Radicalism – The “Dark Side” of Liberalism
January 30, 2011 Leave a comment
“Lest we forget, an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history… 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.”
— SaulAlinsky, Rules for Radicals (1971)
The above quote from Saul Alinsky was in the dedication of his book, Rules for Radicals. Alinsky was an atheist, so he surely meant it as tongue-in-cheek hyperbole, and as a shocker to set the tone of his book. Beliefs aside, Alinsky is attracted to the concept of Lucifer. Alinsky admires the Biblical character Lucifer, or Satan, for rebelling against God, convincing angels to join him in war, and being cast out of Heaven, to torment humans and enslave their souls to serve Satan instead of God. The very concept of Satan, as a rebel against God and tormentor of souls, should be condemned by any ethical person, but Alinsky embraces it and praises it. This one quote speaks volumes about the sinister, dangerous, immoral nature of Radicalism, as Alinsky intended it to. And lest we forget, the kingdom that Lucifer “won” for himself, as Alinsky so dashingly put it, was Hell, the prison of eternal punishment, the most terrifying place possible in the entire universe, completely removed from the presence and will of God. Perhaps Mr. Alinsky is now learning the errors of his ways in his hero’s wonderful kingdom. Saul Alinsky (1909-1972) was certainly not a leader nor member of a Satanic cult, but he started his own devilish political cult. He chose the sick ploy of honoring Lucifer to illustrate the extreme and unethical nature of the Radical movement.
However, his son, L. David Alinsky, still idolizes his dead radical father (as President Obama idolizes his dead socialist, anti-Western father), and praised Obama for following Saul Alinsky’s teachings. Take a look at his letter to the editor of the Boston Globe, after the democratic convention of 2008: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2008/08/31/son_sees_fathers_handiwork_in_convention/?s_campaign=8315 Note that the son has glowingly whitewashed his father’s teachings, never using the word “Radical”, even though that is the keyword Alinsky proudly used for himself.
“Radical,” as the word is used by Alinsky, is not some generic term for passionate activists of any ilk. It is his term for liberals who have advanced to the next level of political action, abandoning any shreds of morality or ethics that they were clinging to. The Radical is at war, the goal is power, and any means is justified to seize power from his enemies, including intimidation, threats, lying, misrepresenting oneself, character assassination, causing riots, throwing bombs, vandalism, and perhaps even murder. Alinsky did not specifically endorse causing riots, throwing bombs, vandalism and murder, but it is clear from his writings that, in private, he and his Radical comrades would wink at these tactics in the pursuit of power against the Haves, in the name of the Have-Nots. That is what he calls the rich and poor, without any regard for how they got that way.
Extreme Radical groups have used or called for these violent tactics, such as the Weathermen http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/weatherunderground/movement.html, those violent fools who were as likely to blow themselves up as their enemies, the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) http://www.academia.org/left-wing-violence-exposed/, those Radical students whose last concern was democracy, the Black Panthers http://cofcc.org/2008/10/black-panther-leader-calls-for-violence-against-whites/, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLWmo2kCa8o, those rabid black attack dogs who are filled with hate against whites, and others. The black thug in this video calls for “killing crackers and their babies.” Their close allies, the Nation of Islam, http://cofcc.org/2010/06/just-what-does-the-nation-of-islam-believe/ , believe that Allah will lead them in exterminating white people from the continent of North America. One of their leaders called upon blacks in Africa to kill all the white people there. Their revered prophet, Elijah Muhammad, wrote the book “Message to the Black Man in America” in 1965, which can be read online here http://www.archive.org/details/MessageToTheBlackmanInAmerica. In this founding book for The Nation of Islam, Elijah Muhammad taught that white people are literally devils that Allah cast out of heaven, to roam the desolate places of earth for 2000 years, degenerating into monkeys, apes and pigs. He references the Holy Koran to support this. Then he writes that, somehow, the white devils regenerated back into human form, developed a civilization, and were allowed by Allah to dominate the earth, starting in Europe. At the end of the white era, Allah will raise a black army and empower them to exterminate all the white people. Is that radical enough for you? These black Radicals have combined Radicalism with Islam and turned it into a black-worshipping, white-hating religion. The downtrodden are all the black people of the world, and the oppressors are all the white people. They reduce white people to the status of apes and pigs in their followers’ minds, so that it will be easier to kill when the time comes. If they act on their sick beliefs, they will be far more ruthless and destructive than the KKK ever was.
