Hello Friends,
Here we are in 2010 with the hope that this year will truly be a year of change. Not the change that B Hussein Obowma preaches and is striving to realize but the change back to a country that utilizes and lives according to what is the best code of laws in the world. The Constitution of the United States of America and The Bill of Rights..
The change that Obowma is trying to achieve will bring about the total destruction of the US we know and love. His change will bankrupt the USand will cause the National Debt to escalate to unknown proportions.The change B Hussein loves will leave generations to come in debt that will be hard to erase.
He promised, change and many believed him. They believed they're mortgage debt will be canceled, free cars and redistribution of wealth that they didn't earn. Their answer was a resounding GIMMEE and what they got in return are higher taxes, lower income, higher unemployment, illegals that receive more government aid then the citizens do (according to Obowma they are unregistered Democrats) and the list goes on and on.
In the following article you'll see exactly what B Hussein bases his actions on. As a student of Saul Alinsky and ex-community organizer and ACORN supporter he is well versed in this nefarious system and both he and Hillary support and believe in it.
Shalom,
Peter
NEW ENGLISH REVIEW
by D. L. Adams (January 2010)
SaulAlinsky and his "community organizing" methods and philosophy have hada profound influence on the politics of the United States. Recenthistory would suggest that this influence is just short ofcatastrophic.
Michelle Obama:
“Barackstood up that day,” talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods,“and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about “The world as it is” and “The world as it should be…”
And, “All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do – that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be.”
Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals,” Chapter 2:
“Themeans-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of themeans used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselvesas to their real political position. In fact, they are passive-butreal-allies of the Haves … The most unethical of all means is thenon-use of any means … The standards of judgment must be rooted in thewhys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be.“
Alinskyis making a strong case in this quote for the abandonment of morals andethics as nothing but impediments to political success. For Alinsky, asfor Michelle and Barrack Hussein Obama, morality and ethics prevent theworld from being what “it should be.” The Alinsky end game is likely aglobal utopia in which the “people” have “power.” Unfortunately, thisutopianism has been the foundation of several über-violent movements ofthe last century which have resulted in over 100 million deaths.
Saul AlinskyAlinsky’sdedication of “Rules for Radicals” to Lucifer is easily understood; asa champion of amorality and the abandonment of ethics as nothing morethan props that sustain the status quo Lucifer is the perfect model ofthe destroyer for the activist Alinsky. The fact that our top politicalleadership has embraced this amoral set of tactics for political gainshould cause all Americans concern.
Thereis no utopia; those who have strived to make the impossible real, toimplement their grand visions of life have been the agents of death anddestruction on a scale surpassed only perhaps by Islam. Alinsky, likethe Koran, Sira, and Hadith, represents morality turned upside downor abandoned entirely in favor of cold pragmatism.
ACORN’s transgressions and fraud were so abysmal that the federal government de-funded the organization several months ago. ACORN operates on Alinsky principles of immoralityand total radical pragmatism, after all, they are trying to usher inthe people’s utopia; why should they allow mere ethics, legalities, andother such encumbrances to interfere with their mission to savehumanity from itself? Recently,ACORN employees attempted to assist two young people who wanted tostart an illegal sex business; unfortunately for the ACORN people thetwo entrepreneurs were actually conservative activists who had filmed the entire encounter. Following in the path of Alinsky, what could be wrong with a bit of prostitution and other sex-related “businesses” if it “empowered the people” and could help to de-construct the institutions of society? For ACORN it was a win-win opportunity. Alinsky’smission was to incite constant struggle and agitation so that theoppressive “system” would eventually be brought to its knees; ACORN ison the same path, but pretends legitimacy much better than Alinsky ever attempted.In fact, the ACORN “sting” as it is now known is Alinsky methodologyput to good use. ACORN and its Alinsky amorality were supported by ourcurrent President. “In fact, Obama’s Acorn connectionis far more extensive. In the few stories where Obama’s role as anAcorn “leadership trainer” is noted, or his seats on the boards offoundations that may have supported Acorn are discussed, there islittle follow-up. Even these more extensive reports miss many aspectsof Obama’s ties to Acorn.” (Stanley Kurtz, National Review) ManyAmericans have read Alinsky's books and understand his methods; this isexcellent as so few read Mein Kampf, and fewer still have read the Koran,Sira, and Hadith. These are the foundational texts of existentialopposition to the existence of the United States in its present form. Thefact that our current President and Secretary of State (wannabePresident Hillary Clinton), are followers of Alinsky is beyonddisturbing. That so many Americans know Alinsky is heartening but fewknow the motivations behind the agitation that is so central to theAlinsky method and further what it means when a professional agitatoracquires the power that they claim to require. What kind of effectivegovernance is possible from the permanent agitator when the reins ofpower are handed to him/her? We have seen the results.
