Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Sympathy for the Devil

I bought "Rules for Radicals", by Saul Alinsky today.

I was interested in all of the buzz this man has been getting amongst conservative circles and am interested in how the left has been so successful in transforming, and today, dictating the terms of the political debate. We have been transformed from a nation of self-reliant people from the 1890's to one of a social-democracy, where large portions of our population actually believe that other people should pay for their homes, their healthcare, their education, their comfort and, in the process, compliment them and help build up their self-esteem, and let them perform whatever behavior they wish to, regardless of what debauchery it represents or effect it may have on the culture or people around them.

The progressive movement began in this country, I believe because it filled a gap in the recovery after the Civil War. I don't think people appreciate how horrible that war was for this country and it is hard to imagine such a war today. More Americans died in that war than in EVERY other war or conflict this country has been in since...COMBINED. And it happened at a time when this nation was much smaller.

I think the healing process left a hole of hopelessness and I believe that there was suddenly a large number of people that had a very hard time taking care of themselves. The reconstruction was a huge blow to the country's character of self-reliance.

During reconstruction, the Federal government tried to step in and help, and it was the first real taste of the Feds being empowered in that way, or at least the first taste that left a wanting for more.

The Progressive movement started in 1900, or there abouts and started truly trying to change the perception of the social contract and pushing against the founding principles of self-reliance. They imagined that they could have liberty and have the government "help" at the same time.

What they called "progressive" in this country was called "communist" in Europe and elsewhere. When Red October occurred there was an exciting buzz of the progressives here in this country and there is a well-documented enthusiasm on the part of many central figures of our government that were enamoured by the Soviets.

Amity Shlaes, does a great job discussing the development and growth, really the golden era, of the progressive movement in the mid to late 1920's through the Great Depression and its end at the entrance of the US into WWII, in her book, "The Forgotten Man".

The wide-reaching, cost-controls and heavy handed, central-planning style policies of the FDR administration were abandoned for the most part during the war, and after the war, the progressives had to hide their intellectual affiliation and private affection for the Soviet experiment due to the aftermath of the war and the stand-off with Stalin.

Then, Joe McCarthy, the golden decade of the 1950's, and general prosperity erased the lure of the nanny state and made being a commie, a bit of a risky venture.

In comes the 1960's and the baby-boomers have now become teens and are, by far the most affluent, and spoiled generation in the history of the U.S. up to that point. This generation is tasked with dealing with a surging world-wide communist movement, while having the kind of self-doubt and circumspection that only the affluent can afford to have. To push this over the edge, the nasty, and very real remnant of the Civil War still remained; segragation and suffrage rights for blacks.

The baby boomers lost faith in their country, their parents, and everything else. They were susceptable to a new idea, that was not a very new idea and not a very good idea; socialism, statism, communism. The progressive movement had new life.

The entire concept of communism is "social justice". Karl Marx was angry that people with money employed the poor and treated them harshly, so he thought the poor should just rise up, and kill the rich and take their stuff. Then, divide it up equally, and everyone could be happy. The entire culture would be like a giant pirate ship. Thieves' honor and all. There is no fundamental difference between this philosophy and the modern progressives in American politics, the Democratic Party. They are the modern Robin Hoods, taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

There are three major problems with this philosophy;

1. It is immoral to take something that doesn't belong to you. This should be obvious and can be countered with the claim that unrighteous acquisition of wealth is also immoral and should be resisted. This works with Robin Hood, which I would agree with and discuss with point number three. But it breaks down when the situation arises where a person comes by their wealth on their own accord, having taken advantage of no one. Then, the moral high ground goes back to the side of the "rich". I would argue that in modern society this latter condition is the norm and not the exception.

2. In order to believe in it, you have to believe that once you succeed in dividing all of the wealth equally, that it will stay that way and that everyone will be happy and satisfied with that. To believe in Marxism and all other forms of collectivism, you must believe that man, in his natural state, is good, kind, decent, loving, generous, and unselfish. Anyone that is honest with themselves know this to be patently false. Any Christian or Jew that has read their Bible knows this to be false and that Man is a fallen creature; sinful, greedy, selfish, prideful, wicked, nasty and all kinds of other things, if left to their own devices and without other influences. Secondly, you must also assume that everyone in the world is equally good at everything. Anyone that has ever played sports or even watched sports knows this cannot be true. likewise in academics and every other vocation or skill or ability. People are different. that means that some people will be better at certain things than other people. This is so obvious that I won't belabor the point any further. The summation of this? If you divide up all the wealth in the world equally amongst all of the people, it would very quickly find its way back into the hands of the people that started with it.

