Reading the college thesis of our former First Lady Hillary Clinton titled “There is Only the Fight… An Analysis of the Alinsky Model”, it becomes painfully clear why this document has been off limits for the public at large until recently. It shows in very tangible unambiguous detail the motivations and methodology of the modern incarnation of Marxism. In an equally disturbing fashion the author not only shows no aversion to its aims but defends at every chance, the pioneer of this modern system, Saul Alinsky.Hillary and her kind have been largely successfull. Most Americans today have been radicalized to the point that they think being conservative means building a global empire and bombing into submission any country who refuses imposed American-style democracy. These FauxNews "conservatives" accept diversity/multiculturalism as a universal principle and actually despise real patriots who try to hold their nation together by calling them "racists" (a Marxist term). These "conservatives" act as though money, the economy, and total individual freedom are the only things that matter -- or even could or should matter -- to anyone anywhere. One can hear them on talk radio any and all day. They love to refer to the Founders and the early Republic, yet their modern politics betray their Marxist/Globalist reprogramming.
Let us begin by noting that in the acknowledgements section she gives thanks to Mr. Alinsky for providing a topic sharing some time and offering a job to then Ms. Rodham. She asks the question what a radical is and provides the answer in Mr. Alinsky’s own words.
“They are a people creating a new bridge of mankind in between the past of narrow nationalistic chauvinism and the horizon of a new man kind—a people of the world.”
This is precisely the aim of the power structure behind Communism, the erasing of all borders and boundaries and the establishment of a world government based on a modified form of Communism called Humanistic Socialism [id est, the destruction of nations - r.m.]. The author continues and defines what it means to be an American radical. Again she lets Mr. Alinsky define the term.
“…that unique person who actually believes what he says… to whom the common good is the greatest personal value… who genuinely and completely believes in mankind.… Alinsky outlines American history focusing on men he would call “radical,” confronting his readers again with the “unique” way Americans have synthesized the alien roots of radicalism, Marxism, Utopian socialism, syndicalism, the French Revolution, with their own conditions and experiences:”
So the reader concludes that an American radical is someone who believes in collectivism and synthesizes the roots of Communism with the origins of Liberty. What an exercise in semantical and mental gymnastics. To equate liberty and authoritarianism as synonymous terms is a perversion in and of itself. Ms. Rodham continues defining radical in her own terms.
“A radical is one who advocates sweeping changes in the existing laws and methods of government. These proposed changes are aimed at the roots of political problems which in Marxian terms are the attitudes and the behaviors of men. Radicals are not interested in ameliorating the symptoms of decay but in drastically altering the causes of societal conditions. Radicalism “emphasizes reason rather than reverence, although Radicals have often been the most emotional and least reasonable of men.” One of the strongest strains in modern radicalism is the eighteenth Century Enlightenment’s faith in human reason and the possible perfectibility of men. This faith in the continuing improvement of man was and is dominated by values derived from the French and American Revolutions and profoundly influenced by the Industrial Revolution.”
She herself defines radicalism under Marxian terms and correctly points out that the origins of radicalism do indeed begin in the Enlightenment. Her term the “perfectibility of men” is rather striking considering that the object of Communism is to create the perfect man. Also the original name of the Illuminati Order, the prototype of Communism, was the Order of the Perfectibilists and that Adam Weishaupt’s successor J. J. C. Bode went to The Grand Orient Lodge and initiated the architects of the French Revolution into the order some two years before the French Revolution began. This account is confirmed in Bode’s personal diary and also in the book “Fire in the Minds of Men”.
The author points out that radicalism often must be achieved through non-radical means, chiefly operating inside the existing system. We learn that the object of radicalism is power and it is obtained through organization. The means to obtaining power is through conflict. It is pointed out that …
“Alinsky argues that those who wish to change circumstances must develop a mass-based organization and be prepared for conflict. He is a Neo-Hobbesian who objects to the consensual mystique surrounding political processes; for him conflict is the route to power.”
