”

Alinsky begins the chapter by telling us that the very question “does the end justify the means” as stated is “meaningless.” The real question is “does this particular end justify this particular means?”

The whole discourse about means and ends that follows, was made forty years earlier in 1938 in a famous (and far more intelligent) pamphlet by the Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky. It was titled Their Morals and Ours and was written to justify the bloody crimes of his comrades (and himself). Summing up his case, Trotsky wrote: “Whoever does not care to return to Moses, Christ or Mohammed; whoever is not satisfied with eclectic hodge-podges must acknowledge that morality is a product of social development; that there is nothing invariable about it; that it serves social interests; that these interests are in conflict; that morality more than any other form of ideology has a class character.” In other words, there is no such thing as morality, only class interests. What is right and just is what serves the proletariat and its revolutionary war against the “Haves.” Continuing the argument, what is moral and right is what serves the revolutionary party which embodies the revolutionary cause. Alinsky cannot state the principle in these terms because as we know that the revolutionary cause of the Bolsheviks led to the slaughter of 40 million people and the most oppressive tyranny mankind had ever seen. Bloody and immoral means led to a bloody and immoral end.

Because of this unpleasant history, Alinsky cannot refer his disciples to Trotsky but has to restate the argument in terms that don’t appear related to Marxism but are. The art of radical politics, as Alinsky has already told us, is the art of deception. It is the art of convincing potential opponents and recruits that you are working within the system and its rules when you are actually working to undermine the system and destroy its moral order. In practice and conception, if not precisely in presentation, Alinsky’s rules about means and ends, and Trotsky’s Machiavellian principles, are the same.

While reading the description of these rules that follows, bear in mind that the current president of the United States worked for three years as a community organizer for a subsidiary of the Gamaliel Foundation, an institution guided by the Alinsky principles, and that his mentor as a community organizer was John McKnight, an Alinsky disciple and radical professor at Northwestern University who, in an article he wrote at the time, referred to Alinsky as “the master,” and “a community organizing giant.”.

We begin with Alinsky’s introduction: “Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem.” Translation: He is not going to worry about the legality or morality of his actions, only their practical consequences. “He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.” But, you might ask, what if the means are immoral, criminal, and evil. If as a crusader for a just future you proceed by criminal and immoral means, won’t that corrupt your movement and your cause and affect — or simply undermine — the outcome you are trying to achieve? (And how could this even be a question after Marxists killed 100 million of their own citizens in peacetime in the 20th century, justifying their every step of the way by the noble end — social justice, a liberated future — which they were proposing to achieve?)

Like other radicals, Alinsky ignores the bloody failures of the radical past. Instead he answers the question in this cynical and dismissive fashion: “To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles. The real arena is corrupt and bloody. Life is a corrupting process … he who fears corruption fears life.” In other words, things couldn’t be worse than they are (but the Bolsheviks showed that they could). Since life is corrupt — everyone is corrupt — corruption is just the ordinary business of life; if you commit heinous crimes, you’re just doing to others what they’re already doing to you. This is the self-justification of radicals (just listen to Billy Ayers defend his acts of terrorism during the Vietnam War.) Is it any wonder that Alinsky looked to Al Capone’s enforcer for instruction? Perhaps “post-modern radicalism” is the wrong term for the Alinsky crowd. “Chicago radicalism” might be more apt.

In action, continues Alinsky, “one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. [Therefore,] the choice must always be for the latter.” This arrogant rationale puts one in mind of Dostoyevsky’s famously statement that “if there is no God, then everything is permitted.” If there is no moral law, what is forbidden? And what is the “the good of mankind” that Alinsky’s radicals are supposed to put before conscience, and who decides it? This is the very path trod by Trotsky and the Bolsheviks, steeped in the blood of innocents for “the good of mankind.”

Alinsky sums up his advice, laid out in the pages that follow in religious terms. This is an unintended self-revelation, revealing the way radicals actually see themselves — which is as social redeemers. This self-conception as mankind’s saviors reflects perfectly the advice given by Lucifer — “the first radical known to man” to the hapless first humans: Eat of this tree and “you shall be as gods.” Here are Alinsky’s words: “Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal salvation has a peculiar conception of ‘personal salvation’; he doesn’t care enough for people to be ‘corrupted’ for them.” Mass salvation.

Note the scare quotes Alinsky puts around the verb “corrupted.” This prophet does not believe in a morality apart from radical cause. As one of Alinsky’s radical heroes, the sadistic dictator Fidel Castro, infamously put it: “Within the revolution everything is possible; outside the revolution nothing is possible.” The revolution — the radical cause — is the way, the truth and the life.

http://newsrealblog.com/2009/08/23/means-and-ends-two-alinsky-beck-satan-and-me-part-vi-continued/
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
“Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness,” Alinsky Jr. wrote to the Globe. “It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.

“I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Like other radicals, Alinsky ignores the bloody failures of the radical past.

It is possible to grind an ideological axe without lying, but this author clearly is not doing that.

He is lying.

Alinsky was asked once if he thought about joining the Communist Party. Here is his answer he gave to the reporter from the radical magazine, Playboy.

"Not at any time. I've never joined any organization -- not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it's Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right.' If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide."

Now this simple information can be found on Wikipedia.

