Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Alinsky’

The following essay I regard as one of the four or five key articles every one of us should have under our belt as we go forward. Despite that it was written in Britain, it reveals more about our American situation than most things published in America. Every conservative, every Christian — indeed, everyone who feels that our society is collapsing — needs to know this truth: The current social insanity was planned. It is deliberate.

Today, in light of the Supreme Court decision that attempts to redefine marriage (and it’s only an attempt, remember, since marriage can’t be redefined, any more than 1 + 1 can be made to equal 3), this article is more important than ever.

I reprint it here in its entirety, with a few minor punctuation and spelling changes to harmonize the original British text with American usage.

 

The Frankfurt School: Conspiracy to corrupt

By Timothy Matthews

“Western civilization at the present day is passing through a crisis which is essentially different from anything that has been previously experienced. Other societies in the past have changed their social institutions or their religious beliefs under the influence of external forces or the slow development of internal growth. But none, like our own, has ever consciously faced the prospect of a fundamental alteration of the beliefs and institutions on which the whole fabric of social life rests … Civilization is being uprooted from its foundations in nature and tradition and is being reconstituted in a new organization which is as artificial and mechanical as a modern factory.”

~ Christopher Dawson,  Enquiries into Religion and Culture, p. 259.

Most of Satan’s work in the world he takes care to keep hidden. But two small shafts of light have been thrown onto his work for me just recently. The first, a short article in the Association of Catholic Women’s ACW Review; the second, a remark (which at first surprised me) from a priest in Russia who claimed that we now, in the West, live in a Communist society. These shafts of light help, especially, to explain the onslaught of officialdom which in many countries worldwide has so successfully been removing the rights of parents to be the primary educators and protectors of their children.

The ACW Review examined the corrosive work of the “Frankfurt School” – a group of German-American scholars who developed highly provocative and original perspectives on contemporary society and culture, drawing on Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and Weber. Not that their idea of a “cultural revolution” was particularly new. “Until now,” wrote Joseph, Comte de Maistre (1753-1821) who for fifteen years was a Freemason, “nations were killed by conquest, that is by invasion. But here an important question arises: Can a nation not die on its own soil, without resettlement or invasion, by allowing the flies of decomposition to corrupt to the very core those original and constituent principles which make it what it is?”

What was the Frankfurt School? Well, in the days following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it was believed that workers’ revolution would sweep into Europe and, eventually, into the United States. But it did not do so. Towards the end of 1922 the Communist International (Comintern) began to consider what were the reasons. On Lenin’s initiative a meeting was organized at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow.

The aim of the meeting was to clarify the concept of, and give concrete effect to, a Marxist cultural revolution. Amongst those present were Georg Lukacs (a Hungarian aristocrat, son of a banker, who had become a Communist during World War I ; a good Marxist theoretician, he developed the idea of “Revolution and Eros” — sexual instinct used as an instrument of destruction); and Willi Münzenberg (whose proposed solution was to “organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilization stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat”). “It was,”said Ralph de Toledano (1916-2007), the conservative author and co-founder of the National Review, a meeting “perhaps more harmful to Western civilization than the Bolshevik Revolution itself.”

Lenin died in 1924. By this time, however, Stalin was beginning to look on Münzenberg, Lukacs and like-thinkers as “revisionists.” In June 1940, Münzenberg fled to the south of France where, on Stalin’s orders, a NKVD assassination squad caught up with him and hanged him from a tree.

In the summer of 1924, after being attacked for his writings by the 5th Comintern Congress, Lukacs moved to Germany, where he chaired the first meeting of a group of Communist-oriented sociologists, a gathering that was to lead to the foundation of the Frankfurt School.

This “School” (designed to put flesh on their revolutionary program) was started at the University of Frankfurt in the Institut für Sozialforschung [Institute for Social Research]. To begin with, school and institute were indistinguishable. In 1923 the Institute was officially established, and funded by Felix Weil (1898-1975). Weil was born in Argentina and at the age of nine was sent to attend school in Germany. He attended the universities in Tübingen and Frankfurt, where he graduated with a doctoral degree in political science. While at these universities he became increasingly interested in socialism and Marxism. According to the intellectual historian Martin Jay, the topic of his dissertation was “the practical problems of implementing socialism.”

Carl Grünberg, the Institute’s director from 1923-1929, was an avowed Marxist, although the Institute did not have any official party affiliations. But in 1930 Max Horkheimer assumed control and he believed that Marx’s theory should be the basis of the Institute’s research. When Hitler came to power, the Institute was closed and its members, by various routes, fled to the United States and migrated to major US universities—Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley.

