Translate

domingo, 25 de septiembre de 2016

Saul Alinsky: “Life is a corrupting process…he who fears corruption fears life…”


Unmasking Saul Alinsky, a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing



BY JOSEPH PRONECHEN 


A brilliant new EWTN film unmasks the man behind community organizing and what has greatly contributed to today's chaotic culture.
Do you want an understanding of where so much of society’s problems originated and how things went radically wrong in everything from culture to family life to politics?

You’ll find out from A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing, set to air on EWTN television on Saturday evening, Sept. 24, at 6 pm Eastern time (check schedule for other time zones).

The film is no less than riveting. By the brilliant team of Richard and Stephen Payne, the father-son filmmakers who head Arcadia Films, it explores the life and beliefs of one Saul Alinsky, often called the father of community organizing.

Sure, he said he wanted to help the poor, but we see how his tactics were no less than wrong and anti-Christian. He deceived many and used and abused elements in the Catholic Church in the process.

Richard Payne explained that St. Matthew gave the filmmakers the classic three-act structure in 7:15-20.

Act One: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.” In this act we get the story of the rise of Alinsky, where he got his ideas, and how as a socialist/Marxist he began applying them to manipulate people and society.

Act Two: “By their fruits you will know them.” Was there good fruit in his work, or did it lead to a basket of rotten goods?

Act Three: “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.” Here comes the assessment of the fruits which look ready for the trash heap. People at this point should be asking themselves, How did we get to this precipice and is there hope to back away from it? Here is where the Paynes turn up the spotlights to overcome the heat. It’s not a paradox in this film.


The film immediately grabs our attention with the tale of a wolf dressing as a sheep to mingle unnoticed with the sheep in the pasture. That sets the stage for the early years of Alinsky.

Period photos, headlines, and film bring to life the narration of Alinsky’s beginnings and growth in a fascinating way to get to understand the man. The Paynes blend these techniques in a way that keeps us moving closer to the edge of our seats as details pile up about his rise to unholy power.

Born in 1909 into an Orthodox Jewish family where the father was a successful middle class tailor, Alinsky became an agnostic and wanted to help the poor rise out of their condition. But how?

In college he took a social pathology course that, among other things, devalued marriage and family and ideas were constructed in Marxist terms.

“Treat persons not as persons but symbols,” says Alinsky in one of the vignettes throughout the film, punctuating Alinsky’s ideas in his own words. Actor Jim Morlino of Navis Pictures portrays Alinsky as that disguised wolf yet shows his sinister and dark edge, like a commentator in a 50s film noir.

“Life is a corrupting process…he who fears corruption fears life…” he says another time.

“Truth is relative and is changing,” he asserts. Get the picture? There’s a healthy dose of relativism already here in early to mid-20th century. Make truth what you want it to be at the moment.

In his sheep’s clothing he says again, “The end justifies almost any means.” And “You do what you can and clothe it in moral garments.”

That he did, we learn. It all sounded so good, helping the poor improve their lot. Who could be against that? But with what we learn are Marxist, Socialist, Communist tactics?

Of course, he must have picked up a thing or two from Chicago’s mob bosses. Studying criminality on a fellowship, he got to known the ruthless Al Capone and then Frank Nitti who took over for Capone. By his own admission, Alinsky said of Nitti, “I called him the professor and I became his student.”

......


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky

Read more: www.ncregister.com

Rules for radicals
  • “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.
  • “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
  • “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
  • “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.
  • “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.
  • “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.
  • “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
  • “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.
  • “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
  • "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.
  • “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.
  • “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.
  • “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.

sábado, 10 de septiembre de 2016

Keep doing small things with great love. Your reward is great in heaven.


The Catholic Response to Feel-Good Religion


An increasing number of spiritual but not religious (SBNR) people in our modern culture

You’re sitting in the dentist office and the hygienist you’re scheduled to see is running late so you pick up the latest issue of People magazine. You leaf through what feels like an endless stream of pop culture ephemera but then come to an article about an actress whose work you’ve come to respect. The piece is mostly about her struggle with depression on her rise to become an A-list star of stage and cinema but the article does devote two paragraphs to her recent separation from her less famous screenwriter husband.

