On March 31 David Cameron unveiled his “Big Society” plan, listing a set of policies which he claims are designed to build a ‘Big Society’ based on responsibility and respect.The very first of these is a proposal for “a neighbourhood army of 5,000 full-time, professional community organisers who will be trained with the skills they need to identify local community leaders, bring communities together, help people start their own neighbourhood groups, and give communities the help they need to take control and tackle their problems”, in relation to which he goes on to say:
“This plan is directly based on the successful community organising movement established by Saul Alinsky in the United States and has successfully trained generations of community organisers, including President Obama.”
It may be that the disingenuous Mr Cameron is attempting here to capitalise on the still widely held belief in Britain that Obama is a a successful and hugely popular American president. This might be a reasonable assumption, given that due to media censorship, although the British public are aware that Obama was swept to victory on a tilde of popularity and optimism in November 2008, very few are aware that, within months of taking office Obama's poll ratings were languishing amongst those of history's least popular presidents.
(Did anyone else notice the note of panic in the voice of Asian news reader Krishan Guru-Murthy, when Michael Heseltine alluded to that secret fact on last night's Channel 4 news?)
However, it remains rather bizarre that a European Conservative leader would pay such a fulsome tribute to a figure such as Saul Alinsky the author of “Rules for Radicals” considered my many to be a guidebook to modern communist revolution. Published in 1971, is a bible for many on the left and a significant tool in bringing about some of the worst aspects of our modern Orwellian society.
In the opening paragraph of Rules for Radicals Alinsky says: "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away"
He goes on to say:
Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so future less in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.Does this sound familiar? Can you see how Alinsky's guidance has been applied within our own society to replace so much that was good with so much that is so damaging.
Elsewhere, Alinsky says 'Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It.' “It” of course is a human being, but, as we have seen, the disciples of Alinsky are skilled dehumanisers.
Speaking of Saul Alinsky a respected commentator and friend of mine said: “This man was an aggressive communist, one for whom there was no right or wrong, only power, there was no morality only the will to dominate others. He is an absolute horror when you view the way he wants to break down society, destroy the Church and families, etc. He followed the Gramsci line of thinking, rather than the Stalin brute force approach, and therefore avoided direct confrontations. But he was constantly fomenting divisions, creating a sense of grievance, class envy, us versus them attitudes, the sorts of things that absolutely wreck society he saw as very useful. He was a destroyer.”
When challenged, Alinsky denied that he was a communist, but his writings, and the manner in which they have been used belie that denial.
A writer calling themselves “Jessie James” in an article entitled “Know your enemy” published on Western Front America said: The long term goal of Saul Alinsky and the socialist revolutionaries is to openly overturn the traditional order of society by taking power from the “Haves” and giving it to the “Have- Nots” of the world.
This goal of radical redistribution of wealth and power is the only “constant” ideology that an Alinsky trained “community disorganizer” is taught to accept. That the ultimate implementation of this redistribution on a global level would destroy each and every advanced white western country is either not understood by the the mostly white middle class disciples of Alinsky or they are so twisted that they see our destruction as desirable and justified.
Alinsky wrote his Rules for Radicals in 1971 for the specific purpose of harnessing the unfocused chaotic discontent of the 1960’s youth rebellion into a long term tool for the destruction of the current American system from the inside out. His goal was to produce a generation of “Realistic Radicals” who would worm their way into our churches, our government, our schools, our businesses, our labor unions and our media.”
This may be written from a partisan perspective, however, it remains beyond question that Saul Alinsky was no friend either of the white race or of the forces of conservatism.
The fact that the leader of a major European conservative party would choose not only to heap praise on such a figure, but to formulate policies based on his teachings leaves one with a troubling sense of unease. Are Cameron and his party acting through stupidity and ignorance, or is their motivation significantly more sinister?
Is the Conservative leader a fool, or is he something very different to what he would have us believe? Let us hope that it is the former and not the latter.
__________
Hat Tip: Dr. D