But if you are really so fascinated by Alinsky, maybe you should pick up a copy of "Rules for Radicals". It's a good read, particularly if you are working with a group of citizens trying to avoid being crushed by powerful political or economic interests.

But then again, you are probably too busy flying down to South America to insert a few CIDRs.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
But if you are really so fascinated by Alinsky, maybe you should pick up a copy of "Rules for Radicals". It's a good read, particularly if you are working with a group of citizens trying to avoid being crushed by powerful political or economic interests.

Does it come with an Obama signed copy of "The Coming Insurrection"?

Looks like that'll be the next top seller in the Liberal community.

http://tarnac9.wordpress.com/texts/the-coming-insurrection/
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I think hypo that you don't really believe this stuff but you're exploiting others fear of these ideologies. Why even Comrade Whitewing was much enamoured with Chavez and I hear tell you're either in Venezuela or planning a trip there yourself. Now I wonder about a person who plans to visit Venezuela and rants about Socialism.

You found my travel agent, dang. Was she hanging out in Vancouver with the pigeons?

Why would I go to Venezuela, I don't know anyone there. I'd be stranded at the airport.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Make sure you let us know when you are up to speed Reader. Until then, anything that is discussed would only fall on deaf ears.

You're not here to discuss anyway, so you might as well go and read a book.

The Top Books for Understanding the Left

Before leaping into the books a great place to start is with Discover The Networks, the Freedom Center’s online encyclopedia of the Left. Go there and browse around a bit. (You’ll note that here at NewsReal we link to DTN extensively — something we encourage other bloggers to do.)

As far as books go first, you’ll want to start out with David Horowitz’s work. He is the country’s definitive analyst of the Left. Here are the key books he’s written that you’ll want to read in order to understand the Left. (These are in order of importance, by the way):

Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey by David Horowitz — His memoir.

The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical Assault on America’s Future by David Horowitz — The intellectual companion piece to Radical Son in which he lays out his political philosophy.

Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the Sixties by Peter Collier and David Horowitz — A collection of journalism and essays about the New Left.

Uncivil Wars: The Controversy Over Reparations For Slavery by David Horowitz — One part narrative of Horowitz’s reparations campaign, one part exciting description of the American Idea.

Left Illusions: An Intellectual Odyssey by David Horowitz, edited and with an introduction by Jamie Glazov — A large collection of Horowitz’s work touching on many subjects.

Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left by David Horowitz — This book’s “The Mind of the Left” section is VERY IMPORTANT for this subject.

Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes by David Horowitz — This collection of essays has many essential pieces.

For some important books by other authors you need to read:

United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror by Jamie Glazov

The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements by Eric Hoffer

A Conservative History of the American Left by Dan Flynn

Commies: A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left and the Leftover Left by Ronald Radosh

It’s important, though, to not just read books about the Left. You need to read books and publications by leftists themselves.

Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky This was my favorite Noam Chomsky book back when I was a leftist. It’s one of his more accessible texts, though if you want to get a decent idea for what the Left’s preeminent guru is about you can also watch the documentary Manufacturing Consent – Noam Chomsky and the Media. And then you might appreciate Collier and Horowitz’s book-length rebuttal to Chomsky’s work, The Anti-Chomsky Reader.

A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn. This popular “history” of our country will show you how the Left views America: a greedy, genocidal, racist, exploitative “empire.”

What Liberal Media?: The Truth about Bias and the News by Eric Alterman. Alterman, a media critic for The Nation, isn’t quite as far out there as Chomsky and Zinn (he’s criticized Chomsky a fair amount.) This was also an important book for me back in my leftist days.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Reader, Reagan defeated the USSR...you can come out from under your desk now! :wink: :lol:

If you think the Communist Party is going to take over the USA, you haven't learned anything.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
comprehending any of this yet, R2? Notice anything strange about the Ideology of your "Hero"

Valerie Jarrett’s mother, early childhood education authority Barbara Taylor Bowman, also has some interesting connections.

For several years she has run the Chicago based Erikson Institute. An early Erikson board member was Chicago businessman and “liberal” activist Tom Ayers–father of Weather Underground terrorist leader and long time Obama colleague Bill Ayers.

Bernardine Dohrn, wife of Bill and reputedly the real leader of Weather Underground, has also served on the Erikson board in recent years.

In an obvious reference to Barbara Taylor Bowman, Bill Ayers wrote on page 82 of his book, “A Kind and Just Parent”, describing his Hyde Park neighborhood:

Just south I see the Robert Taylor Homes named for the first head of the Chicago Housing Authority, whose daughter, a neighbor and friend is president of the Erikson Institute.

Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn have both been leaders of the radical Movement for a Democratic Society–alongside Van Jones associates Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz and Betita Martinez.

http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/loudon-why-was-obamas-brain-valerie-jarrett-so-happy-to-hire-communist-van-jones-was-it-fate/

Barbara Bowman was interviewed for Timuel Black’s “Bridges of Memory: Chicago’s First Wave of Black Migration-an Oral History”. Timuel Black serves on the advisory board of Committees for Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism alongside Manning Marable and Van Jones’ mentor and friend Betita Martinez.

Timuel Black is also a long time friend of Barack Obama.

any guesses which Church all these folks went to in Chicago?
 
Top