Beck, Alinsky, Satan and MeSeriously, Rules for Radicals is a mess. Or rather, the author is a mess. He doesn't seem to have any goals except "revolution" every generation. He's big on "change" too....and like his protegé, never quite manages to explain, "into what".
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 Hillary-Soros generation of johnny-come-lately radicals and their ACORN footsoldiers Alinksy is their Sun-Tzu and hi's 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 readers of the NewsrealBlog serially over the next week.
For this first post (which I am also posting here), 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 here 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 conservatives have a very hard time understanding. Conservatives in my experience are all together 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. 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 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's a fraud -- an instrument of the ruling class, or as Alinsky prefers to call it, 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, is a means of creating a system that serves the Have-Nots -- social justice. Until conservatives begin to understand exactly how dishonest radicals 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 who would 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 calling themselves Communists, socialists, new leftists, liberals and most consistently progressives. My parents who were card-carrying Communists and their friends never referred to themselves as Communists but always as "progressives." The Progressive Party which was run by the Communist Party and split off from the Democrats in 1948 (because Harry Truman opposed Stalin), 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 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.
He disdains people who are not perpetually political. He confuses "revolution" with "evolution". And blithely insists that every time a civilization gets destroyed something "better" is built in it's place.
Guy obviously didn't read much history.
He is an ignoramus. A pretentious, condescending, intellectually dishonest, unschooled, illogical destroyer pretending to be a benefactor of mankind.
Reading his spew is giving me a headache. But it sure opens a window on the wunderkind and his posse.
I can't really recommend it. But it'd probably be a good idea to read it.
Know Thy Enemy.
The Gunslinger
Enemy of the Imperial State (EOTIS)
G.S.,
ReplyDeleteYou had a typo. That should have been ignorANUS. One who is ignorant and an asshole as well.
Have read the basic tenets of his little book somewhere on the web in summary format, and it appears so have others. I have seen some of his tactics used against the statists lately at these town halls and other events by our side and the libs don't like the taste of their own medicine. Not one little bit and it has them worried. Just look at the negative feedback from our non-representing representatives (reprehensibles) and the lame stream meadia for confirmation of this. For the longest time they thought that outrage and public demonstraitons were a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party. No longer.
Maybe our side needs to embrace even more of these tactics. We've been too nice for too long and it has brought us to this point. Two can play this game.
A. Nonny Mouse
There is that other saying; fight fire with fire. I find it amazing that they don't like it at all when their own tactics are used agaisnt them. We're the ones with the brains; proven by the fact that we use reason and logic instead of emotion and rhetoric when engaged in argument. They will fail because other than their outrage they offer no solutions except entitlement. They are scared now becaue they didn't think they would face this much resistance. So, we can't ease up now. We must keep the heat on.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the typos. My keyboard is possessed.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.badeagle.com/2009/08/18/guns-for-barry-setting-the-nazi-stage/#comments..........Interesting,and don't be surprised if it doesn't come to pass (the phony assassination attempt).
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Obama, H. Clinton and others thought highly of this character says even more about THEM than it does about him.
ReplyDeleteYep...like I said, "Know The Enemy"
ReplyDeleteThe pieces I've read strike me as a good manual for what Vanderboegh calls praxis. Certainly the techniques outlined have been wonderfully effective, up till now.
ReplyDeleteIt remains to be seen how well they will work for the party in power.
And Horowitz is right: there is no plan, no goal, no principle, beyond a call for action, right now, this minute, comrades! Do something, anything, that upsets the status quo.
Goldberg outlined the history of this in Liberal Fascisim. That book is truly frightening; it's completely changed the way I interpret what I see and hear.
And Horowitz is right: there is no plan, no goal, no principle, beyond a call for action, right now, this minute, comrades! Do something, anything, that upsets the status quo.
ReplyDeleteYes. The status quo is determined to be "bad" under any circumstances. Enough is never enough. More is always necessary. There are no goals, there is only "process" for these barbarians whose lives are spent attacking civilization.