“Lucifer…the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom.”
~ from Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky’s book dedication to Lucifer
This article is not a political statement on Newt Gingrich. I am taking no sides until after the Primary, but a Newsday piece about Newt infuriated me because it was a sample of the type of propaganda used by the worst dictatorships in the world.
Just so you know, on this subject, there is collusion by reporters on the left and that is why this is so important to talk about. The Christian Science Monitor has a similar piece and I can give you endless numbers of sites with the same disingenuous accusations.*
Remember this name – Bob Keeler – he is an editorial writer for Newsday on Long Island and he manipulates his readers with his very big megaphone.
On February 1st, he wrote a piece called, “What Newt doesn’t tell us about Saul Alinsky.” What he should have called it is, “I am a master of propaganda and am about to feed some to the readers.”
To paraphrase Keeler, he said that we shouldn’t worry about Alinsky because he’s dead! Well, yes, but so is Hitler, and so is Stalin, and Lenin, and Marx, but their ideologies have grown in magnitude with their deaths and people are still trying to excuse them and make their views workable.
I am by no means saying Alinsky is to be compared with these people. Alinsky was not that. I only want to make my point in the strongest terms possible.
Keeler set up a straw man immediately with the statement, “First, you need not fear the man [Alinsky] himself. He is, after all, dead.” He later uses the same statement about Alinsky being dead to prove that Alinsky’s marvelous goals live on.
Keeler then goes on to manipulate the reader hinting that Newt is an anti-semite using zero facts, only an insidious insinuation.
Keeler surmised that no one knows who Alinsky is so why would Newt evoke his name to make people “tremble?” Keeler continues, “…Is it scary because it sounds Russian? Or is it simply that it sounds Jewish? Alinsky’s family was both. But wait. Gingrich calls himself a friend of Israel. So why would he use a code phrase that evokes Jewishness? Nah, that can’t be it.”
Damn right that can’t be it!!! In all his years as a leader, despite complaints that he can be erratic, Newt has never once diverged from his support of Israel. He is the only one who has said, this past week in fact, that one of his first acts will be to open the embassy in Jerusalem and recognize it as the capital of Israel. That is something that all previous Presidents have shied away from doing. Newt has made it clear that he will not let Iran get the nuclear bomb.
Keeler then goes on comparing Alinsky’s methods to those used by religious organizations. Keeler emphasizes Alinsky’s work for the poor, and he takes one of Alinksy’s more innocent quotes to prove the man’s depth of patriotism, “If we want democracy to have legs, we have to be in the public square, putting our interests on the table.” Keeler then goes on to say that even though Alinsky is dead, his wonderful ideals live on.
Did Alinsky care about the poor and bigotry? Absolutely! He made this his life’s work, and I applaud him for that. However, he believed that the end justified almost any means, certainly deceit was encouraged.
By the way, I question Alinsky’s Jewish credentials since he was an Atheist and dedicated his book, Rules for Radicals, to Lucifer with snide irony, calling Lucifer the first organizer.
I only know about Saul Alinsky by chance. I was a Democrat at the time and Hillary Clinton was expressing her admiration for the man. Saul Alinsky was indeed concerned about the plight of the poor and wanted them to have the power to control their destiny. People like to say he was a supporter of the middle class, but that is not the case unless they were the unionized lower middle class. If Alinsky stopped there, I’d be fine with him, but he didn’t.
Saul Alinsky, while claiming to be a leader of the non-socialist left, was a promoter of redistribution of the wealth. His tactics ignored morality as long as the job got done.
Think of the OWS and their “setting the police up” and read one of Alinsky’s quotes, “…the job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy.’ He wanted his “organizers” to look victimized and use it against the establishment.
The OWS are using his tactics. Ask yourself, are you pleased with those tactics?
The following is another example of what I mean. After organizing FIGHT (an acronym for Freedom, Independence [subsequently Integration], God, Honor, Today) in Rochester, New York, Alinsky once threatened to stage a “fart in” to disrupt the sensibilities of the city’s establishment at a Rochester Philharmonic concert. FIGHT members were to consume large quantities of baked beans after which, according to author Nicholas von Hoffman, ‘FIGHT’s increasingly gaseous music-loving members would hie themselves to the concert hall where they would sit expelling gaseous vapors with such noisy velocity as to compete with the woodwinds.’ Satisfied with the reaction to his threat, Alinsky would later threaten a ‘piss in’ at Chicago O’Hare Airport. Alinsky planned to arrange for large numbers of well dressed African Americans to occupy the urinals and toilets at O’Hare for as long as it took to bring the city to the bargaining table. According to Alinsky, once again the threat alone was sufficient to produce results. (Wiki)
Does this remind you of the recent incident in which OWS showered Catholic School girls with condoms? Are you okay with that?