A source close to the couple told the magazine that her issues with depression did put a strain on the marriage but bigger problems included his drinking and their differences concerning how to raise their two daughters. “She’s a practicing Catholic,” the source said, “and wanted to raise them that way. That means weekly Mass and Catholic schools. He describes himself as ‘spiritual but not religious,’ and is adamant that the kids should be exposed to a variety of faiths and philosophies and make up their own minds as they mature.” As a practicing Catholic, you cringe at the cliché “spiritual but not religious (SBNR),” and the thought of it annoys you the rest of your workday, like a small pebble in your shoe that’s pressing up against your heel.

When we look at the SBNR sensibility through the lens of Scripture, we find a thematic continuum whose origins go back before Eden. The devil and a large contingent of angels fell from grace because they “radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign,” and then the tempter seduced our first parents to join his rebellion by promising them that, “You will be like God” (CCC #392). Later a people would try to make a name for themselves by building a tower and a city without any deference to God (Genesis 11:1-9) and still later the nation of Israel would come to a place in their history when, “…there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).

This drama of fallen creation switching places with God and assuming divine prerogatives continues throughout the rest of the biblical narrative. It’s a kind ofgodship that is dramatically illustrated in Milton’s Paradise Lost when Satan declares that it is, “Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven.” C.S. Lewis opines that “There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, ‘All right, then, have it your way.’”

What does this have to do with the increasing number of SBNR people in American culture? Before we can answer that question, it’s important to understand that SBNR comes in many different varieties. For example, there are some in evangelical and evangelical-charismatic circles, many of whom are Millennials, who reach a point where they are frustrated with many activities and emphases in their churches that they believe are not rooted in Scripture or centered in Christ. Perhaps they feel that a charismatic pastor or their denomination or a building program is taking up all the oxygen in the room and Christ himself has been forgotten. They’ll say things like, “I don’t want religion; I want a relationship with Christ,” or “I’m not religious; I’m spiritual.” Sometimes when a practicing Catholic hears these words, they think it is an attack on the rituals, traditions, and Sacraments of their faith when it is actually self-criticism of their own Protestant, ecclesial life. It’s not godship, and, for many people, such disillusionment may be the first steps toward crossing the Tiber.

There is another variety of SBNR that is decidedly different, deleterious for our culture, and has the signature of godship all over its DNA. This person senses the Transcendent, has intimations of Someone or Something that cannot be reduced to the laws of biology, chemistry, and physics, and, who may, from time to time, influence their daily lives. However, they either haven’t submitted themselves to a divine metanarrative (e.g., Scripture, Tradition, the Magisterium), or choose cafeteria-style what they like from different faith traditions and philosophies. Either way they make themselves the arbiters of truth in understanding the nature of God, comprehending Beauty, Goodness, and Truth, determining right and wrong, and answering the ancient question, “How shall we then live?”

Often the fruit of such an approach is that the person creates a “God” in their own image because they equate their inner human voice with the voice of God. Ross Douthatcalls this “the God within,” and finds it very much on display in such wildly popular books as Eat, Pray, Love. This dovetails with what sociologist of religion, Robert Bellah, found in his research, and, especially, in a famous interview he did with a woman named Sheila. Sheila said, “I believe in God. I’m not a religious fanatic. I can’t remember the last time I went to church. My faith has carried me a long way. It’s Sheilaism. Just my own little voice.”

If godship is a ship (excuse the pun), then one of the major engines driving it has to be the therapeutic sensibility. I explored this aspect of American culture in a recent essayin this magazine that marshaled both anecdotal and empirical evidence to argue that a significant number of Americans, including many weekly Mass attenders, are not so much concerned about doing good or being good as they are about feeling good. This pursuit of subjective sentiments of well-being often trumps the clear obligations of their faith tradition. As Philip Rieff predicted half a century ago, in the West, Religious Man, who is concerned with salvation and sanctity, has been replaced by Therapeutic Man, who is concerned with experiencing a plentitude of endorphins.

