Alinsky’s Obama

Saul Alinsky, the Father of community organizing, is the methodological ghost behind the Barack Obama phenomenon. One will increase their understanding of Obama’s methodological approach to advancing controversial policies only by understanding Saul Alinsky’s worldview as it is contained in his book, “Rules for Radicals.”

Alinsky was a follower of Antonio Gramsci who held, unlike traditional Marxism as interpreted through Lenin, that the overthrow of the West would not be achieved by a revolution committed to rubbing raw the economic friction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie but rather that the unraveling of the West had to pursue an agenda that was committed to exhausting the Christian capital that was informing the culture of the West. The Gramscian revolution would be culturally totalistic as well as continuous. For Gramsci, following the Hegelian dialectic that holds that progress is defined by perpetual change, the long march through the cultural institutions never ends. Revolution is perpetual.

Alinsky, taught that those radicals committed to overthrowing the status quo society must look like they grow up out of the people. This meant that though people may hold Marxist revolutionary views they must take on the look of insiders. Alinsky wrote, “true revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process.” Here we see that Alinsky taught that radicals must become moles, burrowing their way into places of influence through deception and acting.

This willingness to disguise ones true nature in order to advance a radical agenda means that Alinsky students like Obama and Hillary Clinton (and much of the Democratic party for that matter) can never be trusted in terms of what they say. The Alinsky method teaches them that, “An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing…. To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations…” Elsewhere Alinsky taught that “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 views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other 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 they will work.” Notice that the Alinsky method which Obama and Hillary have swallowed teaches a purely pragmatic approach to truth and ethics. Being good Marxists and Alinskyists they will pursue their agenda dialectically. Any concession by Obama will only be granted until a better time arises to gain back what has been conceded. The thing we must note here is that when dealing with people trained in this kind of mindset there should be absolutely no expectation that these people will operate according to some kind of Christian code of truth, ethics or honor. These people are Alinsky radicals and we can only trust them to act like an Alinsky radical.

Now interestingly enough even though the Alinsky trained radical does not have a absolutist code of truth they will engage in moral argumentation to advance their agenda. The reason this is done is because they understand that the people of the West who are hearing them are not operating with the same ethical relativism with which they are. An example of this is Obama’s disingenuous moral arguments regarding death care welfare. Being an Alinskyite, Obama doesn’t have a moral bone in his body but he knows other people do so he wraps his appeal for death care welfare in the tones of virtue and morality. Obama is a man who learned from Alinsky that, “you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.” Of course this is an appeal right out of Satan’s book as he likewise clothed his appeal to Eve with moral arguments.

Another reality that we must contend with as we are dealing with an Alinsky trained man is Alinsky’s teaching that the community agitator (organizer is a euphemism) is a man who is constantly calculating the reaction of the opposition to the agitators action. Alinsky taught, “The organizer knows that the real action is in the reaction of the opposition. To realistically appraise and anticipate the probable reactions of the enemy, he must be able to identify with them, too, in his imagination, and foresee their reactions to his actions.” Now the reason that this is so vital to understand with the current administration is that I believe Obama is sending in his Union Brown shirts into these town-hall meetings calculating that a reaction will arise from his enemies (the American people) that will allow him to take a strong-armed response under the pretense that he must protect Americans from the excesses seen in the town-hall meetings. In short I think Obama, as a Alinsky student, would love to see things get out of control at these town hall meetings, as long as the chaos can be blamed on his opposition.

Obama’s whole person and being is defined by his marxism. That Marxism has come to him through Frank Marshal Davis, Saul Alinsky, Jeremiah Wright and others. The question with Obama is not whether or not he will act in a Marxist fashion but rather the question is what kind of Marxists do we have on our hands. I believe the facts point to the reality that Obama is a Gramscian Black liberation theology Marxist. This means he will always seek to advance the Marxist agenda but with the purpose of advancing first and foremost the interests of the black population that have bought into this view of cultural Marxism. This means that the man will act duplicitously at every turn. This means that traditional Christianity will be attacked by this man at each opportunity.

The unfortunate thing in all of this is that the only real way to defeat this ideology is by 100 proof Christianity and there aren’t a good deal of people around drinking that these days.

Marxism’s Aping Of Christianity

“Marx took materialistic philosophy which taught that the force of (impersonal time + chance) history had decreed that certain things must inevitably happen, and married this philosophy to an intense personal, sacrificial dedication to make these things come to pass.”

You Can Trust The Communists To Be Communists
Dr. Fred Schwarz

There have been many who have noted that Marxism is the best example of a non-Christian religion which successfully aped basic Christianity. The way that Marxism did this was to take components of Christianity and place them in an materialistic, atheistic paradigm. For example, the idea of the inevitability of a humanist progress as coupled with the notion that that which is inevitable finds its inevitability as it is propelled forward by human implementation is actually the Christian doctrine of predestination combined with the doctrine of postmillennialism.

Christians, like the later Marxists who co-opted much of their faith, also believed in the idea that certain things had been decreed that must inevitably happen. The difference here is that in Marxism the predestinating agent is Hegel’s impersonal dialectical view of history as married to a Feuerbachian materialism, whereas in Christianity the predestinating agent was a personal creator God. Similarly, Christian, like the later Marxists who co-opted much of their faith, also believed that God ordained human agents to be the means by which His predestinating ends came to pass. The difference here is that in Marxism man is moving in terms of a predestination that is impersonal and is guided by time plus chance plus circumstance whereas Christianity always taught that man is moving in terms of a predestination that is personal and is guided by the explicit foreknowledge and will of an extra-mundane being. The difference between the two beliefs thus is only that Marxism believes in an irrational will that guides “progress” while Christianity taught a rational will that guides progress.

