In a previous column, I wrote about revolutionaries among Jews – represented by Lev Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Marx. Jews survived thanks to their conservatism, and no people hated change as much as Jews did before the 19th century; however, after Karl Marx by the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, radicals and Jews became synonymous for a time in the eyes of many, people who went around sowing the fires of rebellion. Moreover, they were often wealthy Jews: Trotsky financed the Russian Revolution, Jorge Basquan financed the revolutions of Castro and Che Guevara, and Leon Georges, a Lithuanian Jew, was Rosa Luxemburg’s lover and moneymaker behind the scenes.
The protagonist to be written about in this article is the American heir to this revolutionary lineage. Saul Alinsky died in 1972 at the age of 63, but he was behind left-wing movements such as Occupy Wall Street as late as 2011.
Alinsky was a standard “apostate”: born into an Orthodox Jewish family, he decisively abandoned his faith. Playboy described him as “a man with glasses who dressed conservatively, like an accountant. He enrolled at the University of Chicago, where he majored in archaeology, and was soon drawn to the city’s famed ghettos, dropping out of school to mingle with the poor. The neighborhood where he started was the one described by the American leftist writer Upton Sinclair in his hottest novel, “Slaughterhouse”. It was there that his talent for organizing and speaking came to the fore.
His subsequent work gradually shifted to community organizing, in essence, his determination to unite people who did not know each other and to give a collective voice to the scattered voiceless. He went to cities like Kansas, Detroit, and Oakland, but Chicago was the base to which he devoted most of his energy, having mobilized workers there to resist the oppression of large corporations like Kodak. The mayor of Oakland had ordered him to be turned away from the city. However, there was no shortage of people in American politics with socialist ideals at heart, and Alinsky often found praise from these people, even if his goals were much more radical than those of the average socialist: he was out to destroy the existing order altogether.
Saul Alinsky (1909-1972)
One of the most influential periods of Alinsky’s life activities was his association with Hillary Clinton. In 1993, after receiving a call from the White House, Wesleyan’s president issued a rule that any papers left by a U.S. president or first lady while attending the school must be kept confidential. This is a purely silver bullet, people will know once they check, the then First Lady Hillary, is a graduate of Wesleyan in 1969. After Clinton left office, Hillary’s thesis was made public, and the title of the article was “Only Struggle ……: An Analysis of Alinsky as an Example”.
Hillary called Alinsky a “neo-Hobbesian”. 17th century English political philosopher Hobbes’ theory of human nature is well known: man is a wolf to wolf; man’s first consideration in society is his own safety. Like Spengler, the author of “The Decline of the West,” he saw life and civilization as a process of decline and decay, but he cheered for it, because since from every person to every society is declining and deteriorating, you do not have to carry a great sense of guilt for annihilating a human life, and you are justified in destroying a society. In Alinsky’s doctrine, there is no need to be concerned about destroying an old world, but only about the technical problem: how to organize the destructive force effectively.
Alinsky’s reply to Hillary’s letter
Alinsky declared that he wanted to be hated, and the more people who hated him, the better: If I am called a “demagogue” by those who defend the status quo, I will have succeeded. However, his campaigns have overwhelmingly ended in failure. In discussing his experience and lessons learned, Hillary concluded that real change must be initiated by the government – but that the organizational techniques pioneered by Alinsky are also fully available to the government.
No wonder Alinsky called himself “the Machiavellian of the powerless. “Machiavelli’s Monarchy is about how the powerful stay in power, while The Law of Radicals is about how the powerless seize power.” He said in his book, The Law of Radicals. The book, his “gift” to Americans, was published in 1971, as if he knew he didn’t have many days left to live, and Alinsky wrote his life’s lessons in this book for his successors.
The target audience for The Law of Radicals was the young urban middle class; in the 1930s, blue-collar workers were the dry fire of American society; thirty years later, novels like Slaughterhouse had long since become obsolete, and middle-class youth were the mainstay of the rebellion. Alinsky keenly recognized that he should pin his hopes on these young boys and girls who were well clothed and fed, though he did not know that the schoolgirl who wrote her thesis on him in 1968-1969 and later corresponded with her would become the first lady, the secretary of state, and even storm the presidency in the future.
Hillary had asked in a 1971 letter when the book “The Law of Radicals” would come out, and from Wesleyan Girls’ School to Yale Law School, she had gained much from Alinsky’s campus oratory techniques. The Law book had been the focus of media attention again when Barack Obama was running for president, as Obama publicly described himself as an Alinsky devotee. So it is not hard to understand that the Republicans, the conservatives of Americans, always want to stink up The Law and Alinsky, preferably by stigmatizing The Law as a dangerous book like Mein Kampf, and whoever dares to claim to like it is automatically discredited.
In March 1971, a reporter from Playboy interviewed Alinsky, an interview that also brought his fame to a peak, loved by those who love it as a prophet and hated by those who hate it to the bone. Alinsky threw out some decisive words: “If I had an afterlife, I would say I would not hesitate to choose hell. Hell is my heaven, and I’ve spent my life with nothing. If you’re a nothing in hell, you can’t talk about having any morals. Once I get to hell, I will organize the have-nots there. They are my people.”
If there really is a hell, governed by Satan, Satan would tremble at these words, and he would shut him out of the gates of hell, just as the mayor of Oakland rejected Alinsky.
Radicals or “revolutionaries” are certainly not inherent to Jews, and Jews like Alinsky are more or less “genetically mutated”. It is well known that most Jews in the United States accept American values and have a solid social status, so if there is any suspicion that someone is unstable or conspiring, it is not on the Jews’ heads. However, Alinsky’s existence, and the name behind him, has not been disparaged by his compatriots for his apostasy from Judaism; in fact, the inner workings of Alinsky’s social activities and his outward image have been defended by the Jewish-controlled American media. So there is no reason for those fearful orthodox white Americans to abandon a terrible impression of Jews: that they are adept at concealing their true colors, changing into other identities, and quietly infiltrating the layers of power in a country, eroding it and changing its color.
Recent Comments