Curmudgeonalia
I see I taste I write Links What?
January 9, 2010

Several Particularly Pertinent "Oldies"

(A study of several of Obama's real advisors)

Rules for Radicals (c.1971)
A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals
Saul Alinsky - ISBN - 9780679721130

Anyone paying attention has heard of this book. I've reread the two books reviewed, and suggest you might want to do so as well.

Saul advised college radicals, including the Weathermen (Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn) in the 1960s, and informed their strategies for organizing the disasters they promulgated. His recommended modus operandi is indistinguishable from Obama's, since Ayers is his advisor (who--not incidentally--also wrote large tracts of Obama's memoirs, though both deny both facts.)

Alinsky considered himself pure, insisting that communists are immoral; he denied being a socialist, though his goals were those of a radical collectivist. He described the means by which mass organizations seizing power should be structured: "Power to the people" rather than rule by an elite. What is most astounding is how he parsed everything, redefining as he elected. He preached the ethical, moral and practical life without fixed ethical or moral principles. He defined egotism as a defensive reaction to personal inadequacy while he exuded egotism from every pore. And he was an elitist.

Ethics is "doing what is best for the most." No absolutes! Goals and means are variable, dependent upon attitudes and desired ends. He confused morality with ethics. The ethical man knows what is moral but isn't necessarily bound by it. The moral man will not do what is immoral or unethical. This man recommended doing whatever was required to prevail. The end justifies the means.

My favorite of his edicts is that "the right to a man's job transcends the right of private property!" Really? How wonderfully democratic. Right out of Marx, though Marx isn't a fan of private property at all.

An organizer's duty is to bait the establishment into attacking him as "the enemy." (He's searching for enemies not political adversaries.) He claimed to be unconcerned with people who profess democratic faith but yearn for security and dependence where they can be spared the burden of decisions . . . while that is exactly the audience he solicited. "People do not know what they want" (so he told them.) Misinformation and disinformation were preferred when necessary. "It is just about impossible for people to fully understand--much less adhere to--a totally new idea" (so he guided them.) You can't negotiate without the power to compel conciliation; power comes from organization. People hunger for drama and adventure (so create them.)

"Freeze the target and carry out the attack." Disregard all except one, and blame it on him. Never dilute the attack by saying anything good. If the enemy is a racist bastard, avoid mentioning that he's a good husband. It's o.k. to threaten, insult and annoy the enemy, but to incite irrational anger, laugh at him. A belittling smirk might be better.

Does any of this seem familiar within the transparent, honest, inclusive, tolerant, considerate, government promised, along with that bipartisan "hope and change" stuff?

I'm reminded of Sun Tzu's observation: "Know thine enemy." Listen-up folks! They really aren't with us, or even for us. It's about them--the masters--and I don't believe they're well intentioned.

Destructive Generation (c.1989)
Second Thoughts About The '60s
Peter Collier & David Horowitz - ISBN - 9780671667521

"Red Diaper Babies," Collier and Horowitz were early followers and later editors of the radical Ramparts magazine in the 60s. They later woke to realize that they were wrong, as did several of the founders, themselves. Their book is comprehensive and factual in reporting on the era, but I'm commenting only on the section in which they discuss the Weathermen. These were radicals on steroids, who have been friends with, and advisors to Obama for years, his denials notwithstanding.

They are amoral, Marxist cretins who spent the 60s raising hell, high on illicit drugs while wallowing in sex--the characteristics of the era. Unlike Bill Clinton, however, they violently opposed the Vietnam War, staged riots at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, bombed buildings, robbed banks, killed people and encouraged thousands of collegians to revolt. They spent years hiding underground, yet avoided prosecution. Now they are Chicagoans in prominent positions, but wholly unrepentant of their activities. They're pillars of the Democratic machine politics, "dear" to the money-men, and openly working to destroy our country (they call it hope and change.) The authors remarked that they were "like those Japanese soldiers who wandered for years in the jungle, unaware that they had lost the war." Well, maybe not? This ain't 1989, and with Barack in charge (or not ?) they seem to be winning.

They were kin with SDS, Black Panthers, Symbionese Liberation Army and even found the Manson Family worthy. Dohrn used the Manson "3 fingered fork salute" as a symbol. Those my age remember the salute and its meaning. We also remember the explosion of their bomb making facility in New York, which killed some of their myrmidons. To honor them they made anniversary pilgrimages to the site for years afterward. Maybe they still do.

They spent most of their energy staying alive underground. Unlike their minions, however--and to the great distress of many of those grunts--they hung out with, and were funded by, Hollywood celebrities, radical lawyers and moneyed friends. Their compatriots did the dirty work while their masters lived a lot better. They even worked on the McGovern campaign in the hope that if he won they could "go home."

Subsequently they became traditional communists, though Dohrn was discredited and had to cop to her deficiencies in what a colleague described as a "narcissistic extravagance characteristic of the 'me decade' . . . bizarre . . . her self-conception was meshuga. . . . She had no great revolutionary ideas. None of us did. She was just the daughter of a credit manager of a Milwaukee furniture store."

Nonetheless they represent a modern Leftist Fifth Column (if not altogether clandestine), but now find themselves within the "reigning" government. They may not be as important as Soros, etal. but they matter immensely, having had a decade's long, advisory relationship with President Obama. They may be crazy--I think not--but they have infiltrated the power structure, and contribute mightily to the undermining of America's foundations.

Posted by Curmudgeon at January 9, 2010 12:07 PM