"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.
EndTimes said:
They are very effective at controlling the flow of Information, thought and discussion,
for the express purpose of controlling the masses - and keeping themselves well-hidden.
Click to expand...
And this is exactly why the life and habit of Roy Cohn must be studied and applied to current communication methods.

Leftists are trying to control the masses and keep themselves hidden? That’s an extreme view with little basis. In my opinion.
 
1cthlctrth said:
Alinsky’s community organizers use Marxist techniques that call for someone or some group to be cast as an “enemy” who must be isolated and demonized. They are taught to treat people not as individuals but as symbols.

Alinsky further teaches: “The end justifies almost any means."
Click to expand...
He also said that he would “organize hell” .

One of the signatures of the enemies of Christianity
lies in their extremely well-organized ability to organize
  • in the international globalism sense …
••••••••••••••••••

In his Rules for Radicals - of which Hillary Rodham wrote her college thesis about .
Saul Alinsky wrote this - at the very beginning

-----------------------

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 very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer.

==========
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
40.png
Freddy:
His aims were to give a voice to those who had none. To take power away from those who failed to use it responsibly.
Click to expand...
And a man who dedicates his seminal work to Satan, as he did, is not worthy of anyone’s trust.
Click to expand...
Anyone who thinks that that should be treated seriously doesn’t exactly convince me that the rest of their views should be taken seriously.
 
Freddy said:
Anyone who thinks that that should be treated seriously doesn’t exactly convince me that the rest of their views should be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
Disbelieve Alinsky if you want, but he did dedicate the book to Satan. Well, he said “Lucifer” actually. It’s right in the book.
 
Ridgerunner said:
40.png
Freddy:
Anyone who thinks that that should be treated seriously doesn’t exactly convince me that the rest of their views should be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
Disbelieve Alinsky if you want, but he did dedicate the book to Satan. Well, he said “Lucifer” actually. It’s right in the book.
Click to expand...
I’m sure you think that it was seriously meant.
 
Well, who does that? Even as a joke? Dedicating your book to Lucifer?
Either he totally disbelieved in Lucifer, and thought that was really funny / clever / subversive, or he likes the story of Lucifer going against God’s authority. It’s like Alinsky is elevating the act of rebellion as the highest good.
 
27lw said:
Well, who does that? Even as a joke? Dedicating your book to Lucifer?
Either he totally disbelieved in Lucifer, and thought that was really funny / clever / subversive, or he likes the story of Lucifer going against God’s authority.
Click to expand...
He was an agnostic Jew. If you think what he said was a rejection of God’s authority then so be it. I could care less…
 
Last edited:
There is no “dedication” in the book.

The book begins with:

Personal Acknowledgments

To Jason Epstein for his prodding, patience and understanding, and for
being a beautiful editor.

To Cicely Nichols for the hours of painstaking editorial assistance.

To Susan Rabiner for being the shock absorber between the corporate
structure of Random House and this writer.

To Georgia Harper my heartfelt gratitude for the months of typing and
typing and for staying with me through the years of getting this book
together.

To Irene
Then there are three quotes, one from a Rabbi, one from Thomas Paine and the author quotes himself.

No where, anywhere, is the book dedicated to Lucifer.

 
I would call it a dedication. Here it is:

“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 very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer.”

There are those who say it was “tongue in cheek”. Hard to know. But the fact is that he said it, and in doing so elevated Lucifer. This is not a condemnation of Lucifer or even a neutral statement. It’s praise.

I doubt Alinsky even believed in Lucifer, but one doesn’t have to believe in him to praise what he stands for. Stalin was an atheist, but he is known to have told Churchill he had the devil on his side, “he’s a good communist…” Stalin is reported as having said. Again, Stalin didn’t believe in the devil’s existence, but he spoke affirmatively of him in that statement, which showed where his heart was.
 
You can call it whatever, the bottom line is a dedication in a book is just that. Quotes used in a book are not dedications, they are quotes.

Even if someone does dedicate a book to Satan, that does not mean that it has anything to do with our lives.
 
I agree with those that say the Rules are used by both sides, and to the Catholics among us… I have to say I do not think that is Catholic. In Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII points out that labor and management should be united, working for one goal. All too often, the two are at odds, and it is definitely true that it is often management at fault here, but not always.

Anyway, it seems like Ghandi’s non-violent tactics are more in line with Catholic teaching.

We now can see the fruits of both sides using the politics of division, not matter who started it. Division is one tactic the devil uses against us, so Alinsky, while maybe writing tongue in cheek, may have been more revealing than he realized.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
If you’ve seen it then give us your personal impressions as to the validity of political tactics. I’ve given a few examples of specific Alinsky rules that anyone with a tv set would recognise as Trumps modus operandi. Are they acceptable if he uses them but not if the left does?
Click to expand...
Tactics can be morally ambiguous, and dependent on other factors.
For example, the tactic “Divide and conquor”.

Unity in itself is neither good nor bad; it begs the question, “Unity in WHAT?” Unity in the Good - as in God - is a great good, and to seek to “divide and conquer” - to divide people away from one another in Christ and from God is an immense evil. That is the tactic straight out of hell.

Unity in sin; unity in godlessness, in falsity, in lies, is very bad. It forms a “culture of sin”, a “culture of darkness and death” presenting a social environment that becomes a culture of temptation for young and weak souls. Thus to seek to “Divide and conquer” in such a culture of death (as the culture of the secular West is today), is a very good tactic of Christian evangelization. We seek to draw people out of the false unity of evil, and into the saving unity of Truth, in Christ.

Thus “Tactics” is a misleading factor to focus on. This in itself shows another tactic used by the evil one: the tactic of distraction into things or words that seem to show a moral equivalence of two opposing forces, good and evil. They are not morally equivalent in their ends - that is a crucially important factor on the table here. An evil end destroys the acceptability of any means. A clever justification of the means used is pointless when the end itself is evil.
 
fide said:
40.png
Freddy:
If you’ve seen it then give us your personal impressions as to the validity of political tactics. I’ve given a few examples of specific Alinsky rules that anyone with a tv set would recognise as Trumps modus operandi. Are they acceptable if he uses them but not if the left does?
Click to expand...
Tactics can be morally ambiguous, and dependent on other factors.
Click to expand...
Tactics are a means to an end. You’ve seen the ones that Alinsky proposes and you have been shown that others on the opposite side of the political divide also use them. Are you saying that the tactics are neutral but the means to which they put them are what needs to be addressed?
 
The intention, or end, is crucially important, yes. If the end is evil, the means can be good but the end remains evil. If the end is good BUT the means is evil, then that is important, since “the end does not justify the means.”

I did not say tactics are neutral - I said ambiguous - and even misleading in this case, since you seem to be trying to say that since every one uses some of Alensky’s means - hence he’s good???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top