Theproblem with the Alinsky method is that the end game is amorphous; theend game is the acquisition of power but little is said of what to dowith that power once acquired. The core of Alinsky's method isdestruction, destruction of the "system" that allows a disparity ofwealth. There is no discussion of what is to replace this system onceit is brought down. However, there is little doubt that Alinsky's ideaof a better "system" is one that brings forced equivalence or Marxism.Fundamentally, the struggle to get power is the essence of Alinsky,what to do with the power once acquired is another matter altogether.
“Community Organizer” Barrack Hussein Obama teaches the Alinsky method of power acquisition.Just two weeks before his death in 1972 Alinsky gave a revealing interview to Playboy magazine.While this is not a widely known interview it provides great insightinto Alinsky, his purposes and, most importantly, his deep alienationfrom concepts of decency, ethics and morality. In order to understandour current "leadership" we must understand Alinsky. The current use of the term "change" is directly from Saul Alinsky. This is a term that can mean many things to many people.
"Pragmatically,the only hope for genuine minority progress is to seek out allieswithin the majority and to organize that majority itself as part of anational movement for change." (Alinsky interview) “Change”is both the tool and the goal, but it is rarely defined in any way thatis not strictly local and economic; better housing for the poor, bettereconomic opportunity, better wages, better municipal services, etc.However, at the national level "change" is left undefined. In fact itseems, the process of change itself, not the implementation of"change," is the goal.
Thisis amoral political agitation that appears to be about somethingpositive but is really about deconstruction. Once the institutions of"oppression" that require "change" are destroyed, there is no plandelineated by Alinsky (nor his current crop of followers) as to whatwill replace them. The goal apparently is "people power" (whatever thatmeans). However, since the concept of destroying the institutions ofsociety specifically to "empower" people is foundational, this is thesame message of Marx.
Alinskyis a Marxist without the red flag. Any institution that allows onegroup of people to advance at the expense of another is to be broughtdown even if those who advance within it do so as a result of honesthard work and talent. The essence of Alinsky is a radical idea ofuniversal equivalence, though this has been seen before both in Marxisttheory, and in Communist states. In order to agitate for “change,”Alinsky and his adherents require the population to be on edge; "rubbedraw." This desire for endless agitation as a goal is bizarre anddisturbing.
"Thedespair is there; now it's up to us to go in and rub raw the sores ofdiscontent, galvanize them for radical social change. We'll give them away to participate in the democratic process, a way to exercise theirrights as citizens and strike back at the establishment that oppressesthem, instead of giving in to apathy. We'll start with specific issues-- taxes, jobs, consumer problems, pollution - and from there move onto the larger issues: pollution in the Pentagon and the Congress andthe board rooms of the megacorporations. Once you organize people,they'll keep advancing from issue to issue toward the ultimateobjective: people power." (Alinsky interview) Alinskybelieved that the struggle itself is empowering and important, in andof itself. "People power" is another way to say the rule of the people,and not elites or institutions or representatives. This is Marxism. Ourpresident is the greatest acolyte of Saul Alinsky. The influence ofAlinsky in our national politics cannot be overstated.
"We'llnot only give them a cause, we'll make life god**** exciting for themagain -- life instead of existence. We'll turn them on." (Alinsky interview) Alinskyclaims to love the United States, but not in its current form. His loveof country is as hollow as that of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
"I love this god**** country, and we're going to take it back." (Alinsky interview)
“AnABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons, offered for sale bythe church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what hedescribed as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of blackAmericans.
‘Thegovernment gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes athree-strike law and then wants us to sing “God Bless America.'” No,no, no, God **** America, that's in the Bible for killing innocentpeople,’ he said in a 2003 sermon. ‘God **** America for treating ourcitizens as less than human. God **** America for as long as she actslike she is God and she is supreme.’" (ABC News) "Takingback" was a popular meme of the radical left during the Vietnam Warera. Once the country is "taken back" what is to be done with it? Wenow have an Alinsky acolyte in the White House, one could say he has“taken back” the country, but it is clear that he does not know what todo with it. He doesn't know because no Alinskyite has ever reached thislevel of power except for Hillary Clinton. Theongoing agitation that comes now directly from the White House, mostparticularly the failed health care “reform,” shows that the “rubbingraw” method is being followed closely; the popular resistance to“change” that we now see growing across the country is evidence thatperhaps this method of “community organizing” is bereft of solutions.Constant agitation is not a solution though Alinsky would have youbelieve otherwise. “Struggle” itself is the purpose and goal of theAlinsky way.