With all due respect (which is none), I have a theological question for the followers of Elijah Muhammad… if white people are devils cast out of heaven, forever damned by Allah, then why did so many white devils vote for Barack Obama, by the millions, to make him their President and give him power over them? Also, why would the white devil president, George W. Bush, appoint blacks to high office, including Secretary of State (twice) and Supreme Court Justice?
Traditional liberals would, of course, condemn all of the violent tactics referenced above. The average Liberal is still an ethical person, which Saul Alinsky regarded to be a liability. The Radical is unethical, immoral, hateful and very dangerous. With no ethics, a Radical is a sleazy con artist at best, and a hardened criminal at worst. Radicals want to tear down the society they live in, so that they can rebuild it in their own image. No society is perfect in equality, justice and peace, but America has the most equality, justice, and peace of any country in the world. But never mind the facts….. The Radical still sees America as an oppressive, unjust society of Haves and Have-Nots, which must be destroyed. To the Radical, any society which allows some people to earn and possess a lot more than others, should be opposed, undermined, destroyed, and rebuilt.
Does the above sound too harsh? Look at the websites above. Then consider some more quotes from Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:
On the Radical’s view of their purpose: “In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace… Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees… this means revolution.” (page 3)
On the Radical’s view of Communism, a close ally: “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 then finally the last stage – the political paradise of communism.” (page 10)
On the Radical’s view of Means and Ends: “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 [Radical] views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other [ethical] 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 their will work… the real arena is corrupt and bloody.” (page 24)
“The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means…” (page 29)
“The seventh rule… is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics…” (page 34)
“The tenth rule… is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments… if weapons are needed, then are appropriate weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly…” (page 36)
“The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization…All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new.” (page 116)
“An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent, rub raw the resentments of the people, fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression.”
“One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” (page 134) In other words, demonize your enemies so more people will oppose them. The Black Panthers and Nation of Islam heartily agree with this tactic, as documented a few paragraphs above. Another example of demonizing your opponent, in an unethical manner, is illustrated by a story from Sanford Horwitt, in his biography of Saul Alinsky, Let Them Call Me Rebel:
“College student activists in the 1960’s and 1970’s sought out Alinsky for advice about tactics and strategy. In 1972 at Tulane University… 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. 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. 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 KKK supports Bush.” And that is what the students did with very successful, attention-getting results.”
Note how unethical this tactic was. The students were not members of the KKK, so they were maliciously misrepresenting themselves, and also misrepresenting the KKK in a fraudulent way. It did not matter to Alinsky that the Vietnam War was not a race war, nor did it matter who George Bush actually was or what he believed. George Bush was part of the Nixon Administration, the radical’s enemy, so he was to be demonized. Therefore, Alinsky advised the students to seize any weapon, in this case a great symbol of racial hatred, the KKK, and falsely associate George Bush with it. If America’s cause in Vietnam is supported by the KKK, then its cause is evil and America is evil. If George Bush is associated with the KKK, then George Bush is evil. He has been rendered a non-person by this unethical tactic. It did not even matter what George Bush actually said in his speech. All that mattered was that the KKK was there cheering him. But the KKK was not actually there, just a motley group of unethical, lying students following Alinsky’s unethical advice.
It is clear from Alinsky’s writings and work that the Radical has no ethics, and that the Radical movement attracts unethical people. Ethical people may foolishly agree with the Radical’s goal, but they would not agree with any of the Radical’s means of achieving that goal. Liberals share the Radical utopian goals of complete equality, justice, and peace, but in the Radical view, Liberals are hampered and mired because of their ethics. Liberals don’t like the unethical means that Radicals use to achieve their mutual ends. As a result, Alinsky had complete contempt for Liberals. In his first book, Reveille for Radicals, he wrote: “While liberals are most adept a breaking their own necks with their tongues, radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of conservatives.” When Alinsky would ask his new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with selfless liberal slogans about wanting to help others. Alinsky would then scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: Power! You want to organize for power! (Ryan Lizza, The New Republic).