3. It's underlying premise and context don't apply to the United States of America. The underlying premise requires that people with wealth came by it by chance, or took it from someone else and the people that don't have wealth have been somehow robbed. Now this notion works, to a certain extent in a land where feudal governments are in effect. Where a landed nobility has all of the wealth and there is nothing a peasant can do to break out of the social caste that they were born into. That is the scenario where communism has some leghold and argument. The problem is that a feudal condition has NEVER existed in the U.S. The people that have money, almost ALL of them, made that money themselves by hardwork. Look up the statistics. Look at the list of the richest men in America. I'll name two; Bill Gates, Warren Buffet. Both from humble beginnings, not landed gentry. Their hard work, ingenuity and luck afforded them their massive wealth. Those guys got a little lucky and were in the right place and the right time, but there are countless executives and business owners across this country that are less wealthy but not so obviously so, that made their companies from nothing. They do not belong in a class of landed gentry.

You see, there is no foundation for an argument for communism in this country, which is why they have to go around to the back door, rename it a thousand times for better marketing appeal and try and trick people into voting for it.

During the sixties a radical movement was born of the progressives and they became toxic and cancerous. I believe they are currently holding the reigns of power in Washington D.C. and will destroy my country in the process of creating their utopia.

One of the names that has popped up frequently as of late, and given credit for the tactics and strategy accredited for their current sustained success since the 1960's is Saul Alinsky. "Rules for Radicals" was written in 1971.

The blurbs on the back of my copy:

"This country's leading hell-raiser...has set down some of the rules of
the game. No one has had more experience or has been more successful at it
than Alinsky." - The Nation

"Alinsky's techniques and teachings influenced generations of community
and labor organizers, including the church-based group hiring a young [Barak]
Obama to work on Chicago's South Side in the 1980's...Alinsky impressed a young
[Hillary] Clinton, who was growing up in Park Ridge at the time Alinsky was the
director of the Industrial Areas Foundation in Chicago." - Chicago

Having read that, I think it is relevant and important to take these people at their word and read what those strategies are. As I begin, I notice another blurb in the beginning of the book by Alinsky himself;

"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the
very first radical: 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" - Saul

I had to look twice at that one. I haven't read a single word past that point. The man is seriously giving a shout-out to Satan in the opening pages to his book. Now before you secularists run me off to the funny farm for being a radical religious kook, let's just keep it in the secular world for a moment;

I think it is fair to say from the blurb that Alinsky has no faith in God, and certainly no fear of Him. But let us just take his statement in the spirit of the "myth" that he means it. The "myth goes something like this: Lucifer rebelled by lying, causing the world countless turmoil, mortality, death, destruction, disease, all because of his pride and defiance. He gained for himself a kingdom, for a short time, and will suffer a guarranteed defeat in the uncertain future, where his punishment will be to perish in the lake of fire. While he gratifies himself and his desires, the world burns, countless souls are condemned and there are mountains of corpses and oceans of blood in his wake.

I think that is a pretty good analogy for what socialism has done to our world. What a curious "myth" to pay homage to, even if you don't believe in God. What an ominous and dangerous warning sign to those of us who do. I don't think Mr. Alinsky quite meant it in this way, or perhaps he did. Hmm.

Saul Alinsky, this song was written for you;

"Please allow me to introduce myself

I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith
And I was 'round when Jesus

Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate
Pleased to meet you

Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
I stuck around St. Petersberg

When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the Czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain
I rode a tank Held a general's

When the Blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank
Pleased to meet you

Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
What's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah
I watched with glee

While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the Gods they made
I shouted out"Who killed the

When after all
It was you and me
Let me please introduce myself

I'm a man of wealth and taste
And I laid traps for troubadors
Who get killed before they reached Bombay
Pleased to meet you

Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah, get down, baby
Pleased to meet

Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's confusing you
Is just the nature of my game
Just as every cop is a

And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer'
Cause I'm in need of some restraint
So if you meet me

Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste, um yeah
Pleased to meet

Hope you guessed my name, um yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, um baby, get down
Woo, who

Oh yeah, get on down
Oh yeah
Oh yeah!
Tell me baby, what's my name

Tell me honey, baby guess my name
Tell me baby, what's my name
I tell you one time, you're to blame
Ooo, who

Ooo, who
Ooo, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Oh, yeah
What's my nameTell me, baby, what's my name

Tell me, sweetie, what's my name
Ooo, who, who

Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Oh, yeah" - Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil, 1968

1 comment:

  1. That's the soing which played in my mind as well, when you told me of Alinsky's tribute.