Alinsky was a revolutionary. Make no mistake about that. He only saw the poor and the seamy side of life and called for revolution to redistribute all the unfair economic oppression from the poor to the oppressors. People will claim Alinsky wasn’t a socialist but he was a Marxist who called for a revolution to bring about social justice of the socialist kind.
Alinsky established the tactics of infiltration and confrontation that have become key for all revolutionary political movements in the United States in recent decades.
Alinsky was friends with Al Capone – Alinsky was pure Chicago thug.
Ryan Lizza, senior editor of The New Republic, offers a glimpse into Alinsky’s personality: “Charming and self-absorbed, Alinsky would entertain friends with stories — some true, many embellished — from his mob days for decades afterward. He was profane, outspoken, and narcissistic, always the center of attention despite his tweedy, academic look and thick, horn-rimmed glasses.”
Lizza further states –
“Alinsky was deeply influenced by the great social science insight of his times, one developed by his professors at Chicago: that the pathologies of the urban poor were not hereditary but environmental. This idea, that people could change their lives by changing their surroundings, led him to take an obscure social science phrase—‘the community organization’–and turn it into, in the words of Alinsky biographer Sanford Horwitt, ‘something controversial, important, even romantic.’ His starting point was a near-fascination with John L. Lewis, the great labor leader and founder of the CIO. What if, Alinsky wondered, the same hardheaded tactics used by unions could be applied to the relationship between citizens and public officials?”
When Alinsky used the word “organizing,” he meant “revolution.” His goal was to cause moral confusion, chaos, and discontent to bring about a societal upheaval that would end up in a fundamental transformation in which the economic and political power would go from the rich and upper middle class to the poor. He wanted to rid the world of vice and thought this would do it. Unfortunately, not all poor people are nice or worthy either. We are all imperfect.
Alinsky was not a liberal as he himself said,
“Liberals fear power or its application.… They talk glibly of people lifting themselves by their own bootstraps but fail to realize that nothing can be lifted except through power…. Radicals precipitate the social crisis by action — by using power…. Liberals protest; radicals rebel. Liberals become indignant; radicals become fighting mad and go into action. Liberals do not modify their personal lives[,] and what they give to a cause is a small part of their lives; radicals give themselves to the cause. Liberals give and take oral arguments; radicals give and take the hard, dirty, bitter way of life.”
Alinsky believed in asking loaded questions and when asked if this was manipulation, he instantly answered, “Certainly.” But it was manipulation toward a desirable end.
Alinsky believed in lying and manipulation to achieve his goals because of course his views and his goals were the right ones. His tactics disable and disarm, distorting peoples’ values and pushing them into becoming “useful idiots.” Read more: Who is Saul Alinsky?
Saul Alinsky did not believe in anyone taking responsibilty. He whines throughout his book about the injustices and promotes deceit in the name of retribution and redistribution.
Without morals, Alinsky fervently promotes the concept of the end justifying the means regardless of ethical considerations. This quote from Bertrand Russell is in Rules for Radicals, “…obviously nothing has any value as a means unless that to which it is a means has value on its own account. It follows that intrinsic value is logically prior to value as means.”
No, sorry it does not follow at all.
Another quote, “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.” Certainly, if it is moral and truthful, it does not need to be clothed.
Alinsky’s reason for being is the “end.” To quote him again, “If we think of the struggle as a climb up a mountain, then we must visualize a mountain with no top. [Like Sisyphis we are] pushing a boulder up an endless mountain.”
Read the book and you decide if this is what you subscribe too.
* Here are some of the sites who connived as did Newsday to demonize Newt as an anti-semite who doesn’t recognize the value of the Marxist Saul Alinsky in their fictitious re-write of history: Forward thinking, Jew School, Red County, Jewish World Review, Sun Times, IB Times, Chicago Reader, Progressive, Christian Science Monitor, HuffPo, Chicago Tribune, Richard Silverstein, LA Times, Mediaite (this one is funny because Bill Maher apparently doesn’t know who Saul Alinsky is, uh…duh…I find that hard to believe), NY Times and the list goes on and on and on…
Are these people all of the same email list with the list of soundbites for the week?