The embarrassment in all of this is that Christianity no longer believes in a postmillennialism that inspires intense personal, sacrificial dedication to make the extension of the Kingdom of God, which He has predestined, come to pass. Instead what we believe is some kind of predestination and eschatology where the story ends with God being defeated in space and time history. Believing in that kind of predestination and eschatology we are little engaged in sweeping forth with the Crown rights of King Jesus.
Without a vision the people perish. This has the consequence of leaving us as a people defeated by other predestinations and eschatologies of other religions and other gods. One of those religions remains cultural Marxism whose god is the State.

Nana & The Lay Lutheran Pastor

Randy,

I don’t think I misunderstood you. You said, “I, too, used to “thwack” people upside the head with God’s Word.” By your use of the word “too” you did more than imply that Mrs. Nanna was, like you, being legalistic. As I pointed out, that was inaccurate.

I praise God that he rescued your from the GRBC with its dispensationalism and its fundamentalism. I pray that God will continue to deliver His people from the errors that their current respective faith communities entertain.

You said Randy,

“Still, now having said that, while legalism is ultimate a “Law+Grace=saved,” the end effect can be the same if a Christian believes that in order to be a “good Christian” or a “real Christian” then you really need to do “X,y,Z.” That is a very dangerous place to go and we need to be careful when we head there.”

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. I do know that throughout the Scriptures the Apostle Paul warns people against behavior that is inconsistent w/ confessing Christ. The Apostle Paul doesn’t seem to shy away from saying that we may not go on sinning that grace may abound.

As a contrary example to your statement the Apostle Paul seems to suggest that the Galatians can’t be good Christians if they deny being saved by faith alone. Another contrary example to your statement would be when the Apostle tells the Corinthians that they are not being very good Christians when they take one another to court, or when they allow the one caught in incest to remain a member of their Church. But perhaps I’m misunderstanding your concern?

Actually, Luther, in his writings was more predestinarian than Calvin ever was. And I agree w/ you that Lutherans don’t mind contradictions. That is why they have a mystery box to throw them in.

I think Anna’s post in which we are responding to is not the legalistic admonition that you fear it is. Thanks for your concern for her though. It is always good to be reminded that we need to tell people of God’s grace.

Reuters News Service Reports New Obama Administration Policy

Reuters news agency reports that the Obama administration has come out with a new program intended to stimulate the US economy. This new program is called, “Cash for condoms.” The thinking is by stimulating the condom market that not only will condom producers increase the size of their market share but also that at the same time STD’s and unwanted pregnancies will decrease.

When Condom Czar Peter Gravida was asked if the “Cash for Condom” program was intended to intersect with the “Cash for Clunkers” program he answered by saying,

“It must be appreciated that the Auto industry is not the only manufacturer in our country that is to big to fail. It is also the case that the US Rubber industry is a industry that is to big to fail. As such we thought that in the interest of fairness we would provide seed money to the Rubber industry as well as to the Auto industry.”

Rumors are circulating among Washington insiders that next week, the Obama Administration will report its “Cash for Cancer” program. The thinking here is that by promoting financial incentive for contracting cancer there will be the effect of reducing the unwanted surplus human population that is such a burden on our health care industry.

The Greatest Generation …. Oh, Please

Tom Brokaw wrote a couple books invoking the idea that the generation prior to the Baby boomers should be referred to as “The Greatest Generation.” Now, this generation includes my parents (barely) and my grandparents. Now, I love my kin as much as the other person but to suggest that that generation is “The Greatest Generation” begs a great number of questions.

After all it was this generation that,

1.) Made communism an international phenomenon. Sure, the greatest generation contributed to victory in WW II but what kind of victory was it when we put all of Eastern and much of Central Europe behind the Iron Curtain? What kind of victory was it when we put much of Asia behind a Communistic Bamboo curtain?

2.)Gave approval and participated in the un-Christian and barbaric acts that were the bombing of Dresden, the firebombing of Tokyo and the nuking of Japan. If Christian views of warfare had been followed such a thing could have never happened.

3.) Were standing guard when abortion was legalized. I’m supposed to get all misty eyed about a generation that stood by while abortion became a sacrament of the West?

4.) Were responsible for “The Great Society,” “The Welfare – Warfare State,” and the Military Industrial complex. In short it was on the “greatest generation’s” watch that we became increasingly and perhaps irretrievably socialist.

5.) Stood by and watched while gambling became legalized, while contraception became socially approved, and while immigration laws were changed in such a way that this country was assured that it would no longer be have a singular identifiable culture. Further the greatest generation watched as laws were put into place that feminized us as a people.

Now, I’m not suggesting that the generation in question didn’t have strengths. Neither am I suggesting that my generation has done well. It’s done even worst than their parents and grandparents. What I am suggesting is that is stretches credulity to suggest that the generation prior to the boomers should be referred to as “The Greatest Generation.”

This is why I’ve never bought into the whole “Greatest generation” bumble-fumble.