Posted on 06/05/2010 7:59:30 AM PDT by reasonisfaith
So Alinsky dedicates his book, Rules For Radicals, to Lucifer. His explanation is that Lucifer was “the first radical” and that he rebelled against the establishment. Alinsky wrote “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.”
It never ceases to amaze me. The way socialists defeat themselves again and again, due to a weakness which they are convinced is their greatest strength—the weakness of their intellect.
First of all, socialists reject absolute truth. So, if in their world nothing can really be true, they cannot use logic because logic depends on truth. And the leftists, all leftists, have denied themselves access to the rational method. I would ask—why do this to yourself?
This embrace of irrationalism seems to have fooled Alinsky, as it has most if not all leftists. But Alinsky has provided the opportunity to point out another oversight in his clever little scheme, an oversight shared by his followers. (Alinsky didn’t have the brains to realize that his socialist mind had outdone itself, as such minds always do.)
Now, Alinsky had it right. Lucifer was the first rebel known to man. But think about it—Lucifer was also the first wannabe.
That's right, the first wannabe.
I believe this realization might be salt on the wound for progressives, because I know that leftist ideology creates an underlying sense of loss of authenticity. But why keep looking the other way. Why not heal the wound?
So to leftists everywhere, including Bill Ayers, Barack Obama and George Soros: nobody is forcing you to follow the first wannabe. And nobody is forcing you to believe the Lie.
Thought you might like this.
Alinski’s intentions were never good. The man was a greedy lying con man addicted to controlling others.
Something else Alinsky never thought of is that God is victorious against the rebel.
“I don’t doubt that liberals are, to a point, well-intentioned.”
Some. I’m convinced, however, that many are those with a need to ‘save the world’ in a way that exalts them and their self-defined superior knowledge. These are the ones who wind up as activists and/or politicians. They see themselves as ‘special’, and liberal activism allows them to act out how special they think they are. Others are either envious of what someone else has, or feel guilty about what they themselves have (e.g. Bill Gates and much of Hollywood). Some are just selfish union members who want to vote themselves pay raises.
“People of the Lie: Insight for Traders
Many wise traders look deep. They know to understand human psychology is the bedrock of good living and ultimately success. The book People of the Lie by Scott Peck offers food for thought:
“The central defect of ‘the evil’ is not the sin but the refusal to acknowledge it. More often than not these people will be looked at as solid citizens. How can that be? How can they be evil and not designated as criminals? The key word is designated. They are criminals in that they commit crimes against life and liveliness...their crimes are so subtle and covert that they cannot clearly be designated as crimes. The theme of hiding and covertness will occur again and again throughout the rest of this book. It is the basis for the title People of the Lie.”
“Evil deeds do not make an evil person. Otherwise we would all be evil. If evil people cannot be defined by the illegality of their deeds or the magnitude of their sins, then how are we to define them? The answer is by the consistency of their sins. While usually subtle, their destructiveness is remarkably consistent. This is because those who have crossed over the line are characterized by their absolute refusal to tolerate the sense of their own sinfulness.”
http://www.turtletrader.com/people-of-the-lie.html
“Studies from the book, “People of the Lie,” by M. Scott Peck
To better understand evil, it is worthwhile to consider the conclusions of scholars, such as M. Scott Peck, Erich Fromm, Martin Buber and others who devoted a good part of their lives to the study of the nature of the workings of the minds of evil people. Although many thinkers, ethicists, theologians and behavioral scientists have written volumes on the subject and many of those have influenced my thinking, I gained my clearest perspective after reading Peck’s book, “People of the Lie.” M. Scott Peck was the noted psychiatrist, who also wrote “The Road Less Traveled,” one of the best selling books of all time. Therefore, many of the observations and conclusions which follow are taken either directly from his writings or are paraphrasings (so much so that this would really be considered a book review rather than an original discussion). For me to claim (or allude to) them as my own would be plagiarism and therefore I give full attribution to Dr. Peck for the excellent work he did in his analysis of the nature of evil.”
http://samredman.com/peopleofthelie/
“People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil (Paperback)
~ M. Scott Peck
http://www.amazon.com/People-Lie-Hope-Healing-Human/dp/0671528165?tag=dogpile-20
Alinsky was not only a socialist, he was and educated (controlled), degreed sociologist.
Funny how democrats never really seem to own up to the fact that Alinsky was mentored by Al Capone’s hit man, Frank Nitti, and their party is now guided by the rulebook Alinsky later came up with.
It seems he missed that most important point.
This reinforces the poster's original argument, a leftist's mind where absolutes (moral or otherwise) don't exist, your feet are planted firmly in mid-air. And by all intents and purposes, your life is lived for you and you alone. The lust for power and control is exacerbated by those who have no moral guidance.
The 72 Payboy interview with Alinsky shows what manipulative con man he was.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2489630/posts
“ALINSKY: .... I moved over to the table next to the cashier, exchanged a few words with her and then finished my coffee and got up to pay. “Gee, I’m sorry,” I said, “I seem to have lost my check.” She’d seen that all I had was a cup of coffee, so she just said, “That’s OK, that’ll be a nickel.” So I paid and left with my original nickel check still in my pocket and walked a few blocks to the next cafeteria in the same chain and ordered a big meal for a buck forty-five — and, believe me, in those days, for a buck forty-five I could have practically bought the [expletive deleted by mod] joint. I ate in a corner far away from the cashier, then switched checks and paid my nickel bill from the other place and left. So my eating troubles were taken care of.”
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/and-just-where-did-sociology-come-from/
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/pseudo-sciences-sociology-and-psychology/
—
**********
Wasn’t Prometheus the first radical?
Not just a con man .....but an admitted thief. Really proud of himself too..
I think Alinsky’s little part about not knowing where history ends and mythology begins was just his way of trying to have it both ways. If he admitted to believing in the story of Lucifer, he would be essentially admitting to being to some extent a Satanist. In so admitting, he would be rejecting the religion of scientific materialism which is central to cultural Marxism.
But at the same time he clearly had an inclination toward Lucifer.
Leftists/Liberals (Mohammedans also) are purely Luciferian, even when they don't know it or admit it to themselves.
They, too, want their own kingdom, but since earning it would require them to be productive (and that would require obedience to the Truth), they must stoop to stealing it from someone else.
Also, note that Alinsky mentioned that Lucifer won his own kingdom (and he did)...it's just that his kingdom is most notable for its conspicuous lack of God and Truth in any shape, form, or spirit—and that is pure hell!
I can forgive a man who does wrong due to an inability to control himself or doesn’t understand the difference.
Alinky was a man who deliberately did things he knew was wrong and then came up with schemes to convince others to do wrong as well.
I put men like George Soros, Maurice Strong, Rahm Emanuel, and Obama in the latter category.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.