The School included among its members the 1960s guru of the New Left Herbert Marcuse (denounced by Pope Paul VI for his theory of liberation which “opens the way for license cloaked as liberty”), Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, the popular writer Erich Fromm, Leo Löwenthal, and Jürgen Habermas — possibly the School’s most influential representative.

Basically, the Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief — or even the hope of belief — that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the “oppressive” order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus—”continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means” as one of their members noted.

To further the advance of their “quiet” cultural revolution — but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future — the School recommended (among other things):

1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion.
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children.
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority.
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking.
7. Emptying of churches.
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime.
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits.
10. Control and dumbing down of media.
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family.

One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of “pansexualism”– the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:

• attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
• abolish differences in the education of boys and girls.
• abolish all forms of male dominance – hence the presence of women in the armed forces.
• declare women to be an “oppressed class” and men as “oppressors.”

Münzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation thus: “We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.”

The School believed there were two types of revolution: (a) political and (b) cultural. Cultural revolution demolishes from within. “Modern forms of subjection are marked by mildness.” They saw it as a long-term project and kept their sights clearly focused on the family, education, media, sex and popular culture.

The Family

The School’s “Critical Theory” preached that the “authoritarian personality” is a product of the patriarchal family — an idea directly linked to Engels’ Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, which promoted matriarchy. Already Karl Marx had written, in the Communist Manifesto, about the radical notion of a “community of women” and in The German Ideology of 1845, had written disparagingly about the idea of the family as the basic unit of society. This was one of the basic tenets of the “Critical Theory”: the necessity of breaking down the contemporary family. The Institute scholars preached that “Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change.”

Following Karl Marx, the School stressed how the “authoritarian personality” is a product of the patriarchal family—it was Marx who wrote so disparagingly about the idea of the family being the basic unit of society. All this prepared the way for the warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Marcuse under the guise of “women’s liberation” and by the New Left movement in the 1960s.

They proposed transforming our culture into a female-dominated one. In 1933, Wilhelm Reich, one of their members, wrote in The Mass Psychology of Fascism that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of “natural society.” Eric Fromm was also an active advocate of matriarchal theory. Masculinity and femininity, he claimed, were not reflections of “essential” sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought, but were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined. His dogma was the precedent for the radical feminist pronouncements that, today, appear in nearly every major newspaper and television program.

The revolutionaries knew exactly what they wanted to do and how to do it. They have succeeded.

Education

Lord Bertrand Russell joined with the Frankfurt School in their effort at mass social engineering and spilled the beans in his 1951 book, The Impact of Science on Society. He wrote: “Physiology and psychology afford fields for scientific technique which still await development.” The importance of mass psychology “has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called education. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray . When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”

Writing in 1992 in Fidelio Magazine, (“The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness”), Michael Minnicino observed how the heirs of Marcuse and Adorno now completely dominate the universities, “teaching their own students to replace reason with ‘Politically Correct’ ritual exercises. There are very few theoretical books on arts, letters, or language published today in the United States or Europe which do not openly acknowledge their debt to the Frankfurt School. The witchhunt on today’s campuses is merely the implementation of Marcuse’s concept of ‘repressive toleration’ — tolerance for movements from the left, but intolerance for movements from the right — enforced by the students of the Frankfurt School.”

Drugs

Dr. Timothy Leary gave us another glimpse into the mind of the Frankfurt School in his account of the work of the Harvard University Psychedelic Drug Project, Flashbacks. He quoted a conversation that he had with Aldous Huxley: “‘These brain drugs, mass produced in the laboratories, will bring about vast changes in society. This will happen with or without you or me. All we can do is spread the word. The obstacle to this evolution, Timothy, is the Bible.'” Leary then went on: “We had run up against the Judeo-Christian commitment to one God, one religion, one reality, that has cursed Europe for centuries and America since our founding days. Drugs that open the mind to multiple realities inevitably lead to a polytheistic view of the universe. We sensed that the time for a new humanist religion based on intelligence, good-natured pluralism and scientific paganism had arrived.”