"Alllife is warfare, and it's the continuing fight against the status quothat revitalizes society, stimulates new values and gives man renewedhope of eventual progress. The struggle itself is the victory." (Alinsky interview) This is essentially an anti-anti-revolutionary concept. The idea of fighting for the sake offighting itself is morally depraved. But this term "depraved" would nothave bothered Alinsky for he is the champion of the abandonment ofmorality. Amorality is fundamental to Alinsky and to his followers; anideology that justifies the abandonment of morality and ethics isattractive to many – to the detriment of us all.
Infairness to Alinsky, the above was said relating to a specific localsituation, but the dismissal of integrity is illustrative. Alinsky sawthe march of history as driven by revolution; without revolution thereis stagnation (lack of development of humanity in his view). It isstunning to see someone dedicated to destruction and deconstruction soself-convinced that he is an agent of human necessity and development;Alinsky is deeply confused. Unfortunately, Alinsky’s followers are justas confused on this matter.
"Historyis like a relay race of revolutions; the torch of idealism is carriedby one group of revolutionaries until it too becomes an establishment,and then the torch is snatched up and carried on the next leg of therace by a new generation of revolutionaries. The cycle goes on and on,and along the way the values of humanism and social justice the rebelschampion take shape and change and are slowly implanted in the minds ofall men even as their advocates falter and succumb to the materialisticdecadence of the prevailing status quo." (Alinsky, interview) Alinskygrew up in Chicago in a very poor Jewish family in the early part ofthe century. He said that he had "kicked the habit" of Judaism at anearly age, but would always say that he was a "Jew." Seeing thecorruption of Chicago at the time and the hero status held by Al Caponeand his operatives, Alinsky made it his affair to associate himselfwith them. He saw no difference between the Capone criminals and thecorrupt city officials of Chicago at that time. He was successful inflattering himself (his characterization) into the Capone organizationand became a trusted fellow traveler for "two years" according to hisestimate. In fact, the influence of the Capone gang on Alinsky issubstantial and lasted for more than two years.
"Heintroduced me to Frank Nitti, known as the Enforcer, Capone'snumber-two man, and actually in de facto control of the mob because ofAl's income-tax rap. Nitti took me under his wing. I called him theProfessor and I became his student. Nitti's boys took me everywhere,showed me all the mob's operations, from gin mills and whorehouses andbookie joints to the legitimate businesses they were beginning to takeover. Within a few months, I got to know the workings of the Capone mobinside out." (Alinksy interview) Alinsky’sself-identification of Frank Nitti the mobster killer as his"professor" is important. In retrospect one can speculate that Alinskylearned a great deal about pressure and intimidation from his friendsin the Chicago mob.
Buteven more enlightening is that the mob killer Nitti is the anti-thesisof what America is about; amorality and criminality were what Alinskyapparently found so fascinating about Nitti and his gang- they beat“the system” which Alinsky saw as just as corrupt or equally so to theCapone/Nitti gangsters.
Thisabandonment of morality and ethics and in fact, the identification ofmorality and ethics as impediments, would become a theme with Alinsky.The two years of training with “Professor” Nitti would reap hugerewards for Alinsky over time. But what it has left as a legacy forthis country is a disaster as Alinsky’s followers took this abandonmentof morals and ethics as a serious lesson; nothing is excluded as far astactics and strategy are concerned - this is the lesson of the“professor.”
Alinsky'sabandonment of morality and ethics is not difficult to demonstrate."Rules for Radicals" is dedicated to Lucifer, the rebel against God'srule and great destroyer of Christian ideology.
Dedication to Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”.Alinskyand his method negate and reject morality and ethics. The denial ofhistory is an important component of the denial of ethics and morality.Alinsky writes in the dedication to Lucifer that history cannot beknown.
“…Who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which…”
Withouta knowable historical record there can be no learning from past events,and no trust in previous knowledge. The result of the denial of historyis the denial of learning, because no existing knowledge can betrusted. Denial of the capability of people to attain knowledgeand understanding from existing sources of information is a componentof nihilism. This leaves the future open to radicals andde-constructionists like Alinsky who have made a definitive break withthe past.