The Radical’s goal could be considered to be noble and ethical, but it is a fantasy; a perfect democratic society in which there are no poor people and no rich people. Everyone gets food, housing, transportation and health care, whether they pay for it or not, whether they work for it or not. So work is optional, and there is no incentive to excel at work, for if you make more money, the excess will be taken away from you to help those “less fortunate.” This requires a strong government with lots of guns and confiscatory tax rates, to take from the rich and give to the poor, to enforce the Radical’s rigid views of equality and justice. There is no concern for merit, or morality, or ethics. The Radical does not care if someone deserves help or not, does not care if someone is poor as a direct result of their own laziness, bad judgment, and poor choices. If anything, the Radical’s perfect society rewards laziness, bad judgment, and stupid choices, while it punishes hard work, good judgment, and wise choices. Anyone who is able to accumulate excess money is labeled as evil, and the excess will be taken away. This is immoral and insane. No society could survive with such conditions, but that is how the Radical thinks society should be run. It is how President Obama thinks society should be run. He also wants to “take from the rich and give to the poor.” He followed the Radical principles of Alinsky when he worked as a “community organizer” in Chicago. But in a Radical-governed society, there will eventually be no rich people to take from, because there is no incentive for them to accumulate excess wealth, because it will be taken from them. Eventually everyone will be poor, except the government and its leaders, who will be the most ruthless Radicals. This is no different than what has happened in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Cambodia, Laos, Burma, Vietnam, and North Korea.
The ethical Liberal may groan and say, “there you go again, equating Liberals and Radicals with Communism….. it is not the same.” But the underlying philosophy of Radicalism and Communism IS the same. The labels are different, but both of them depict the history of civilization as a war between rich and poor, and depict the rich as the evil enemy of the innocent poor. Both of them want to confiscate the wealth of the rich, destroy the upper class, and remake society according to their doctrine. They are both essentially unethical, willing to lie, misrepresent, mislead, and willing to destroy the reputation or livelihood of their enemies any way they can. The only essential difference between Radicalism and Communism, is the degree of violence they will employ in seeking their power, and the degree of violence they will employ after they gain power. Radicals stage riots and throw a few bombs; Communists stage massive purges and throw millions in prisons or concentration camps. We have yet to see what Radicals will do in America if they gain decisive, irresistible power. We must ensure that they never get the chance to show us what they will do.
The Alinsky Radical’s enemy that must be eliminated is the wealthy, the powerful, the upper class who he call the “Haves”, who supposedly oppress, cheat and rule the “Have-Nots”. Even though America is already a democracy of basically equal opportunity by law, to the Radical it is really a “Have” society, which oppresses the “Have-Nots”. Alinsky explains this false premise in his book as his gospel: “The setting for the drama of change has never varied. Mankind has been and is divided into the Haves, the Have-Nots, and Have-a-Little, Want Mores.” (Rules for Radicals, page 18) This is just a rehash of Karl Marx, whose Communist Manifesto famously begins with: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another…” This was toxic garbage when Marx wrote it, and toxic garbage when Alinsky wrote it about 100 years later.
David Horowitz explains further in his 2009 booklet Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution – the Alinsky Model: “The idea that the world is divided into the Haves and the Have-Nots, the exploiters and the exploited, the oppressors and the oppressed, leads directly to the idea that liberation lies in the elimination of the former and the dissolution of the conflict. This, according to Radicals, will lead to the liberation of mankind. In fact, it led directly to the deaths of over 100 million people in the last century, murdered by Radicals (communists) in power on the way to their dream… In the myth created by Marx, which all Radicals continue to believe, the market system is a zero sum game where one man’s gain is another man’s loss. Because the Haves will defend what they have and thus deprive the Have-Nots of what they want, they must be destroyed before justice can be achieved. That is why Radicals are organized for war – a deceptive guerilla war to begin, and a total war to end.”
David Horowitz continues, to explains the error of the Radical view of society: “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, no Haves and Have-Nots and no need for revolution. The same is truer and even more obvious where racial minorities and women are concerned. In the last decade America has had a black president, two black secretaries of state, three women secretaries of state, a chief law enforcement officer who is black, and so on. No slave or serf ever held such positions, or could. The radical creed is a religious myth – the most destructive religious myth in the history of mankind.”