One of the directors of the Authoritarian Personality project, R. Nevitt Sanford, played a pivotal role in the usage of psychedelic drugs. In 1965, he wrote in a book issued by the publishing arm of the UK’s Tavistock Institute: “The nation seems to be fascinated by our 40,000 or so drug addicts who are seen as alarmingly wayward people who must be curbed at all costs by expensive police activity. Only an uneasy Puritanism could support the practice of focusing on the drug addicts (rather than our 5 million alcoholics) and treating them as a police problem instead of a medical one, while suppressing harmless drugs such as marijuana and peyote along with the dangerous ones.” The leading propagandists of today’s drug lobby base their argument for legalization on the same scientific quackery spelled out all those years ago by Dr. Sanford.

Such propagandists include the multi-billionaire atheist George Soros who chose, as one of his first domestic programs, to fund efforts to challenge the efficacy of America’s $37-billion-a-year war on drugs. The Soros-backed Lindesmith Center serves as a leading voice for Americans who want to decriminalize drug use. “Soros is the ‘Daddy Warbucks’ of drug legalization,” claimed Joseph Califano, Jr., of Columbia University’s National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (The Nation, Sept. 2, 1999).

Music, Television and Popular Culture

Adorno was to become head of a “music studies”unit, where in his “Theory of New Music” [what is meant here is probably Adorno’s book Philosophy of Modern Music — ed.] he promoted the prospect of unleashing atonal and other popular music as a weapon to destroy society, degenerate forms of music to promote mental illness. He said the U.S. could be brought to its knees by the use of radio and television to promote a culture of pessimism and despair — by the late 1930s he (together with Horkheimer) had migrated to Hollywood. The expansion of violent video-games also well supported the School’s aims.

Sex

In his book The Closing of the American Mind, Allan Bloom observed how Marcuse appealed to university students in the sixties with a combination of Marx and Freud. “In Eros and Civilization and One-Dimensional Man, Marcuse promised that the overcoming of capitalism and its false consciousness will result in a society where the greatest satisfactions are sexual. Rock music touches the same chord in the young. Free sexual expression, anarchism, mining of the irrational unconscious and giving it free rein are what they have in common.”

The Media

The modern media — not least, Arthur “Punch” Sulzberger, Jr., who took charge of the New York Times in 1992 — drew greatly on the Frankfurt School’s study The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper, 1950). In his book Arrogance (Warner Books, 1993), former CBS News reporter Bernard Goldberg noted of Sulzberger that he “still believes in all those old sixties notions about ‘liberation’ and ‘changing the world man’ . . . In fact, the Punch years have been a steady march down PC Boulevard, with a newsroom fiercely dedicated to every brand of diversity except the intellectual kind.”

In 1953 the Institute moved back to the University of Frankfurt. Adorno died in 1955 and Horkheimer in 1973. The Institute for Social Research continued, but what was known as the Frankfurt School did not. The “cultural Marxism” that has since taken hold of our schools and universities — that “political correctness” which has been destroying our family bonds, our religious tradition and our entire culture — sprang from the Frankfurt School.

It was these intellectual Marxists who, later, during the anti-Vietnam demonstrations, coined the phrase “make love, not war”; it was these intellectuals who promoted the dialectic of “negative” criticism; it was these theoreticians who dreamed of a utopia where their rules governed. It was their concept that led to the current fad for the rewriting of history, and to the vogue for “deconstruction.” Their mantras: “sexual differences are a contract; if it feels good, do it; do your own thing.”

In an address at the U.S. Naval Academy in August 1999, Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson, CDR USN (Ret), gave a background briefing on the Frankfurt School, reminding his audience that it was the “foot soldiers” of the Frankfurt School who introduced the “sensitivity training” techniques used in public schools over the past 30 years (and now employed by the U.S. military to educate the troops about “sexual harassment”). During “sensitivity” training, teachers were told not to teach but to “facilitate.” Classrooms became centers of self-examination where children talked about their own subjective feelings. This technique was designed to convince children they were the sole authority in their own lives.

Atkinson continued: “The ‘authoritarian personality,’ studied by the Frankfurt School in the 1940s and 1950s in America, prepared the way for the subsequent warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Herbert Marcuse and his band of social revolutionaries under the guise of “women’s liberation” and the New Left movement in the 1960s. The evidence that psychological techniques for changing personality is intended to mean emasculation of the American male is provided by Abraham Maslow, founder of Third Force Humanist Psychology and a promoter of the psychotherapeutic classroom, who wrote that, “… the next step in personal evolution is a transcendence of both masculinity and femininity to general humanness.”

On April 17th, 1962, Maslow gave a lecture to a group of nuns at Sacred Heart, a Catholic women’s college in Massachusetts. He noted in a diary entry how the talk had been very “successful,” but he found that very fact troubling. “They shouldn’t applaud me,” he wrote, “they should attack. If they were fully aware of what I was doing, they would [attack]” (Journals, p. 157).