Two stories come to mind but many more could be furnished. Both involve women who were members of orthodox Christian traditions for years. One was a former pastor’s wife who left her husband and the tradition and is currently living with a man; the other joined a liberal Episcopal church and is presently in a lesbian relationship. In both cases two different nominal Christians came up to me after these changes and gushed about “how happy they are now.” These behaviors are often made more palatable by other declarations such as “She’s following her heart,” and/or “She’s finding herself,” and/or “She feels alive,” and/or “She’s found her soul mate.” This is all therapeutic bilge washing up on our cultural deck and code for: “This behavior increased ‘happy chemicals’ in her brain, caused her to feel good, and, in so doing, legitimized a behavior that is forbidden by orthodox Christianity.”

What nominal Christians often overlook is that just because something may make you feel good, it may not be good for you or the culture you live in. Evidence indicates that two adults cohabiting may make both of them feel good initially but such an arrangement significantly increases the risk of divorce and produces marriages with less relational satisfaction. Homosexuals have a wide variety of negative mental health outcomes. Also, a behavior may increase subjective feelings of well-being but decrease spiritual and moral health—i.e. the other type of happiness that Aristotle calledeudaimonia that he described as “an activity of the soul expressing virtue.” Feel good happiness often trumps eudaimonia and virtue is sacrificed on the Altar of Endorphins. In conversing with nominal Christians, it may be wise to point out that someone’s soul can be hollowed out while they feel just great about their behavior.

Because I’m not an historian or a sociologist, I hesitate to shout from the housetops, “We’re living in the Age of Therapeutic Godship!” However, there’s too much anecdotal and empirical evidence to deny that these are major players on our cultural stage. The Church’s response to these aspects of the Zeitgeist should be to manifest the oppositespirit of the times with greater intensity. Put another way: Any strategy of cultural engagement should be guided by this principle: if you find something widespread in your culture that is toxic, incarnate the opposite virtue with greater force. The Life and Passion of Christ is the perfect lens for the Church to look through to understand what this looks like: humble self-sacrifice defeated therapeutic godship.

Think of the aforementioned SBNR person. Though he called himself the Truth, Christ paradoxically didn’t make himself the sole arbiter of it and constantly declared that he only did and said what he received from the Father. He provided an example for us of eschewing godship and being submitted to a divine metanarrative. Though he had the prerogatives of divinity, he did not exploit his status—“pull rank”—but instead humbled himself, became a servant, and died an ignominious death. His subjective feelings of happiness were not enhanced by the Passion. It was a bitter cup to drink: endorphins were sacrificed on the Altar of Self-Giving Love.

One of the things I love about being a Catholic convert is that all of these dynamics arere-presented for me and the entire Church every time we celebrate Mass. Mass is a tutorial on how to engage this present age. The “seed of the woman” crushed therapeutic godship under his feet. “Go, the Mass is ended,” really should be translated, “Go, the [congregation] is sent,” and is a commandment to follow in his footsteps. What does this look like in our age?

..........





“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” (facilis descensus Averno)


Luther Looks at Islam



"...setting aside the tragic consequences of those years for the Church and the whole world, Luther began a fracture that now has become an opening for an assault upon civilization from Mecca. All because of his obsession: “As the pope is Antichrist, so the Turk is the very devil. The prayer of Christendom is against both. Both shall go down to hell, even though it may take the Last Day to end them there; and I hope it will not be long.” "

Martin Luther cut a figure of such massive importance that reflections on him are a Rorschach test for theologians and historians alike. In few instances have personality and principle been so melded. If the Dominican Aquinas argued contra and sed contra, the former Augustinian would settle his case by slapping the table: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so!” Aquinas spoke syllogisms while Luther shouted slurs. Interpreting the Rorschach blots his own way, Chesterton, no lightweight himself, resented that though Luther’s intellect was negligible in comparison with that of the Angelic Doctor, “his broad and burly figure has been big enough to block out for four centuries the distant human mountain of Aquinas.” With new attention focusing on Luther for the fifth centenary of his revolution, he still looms in Chesterton’s summary as “one of those great elemental barbarians, to whom it is indeed given to change the world.”