David Horowitz corrects the destructive Radical myth: “It is true that there are some Haves – that is individuals who have inherited wealth and merely have it. In other words, there are individuals who are not active investors creating more wealth for themselves and others. There are also some Have-Nots – people who were born to nothing and because of character or social dysfunction have no way of changing their circumstances. But it is false to describe our social and economic divisions in these terms, or to imply that there immovable barriers to individuals that prevent them from bettering themselves and increasing their wealth. If there is social mobility, if a person can move from one rung of the economic or social ladder to the next, there is no hierarchy and there is no justification for the Radical war.“
“In the real world of American democracy, social and economic divisions are between the Cans and the Can-Nots, the Dos and the Do-Nots, the Wills and the Will-Nots. The vast majority of wealthy Americans, as a matter of empirical fact, are first generation wealthy and have created what they possess. In the process of creating wealth for themselves, they have created wealth for hundreds and sometimes thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of others. But to describe the wealthy as wealth earners and wealth creators – that is, to describe them accurately – is to explode the whole religious fantasy that gives meaning to Radical lives, inspires the Radical’s war, and has been the source of the most repressive regimes and the greatest social disasters in the history of mankind.”
Radicals cannot be made to see the above points of logic highlighted by Horowitz, so they continue to wage their hateful, unethical war against American society. They seek to destroy capitalist society, but they have only a vague idea of how they will replace it. They have no expertise to protect the country from hostile attack, for they are pacifists and isolationists. They have no superior plan for keeping people from committing crimes against each other; no magical motivation to get lazy people to work hard to produce what their family needs; no incentives that will motivate people to produce excess wealth, which is after all the capital wealth that is necessary to manufacture the products that everyone needs and wants. Capitalism is a necessary component of any successful society, but Radicals call capitalism evil. They want to destroy it, but they do not know how to replace it. All attempts to replace it before have failed, in Communist countries. The Soviet Union fell without capitalism, and the People’s Republic of China is surviving only because they have moderated their communism, embraced capitalism, and are now beating us at our own game, with an expanding middle class, while our middle class is shrinking. Radicals ignore all this history, and still call capitalism evil, and are still trying to destroy it. Doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result, is a definition of insanity. In their insane war against capitalism, Radicals in the government are doing great harm to our country, and I don’t know if America will be able to recover from it.
It could be said, and has been said many times, that all politicians are corrupt, or immoral, or unethical. This negative chestnut is simply not true. Even if it is true that most politicians are corrupt, many politicians are not corrupt. But when politicians arise out of an extreme movement, Radicalism, that condemns ethical thinking and behavior in its followers, that demands the use of unethical tactics to attack and destroy all its opponents, that will do anything to gain power, these politicians are guaranteed to be corrupt, unethical, and dangerous. They are very skilled at lying, and very skilled at putting on grand acts to conceal who they really are. When a politician is found to be a Radical, every ethical voter of every party should vote against him or her, or at least stop voting for them. Radicals are everyone’s enemy, like a rabid dog that bites anyone it sees.
Radicals have been working their way into our government for at least 40 years, under the cover of liberal and “progressive” movements. Their agenda should have been widely exposed by media and all journalists, but it was not. Their unethical philosophy should be common knowledge to the average American, but it is not. The alarm should have been raised on all sides of politics about these unethical Radicals using ethical Liberalism as cover, to get into the government and gain the power to change it to socialism/Marxism, to cripple America, and to intimidate or destroy their opponents if necessary. The alarm was not raised until recently, and in the case of Barack Obama, it was too late.
So now, incredibly, we have such an extreme Radical politician in the White House, for Barack Obama is or was a student of Radicalism and follower of Saul Alinsky in Chicago. As a community organizer there, he learned and taught these unethical Radical principles, which he can never admit publicly. He also has a strong anti-imperialist, anti-American doctrine, which he picked up from his liberal mother, his socialist African father and family in Kenya, his Indonesian step-father, his grandfather in Hawaii, his college professors, and others. This also he can never admit publicly, but the glaring signs are there in his books, his speeches, his comments, and his prejudicial behavior to other nations as President.
For more discussion of our President, his disturbing past, and his apparent current agenda, see the first article in this blog. Scroll down below, or click on the archives at upper right.