The Network

In her booklet Sex & Social Engineering (Family Education Trust 1994) Valerie Riches observed how in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there were intensive parliamentary campaigns taking place emanating from a number of organizations in the field of birth control (i.e., contraception, abortion, sterilization). “From an analysis of their annual reports, it became apparent that a comparatively small number of people were involved to a surprising degree in an array of pressure groups. This network was not only linked by personnel, but by funds, ideology and sometimes addresses; it was also backed by vested interests and supported by grants in some cases by government departments. At the heart of the network was the Family Planning Association (FPA) with its own collection of offshoots. What we unearthed was a power structure with enormous influence.

“Deeper investigation revealed that the network, in fact, extended further afield, into eugenics, population control, birth control, sexual and family law reforms, and sex and health education. Its tentacles reached out to publishing houses, medical, educational and research establishments, women’s organizations and marriage guidance—anywhere where influence could be exerted. It appeared to have great influence over the media, and over permanent officials in relevant government departments, out of all proportion to the numbers involved.

“During our investigations, a speaker at a Sex Education Symposium in Liverpool outlined tactics of sex education saying: ‘if we do not get into sex education, children will simply follow the mores of their parents.’ The fact that sex education was to be the vehicle for peddlers of secular humanism soon became apparent.

“However, at that time the power of the network and the full implications of its activities were not fully understood. It was thought that the situation was confined to Britain. The international implications had not been grasped.

“Soon after, a little book was published with the intriguing title The Men Behind Hitler—A German Warning to the World. Its thesis was that the eugenics movement, which had gained popularity early in the twentieth century, had gone underground following the holocaust in Nazi Germany, but was still active and functioning through organizations promoting abortion, euthanasia, sterilization, mental health, etc. The author urged the reader to look at his home country and neighboring countries, for he would surely find that members and committees of these organizations would cross-check to a remarkable extent.

“Other books and papers from independent sources later confirmed this situation. . . . A remarkable book was also published in America which documented the activities of the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). It was entitled The SIECUS Circle: A Humanist Revolution. SIECUS was set up in 1964 and lost no time in engaging in a program of social engineering by means of sex education in the schools. Its first executive director was Mary Calderone, who was also closely linked to Planned Parenthood, the American equivalent of the British FPA. According to The SIECUS Circle, Calderone supported sentiments and theories put forward by Rudolph Dreikus, a humanist, such as:

· merging or reversing the sexes or sex roles;
· liberating children from their families;
· abolishing the family as we know it.”

In their book Mind Siege (Thomas Nelson, 2000), Tim LaHaye and David A. Noebel confirmed Riches’s findings of an international network. “The leading authorities of Secular Humanism may be pictured as the starting lineup of a baseball team: pitching is John Dewey; catching is Isaac Asimov; first base is Paul Kurtz; second base is Corliss Lamont; third base is Bertrand Russell; shortstop is Julian Huxley; left fielder is Richard Dawkins; center fielder is Margaret Sanger; right fielder is Carl Rogers; manager is ‘Christianity is for losers’ Ted Turner; designated hitter is Mary Calderone; utility players include the hundreds listed in the back of Humanist Manifesto I and II, including Eugenia C. Scott, Alfred Kinsey, Abraham Maslow, Erich Fromm, Rollo May and Betty Friedan.

“In the grandstands sit the sponsoring or sustaining organizations, such as . . . the Frankfurt School; the left wing of the Democratic Party; the Democratic Socialists of America; Harvard University; Yale University; University of Minnesota; University of California (Berkeley); and two thousand other colleges and universities.”

A practical example

A practical example of how the tidal wave of Maslow-think is engulfing English schools was revealed in an article in the British National Association of Catholic Families’ (NACF) Catholic Family newspaper (August 2000), where James Caffrey warned about the Citizenship (PSHE) program which was shortly to be drafted into the National Curriculum. [This would be the British equivalent of Common Core here in the U.S. – ed.] “We need to look carefully at the vocabulary used in this new subject,” he wrote, “and, more importantly, discover the philosophical basis on which it is founded. The clues to this can be found in the word ‘choice’ which occurs frequently in the Citizenship documentation and the great emphasis placed on pupils’ discussing and ‘clarifying’ their own views, values and choices about any given issue. This is nothing other than the concept known as ‘Values Clarification’–a concept anathema to Catholicism, or indeed, to Judaism and Islam.

