"A WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING" Sunday May 17 at 1:30 PM EDT on EWTN (Television): Where did political correctness, gender conflict, gender confusion, Cu

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1cthlctrth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Freddy said:
Have you read the rules that Alinski proposed? They are applicable across the board. And have been used in politics for millenium. Read any treatise on politics and you’ll be able to tick them off one by one…
Click to expand...
Yes, I have read them. They are, by and large, a recipe for the manipulation of a mass of people. Yes, that has been the goal of people who go into politics in order to influence and gain power since there has been political power. That doesn’t mean that it is Christian. As I also noted, they all could be put to use across the political spectrum. Many, however, are too manipulative to be Christian and most run counter to the development of virtue in the target audience.

If you think I believe that Donald Trump is a paragon of Christian politics, you haven’t read a lot of my posts here.

Honestly, which of these were used by either Our Lord or the Apostles:
  1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
  2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
  3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
  4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
  5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
  6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
  7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
  8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
  9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
  10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
  11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
  12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
  13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
 
Last edited:
fide said:
LittleLady, the thing is, there really is a “monstrous enemy” - and he really does have human helpers - some wittingly, many unwittingly, but helpers of a monstrous purpose nevertheless.
Click to expand...
It is fine to be awakened to political tactics that are in opposition to the Gospel. That is a service. It is not OK to lull people into believing that only their political opponents use those tactics. I haven’t seen the film in question, but if it does not ask for wariness to the tactics regardless of the ends they are meant to advance, that’s a bit of a disservice, to say the least. That is responding to a polarizing force by counter-polarizing! It only makes the problem worse and plays directly into the hands of the divider (by which I mean the literally diabolic).

Spanish: [ diablo ] m. (Noun) “devil”

10th cent. From Late Latin diabolus ‘id.,’ from Ancient Greek διάβολος (diábolos) “slanderer,” but also “devil,” composed of διά (diá) “across” and βάλλειν (bállein) “to throw.” Greek διά is from Proto-Indo-European * dis “apart”

To slander, to throw apart: this defines the work of the devil.
hope said:
But his followers are.
Click to expand...
The devil gets followers by masquerading as an angel of light. By the fruits, know the source.

Never think that the devil is only at work in one area of the political system. The devil prowls without sleeping, he leaves no stone un-turned but is tireless in turning brother against brother.

Many years ago, I started to notice that our two major parties seemed to go from advocating for different virtues to defending different vices by demonizing the vices being advanced by the other side and implying that embracing some of the vices one’s own party champions is an unavoidable part of countering the vices of the other side of the spectrum.

The other side can never be given credit for having positive motives. It’s almost as if most of us really believe that the other side of the political spectrum is made up of evil leaders who have duped their stupid and gullible (even if well-intentioned) supporters, but we on our side are not suffering from the same kinds of manipulations. It just keeps getting worse and worse.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. There is no moral equivalence.

Here’s more info regarding “A Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing:”


Alinsky’s Marxist methods and radical philosophy have had a decidedly marked impact on American society, churches, marriage and family life. More than 800 Alinsky-inspired organizations swath the U.S. today.

“Alinsky’s own interest in the Catholic Church centered largely on its politics, both internal and in relation to other institutions and forces in American society,” the film quotes from Alinsky biographer Sanford Horwitt.

“A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” tells his dark tale with powerful music and visuals, reenactments, interviews, video, and audio clips.

The godless nature of Marxism, its dark grip on Alinsky, and his disturbing legacy are firmly established. The evil of this and its far-reaching tentacles are identified, yet we’re not given closure.
 
Last edited:
Alinsky was adored by the young Hillary Rodham who became a Clinton. .

Saul helped secure funds for the violently AntiChristian militant-Communism Internationale
who waged war against the Catholic Church in Spain, during that failed Marxist Revolution

Saul’s folks wanted Saul to become a Jewish Rabbi -
but very arguably Saul opted to actually follow Lucifer of whom Saul revered.

The 4th rule (for Radicals): “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.” You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
Saul Alinsky “Thirteen Tactics for Realistic Radicals: from Rules for Radicals”

Defenders of Saul Allnsky are never very far…

_
 
Ridgerunner said:
40.png
fide:
Saul Alinsky was the kind of man not to be underestimated. Others will come in the same spirit, maybe one in your own neighborhood, one day.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of them now. Alinsky purported to be a socialist, even a Marxist, but like most socialists and Marxists, his goal was always simply power. There are plenty of Alinsky-ites in progressive circles right now. Remember, Obama worked for an Alinsky-ite group, and he certainly was a divider. But there are plenty more of them.

Alinsky-ism is like Leninism. It’s not really a societal goal, though it pretends to be. It’s a method of gaining and retaining power and nothing more.
Click to expand...
He was certainly a socialist, but this ‘power for power’s sake’ comment is a glib response that trips all too easily off the tongue. His aims were to give a voice to those who had none. To take power away from those who failed to use it responsibly. He wanted a change in society but he wanted what most people want: to be heard.
 
27lw said:
I was attempting to make the point that the word “radical” tends to be associated more with the political left in the USA.
Click to expand...
If your standing on the right, then yeah, it will appear that way.
 
And if you want eternal life and the only peace and happiness that remains, read…________… and live what you learn.
(fill in the blank - you know what goes there, right?)
 
”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.“
— SAUL ALINSKY

Now, this doesn’t necessarily qualify him as a “follower” but…yikes!
 
Last edited:
fide said:
And if you want eternal life and the only peace and happiness that remains, read…________… and live what you learn.
(fill in the blank - you know what goes there, right?)
Click to expand...
I could spend all week filling that in. Starting with Socrates, Aurelius, Augustine, Aquinas, Copernicus, Hobbes, Voltaire, Bentham, Mill, Darwin, Nagel, Grayling, Hitchens, Dawkins…oh, and Dave Barry. Fill in the ones I’ve missed then we can start on the books.

Don’t limit your reading matter, fide.
 
Nepperhan said:
If you want to understand Trump one has to read Roy Cohn:
Click to expand...
Roy Cohn and his ilk have also had a very bad influence on the conduct of American business and politics.

Jerks may get what they want a lot of the time, but they do not improve the nation no matter what positive things they manage to accomplish. The ends and the people who achieve them are always sullied by the means.

Say what you want about these “thinkers,” they preached a false gospel of getting ahead by never being afraid of being the biggest jerk in the room.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
Jerks may get what they want a lot of the time, but they do not improve the nation no matter what positive things they manage to accomplish. The ends and the people who achieve them are always sullied by the means.
Click to expand...
That’s situational ethics, which the Jesuits hate.
 
Nepperhan said:
That’s situational ethics, which the Jesuits hate.
Click to expand...
Could you elaborate? I’m not sure what would make you bring up the Jesuits in particular?

I don’t see how either Alinsky or Cohn spent a lot of CPU time worrying about whether their tactics were ethical? Do you mean “the end justifies any means” = “situation ethics”? Ethics which are abandoned when they’re no longer convenient…in what sense are those “ethics”?

I guess I don’t see how recognition of that would require the insight of a Jesuit (not that I have anything against Jesuits).
 
Last edited:
Don’t overestimate your time, friend Freddy. Or your prudence.

I wish you well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top