When Marxism and Community Organizing Attacks
Michael Walsh, “The Full Alinksy”:
Alinsky rode into town on a one-trick pony that the Left has since turned into its warhorse: Agitate one side’s grievances, and appeal to another side’s decency and gullibility in order to provoke the establishment, whose reaction will unite the other two. Then the community organizer charges in on his nag-turned-steed and proceeds to set the rot in motion under the banner of “progress.”
It is the very devil’s work, and Alinsky certainly made a splendid devil: unctuous and whiny at the same time, and always casting himself as the real, heroic victim standing for progress, when in fact he was a particularly nasty, cowardly kind of cultural vandal. […]
[…] the key to Alinskyism is the whipsaw, a constantly shifting “moral center” that can argue both sides of an issue at the same time. Thus Alinsky’s love child, Barack Obama, can boast of being rich and siding with the “99%” simultaneously; attack him as one and he’ll say he’s “really” be the other. Just look what the Obama administration is doing now, claiming to suspend the “CLASS” act of Obamacare while the president swears to defend it. Intellectually absurd — but emotionally pitch-perfect: Barry as the eternal outsider, battling dark forces inimical. For Alinsky always needs a villain, even if the villain is Alinskyism itself. But what do you expect from a political philosophy that claims up is really down, in is really out, and black is really white?
Alinskyism forces the Right to always be on the defense, shadow-boxing in a hall of mirrors against a foe whose moral turpitude it refuses to credit. If Alinsky stood for anything, it was, like Lucifer, destruction; the Left’s rage is animated by its lust for demolition, and the sooner the Right stops accepting its pretensions, the quicker the real battle can finally be engaged.
Good advice, but wasted on an establishment GOP that is terrified of being portrayed negatively by the very media whose role it’s been to hide Obama’s radical past in advance of a moment just like this one, where all the President’s education and training and prior experience and ideological convictions merge and become manifest in the kind of cultural upheaval he’s long been intimating he would help usher in.
Again, some of us listened, others either didn’t — or else refused to believe what it was they were hearing. But regardless of past perceptions, what is clear is that this is happening now, and once again, many on the “pragmatic” right are hoping that if they show sympathy, they’ll gain the trust of the protesters, or at the very least avoid their wrath.
But the protesters themselves are mere puppets — the aimless, politically naive walking dead unwittingly waiting for the organized left to move in and co-opt them; evidence for this has been published and made publicly available, and yet the mainstream press either ignores or suppresses that evidence and works to further the narrative of a grand, grass roots uprising of The People, once again aiding their President in his efforts to usher in the fundamental transformation he promised while giving him a conscious pass on his own ties to Wall Street and his own pronounced engagements in pay for play-politics and crony capitalism. More, these same “journalists” have been tied to the very messaging of the movement — directing the demands, polishing and focusing the supposed grievances, and then hurrying back to report “objectively” on that which they themselves have cynically designed.
To be clear: these “grievances” on parade are not the point of the protests, at least, not to those who are orchestrating all this. Instead, the point of the protests is to con weak-willed pragmatic panders like Romney, or weak-willed and frightened “leaders” like Eric Cantor and John Boehner, to allow for the grievances, to sympathize with them, to begin speaking in the language of the left’s carefully crafted narrative, and to make concessions while remaining constantly on the defensive.
That Romney has been so easily manipulated, concerned as he is over optics and ever willing to try to align himself with the side he perceives is carrying cultural dominance, even momentarily, is a testament to both the aims of this “movement” and the weakness of Romney as a candidate. That the establishment GOP is backing such a weak-willed squish rushing to make concessions to the rabble-rousers and their artificially inflated movement, is a testament both to the cynical predations of Alinsky and his acolytes, and to the absent ideological center of our current party leadership.
We’d better find our stones fast, as a Party. Or we all lose.
(thanks to Jon E. for the PJM link; read through the comments to see an example of a battle within the Occupy movement for control over the narrative, and for the leadership roles that are working to shake themselves out)