Re-Blogged from . David Greenfield’s “Hillary Will Be Alinsky’s Third Term.” I’ve changed it ever so slightly – a punctuation mark and adding one comment.
After two terms in the White House by one Alinsky disciple, the United States is divided as never before. We cannot survive another. One in four Americans are ready for their state to secede from the United States. Three quarters of Americans don’t believe that their children will have a better future than they did.
To anyone else this would be a failure, but to an Alinskyite despair and doom are a success story. Saul Alinsky wrote in Rules for Radicals that the organizer must “rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression.”
He must make the people “feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future.”
Obama has made Americans feel frustrated, defeated, futureless and lost. And if they were hoping that the next Democrat will actually bring hope and change, instead of hatred and despair, they will be deeply disappointed. While Obama learned his community organizing skills at the feet of Alinsky’s twisted disciples, Hillary Clinton learned them from Alinsky. Hillary is even worse than Obama.
In the introduction to her senior thesis on Alinsky, Hillary Rodham thanked him for his time and for offering her a job. But those dispassionate words were covering up a much deeper relationship.
The Free Beacon’s recent release of an exchange of letters begins with Hillary anxiously waiting for the release of Rules for Radicals.
“Has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?” the former Methodist “Goldwater Girl” turned radical leftist wonders.
“You are being rediscovered again as the New Left-type politicos are finally beginning to think seriously about the hard work and mechanics of organizing,” she writes.
In her thesis, Hillary had attempted to depict Alinsky as a mainstream American icon, writing, “His are the words used in our schools and churches, by our parents and their friends, by our peers. The difference is that Alinsky really believes in them”. The media attempted to defend her Alinsky ties by claiming that he was not ideologically of the left. Hillary’s letter however gives the lie to that.
Alinsky was not mainstream. There was nothing American about him. He was a man of the hard left, and Hillary Rodham represented a connection to the future.
In the introduction to Rules for Radicals, he wrote of her generation of leftist radicals, “It is what they do and will do that will give meaning to what I and the radicals of my generation have done with our lives.”
That is what the last six years have been. The misery, the rising prices, the racial hatred and despair were the meaning that Barack Obama brought to Saul Alinsky’s life. They are the fertile dark territories on which Hillary Rodham Clinton means to build a horrifying future.
Alinsky was more than a thesis subject to Clinton. And vice versa. Her letter to him is cheerfully intimate. His secretary’s response references “his feelings about you”. The year was 1971. Hillary was deep in her political activities and had begun dating Bill Clinton. Three years earlier, Alinsky had offered her a job. Hillary however had chosen to go on working through the system. That continues to be her tactic today.
Hillary Clinton didn’t reject Alinsky, as she and the media have tried to claim. His tactics and worldview continue to inform her own. But Hillary, Rodham or Clinton, understood the importance of adaptation.
But so did Alinsky.
“As an organizer I start from where the world is,” Alinsky wrote in Rules for Radicals. “That means working in the system.”
“If the real radical finds that having long hair sets up psychological barriers to communication and organization, he cuts his hair,” he added.
Hillary’s pantsuits, her $1,500 haircuts and her time with the Democratic Leadership Council were not a rejection of Alinsky. They were the tactics of a Rules for Radicals leftist working within the system.
Alinsky would have understood and approved.
In her first memoir, Hillary Clinton claimed that she had broken with Alinsky over her “belief that the system could be changed from within.”
But Alinsky had believed that as well. Hillary never broke with him, but she had to maintain the appearance of having left behind a radical flirtation to become a mainstream Democrat. That appearance, like everything else about her, was and is a lie.
Quoting Lenin, Alinsky wrote in Rules for Radicals, “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.”
“And it was,” he added.
For now it’s still reformation through the ballot, overseen by a propagandist media and its campaigns of dirty tricks. But the radicals still dream of the day when they have the guns and Americans have nothing.
Despite the media’s attempts to dismiss Hillary Clinton’s ties to Alinsky, the way that they had tried to wave away Obama’s ties to Bill Ayers, she maintained her dirty political connections with Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation even inside the white walls of the White House.
A year after the letter, Alinsky was buried in the cold hard ground of Cook County after an attack of the heart that no one knew he had. By then Hillary Clinton was campaigning for George McGovern.
“The key word for an Alinsky-type organizing effort is ‘power.’” Hillary wrote in her thesis. “’As he says: ‘No individual or organization can negotiate without power to compel negotiations.’”
The Clintons have gathered enormous wealth and power to themselves. As Obama’s radical fires burn across the heartland, as factories close, unemployment lines bulge and the people despair, the Clintons are positioning themselves as the sensible moderates who will take a step back from his radical ways. For the scam to work, they had to play the long game of pretending not to be radicals.
Hillary had to be seen as leaving Alinsky behind to truly fulfill his vision of a ruined nation brought to its knees.
In 1971, on the cusp of her latest meeting with Alinsky, Hillary Rodham was coming to some crucial decisions that would determine the expression of her radicalism and extremism. Influencing her in this regard was none other than Saul Alinsky.
From his teachings, Hillary came to understand that power mattered more than symbolism and that effectiveness came before integrity.
“All effective actions require the passport of morality,” Alinsky wrote. Hillary carries the passport of morality. Its pages however are blank. Radicals of the left are not citizens of any country or members of any religion. Their only nation is their own ideology. Their only allegiance is to their radicalism.
“We have the serious business and joy of much work ahead,” Hillary wrote to him. Alinsky would soon be dead, but Hillary would be carrying on his work by abusing her advisory position with the House Committee on the Judiciary to bring down the President of the United States.
McGovern had lost, but Hillary Clinton would have her way no matter what the ballots said. And her way was the Alinsky way.
Now the White House has been reserved for her. The Democratic Party is waiting to anoint another of Saul Alinsky’s disciples for a third term of misery and terror in the radical plot to destroy America.