Wednesday, November 07, 2012

Matt 24 watch, 177b: What is a "Community Organizer" of the Chicago School founded by Saul Alinsky? (Why is it that we do not know this clearly, and therefore what it means to now have a member of that school, Barak Obama, entrenched in power in the USA?)

It is time for some serious questions and sobering answers.

For that, we must begin with the teachings of the founder of the school of "community organizers" that produced Mr Obama. And so, let us turn to some of the teachings and statements in the "long march through the [subverted] Institutions" neo-Marxist -- yes, neo-Marxist, Saul Alinsky's pivotal 1970 book, Rules for Radicals:
Saul Alinsky
 "A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism." p.10. [And let us note, Marxism has always been quite varied in form, so, the sort of cultural/institutional subversion strategy advocated by Alinsky is not sufficient to remove him from the general frame of thought, whatever differences he may have had with say the Moscow orthodoxy.] . . . . 

"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. 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; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody." p.24

"The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displaced by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new." p.116
 Now of course, if we look up the name Alinsky, we will meet this sort of typical assertion:
During his victory speech on Saturday night in South Carolina and his appearance on Meet The Press on Sunday morning, Newt Gingrich mentioned Saul Alinsky and how evil, dangerous, and un-American his influence is on America and American politics. He also tried to associate President Obama with him. But, who IS Saul Alinsky and why is Newt Gingrich so frightened of him?

Well, it’s pretty simple: Saul Alinsky was a writer and community organizer who empowered the poor no matter their race. He strove to give a voice to the voiceless by organizing them into a body capable of massive protests, believing that the poor and disenfranchised would have more power to make their voices heard if they would come together and speak as one. In other words, he added the voices of the poor to our democracy.
Now, who could dare attack so angelic a figure, one who stood up against racism?

But, when instead we have first seen what he actually stands for in light of his own words, such slanted encomiums take on a very different colour.   

For plainly, we see that a neo-Marxist agitator is being portrayed in the sort of terms that one would reserve for a Martin Luther King. One would never guess that Alinsky is associated with a facet of a major and highly destructive ideological movement of radicalism and subversion that collapsed in ignominy twenty years ago, with the blood of over a hundred millions on its hands.  To fail to see the difference is inexcusable, or to see the difference and to suppress it, is worse than merely inexcusable. It is willful complicity with evil.

Let us be plain: Mr Alinsky was no Martin Luther King.

And, that is patently evident from some of the key agitation and propaganda -- agitprop -- principles of manipulation and subversion he taught. If you doubt me, let me now clip some of his actual rules for radicals:

1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." . . . .
3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

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." [case in point] . . . .

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  [NB: Notice the evil counsel to find a way to attack the man, not the issue. The easiest way to do that, is to use the trifecta stratagem: distract, distort, demonise.] 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...'

 "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other."

These are the cynical, evil counsels of one who seeks to slander and destroy, not the voice of a reformer who calls us to fulfill our true ideals.

As an antidote to such toxic words, let me cite Moses, in a slightly more expanded context than usual of the passage where he gives the Golden Rule:
Lev. 19:9 “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. 10 And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God. 
 11 “You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another. 12 You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. 
 13 “You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning. 14 You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the LORD. 
 15 “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. 16 You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life  of your neighbor: I am the LORD. 
 17 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him.
18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.  [ESV]
It is also worth clipping and expanding the citation from "the judicious [Anglican canon Richard] Hooker" that Locke used in his Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5, to ground the principles of civil liberty and justice that are foundational to modern representational, democratic self-government:

. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.]

The contrast of both substance and spirit speaks volumes.

In short, what we don't know -- thanks to a complicit media disregarding the duty of care to truth they face (they too have been shaped by the same sort of thinking) -- can hurt us, real bad.

Obama at the Chalkboard, teaching Alinski's
"Power Analysis." Notice how power is viewed
as flowing via money from
Corporations, Banks and Utilities, etc,
to politicians such as mayors
In this case, we now need to realise that -- whatever else he may be -- Mr Obama is a trained neo-Marxist agitator, expert in the techniques of slander and cruel caricature, in playing on emotions and perceptions to create the revolutionary ferment and hysteria in the face of real or imagined crises, and in polarisation and targetting of scapegoats set up as the objects of revolutionary rage.

And he announced this on the eve of his re-election: voting is "revenge."

Not, a sacred duty and careful, well-informed audit of the performance of government leading to the selection of leadership for the next period, a task that should be entered into soberly and in light of what is best for the nation, but instead an act of raw emotion that is the twin of hate.

The politics of polarisation and destruction. 

Raw, and naked.

We have been warned.

If, we were inclined to listen.

So, any time Mr Obama opens his mouth henceforth, any time we see a policy pronouncement or hear a speech or of a decision, we must be aware of that. The politics of artificial crises, agitation, slander-driven polarisation and "revenge."

And, we must further be aware that a member of that school will be driven by a vision of a new order of the ages, one driven by the idolisation of subversion and overthrow of an old order, and supplanting it with an idealised one made in the image of rebellious men who imagine themselves ever so enlightened. When in fact, history repeatedly warns that radical revolutions typically end in tyrannies and reigns of terror in the hands of the most ruthlessly nihilist factions

Which is exactly what I am ever more deeply concerend over as I see the so-called Arab Spring of the Middle East unravelling into a predictable IslamIST winter. Especially in Egypt.

For, there is a saying in Israel: Without Egypt, no war. Without Syria, no peace. 

Egypt is now in the hands of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, and Syria -- already an Iranian client state -- looks likely to fall to a movement with factions clearly linked to Al Qaeda. The same sort of factions that carried out the recent attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. The attacks where the conduct of the US President and his chief advisers has been inexplicable.

Where, we must not forget, Syria reportedly has the largest known stockpile of  chemical weapons in the world.

Where, Iran seems to be within weeks or months of crossing the nuke weapons red line. 

Where also, we must not forget that with the embedding of homosexualisation of marriage in Mr Obama's party's platform, open hunting season has just been declared against serious Bible-believing Christians in our civilisation. END