This barbarism consists in a proto-modern confusion of conscience with ego which, as Maritain wrote in his “Three Reformers,” is “something much subtler, much deeper, and much more serious, than egoism; a metaphysical egoism. Luther’s self becomes practically the center of gravity of everything, especially in the spiritual order.” Those sparring partners, Calvin and Luther, were both young when they made their mark: Calvin wrote his Institutes at the age of 25 and Luther was 33 when he advertised his 95 theses. And the emperor Charles V was 21 when he faced Luther at the Diet of Worms. But the personality of Calvin does not loom over his works as in the case of Luther. The difference shapes hasty caricatures of Calvin as a Pecksniffian ectomorph and Luther a Rabelaisian endomorph. Saint Thomas More parodied Luther’s scatological diction when he called him a “buffoon … (who will) carry nothing in his mouth other than cesspools, sewers, latrines…” But on the whole, the Catholic humanist reformers distinguished themselves from Luther by the astringency of their Aristotelian disdain, More’s friend Erasmus being a prime example of this protocol, along with such as Cajetan, Caisius, and Giberti.

One of Luther’s Ninety-Five denunciations of Rome was, “Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have letters of indulgence will be eternally damned, along with their teachers.” Obviously Luther was not the sort to ask, “Who am I to judge?” But his judgment courted an equation of the authentic teaching of the Church on indulgences with the corruption of those who crassly sold indulgences. The theses, many of which were reasonable in themselves, risked faulting not just the disease of the limb, but the limb itself. This is awkward as the 500th commemoration of Luther’s movement follows upon the Holy Year of Mercy for which Pope Francis announced various ways to receive indulgences. Francis has said with measured diplomacy: “I think that the intentions of Martin Luther were not mistaken. He was a reformer. Perhaps some methods were not correct.”

If the intentions were honest, it is a fact that, even apart from psychoanalysis of Luther’s immoderate temperament, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” That aphorism is a variant of Vergil: facilis descensus Averno. According to Johannes Aurifaber, the last words penned by Luther on February 17 in 1546, the day before he died, were in praise of Vergil’s Aeneid. Luther wrote his lines in the same dactylic hexameters Vergil used; but more poignantly, the warning about good intentions paving the road to Hell was given by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was a moral hero and spiritual giant in Luther’s estimation. As a profound scholar of the Wittenberg reformer, Pope Benedict XVI gave Luther his due especially for parts of the German catechisms, but, he also held, as Father Aidan Nichols has written in his The Theology of Joseph Ratzinger, that Luther was a “radical theologian and polemicist whose particular version of the doctrine of justification by faith is incompatible with a Catholic understanding of faith as co-believing with the whole Church, within a Christian existence composed equally of faith, hope, and charity.”

Luther’s attitudes toward Jews degenerated from his 1523 defense of them against “Romanist” oppression. By 1543, he was ranting “On the Jews and Their Lies.” While others have dismissed the “Luther to Hitler” connection as in William L. Shirer’s journalistic study The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Goebbels and other Nazi propagandists freely quoted much of Luther’s diatribes against Jews which, even out of context, are lurid as read from this side of Kristallnacht, such as: “Eject them forever from this country…. First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or a cinder of them.”

..............



A bestseller in Russian, All the Kremlin’s Men is both a shocking reconstruction of Putin’s tumultuous reign by Russian TV journalist Mikhail Zygar


All The Kremlin’s Men: decoding Putin's game



by Richard Walker, CapX


Mikhail Zygar's new book on Vladimir Putin and his worldview explores how the leader of this giant, amorphous, corrupt and anarchic country makes his will known. While Zygar has little to say on what comes next for Russia, he offers a rare insight into the blend of timidity, ruthlessness and bogus thinking that makes up Putin's eerie personality, and into how he achieved such pre-eminence.

................


Read more: capx.co

The Imaginative Conservative - Latest Essays





As I looked around that room in Washington, filled with so many powerful people, I realized that one day in Mother Teresa’s life brought more good to the face of the earth than all our efforts combined for a lifetime...

Ignorance of the great works of music is as bad, for someone who seeks to be educated in Western culture, as ignorance of Dante and Shakespeare in literature, and Plato and Aristotle in philosophy... 

Modern man is afraid of the quest, and is not particularly fond of hunger and cliffs, either. He will not see that the very point of an adventure is that you cannot plan it...