Theinstitutions of society, the old institutions upon which society andmorality are built, are therefore illegitimate and are to be broughtdown. This distrust in the idea of knowledge itself is a totalitarian,anti-intellectual concept.
Alinsky’sworldview is built then on new knowledge only and experience as the oldcannot be known or trusted. This shattering of old orders is completelyrevolutionary and destructive as the past is therefore inherentlyunworthy because it cannot be trusted (myth and history are the same).The result of the rejection of the past and of knowledge can best beseen in Pol Pot’s Cambodia where knowledge and wisdom and those whopossessed such things were destroyed to make way for the revolutionaryUtopia of the Khmer Rouge.
Beginningon the day in 1975 when his guerrilla army marched silently into thecapital, Phnom Penh, Pol Pot emptied the cities, pulled families apart,abolished religion and closed schools. Everyone was ordered to work,even children. The Khmer Rouge outlawed money and closed all markets.Doctors were killed, as were most people with skills and education thatthreatened the regime. (New York Times) Therejection of morality and ethics and the embrace of total pragmatism toachieve the goal of power is characteristic of the “radical” Lucifer sorespected by Alinsky. It is not important to Alinsky that Lucifer isthe embodiment of the idea of evil and opposition to good; what mattersis that Alinsky sees Lucifer as effective; the trains always run ontime when Satan runs the show. Effectiveness and success are divorcedfrom issues of morality and ethics; success is its own morality forAlinsky and his followers.
Moralityand ethics have no value for the "radical" who wants to overturn theinstitutions of society and save the world. Alinsky was a Utopiandreamer who turned his formidable intellect to de-construction andremoved morality from the equation for operational purposes. There canbe no place for morality and ethics when the world must be transformedto a Utopia – for Alinsky and his followers this purpose is superioreven to any "supreme being" and the morality and ethics which may haveoriginated from such a being.
Infact, this rejection of accepted morality means that anything goes; any"action" is acceptable if it destroys or undermines the "status quo"and brings “change.” This is radical anti-stability for the sake ofUtopianism.
TheAlinsky puddle-deep “philosophy” is incredibly dangerous because itelevates “struggle” and “change” over humanity, individuals, andinstitutions that, while they may be flawed (but can be improved) mustbe destroyed simply because they are institutions. This isanti-intellectualism and a denial of context and history which resultsin what can only be endless agitation, conflict, and de-construction.This is a philosophy of a great cosmic vacuum in which stability andquality are sucked up forever until there is only "struggle."
Utopiansbelieve themselves above morality and ethics because there can be nogreater purpose than theirs – the creation of Utopia. Utopianstherefore consider their opponents evil.
The cruelty of Utopians toward their enemies is easily understood.
“Overand over again, the firebrand revolutionary freedom fighter is thefirst to destroy the rights and even the lives of the next generationof rebels.
Butrecognizing this isn't cause for despair. All life is warfare, and it'sthe continuing fight against the status quo that revitalizes society,stimulates new values and gives man renewed hope of eventual progress.”(Alinsky interview) Utopianismis at the foundation of Soviet Communism, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao'sChina, Hitler's Germany, etc. We have seen in history that Utopianideologies resulted in the greatest toll of death of innocents in humanhistory. Jihad and its hundreds of millions of victims is a Utopianeffort to bring the world out of jahiliya (non-belief, ignorance) intodar al-Islam (the purview of Islam's deity, Allah). The amorality and moral degradation of Utopianism is one of our greatest threats. DavidHorowitz' excellent recently published pamphlet "Barack Obama's Rulesfor Revolution: The Alinsky Model" offers keen insights into Alinskyand what it might mean when Alinsky followers are in positions ofpower. The conclusions he reaches are not pleasant but are borne out bycurrent events, public utterances of the president, his history, andthe work of Alinsky himself.
Whatwe are seeing is the most radical President in our country’s historywho is unable to govern because governing is not his purpose. The Alinskyite, ever the destroyer of institutions, cannot govern because governments and societies are built upon institutions.
Thecold war is over - but now it is being fought anew under a new name inthe halls of our national centers of political power under themulti-colored banner: "Hope and Change." The promotion of socialismthough socialized medicine, the constant bowing to foreign leaders, andapologizing for American actions across the world and a new detentewith traditional enemies and abandonment of and hostility totraditional friends is evidence that agitation and de-construction isthe goal of the present administration.