“This concept was pioneered in California in the 1960’s by psychologists William Coulson, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. It was based on ‘humanistic’ psychology, in which patients were regarded as the sole judge of their actions and moral behavior. Having pioneered the technique of Values Clarification the psychologists introduced it into schools and other institutions such as convents and seminaries–with disastrous results. Convents emptied, religious lost their vocations and there was wholesale loss of belief in God. Why? Because Catholic institutions are founded on absolute beliefs in, for example, the Creed and the Ten Commandments. Values Clarification supposes a moral relativism in which there is no absolute right or wrong and no dependence on God.

“This same system is to be introduced to the vulnerable minds of infants, juniors and adolescents in the years 2000+. The underlying philosophy of Values Clarification holds that for teachers to promote virtues such as honesty, justice or chastity constitutes indoctrination of children and ‘violates’ their moral freedom. It is urged that children should be free to choose their own values; the teacher must merely ‘facilitate’ and must avoid all moralizing or criticizing. As a barrister commented recently on worrying trends in Australian education, ‘The core theme of values clarification is that there are no right or wrong values. Values education does not seek to identify and transmit ‘right’ values, teaching of the Church, especially the papal encyclical Evangelium Vitae.

“In the absence of clear moral guidance, children naturally make choices based on feelings. Powerful peer pressure, freed from the values which stem from a divine source, ensure that ‘shared values’ sink to the lowest common denominator. References to environmental sustainability lead to a mindset where anti-life arguments for population control are presented as being both responsible and desirable. Similarly, ‘informed choices’ about health and lifestyles are euphemisms for attitudes antithetical to Christian views on motherhood, fatherhood, the sacrament of marriage and family life. Values Clarification is covert and dangerous. It underpins the entire rationale of Citizenship (PSHE) and is to be introduced by statute into the U.K. soon. It will give young people secular values and imbue them with the attitude that they alone hold ultimate authority and judgement about their lives. No Catholic school can include this new subject as formulated in the Curriculum 2000 document within its current curriculum provision. Dr. William Coulson recognized the psychological damage Rogers’ technique inflicted on youngsters and rejected it, devoting his life to exposing its dangers. Should those in authority in Catholic education not do likewise, as ‘Citizenship’ makes its deadly approach?”

If we allow their subversion of values and interests to continue, we will, in future generations, lose all that our ancestors suffered and died for. We are forewarned, says Atkinson. A reading of history (it is all in mainstream historical accounts) tells us that we are about to lose the most precious thing we have—our individual freedoms.

Big Society

And now in Britain we see the influence of the Frankfurt School edging even further forwards in the form of the Alinsky-inspired “Big Society.”

Yet another “transformational Marxist,” Saul Alinsky (1909-1972) was a radical Chicago activist–idolized by Barack Obama–who had made a study of Antonio Gramsci’s blueprint for social transformation and avidly promoted the Frankfurt School’s strategy of the “long march through the institutions.”

[Alinsky] was convinced that the overthrow of western society should be carried out, not noisily, but with stealth and deception. It was necessary, he believed, to cultivate a down-to-earth image of pragmatism and centrism; he cultivated the rich and influential; politicians fell under his spell. He won the hearts of globalist-leaders around the world. “True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism,” Alinsky taught, “they cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within.” The trick, as he saw it, was to penetrate existing institutions: churches, unions, political parties. He even spent time in Milan with Cardinal Montini (later Pope Paul VI) at the instigation of Jacques Maritain (cf. Faithful Citizens, Austen Ivereigh, Longman & Todd)

“Change” became [Alinsky’s] battle-cry. In the opening paragraph of his book Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals (published a year before his death and dedicated to 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”), he wrote, “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

“Change” meant turning society inside out, and this would be accomplished by duping the idealistic middle classes, by winning their trust with fine-sounding phrases about morality. And all this, he declared, would come about through the work of “People’s Organizations.”

“These People’s Organizations,” wrote John Perazzo in FrontPageMagazine.com, “were to be composed largely of discontented individuals who believed that society was replete with injustices that prevented them from being able to live satisfying lives. Such organizations, Alinsky advised, should not be imported from the outside into a community, but rather should be staffed by locals who, with some guidance from trained radical organisers, could set their own agendas.”

And so it was that in the U.K. in 2009, David Cameron, apparently mesmerized by his friend Barack Obama, announced that he would help push forward the decades-long march by endorsing the Alinsky program by creating a “neighborhood army” of 5,000 full-time professional “community organizers.” Could he possibly have realized what he was doing?