The Tyranny of Tenderness

by Dwight Longenecker
Everyone must certainly be amazed at the continued triumph of tenderness, but we now face an unusual problem: Tenderness is biting back... 

The goal of founding, building, and perpetuating a family homestead has been central to the American experience. But do the "tiny housers" hold the moral high-ground?... 

In our modern age, the dragon of pride has been unleashed to do its worst, narcissism turned to Nazissism...

Many Catholics treat the High Middle Ages as a veritable ideal of civilization. But the medieval period produced problematic ideas about aesthetics, eccentric theories of economics, and dangerous assumptions about politics... 

The great American political movements of Goldwater and Reagan found their animating principles in the thought of Burke and de Tocqueville, and any future successful conservative movements must do the same... 

René Girard’s unique anthropological lens can help Thomists and Christian thinkers in general see more clearly and deeply into the true nature of secular modernity...

What is it about G.K. Chesterton, and/or about the present age, that is driving his renewed popularity?... 

Civilization itself—tradition—falls out of existence when the human spirit itself be­ comes confused...

Even when wealth and noble birth are connected with talents, the two sets of talents differ, and those possessed by the nobleman are likely to be of greater worth than are those possessed by the man of wealth... 

The liberal notion of “justice” calls for an orchestra in which every voice blasts the same note. That is not harmony. Determining the mean and developing harmony is an art...

The 1783 Treaty of Paris

by American Delegates
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, andsuccessors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof...

Who Is the True Lover of Books?

by Erasmus of Rotterdam
I consider as lovers of books not those who keep their books hidden in their store-chests and never handle them, but those who, by nightly as well as daily use thumb them...

The Windhover

by Gerald Manley Hopkins
As a skate's heel sweeps smooth on a bow-bend: the hurl and gliding / Rebuffed the big wind. My heart in hiding / Stirred for a bird,—the achieve of, the mastery of the thing!...
Support The Imaginative Conservative

How the Government Jeopardized Our National Security for More than a Generation


The U.S Ofice of Personnel Management Data Breach

Majority Staff Report
 
  • Hon. Jason Chaffetz, Chairman, 
    Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
  • Hon. Mark Meadows, Chairman, 
    Subcommittee on Government Operations 
  • Hon. Will Hurd, Chairman, 
    Subcommittee on Information Technology
 
September 7, 2016 

www.oversight.house.gov


This report pulls no punches. OPM failed to protect the most critical PII held by the government, ignored warnings, allowed persistent threat large amounts of time, and mislead congress and the public. "Decades of mismanagement." 

A long read, but a critical case to understand."


Download .pdf here




What is the sustainable pace of GDP growth in the United States?


Is America’s 150 year streak of (pretty much) steady growth at an end?

by James Pethokoukis

Call it the New Normal or Great Stagnation, but there’s plenty of concern that America’s weak 2000s growth rate — before and after the Great Recession and Financial Crisis — is a harbinger of anemic growth to come. And GDP has indeed been weak, just 1.9% annually since 1999 vs. 3.6% from 1948-99.

Yet if you look at GDP growth on a per capita basis and compare it to America’s longer-term growth trend, it doesn’t look nearly so dire, as NYU economist William Easterly points in atweet — “That horribly traumatic Growth Slowdown in the US may not actually exist” — highlighting this chart from Stanford economist Charles Jones:




Jones from his paper, “The Facts of Economic Growth”:
For nearly 150 years,GDP per person in the U.S. economy has grown at a remarkably steady average rate of around 2 percent per year. Starting at around $3,000 in 1870, per capita GDP rose to more than $50,000 by 2014, a nearly 17-fold increase. Beyond the large, sustained growth in living standards, several other features of this graph stand out. One is the significant decline in income associated with the Great Depression. However, to me this decline stands out most for how anomalous it is. Many of the other recessions barely make an impression on the eye: over long periods of time, economic growth swamps economic fluctuations. Moreover, despite the singular severity of the Great Depression — GDP per person fell by nearly 20 percent in just four years — it is equally remarkable that the Great Depression was temporary. By 1939, the economy is already passing its previous peak and the macroeconomic story a decade later is once again one of sustained, almost relentless, economic growth.

But is 2%-ish what we can expect in the future?

.............