Asmall article appeared in the Boston Globe just after the conclusion ofthe Democratic National Convention in Denver. It was written by SaulAlinsky's son.
"ALLTHE elements were present: the individual stories told by real peopleof their situations and hardships, the packed-to-the rafters crowd, thecrowd's chanting of key phrases and names, the action on the spot oftexting and phoning to show instant support and commitment to jump intothe political battle, the rallying selections of music, the setting ofthe agenda by the power people. The Democratic National Convention hadall the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style.
BarackObama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers isshowing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and themethod of my late father always works to get the message out and getthe supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully,it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it reallyhappen. Obama learned his lesson well.
Iam proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being appliedsuccessfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democraticcampaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approachhis 100th birthday." (Boston Globe, 8/31/08) While Mr. Alinsky relished the fact that Mr. Obama had learned his father’s "radical lessons,
"we should not be so sanguine. The anti-morality of Alinsky has broughtour national political discourse to a breaking point. This is good forthe true believers of Alinsky but bad for those who love liberty,democracy, and the future growth and stability of the United States andthe prosperity and security of ourselves and our friends. Utopianslive in a fantasy realm outside of context and history, as if historyand its cycles and challenges do not apply to them. Mr. Obama is atwar, but not in the way that you might expect.
Our presidentdoes not appear to be seriously interested in war in Iraq orAfghanistan, these are but distractions to the main issue which is thehomeland. With his oath of office taken on Abraham Lincoln's personalbible the American people thought that the long circle of racism hadfinally been closed with Obama'sinauguration, but it is not so. We thought that we had entered a newera of openness, bi-partisanship, and post-racialism. It is not so; notsince Jefferson Davis has an American president been so divisive. TheCivil War allusion to Lincoln is appropriate but it is not accurate,our leadership is purposefully divisive because they are Utopiansfirst, Americans second, third, or fourth, or fifth. We live in a timeof disunity and radicalism foisted upon us by our leadership. This isnot the future for which Abraham Lincoln had labored. “Amajority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations,and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinionsand sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoeverrejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimityis impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, iswholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchyor despotism in some form is all that is left.”
“Weare not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passionmay have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mysticchords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot graveto every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, willyet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely theywill be, by the better angels of our nature. (Lincoln, 1st Inaugural Address) “Withmalice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right asGod gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work weare in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall haveborne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which mayachieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and withall nations.” (Lincoln, 2nd Inaugural Address) Welive in a time of unprecedented domestic upheaval and not any that hasbeen brought upon us by circumstances or international conflagrationsbut because our Alinsky-influenced, post-modern leadership believesthat conflict and struggle is the path to human evolution.
TheObama administration is the embodiment of the failure of politicsbecause it is not about politics - politics involves concession andcompromise - it is about victory at any cost. The American peopleexpected hope and change, as that is what they voted for but what theyreally wanted was stability and prosperity.
"ThusAlinsky begins his text by telling readers exactly what a radical is.He is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer. In hisown mind the radical is building his own kingdom, which to him is akingdom of heaven on earth. Since a kingdom of heaven built by humanbeings is a fantasy - and impossible dream- the radical's only realworld efforts are those which are aimed at subverting the society helives in. He is a nihilist.
Thisis something that conservatives generally have a hard timeunderstanding. As a former radical, I am constantly asked how radicalscould hate America and why they would want to destroy a society thatcompared to others is tolerant, inclusive and open, and treats allpeople with a dignity and respect that is the envy of the world. Theanswer to the this question is that radicals are not comparing Americato other real world societies. They are comparing America to the heavenon earth - the kingdom of social justice and freedom - they think theyare building. And compared to this heaven even America is hell." (Horowitz, pp.16-17, Barack Obama's Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model) TheUnited States was founded upon the concept that “the people” rule notthe elites; that is why there are checks and balances built into oursystem of government. The Alinsky followers, now that they hold thelevers of power, are seeing a popular opposition to their endlessagitations. The rise of the Alinskyites has been a rude awakening formost Americans, but it has also energized a vocal opposition.
We must return to our roots, our moral, ethical and legal roots, Constitution and Bill of Rights. We must see ourselves in an historical context which the Harvard and Yale dhimmisin positions of authority will not. Our culture and our country are ofgreat value and are worth protecting and saving. We live in a confused time,but the confusion is clearing away; it is clearing away throughknowledge and understanding of the motivations of those in power. TheAlinsky ideology of nihilism and deconstruction must be repudiated.Those who are his sycophants and fellow travelers must be exposed andshamed for waging war on their own country and their own people in thename of Utopianism and endless struggle.