In a February 2009 Investors Business Daily article entitled “Alinsky’s Rules: Must Reading In Obama Era,” Phyllis Schlafly wrote that Alinsky’s “tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends” is: “you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.” He doesn’t ignore traditional moral standards or dismiss them as unnecessary. He is much more devious; he teaches his followers that “Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means. . . .

“The organizer’s first job is to create the issues or problems,” and “organizations must be based on many issues.” The organizer “must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.”

As his fervent acolyte Hillary Clinton enthusiastically pointed out, in a 1969 Wellesley College thesis, “if the ideals Alinsky espouses were actualized, the result would be social revolution.”

Conclusion

“What we are at present experiencing,” writes Philip Trower in a letter to the author, “is a blend of two schools of thought; the Frankfurt School and the liberal tradition going back to the 18th century Enlightenment. The Frankfurt School has of course its remote origins in the 18th century Enlightenment. But like Lenin’s Marxism it is a breakaway movement. The immediate aims of both classical liberalism and the Frankfurt School have been in the main the same (vide your eleven points above) but the final end is different. For liberals they lead to ‘improving’ and ‘perfecting’ western culture, for the Frankfurt School they bring about its destruction.

“Unlike hard-line Marxists, the Frankfurt School do not make any plans for the future. (But) the Frankfurt School seems to be more far-sighted than our classical liberals and secularists. At least they see the moral deviations they promote will in the end make social life impossible or intolerable. But this leaves a big question mark over what a future conducted by them would be like.”

Meanwhile, the Quiet Revolution rolls forward.

Timothy Matthews is the editor of the British edition of Catholic Family News, a news service of the National Association of Catholic Families, in the United Kingdom. The original U.S. appearance of the article was in the Catholic weekly The Wanderer, December 11, 2008, was reprinted by CatholicInsight.com on March 17, 2009, and is still available at FreeRepublic.com. The author has since updated it, adding the “Big Society” section, which is included here.

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

An appeal to my reasonable conservative friends:

Important: if you are not reasonable and open-minded, don’t read any further. I’m not looking for “zots.” I’m looking for reasonable people who are serious about making the right choice. When I know I’ve chosen wisely, I feel at peace, without doubt in my mind, and start to get excited – like Chrissy Mathews, I get “that tingle.” How do you feel when you know you’ve made the right choice?

At this point, you’ve been following the primary race for months, and that means you are looking to make the right choice. Are you aware of how important making the right choice is in this primary process? I agree, and that’s why it is important to keep an open mind. That’s why you’ve read this far, so you might as well hear me out.

Obama has made it clear that he is pinning his reelection efforts on class warfare. So, think about whom you would want the GOP nominee to be if you were Obama, and you needed a target for class warfare? I agree – Mitt Romney. Understand that Obama uses Alinsky tactics, and Alinsky tactic 13 is “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Simply put, it is much easier to attack an organization or an idea if you can ‘put a face on it’. If you can find a single individual who both represents your opponent, and who, given the right spin, can be portrayed as the face of evil, you can use this person as a proxy for your attacks on your adversary. What face would you put on the 1%? Mitt Romney.

You may think that Mitt Romney is a great guy, and a great example of success, and I agree with some of that (and certainly applaud his success), and I would add that you should have no doubt in your mind that this is exactly what Obama will do (stick a big, fat 1% on him), and you can imagine that he is licking his chops in anticipation of doing it. If Mitt Romney is the nominee, this is what the general election will look like. Click Here. No matter what he says or how well he says it, he will not be able to shake that label. How does that make you feel about Mitt? And it doesn’t help that he has a habit of making mistakes and saying the wrong thing. Click here. Even Romney booster John McCain no longer believes Romney can win. Click Here. Moving on.

Obama’s second trick is throwing “red meat” distractions to keep us from discussing the areas where he is most vulnerable, such as economic and foreign policy. The biggest distraction so far has been the contraception controversy. And Rick Santorum took the bait- big time. Rick Santorum is a great father with great moral values, but he is also a one trick pony. Social issues are important, but he just can’t stop talking about them, and that has gotten him in a ton of trouble. The issue isn’t that he talks a lot about social policy, the issue is that he just can’t change gears quickly enough to avoid the damage caused by Obama’s intentional deceptions and sleights-of-hand. Consider how many distractions Obama will throw out there if Rick is the nominee. We’ll be talking about birth control all the way through November. By the time Rick manages to shift the debate back to Obama’s weak points, it may be too late.