In short it is learned that through collective action in the form of conflict can power be achieved. She expands on this concept in relation to morality.
“Alinsky claims a position of moral relativism, but his moral context is stabilized a belief in the eventual manifestation of the goodness of man. He believes that if men were allowed to live free from fear and want they would live in peace. He also believes that only men with a sense of their own worth an a respect for the commonality of humanity will be able to create this new world.”
This is a repetition of the central theme in Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, the end justifies the means. Morality then is subjective so long as the object of creating a new world based on the commonality of humanity also known as Communism. Not surprisingly the idea that the ends justify the means is central in his 1971 work titled “Rules for Radicals”. Interestingly this work was dedicated to what he referred to as the original radical, Lucifer.
Ms. Rodham focuses on community organizing efforts in relation to the Alinsky Method noting that it has two distinct elements.
“One, the “Alinsky-type protest” is “an explosive mixture of rigid discipline, brilliant showmanship, and a street fighters instinct for ruthlessly exploiting his enemies weakness.” The second, modeled after trade union organization methods, involves the hard work of recorganizing interests, seeking out indigenous leaders, and building an organization whose power is viewed as legitimate by the larger comunity.”
So the elements then are staged theatrical protests, prying on your enemies weaknesses, and identifying indigenous leaders so as to appear legitimate to the community that you are trying to organize. This idea is repeated in the following excerpt that defines the criteria of an Alinsky organization.
(a) It is rooted in the local tradition, the local indigenous leader ship, the local organizations and agencies, and, in short, the local people.
(b) Its energy or driving force is generated by the self-interest of the local residents for the welfare of their children and themselves.
(c) Its program for action develops hand in hand with the organ Ization of the community council. The program is in actual fact that series of common agreements which results in the develop ment of the local organization.
(d) It is a program arising out of the local people carrying with it the direct participation of practically all the organizations in a particular area. It involves a substantial degree of indi vidual citizen participation; a constant day to day flow of vol unteer activities and the daily functioning of numerous local com mites charged with specific short term functions.
(e) It constantly emphasizes the functional relationship between prob lems and therefore its program is as broad as the social horizon of the community. It avoids, at all costs, circumscribed and seg mental programs which in turn attract the support of only a seg ment of the local population.
(f) It recognizes that a democratic society is one which responds to popular pressures, and therefore realistically operates on the basis of pressure. For the same reason it does not shy away from involvement in matters of controversy.
(g) It concentrates on the utilization of indigenous individuals, who, if not leaders at the beginning, can be developed into leaders.
(h) It gives priority to the significance of self-interest. The organ Ization itself proceeds on the idea of channeling the many diverse forces of self-interest within the community into a common dir ection for the common good and at the same time respects the autonomy of individuals and organizations.
(i) It becomes completely self-financed at the end of approximately Three years. This not only testifies to its representative character In that the local residents support their own organization finan cially, but insures to the local council the acid test of ide pendence: “the ability to pay one’s way”
The over arching theme is the rule and representation of the collective by its indigenous leaders, whether real or developed. The power lies in mob rule. This is precisely what a democracy is. Our founders understood that a democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. That is why we are founded as a Republic and not as a democracy as Ms. Rodham falsely believes. The term democracy in fact appears nowhere in our founding documents.
The point of the preceding analysis is to reveal the motivation and methodology of the modern collectivist. Through understanding their means and motives, we can safeguard our liberty from the mob waiting to tear this great nation to pieces. Communism has taken many forms throughout the last few hundred years and it ideology is rooted in antiquity. It is not a monolithic form and is always changing to the needs of the groups it represents. It has been called Illuminism, radicalism, democracy, socialism, syndicalism, and lately communism. It is not for the benefit of the people but is the tool of totalitarian oligarchical control. If you need any verification of this, then consider why all ten pillars of the Communist Party destroy the freedoms and rights of the individual in the name of the collective but transfer it to the banks and the state. Who in their right mind would advocate for such a thing?
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
