Why Saul Alinsky is loathed

The germ of this essay was the recent fixation the repukes, and other tinfoil teabaggers have concerning Saul Alinsky*1909, 1972†. It has to have been recent, probably not before the presidential candidacy of Obama*1961[do the math], and probably not well known in those circles until well after the inauguration. The formation of the teabaggers came at this time.

Alinsky was a sociologist of the Chicago School. He studied the organising of John L. Lewis of the miner’s union, and the C.I.O.. He grew up as a religious jew. He worried that his folks wanted him to be a rabbi. Alinsky became an agnostic, but he maintained, “Whenever anyone asks me my religion, I always say—and always will say— Jewish.”

Alinsky had several distinguished catholic friends. There were leftists who called him a catholic dupe. Alinsky believed in community organising. Alinsky was a member of the non-socialist ‘left’. This concept is unfathomable to the idjits, i have referred to earlier.

After a little study, i have come to the conclusion, that, the only rationale [other than defamation of individuals, primarily a legitimate President] they have is an intense fear about community organising, itself, so that poverty and powerlessness does NOT decrease. Somewhere along the line some fascist propagandist came to the notice of a media mouthfoamer, or two, and that created this hatred for Alinsky. It was picked up by their mindless minions, and when you hear one parrot, you have heard them all [i may be exaggerating, but not by much].

The Diocese of Davenport, Iowa, [and later with some other Davenport institutions] has given a Pacem in Terris Freedom Award. Pacem in Terris was the name of an encyclical of John XXIII, its subtitle is, On Establishing Universal Peace in Truth, Justice, Charity and Liberty. It was his last, but the first one addressed to “all men of good will”. Its first recipient was the murdered president John Kennedy (1964). Alinsky was awarded the prise in 1969 because he “taught people how to organize and to act together in promoting justice in society”. Other recipients included M.L. King (1965), Mother Teresa (1976), Joseph Bernardin (1985), Desmond Tutu (1987), César Chávez (1992), Lech Wałęsa (2001).

It is doubtful many of his detractors read him. Some say he loved Lucifer. Okay, this is crazy bullshit. Then i heard, an intelligent man say Alinsky had Lucifer as his hero. Then it hit me. John Milton made Lucifer(Satan) an hero. Now, Milton was a puritan, he was with Oliver Cromwell. Milton was anti-catholic, but this made him think he was a real christian. Milton wrote the book length poem, “Paradise Lost”, in which Satan is the hero. Now, christian teaching has the sin of pride causing the fall of Lucifer. This rebellion makes Satan heroic [read the poem, or see this].

Now, i argued with a young english teacher, who had been raised catholic. I argued that Judas was the first protestant [in refusing to believe in the Sacrament]. Luther followed in Lucifer’s footfalls [Luther in breaking unity, and acting on his egoism] in the primacy of will. This upset him, and he said that i just misused Milton to attack the Reformation. So i figured, Alinsky had to make some sort of luciferian rebel image; and from this the repukes created their misleading canard.

In the book, Rules for Radicals, before the table of contents there is quoted, Rabbi Hillel, Thomas Paine [no surprise], and Alinsky. Alinsky makes an acknowledgement that Lucifer was the first radical, and this is [of course] exactly in the Miltonian mode; not unlike John Steinbeck using a passage from that poem to title his book about an agricultural strike, “In Dubious Battle” (1936). Alinsky quotes from the Book of Job‡, a few pages later, at the very beginning of the book proper, on page 3; but a repuke might not get that far. He already has more than enough to damn Alinsky.
______________________
‡“The life of man upon earth is a warfare...”—Job vii. 1 [Douay Rheims 1609, or Douay Rheims Challoner 1750]. This was the newest english catholic version until 1936 when the Westminster Version was completed. Now for the Church in England and Wales — the Jerusalem Bible (1966), for the Church in the US — New American Bible (1970) are used liturgically. Whether Alinsky quoted for the choice of words, or not, i don’t know, but he didn’t use a jewish, or protestant translation; he used the ancient catholic one, which was the only really readily available one in his time.