Rick also tends to make serious, and very public, mistakes. For example, he loses his cool very quickly. Click Here. Cringing? He also gets confused regularly – in this instance, he gives Obama credit for CREATING jobs, publicly, on CNN! Click here. Just imagine if he makes even ONE mistake like this in the months between the nomination and the general election. Understand the very real risk with Rick. How do you feel about that, given the stakes?

Please understand that all of this is just fact, and I understand that some of you will now feel a bit disturbed and unsure at this point. But, I digress.

Newt is a flawed man, but recognize that his flaws are less subject to substantive attack. For example, Freddie and Fannie? It may be a big deal in the Republican primary, but Democrats do NOT want to go there! Yes, he’s had multiple marriages, but how many times has Rush been married? Do you still listen to Rush, at least here and there? And, of course, Democrats cannot launch credible attacks on the subject of adultery – we can go there. Before I close, I urge you to do one thing, and one thing only… please watch this video – click here. You’ve read this far, so another minute or two won’t kill you. Click here. Now, how do you feel about this man going up against Barack Obama?

The above letter from J.M. Stein at Red Side of Life is so good, as is, that I chose not to break up his text with my comments.

Indeed, Stein makes a very compelling case. But if there is still any doubt in your mind, please consider a few additional facts:

  • Besides the “1%er” card that Stein says will be played against Romney, the Democrats also have their old favorite: the race card. Mitt is a very committed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, aka the Mormons, and until 1978, Mormon theology relegated blacks to a kind of second-class membership in the church. After considerable social and political pressure, the church’s “living prophet” declared a new “revelation” changing the previous position which had been held since the church’s inception. Already, many on the Left are raising a stink about this. We can be sure that if Mitt were the nominee, this ugly issue would only get uglier — much uglier. The Democrat-Media Complex will make sure of that.
  • The issue of contraception is problematic for Santorum not only for the reason Stein explains — namely, that the Left is skillfully and shamelessly using it to sidetrack discussion away from Obama’s staggering malfeasances in both foreign and domestic policy — but also because the driving force behind Obama is the “Shadow Party” funded by George Soros, who has an obsession with population control. Soros and other Agenda 21 promoters believe that world population must be reduced by literally billions of people. Santorum, the father of seven children — one of whom has Trisomy-18, a genetic disorder for which many Leftists believe abortion to be the only appropriate response — has the Left’s bull’s-eye on his back.
  • The Left surely will demonize Newt just as viciously as they would Romney or Santorum. That’s what the Left does — to anyone who opposes them. A key difference, however, is that Newt fights back. Like the late, great Andrew Breitbart, Newt is a “happy warrior” who both understands the Left, and loves taking them on. Plus, like Breitbart, Newt understands that Big Media is every bit as much our opponent as is the Democratic Party. He is smart, articulate and confident enough to be able to answer their attacks on the spot, without hemming or hawing. People in media continually try to nail Newt with their “gotcha” questions — but they never succeed.
  • America’s survival is threatened not only by terrorism and rogue states outside our borders, but by two major enemies within: communism and radical Islam. Yet, no other candidate besides Newt even mentions Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers and George Soros. Newt is the only one who seems to recognize — or at least, will publicly say — that Obama is not a misguided incompetent with well-meaning intentions, but rather a Marxist radical who believes America is more evil than good, and who is committed to destroying the freedoms that have made America great. As for radical Islam, while Rick Santorum recognizes the threat from Iran, and is very knowledgeable on national security matters, only Newt recognizes — and openly talks aboutthe giant strides that sharia (Islamic law) has already made right here in the U.S., thanks to CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MAS, MSA and the whole alphabet soup of Muslim Brotherhood-spawned groups that, despite proven connections to Hamas and other terror groups, are presented as legitimate “moderates” in our media and have infiltrated our government at high levels, including within the Department of Homeland Security.
  • We can look around and see the perfect storm of economic collapse, national-security threats and inflamed social passions that is converging on us. America is — whether or not we yet realize it — in as much danger now as Britain was in the spring of 1940. Almost too late, the British people finally recognized that Winston Churchill — whom they’d previously despised as “impulsive” and “arrogant,” whom they’d castigated for his “poor judgment” and “grandiose ideas” — was actually the best man, perhaps the only man, who could lead them through the crisis. I’m not saying Newt is Churchill — but having studied Churchill, I am struck by the remarkable parallels between the two. Just as Churchill saw who Hitler really was long before most of his countrymen woke up, Newt understands the dangers to America that many people have so far been unable or unwilling to see. Newt will help open their eyes — because, like Churchill, Newt has a gift for explaining things in ways people can understand. Just as importantly, Newt has the bulldog tenacity and unabashed can-do attitude that the nation needs in its leader if we are to make it through the tough times ahead. As we saw so clearly during the South Carolina debate — when standing ovations kept erupting as Newt spoke — Newt has, as Churchill did, the power to inspire.