Ourpurpose is to learn through the slow, but sound, evolutionary processof trial and error, and to preserve the Constitution its sovereigntyover this great land. If our leaders do not concur, if they seek toshortcut the natural process or disrupt the rule of law, they must bevoted out or impeached.
SaulAlinsky's message resonated heavily with many intellectuals andactivists of the 70s and 80s including Hillary Clinton and BarrackHussein Obama. Our people naively voted for Mr. Obama and his party.Mr. Obama's agenda is clearly built upon Mr. Alinsky's model andmethod. Mr. Obama taught seminars in this method; he is a truebeliever. The message is that the United States is corrupt and must bede-constructed so that the power can rest with the people. But, italready does.
Oursystem of democracy based upon our Constitution must be slowly andcontinually perfected, but not de-constructed or destroyed. The UnitedStates is the hope of the world;some have forgotten this, or never believed it. The American peoplebelieve it still while our academic and political elites appear to haveabandoned the idea. We believe in liberty, freedom, and tolerance, we do not believe in totalitarian barbarism like that of Islam. We are expected to preserve these freedoms and our system of Constitutional government that supports them. Thereis no utopia, and there is no better system of government in historythan what we have here in this country. Our purpose as citizens shouldbe to constantly improve it and aspire to perfect it knowing thatabsolute perfection is impossible. This is not absurd but an embrace ofconstant self-examination and improvement.
“Perfection”as a realistic political goal is a Utopian concept. Those who embraceUtopianism, like Saul Alinsky and his followers, believe that it isreal – the Utopian idea is the same as the fascist, totalitarian, andcommunist, and Islamic concept of global conquest. Utopians know what is best, those who oppose them are… evil. Ours is not a world of global fellowship, and disarmament and universal goodwill.We live in a world of challenges and threats. When we forget that thereality of humanity is the driver of the functioning of the world, weare lost in dreams. Dreamers, utopians, and fantasists do not drive theworld; they break it or are broken by it. Pragmatism without moralityand ethics to check it is amoral and leads to de-construction anddevolution. Alinsky and his followers have confused agitation withgrowth; the advancement of humanity must by necessity be driven bymorality and ethics. Pragmatism without morality and ethics leads to holocaust.
Alinskyhas no goal but endless strife, “the struggle is the victory itself,”as he says. This means that institutions must be brought down becausestability is seen as immoral in this amoral worldview. This is abizarre and corrupt ideology for any leader of a nation to embrace.
"If the radicals' utopia were actually possible, it would be criminal notto deceive, lie, and murder to advance the radical cause which is, ineffect, a redemption of mankind. If it were possible to provide everyman, woman, and child on the planet with food, shelter and clothing asa right, if it were possible to end bigotry and human conflict, whatsacrifice would not be worth it?" (Horowitz, p.45, Barack Obama's Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model) Those having a theological bent might ask where Saul Alinsky is now. The answer is best provided by him.
"Let'ssay that if there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it,I will unreservedly choose to go to hell. ...Hell would be heaven forme." (Alinsky, interview) We Americans are a people of morality and strong beliefs of our place on this planet and in history.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (John Adams, 2nd US President) “Ofall the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would thatman claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert thesegreat pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties ofmen and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,ought to respect and to cherish them.” (Washington, Farewell Address, 1796) WeAmericans believe that we have something of great value; we know it isso because we enjoy liberties that others on this earth do not; we knowit is so because so many immigrate to our shores for the freedoms,openness, and opportunity that this country offers.
Americais no utopia, but we shall do our best to work with the concepts offreedom and good government that Jefferson, Adams, Franklin,Washington, Madison, Monroe, and all the rest left to us as theirlegacy forever.
“Ifthere is a form of government, then, whose principle and foundation isvirtue, will not every sober man acknowledge it better calculated topromote the general happiness than any other form?” (John Adams, 2nd US President) We hold this legacy as a great responsibility to ourselves and to future generations.
“Imust study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to studymathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics andphilosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture,navigation, commerce and agriculture, in order to give their children aright to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary,tapestry, and porcelain.” (John Adams, Letter to wife Abigail from Paris, 1780) Thereis no utopia but the one that we aspire to here with the superb toolswhich were left to us by our founders. We have not forgotten their giftto us, and we will make it right once again.
D.L. Adams is an analyst and historian, and a co-founder of SIOA.