Read Full Post »

As the ruckus in Madison, WI, goes on and on and ON, I think it would be useful to step back and take a look at the big picture.  You may have heard of the Cloward-Piven strategy, which is to so overwhelm “the system” that it collapses — at which point the fundamental restructuring of society that socialists desire can theoretically take place. (In reality, what always happens is chaos followed by tyranny.)

Allen West has often said that conservatives need to be familiar with Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. We have to know the enemy’s strategy if we want to counter and defeat it.

Toward that end, I would like to offer some wisdom from David Kupelian, from his book How Evil Works. As the level of noise and rancor keeps escalating in Wisconsin — and as the agitators keep trying to disguise their real motives from the public — I’ve thought often of what Kupelian says in a section titled “Using Lies to Create a Crisis”:

One of the most creative uses of lying — and a key tactic for bending a population to your will — is the creation of a crisis.

…[M]aybe you’ve heard of the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” — inspired by left-wing radical organizer Saul Alinsky, whose methods Barack Obama adopted — which openly advocates the creation of crises to destroy capitalist society. This is how socialist progress is achieved “peacefully”: through conflict or crisis, which always is resolved in the direction of greater socialism.

The problem is, this “crisis creation” talk just sounds so crazy, so foreign to us, that it’s hard to believe our fellow human beings, no matter how confused or deluded, could actually engage in such a practice. But it’s not only true, it’s actually a common part of everyday life.

Consider this nonpolitical example and note how it illustrates the power of a crisis to mold people to the deceiver’s will: In one child abduction case, a little girl was approached after school by a man she didn’t know. He claimed her house was burning down, that her parents were busy putting out the fire, and that he was a friend of the parents, who had asked him to pick up their daughter and take her to them. The crisis — and the emotional upset the girl experienced over the thought of her house being on fire and her parents in danger — drowned out her normal caution about getting into a car with a stranger. You guessed it: the stranger was a predator who had concocted the lie for the sole purpose of upsetting and thereby tricking the girl into going with him so he could brutalize and murder her.

This tragic story makes an important point: a crisis throws us off our guard, upsets us, and inclines us to make decisions and accept “solutions” we normally reject.

[all boldface mine]

Think back to September 2008.

In the space of less than 2 hours, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the U.S. to the tune of $550 billion. Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania said that if authorities had not closed the banks, $5.5 trillion would have been withdrawn from U.S. banks, which would have caused the collapse of the U.S. within 24 hours.

We will leave it to others to speculate as to what person, persons or foreign governments might have decided that such a development, less than 2 months before the presidential election, would be in their interests. In any case, the financial crisis caused normally cool heads to panic and pass TARP — some of which funds, by the way, may still end up being used as a slush fund for Democrat-supporting interest groups.

“A crisis throws us off our guard… and presses us to choose options we would normally reject.”

Sounds like a capsule summary of the Obama Administration.

Health care reform… Quick! Now! It’s a crisis! People are dying! Do something! Fix it! Pass the bill, any bill! Don’t read it, don’t debate it, just pass it! Right now!

Financial regulatory reform… Hurry! It’s a crisis! Wall Street is raping the country! Fix it quick! Now! Not a moment to lose!  We’ll deal with Fannie and Freddie later! We’ll deal with the small-town banks later! Who cares about them! We’ve got to pass something — anything — right now!

Carbon dioxide emissions… Help! The temperature’s rising, the icecaps are melting, the planet is dying! (What? The main climate scientists lied? Well, then, make the lies BIGGER!!) Pass cap-and-trade! Quick! What, Congress won’t pass it?! Then have the EPA do it! Now! Quick! While our guy’s still in office!

You see the pattern. And it’s nothing new. Tyrants have used it for ages.

Kupelian writes that during World War II, the U.S. government’s Office of Strategic Services assessed Hitler’s methods this way:

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

Sounds an awful lot like Alinsky, doesn’t it? Do you suppose Hitler thought of himself as a “community organizer”?

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: