|
Alinsky In The Catholic Church READ THIS INFORMATION IAF in the CHURCH The below was MADE by a Catholic expert on Alinsky on the church. It was sent to me by a local DEVOUT Catholic who is leading the charge against the infiltration of the Catholic (and other) churches in Oklahoma City. Here's the FACTS: |
|
|
|
Join Catholics Opposing Saul Alinsky's IAF that have infiltrated Oklahoma City Catholic Parishes MARXIST IAF (Industrial Areas Foundation) is Being Supported Locally by these NOW FIVE. Catholic Parishes and Catholic Charities St. Monica's Edmond St. Eugene's OKC St. Patrick's OKC Our Lady Of Perpetual Help (The Cathedral) St. Charle's OKC Congratulations to SACRED HEART for "seeing the light" |
|
Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz explains why there was no CCHD collection in his diocese this year LINCOLN, Nebraska, November 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska explained in an interview with LifeSiteNews.com today his reasons for dropping the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) collection in his diocese, saying that CCHD head Bishop Roger Morin was "a little bit too dismissive" of concerns brought against the organization. Bishop Bruskewitz is one of five bishops confirmed so far to have chosen not to take up the collection this year for the national CCHD, the USCCB's domestic anti-poverty arm. The others included Bishop Victor Galeone of St. Augustine, Florida; Bishop John O. Barres of Allentown, Pennsylvania; Bishop Robert C. Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin; and Bishop Robert J. Baker of Birmingham, Alabama. In addition, at least three other U.S. Bishops have called for reform of the CCHD. "We question the ideology of [CCHD]," the bishop explained in the interview, "and ... We are shocked at the scandalous participation with the ACORN organization and also the participation with other organizations of questionable moral values or standards." The organization came under fire in the months leading up to this past weekend's national collection due to reports documenting how numerous grantees have promoted or are promoting activities contrary to Church teaching, including abortion, contraception, and same-sex "marriage." In fact, the Reform CCHD Now coalition announced last week that $1.3 million is allocated to questionable groups. Additionally, critics have charged CCHD with favoring "left-leaning" groups in the spirit of infamous community organizer Saul Alinksy. CCHD ceased funding ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), a liberal network of community activism groups, last year due to concerns about "financial management" and "political partisanship." CCHD had given ACORN over $7 million in grants during the previous ten years. ACORN came under renewed scrutiny this year after sting operations caught several ACORN offices condoning child prostitution and sex trafficking. "It's so extremely controversial," the bishop said about CCHD. There have been "many negative resonances about it from people throughout the diocese and beyond the diocese," he said, adding that the "controversial character made it appear that [CCHD] was not effective" in meeting its purposes. His diocese doesn't "rule [CCHD] out entirely," he said, but he would only reconsider the collection if there were "some changes in the organization itself, or its purposes, or its goals." The collection "served very little purpose for us," he said, noting that the Lincoln diocese has not received funds from CCHD. "We do have a very extensive Catholic Social Services, St. Vincent de Paul activity here in the diocese," he said, "which supplies the needs of those who are impoverished, of those who need assistance to come out of poverty." Bishop Roger Morin, chairman of the USCCB's subcommittee on the CCHD, delivered a passionate plea in defense of the organization at last week's USCCB plenary meeting. While pledging their commitment to ensure grantees' respect for Catholic teaching, he decried the "outrageous" allegations made by CCHD's critics that it funds pro-abortion or anti-family organizations. But Bishop Bruskewitz expressed displeasure with Bishop Morin's report, saying the bishop did not adequately consider the criticisms brought against the CCHD. "I didn't think [the report] took into account sufficiently the negatives that have been bantered about with regard to the organization," he said. He said Bishop Morin was "obviously defending the organization he had been involved in different areas," and now for which he's the chairman. The report, further, "lacked some of the interests" that concerned people "have brought to the fore," he said. "I think he was perhaps a little bit too dismissive of them." Nevertheless, he maintained that he has "no objection" to people supporting CCHD should they choose. If "people [who] like this organization ... Want to send money to it, even from my diocese, they can," he said. "But I'm not going to take up the collection."
|
|
Attention,
Catholics: Given to ACORN lately? (If
you're not a Catholic, please forward this message to
Catholic friends, co-workers, and others you know.) 1.
REFUSE to give a single cent to the bishops' November
appeal.
|
|
What Are They Hiding? Here's what happens when you contact the OKLAHOMA SPONSORING COMMITTEE, the "front" organization for IAF (Industrial Areas Foundation) in Oklahoma, asking for information about the churches they are involved in. Here's the response I got when I contacted them on their website OKSPONSORING.ORG. There are Catholic, Presbyterian, Jewish, Baptist, Methodist, Nazarene and Unitarian congregations currently represented plus a couple of social services groups. Outside the Catholic churches, I can't necessarily disclose the specific member congregations. If you're wanting to get your church involved, pass me your phone number, and I'll have Kris Ausdenmoore, our Lead Organizer, contact you with the next steps. If you have any other questions, let me know. Thanks for your interest. Matt K Seems they don't want you to know who their members are. Notice how they refer to "member CONGREGATIONS." They don't take individuals, only CONGREGATIONS, so if your Priest or Bishop is telling you that the parish is not supporting IAF, only "individuals," then they are just flat out lying. (Priests deceptive? Never. Just ask the winners of millions of dollar of lawsuits against the church who were abused and ridiculed by priests for claiming they were abused. And preachers lie? Jim Bakker, Robert Tilton, Oral and Richard Roberts. Do I really need to go on?) The OKLAHOMA SPONSORING COMMITTE website alone is deceptive, denying any "socialist" intentions, when they were, in fact, started by Alinsky, a dedicated Marxist and promote "social justice," the password of Socialists and Marxists. These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever. Book of Jude v 12, 13. |
|
The Bigger Scandal: Catholic Church Funding of ACORN AIM Column | By Cliff Kincaid | September 22, 2009 The evidence of Catholic collaboration with Marxist and “progressive” networks is substantial. Federal funding of ACORN is not just a Democratic Party or Obama Administration problem. As a chart (PDF) produced by House Republican Leader John Boehner shows, most of the federal money going to the organization was provided under President George W. Bush. This is not something that most Republicans want to talk about, especially now that they can use ACORN funding as a weapon against Obama and the Democrats. To Boehner's credit, however, he had sent a letter to Bush asking him to block all federal funding of ACORN. The Bush Administration did not comply. While Obama has strong ties to ACORN, they were originally established through the U.S. Catholic Church, which has also funded ACORN and similar organizations to the tune of millions of dollars. This is another taboo topic for most of the media. Even conservative news organizations are afraid of raising the issue, apparently fearing being tagged with the "anti-Catholic" label. But the truth has been seeping out in mysterious ways. In a Politico.com story about Barack Obama's friendly meeting with the Pope, reporter Josh Gerstein featured information that made it clear that the President's Catholic connection goes back to his days as a community organizer and that Obama's associates understand and appreciate this fact. Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough was quoted as saying that Obama's work as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago "was funded partly" by the "Catholic Church campaign for human development..." He was referring to the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), an annual collection authorized by the U.S. Catholic Bishops which is advertised as a charity to "break the vicious cycle of poverty" but in reality has funded left-wing political organizations such as ACORN to the tune of millions of dollars. McDonough , a former Senior Fellow at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP), was the moderator of a May 10, 2006, CAP event on "How Catholic Progressives View the Role of Faith in Governance." Conservative Catholics concerned about this problem have documented that millions of dollars of Catholic money over the last four decades has gone into Saul Alinsky-style networks which pursue their own brand of socialist direct action. CCHD itself acknowledges funding ACORN projects with grants totaling more than $7.3 million during the last 10 years. Filling in more of the details of the story that Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough referred to, conservative Catholic writer and activist Stephanie Block has documented that Obama was lead organizer in Chicago for the Alinskyian Developing Communities Project. It received a $40,000 Catholic Campaign for Human Development grant in 1985 and another $33,000 grant in 1986. The Capital Research Center has just published "Left-wing Radicalism in the Church," a major report on this topic by Matthew Vadum. While he was in Chicago, Obama was trained by top Alinskyian organizers. One was the ex-Jesuit, Greg Galuzzo, lead organizer for Gamaliel. The Developing Communities Project operated under the Gamaliel Foundation, a network of Alinskyian organizations that also received CCHD grants. The Developing Communities Project, which hired Obama as lead organizer, was an offshoot of the Calumet Community Religious Conference of Alinsky-trained Jerry Kellman. The network of community organizations Alinsky founded, known as the Industrial Areas Foundation, also received CCHD grants. The grants are being used, however, not just to seize power, but to change the minds of traditional Catholics. Indeed, this is a necessary prerequisite for taking power. Alinskyian training sessions in the religious context are designed not to develop or cultivate a personal relationship with Christ and promote traditional values and cultural institutions but to engage in Marxist political activity and radical change. Stephanie Block puts it this way: "Their worldview is marred by visions of class struggle and perpetual revolution. They are systematically trained to renounce moral truth in favor of consensus-based 'values.'" What has happened over the course of years, some of these experts say, is that Catholics trained in Alinskyian thought have become confused about moral issues and problems. They think, for example, that opposition to the death penalty is on the same moral plane as opposition to abortion, even though Catholic moral teaching has never precluded capital punishment. They believe that fighting "global warming" is as important as saving the lives of unborn children or preventing the killing of the elderly. They are trained to fight for abortion and homosexual "rights" in violation of traditional Catholic Church teaching. The BigGovernment.com videos of questionable ACORN activities have outraged taxpayers and members of Congress. Many Catholics will be angered by the revelations-if Fox News dares to publicize the evidence-of how their money has been funneled to ACORN and similar organizations by the official Catholic hierarchy. The evidence of Catholic collaboration with Marxist and "progressive" networks is substantial. A documentary, "The Democratic Promise: Saul Alinsky and His Legacy," notes that "Alinsky envisioned an 'organization of organizations,' comprised of all sectors of the community-youth committees, small businesses, labor unions, and, most influential of all, the Catholic Church." A website devoted to the documentary cites the Catholic Campaign for Human Development as one of several organizations "actively practicing Alinsky's techniques." The Citizen's Handbook to radical organizing notes that "Much of IAF [Industrial Areas Foundation] organizing occurs through Christian churches particularly the Catholic church." The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops cut off funding to ACORN last November, citing allegations of corruption at the organization. But money to other Alinsky-style groups has not been terminated. If ACORN's federal funding is cut-off-and that's still a big "if"-some conservative Catholics believe that the damage has already been done. They say the proof is in the fact that most Catholics voted for Obama. They say the proof is in the fact that Obama was welcomed as a conquering hero when he visited Notre Dame, the premier Catholic university in the U.S. In the same way that Obama's friendly meeting with the Pope has to be understood, his enthusiastic reception at Notre Dame can only be appreciated in the context of his hiring and training by Jerry Kellman, an apostle of Saul Alinsky and convert to Catholicism at the CCHD-supported Industrial Areas Foundation. Kellman's Calumet Community Religious Conference had itself been created and supported by several local Catholic churches. Like Frank Marshall Davis, the Communist Party member who guided Obama's early years in Hawaii, Kellman has been called a "mentor" to the future President. Alinsky had his own Catholic connection, having had the support in Texas of Catholic Bishop Bernard J. Sheil and the Catholic Diocese in the San Antonio area. This then became a center of support for Marxist-oriented Liberation Theology and opposition to the Reagan policy of preventing Communist takeovers of Central American countries in the 1980s. Father J. Bryan Hehir, who in 1983 delivered a series of lectures at the far-left Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) entitled, "Matthew, Marx, Luke, and John" illustrates the continuing left-wing drift of the Catholic Church in foreign affairs. Hehir, who served on the staff of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops in Washington, D.C., from 1973-1992 and now teaches at Harvard, appeared on an October 15, 2007, Center for American Progress panel on "pursuing the global common good." Obama's adviser McDonough was also on the panel. This "common-good approach to foreign policy" will be on display at the United Nations this week as President Obama and his advisers personally greet the dictators and despots of the world. Some of the advance publicity has focused on figures such as Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi showing up at the U.N. But take a look at who's already there. The presidency of the U.N. General Assembly has been transferred from a Communist Catholic Priest, Miguel D'Escoto, who received the Lenin Peace Prize from the old Soviet Union, to a Libyan government official, Ali Treki. |
|
Parishioners in Edmond, Oklahoma City oppose "parish community organizers" By Dominic Pedulla From The CITY SENTINEL Catholics from the parish of St. Monica in Edmond this week have reported emotions ranging from deep misgivings to outright anger, as Father Tim Luschen, their pastor, continued ignoring anguished pleas to discontinue the parish's membership in what they consider radical, openly political, "community organizing." Even while several noteworthy Catholic parishes pursued the recent trend of disengagement from outsider community organizing groups (known as the "Oklahoma Sponsoring Committee" and/or "The Industrial Areas Foundation" -- OSC/IAF), Fr. Luschen has remained insistent that St. Monica will be an OSC/IAF member parish. This, despite a storm of direct turbulent protest from his parishioners, in the form of calls, letters, emails, and often tense face-to-face meetings. "Because of the institutional method of membership employed by OSC/IAF, parishioners like me are forced unfairly to be members, even if we disagree with our parish pursuing political activism," said one parishioner. "This is not about right vs. left, or conservative vs. liberal. This is about members of our parish being coerced into membership in something openly political, and helplessly watching while our beloved parish is exploited for purely political purposes." Said another parishioner quoting the documents of the last worldwide council held by the Catholic Church, "it is of the 'utmost importance' that the parish (and Church) maintain a strict wall of separation, which for hundreds of years has been Church policy, between state authority and Church authority, and between matters which are the domain of politics, vs. those which involve the Church. OSC/IAF involvement is as clear a violation of that wall of separation as could ever be imagined. What can we expect next -- priests running for elected office?" What has brought all this angst to a head is an article in the last Sooner Catholic (August 30) yesterday, extensively quoting Fr. Tim Luschen in defense of his decision to make St. Monica a member of OSC/IAF. Keenly wanting OSC/IAF to appear strictly "grass-roots" in origin, rather than imposed externally from outside the local community, he asserts in communications with parishioners that IAF does not set the agenda for the local community. Rather it "helps" local people "discover" the stresses and strains affecting families. Despite strenuously attempting to distance IAF from the radicalism of its founder Saul Alinsky -- who attributed his success to the devil ("the original radical") -- Luschen nonetheless has given Alinsky credit, in his own way. He asserts that Alinsky's "central insight was his idea that the ordinary person can organize to acquire power so as to achieve social change." Numerous parishioners across Edmond and Oklahoma City who are familiar with IAF's external control when "organizing" communities as diverse as Austin and San Francisco said Fr. Luschen's words about IAF -- itself more Astroturf than grassroots -- seemed almost copied directly from the Chicago-based, IAF propaganda playbook. The defense Fr. Luschen elsewhere offers for IAF repeats almost word-for-word entire paragraphs of the IAF propaganda playbook. How is this a respectful response to parishioners' own previously articulated objections, let alone anything close to the feelings and aspirations of their parish? Involvement of the parish in this deeply opposed "committee" amounts to coercion. Parishioners are not so stupid that they've missed that point. Despite these details from various sources, in the end what seems to matter most is the very trend The Sooner Catholic article highlights: the number of OSC/IAF membership parishes is dwindling fast (from ten or nine to six in just a few months), as pastors sensitive to the needs of the flock in other parishes have answered those needs in a pastoral manner. Despite intensifying concerns from a majority of St. Monica parishioners, nearly all hold out hope Fr. Luschen will eventually do the same for them. Editor's Note: Dr. Pedulla is a cardiologist, and an active Catholic layman.=
|
|
This article concerns radio....but NOTE the connection with SAUL ALINSKY, the same man's whose Marxist group is now AFFILIATED WITH YOUR PARISHES. Diversity Czar Threatens Free Speech From
Investor's Business Daily 1st
Amendment: Mark Lloyd, a disciple of Saul Alinsky and
fan of Hugo Chavez, wants to destroy talk radio and says free speech is
a distraction. The new FCC diversity "czar" says When
Mark Lloyd was appointed July 29 as the chief diversity officer at the Federal
Communications Commission, a nation focused on ObamaCare and a deteriorating
economy took little notice. But as angry constituents flood town hall meetings
and call in to talk radio, a man dedicated to silencing them sits at the right
hand of the president. They
share a common hero — Saul Alinsky — who wrote the community organizer's
bible, "Rules for Radicals." It speaks of confrontation or, as
candidate Obama put it, of "getting in their faces" as a way to
obtain power, not from the people or for the people, but over the people. Lloyd
has written that we make too much of the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms
of speech and the press — for "the purpose of free speech is warped to
protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic
governance." We thought we were democratically governed. We thought we could vote as we choose after a vigorous and open debate. Once the major networks served as information gatekeepers controlling what we saw and heard. Now talk radio, the Internet and cable news have enhanced democracy by promoting the free flow of information and discourse. Lloyd wants to stop all that. Fox
News host Glenn Beck has done yeoman work in exposing this threat posed by Mr.
Lloyd. He points out that in his 2006 book, "Prologue to a Farce:
Communication and Democracy in Lloyd
wants to restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio
stations and ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing. The
kicker is he would also require owners who refuse to give up profitable air
time in the name of "localism" to pay a fee to support public
broadcasting. He proposes using the existing FCC "localism" requirement, which can mean anything from running more public service announcements to putting Janeane Garofalo on after Rush Limbaugh. Local community organizers would be encouraged to harass conservative stations by filing complaints with the FCC. |
|
*****New - Fr. Tim Luschen - St. Monica's Priest Whitewashes IAF Intentions**** |
|
SENT BY A CONCERNED LISTENER I think we all might benefit by reviewing the videos and articles at this site www.keepglennbeck.com
The
WH is apparently using IAF Alinsky techniques to try to silence FOX
broadcaster Glenn Beck, which, since he is also a
traditionalist-conservative, is tangentally related to our
fight in OKC with these Marxist-Socialist organizers. The
videos and articles are at the bottom of the page.
|
Alinsky Is Dead, Long Live Paul - Catholic OnlineMay
1, 2005 ... There is a new day in our church
and even a radical day. ... dissident group and its goal to
attempt to stage a coup of the Catholic Church.
... ---------------------------------- Are The Catholic Church & Mayflower the Main Culprits Behind IAF-Alinsky? Two things right off the bat. This Saul Alinsky founded Marxist group, IAF and affiliated groups are very deceptive, very stealth, and do not want their plan to see the light of day. The priests of many of the churches involved are refusing to disclose what, if any funding, has been given to underwrite the so-called OKLAHOMA SPONSORING COMMITTEE. Secondly, I am beginning to wonder if there are any protestant churches involved, other than Mayflower Congregational, but rather that the entire IAF function is being underwritten by Catholic Parishes and Mayflower, with perhaps some other funding, such as Catholics Campaign for Human Development which with the help of "Rita" who sits on the board of CCHD, apparently just dumped 35,000 dollars into the IAF fund, according to my sources. Father Tim Luschen from St. Monica's is into this up to his collar! Apparently calling himself THE CHAPLAIN of the group. He apparently has been very vocal about this issue, and does not like to be confronted about it. "Father Tim" is big on aiding the illegal aliens in town. He also MAY, but I can't confirm, that he is using discretionary funds given to him by the people of St. Monica's to fund this Marxist group. What you need to know is, that when YOUR PARISH SUPPORTS IAF.....YOU are counted as a member of IAF, because you are a member of the Parish. IAF doesn't take individual memberships, so when your church helps them, the entire church is listed as a supporter of this Marxist based, Saul Alinsky formed organization. Why any Catholic Church would allow itself to be "yoked" with Mayflower, is beyond me. IAF...INDUSTRIAL AREAS FOUNDATION is divisive and has no place in any church, especially the church which refers to itself as ONE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH. Their "leaven" leavens the entire loaf. Wolves in sheeps clothing, that's what they are. Pastors, it is your duty to drive these wolves from your flocks. Flock members, it is your duty to speak with charity, firm charity, to your priests and demand they be obedient to scripture, their church, and their God. It certainly is an individual decision, but I would recommend that if you are a member of a Parish/church that is funding this group, you consider withdrawing all financial support of the church/parish, until you are guaranteed, IN WRITING, that the funding of this divisive group ends. |
|
We
now have written confirmation! Father Robert
Wood, Pastor of St. James the
Greater Catholic Church has
officially withdrawn St. James from the |
|
In the post, I couldn't help but chuckle when I read about the gentleman who said that Short refused him entry to the meeting because "only Catholics were allowed." Well, Mr. Short has not been a practicing Catholic for quite some time. After his divorce from his first wife, Mr. Short left the Catholic Church. That has been at least 29 years ago. Now only Catholics may "enter" that precious meeting? (I Googled Dan Short and among the information I found he gave around $2,500 to the Obama campaign. I hope that wasn't Mustard Seed funds he used.) |
|
|
Conference Focuses on Building Support for Social Action OKLAHOMA CITY — How to build and strengthen parish social ministries, address social justice issues, and the advocacy role of Catholics were key components of the Faith in Action-Parish Social Ministry Conference held recently at the Pastoral Center. Becky Van Pool, director of Parish Outreach and Program Development of Catholic Charities, said the conference was a success and connected to the heart of Catholic Social Justice. “We were very fortunate to have first-class speakers from across the nation to address such issues as poverty, leadership development in parishes, community organizing and advocacy and justice education,” said Van Pool. Approximately 70 people attended the two-day meeting and included parishioners, parish staff, social justice committee members and deacons. Some 18 parishes from across the Archdiocese were represented at the conference. Two participants from the Tulsa Diocese and one person from Texas also participated. “It is our goal to establish and support parish social ministries throughout the Archdiocese,” said Van Pool. “ This conference was designed to create an awareness of the need for each parish to establish a committee to address social justice issues and support parish leadership.”
Key speakers were Jack Jezreel, Sister Simone Campbell, Father Larry Snyder, Rachel Lustig, Kristen Ausdenmoore I A F, Gloria Luna and Troy Ziegler. Jezreel, founder and executive director of JustFaith Ministries, kicked off the conference spotlighting Catholic social teachings, and how social ministry should be primarily from the parishes with every Catholic taking an active role in advocacy. Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of Network - A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, was the keynote for Saturday morning’s session. Sister Simone discussed Catholic social teaching and how it connects with social justice issues. “All Catholics should be the voice of the poor,” she said. “This is not easy. We need a supportive community, opportunities to stretch beyond our comfort zone, and a spiritual relationship with God in order to carry out this ministry.” Other Saturday morning presenters included Rachel Lustig, director of Parish Social Ministry for Catholic Charities USA, who spoke on the framework for understanding parish social ministry, and Kris Ausdenmoore, lead organizer, Oklahoma IAF sponsoring committee, who offered ways to get a parish involved in community organizing. In the afternoon, “Working Together in Multicultural Settings” was presented by Gloria Luna, director of Social Advocacy of Catholic Charities of Miami, Fla. She discussed strategies of how to bring people of diverse backgrounds together as a community. Troy Zeigler, director and trainer for Catholic Charities USA, presented on the topic of racism and poverty. Father Larry Snyder, president of Catholic Charities USA, was celebrant for Saturday evening Mass and the keynote speaker for Sunday morning. “Through our parishes, as faith-filled citizens, we can have a powerful impact on the lives of the poor, vulnerable and suffering people in our communities,” Father Snyder said. “We must be engaged in the Campaign to Reduce Poverty in America and help improve this increasing disparity between the rich and the poor.” Father Snyder said that 25 percent of Americans do not have any assets, home mortgage or savings. He noted the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing, not only in America but across the globe. Sister Simone presented a session on Sunday on “How Poverty Impacts our Communities.” She noted that 38 million people are living below the poverty level, but statistics alone cannot describe what the poor are experiencing across the nation and world. Anyone interested in learning more about the Faith in Action-Parish Social Ministry program should contact Van Pool at Catholic Charities Parish Outreach and Program Development at 523-3009. |
|
REPORT ON THE
CATHOLIC GATHERING BY THE INDUSTRIAL Saturday August 11, 2009 My
friend and I arrived at Our Lady’s church a few minutes after 9am, Saturday
morning. The meeting was held in the church’s parish hall, The
sign-in sheet asked for your name, Parish, and telephone number. When I put on
the sheet “NONE” for Parish, Mr. Short
told my friend and I that we were not allowed in the meeting. I told
him that I was baptized in that church (Our Lady’s) and that my family had
attended that church for over 70 years. He persisted that we could not attend.
We acquiesced and sat about 15 feet away from the open doors in a lobby near
the meeting hall. After about 5 minutes, Mr. Short closed the doors. A
woman sitting in the lobby near us who was representing the church asked us
why they closed the doors. We told her that they would not allow us to attend.
Again, she asked us why and we said that we did not know. She stated that she
did not understand why we were not allowed in the meeting and that she thought
this was odd. She then went and opened another door so that we could hear what
was going on. As soon as she did this, Mr. Short closed it. This made her very
upset so she went in the meeting and asked Mr. Short to explain why we could
not be there. He said that it was only open to Catholics. This is when our
exchange with him began. I told him that I had seen an invitation to several
churches and he asked me to produce it. I did not have a copy of it but I told
him I saw it on the internet. He then called me “a liar.” It was then that
I asked him what he had to hide. He would not give me an answer. Frankly, my
friend and I were appalled by Mr. Short’s behavior. To think that this
organization was there representing itself as a spokesgroup for a consortium
of Catholic churches facilitating community service, and then to have one of
its members treat an outsider in this fashion was beyond the pale. To
be clear, this behavior WAS NOT and SHOULD NOT be a reflection of the Our
Lady’s Catholic Church. In fact, it was at this point that the woman from
Our Lady’s was so shocked by his behavior that she got the police and a
layperson who was in charge of the church. All of these people at Our Lady’s
(not the organizers or the attendants, but the people with the church), have
known my family for years. When
they discovered that I was being kept from attending the meeting, they got the
Lead organizer involved, Kris Ausdenmoore. It was at this point that they
allowed my friend and I to enter the meeting. I really believe that they
thought I was there to make a scene. Ironically, it was them that made “the
scene.” I
need to say right here that the people at Our Lady’s were extremely helpful
in getting us into the meeting, and quite frankly did not even understand what
the problem was. In fact. Kris Ausdenmoore NEVER once brought up that this
meeting was only for Catholics. There were two policemen there and we saw two
people with placards outside stating that the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF)
was NOT a Catholic or Christian organization. During the entire time we were
there, there were no vocal demonstrations. I believe that there were several
conservative people there, like us, who were very interested in knowing what
this was all about. Mark,
regardless of their motive, whatever that may be, this organization is WELL
ORGANIZED. Their plan, as vocalized in the meeting, is to help people,
through the churches, in order to give them a collective voice and resource to
effectuate change at the political level. They never once articulated a
specific interest or area of change, but asserted that this would come from
the individuals who would participate in the organizing efforts through their
respective churches. The way I
felt about this was that they would try to turn political wheels to impact
social justice. In fact, “Social Justice” is what I would call their
mantra. My
friend and I did not participate
in the entire meeting, but left around 2:00. The meeting ended at 4:00. No
matter, when I left there I left feeling jealous, inadequate and fearful.
Jealous and inadequate because this organization is head and shoulders above
anything I have ever experienced in the conservative movement when it comes to
getting people involved. Fearful because unless we do something in this
country now to combat the socialist agenda of the left, it will be too late. I
think it’s about time that the conservative movement take some lessons from
these folks. Regardless of their agenda, be it charitable or not, they know
the meaning of grass roots. I don’t know if the conservatives have even
bought the grass seed yet! Action
Item: Find
a meeting sponsored by the IAF, Oklahoma Sponsoring Committee, ACORN, or any
other organization promoting a social agenda. Attend the meeting and learn
from them. Don’t rely upon someone else to do this for you and quit paying
lip service to your fears and concerns. The future of this country, our
freedom and our liberty, are at stake here. The lazy conservative movement
needs to get off their fanny, GET VOCAL and take charge of our destiny;
otherwise, we’ll get what we deserve…SOCIALISM. We are in the midst of a
revolution and not a single shot will be fired. If you don’t yet get the
visual, just remember the story of The Boiled Frog…just replace the word
“frog” with “Conservative”: They
say that if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will leap out right
away to escape the danger. But, if you put a frog in a kettle that is filled
with water that is cool and pleasant, and then you gradually heat the kettle
until it starts boiling, the frog will not become aware of the threat until it
is too late. The frog's survival instincts are geared towards detecting sudden
changes. ---------------- ADDITIONAL
REPORT FROM SOMEONE IN ATTENDANCE In
fact a female physician stood up and said that she and Christ the King were
co-sponsors.....but I called the Parish secretary this morning, and she is not
a registered member!
Apparently, the police presence was there in anticipation of heavy
"protesting", as they said themselves. This was probably requested
by the "Chancellor" of the Archdiocese.
So, I am know preparing a letter to the Sooner Catholic; and if Ray Dyer won't
print it, I will turn to the Daily Oklahoman. This must stop! They
are using the name "OSC", Oklahoma Sponsoring Committee"; and
lying about their affiliation with the IAF! The question is Sponsoring
Committee for what? But,
they definitely used Alinskian techniques at the meeting!) ---------------- By
the way - their next organizational meeting (they are calling it an introductory
session) is September 9th at St. Charles Borromeo Parish on ---------------------- ADDITIONAL REPORT FROM SOMEONE AT THE MEETING I was at this Saturday "training". St. Monica's & St Eugenes is part of this group. Maybe by you exposing this Bishop Beltran may forbid this group. He sure will not listen to us Catholics. We do not need contracts and paying people to be community organizers. We have many charities in place. These people are political agitators. At the OSC training August 8th the 9:15 a.m. speaker was our own Cris Carter who is the Associate Superintendent of OKC Diocese Catholic Schools. (see education at the diocese of OKC webpage) I wonder how many Catholic school teachers actively belong to OSC/IAF? What sort of social teaching are they getting with a group like IAF behind it? ------------------------------ At this Saturday training Fr. Tim Lusche from St. Monica's was there in support of this group. In the afternoon they said one topic that would NOT be covered is abortion. It's too divisive. What group of Catholics would not agree that abortion is sinful, evil and against GOD? It was a sham. They spoke on the banks high interest rates but not on personal responsibility. They bashed competition. It was all political! They picked and chose parts of the Popes latest encyclical to suit their agenda but left whole sections out. And our Bishop Beltran remains on the sidelines instead of protecting his flock and disciplining his wayward priests. I think he is afraid of these priests that dissent from the Catholic teachings. A few years ago some priests and a now retired pastoral center worker tried to get the dissent group Call to Action in our diocese. The bishop did stop this group after they had a few speakers come in and the people complained. He needs to start listening to us. If people in IAF parishes get mad & stop giving in the collection plate, to Catholic Charities and Archdiocesean Annual Appeal (ADF) maybe he will listen. Money talks! PLEASE do not let up on this. If IAF sponsored churches are proud of what they are doing, why don't we know all 7 Catholic Churches/institutions involved? They sneak around in darkness not light. I guess some priests & the bishop don't know a red flag when they see it! I hope you can find out the names of the 20 Christian Churches so they too may be exposed. ---------------------- E-MAIL FROM CONCERNED CATHOLIC I don’t know how much you know about the IAF and the Oklahoma Sponsoring Committee. Alinskian tactics include intimidation, coercion, deceit – they brow-beat people into submission with innuendo, insult, and hubris. My sources told me the Archbishop instructed Catholic Charities to withdraw from any involvement or endorsement of the OSC/IAF, but he left parish involvement up to the individual priests. This is not leadership, granted; but their philosophical assaults are daunting. You would think that the general would have his staff meeting then make a decision based on the mission! Not so, here! The slippery slope that has everyone, with the exception of a few, on the littoral, has been in the making for some thirty or forty years. Where’s the “breastplate of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil [?]” as it says in Ephesians 6:11. That particular verse is followed by, “For our struggle is not with the flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the [IAF, ACORN, O.B.A.M.A., i.e. “evil spirits”] in the heavens (Bama in the Hebrew). Therefore put on the armor of God that you may be able to resist on the evil day and, having done everything, to hold your ground. So stand fast with your loins girded in truth, clothed with righteousness as a breastplate, and your feet shod in readiness for the gospel of peace. In all circumstances, hold faith as a shield, to quench all [the] flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of Salvation and the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God.” Now, understand me, Mark, I’m not preaching to you or anyone else. It’s information! I was always of the impression that one cannot and will not act on information they do not have. Well, the bishops have it – but don’t remember that we “are endowed with certain inalienable rights by our Creator, that among these are . . . The IAF, like the Marxist Left occupying Capitol Hill want to do what Friedrich Nietzsche did in the eighteenth century: declare to one and All that “God is dead, and we killed him. We are all murderers.” Why? If they can convince the lame of mind that God is a Fig Newton of our collective imagination, then they can ram it down our throats that man’s “natural” state is not that of freedom, but to do what is required by those who have elected themselves Man’s “betters,” i.e., Don’t ask questions, do what you’re told to do and like it! It’s all too Machiavellian: “A successful Prince must concentrate not on being good, but appearing to be good. As we all know, appearances can be deceiving, and for a Prince deception is a good thing, an art to be perfected. A Prince, therefore, must be a great pretender and dissembler.” If you pick up a copy of The Prince, you can read all about Cardinal Borgia. Draw your own conclusions, but I rest my case. And here’s the deal: a word coming from you, SOME people just might think about where we’re at, and what we’re trying to save. If the Church falls for this garbage, there’s no way the United States is going to revive itself from all of its self-inflicted wounds. This is a fight for the soul of our country as well as our church. ------------------------------ Thank you so much for your fight to stop the infiltration of the Catholic Churches by the IAF. I am a member of St. James and although the church is not officially sponsoring this group we have some parishioners in the Saint Vincent de Paul Social outreach group who are actively pushing it. We have talked to these people but they are extreme leftists and determine to get this organization going. By the way I understand Catholic Charities has a representative trying to assist IAF. My solution to the situation is to cease charitable giving to any organization associated with IAF. I just started listening to your show about 6 months ago and you are a breath of fresh air. You deserve to be #1. ------------------------------ Keep up the pressure on IAF on your show--great to hear it. Thanks. I am Catholic and I don't think very many Catholics know that the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), an annual Charity Campaign is a major source of funds for the IAF to the tune of millions of dollars a year. IAF is already ingrained in the Church in many states, like Illinois and Texas. Here is a link you may be interested in. Keep up the fight, http://www.catholicmediacoalition.org/picking_pockets.htm ------------------------------ FURTHER INPUT FROM LISTENER Hi
Mark, Here
is a link regarding the Industrial Areas Foundation. Apparently
Saul Alinsky created this entity. You’re right. These
people are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Seems like they are
trying to divide church congregations, destroy the church as we know it.
The result smells to me like this group wants to set up a state religion
which would be indicative of communism. The danger apparently is
much worse than I thought. I’m really beginning to wonder if
Obama and his cohorts really want to destroy America and build a new one
based on their beliefs. But I can’t think of another conclusion.
Pass it around. As we have seen in the healthcare debate which
Obama is losing, the best way to combat him is to inform the American
public and do it LOUDLY. http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/10/obamas_leftism.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Areas_Foundation http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=2885 http://www.learn-usa.com/relevant_to_et/IAF%20-%20WROP.pdf http://www.dailysentinel.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/ 2009/02/18/texas_iaf_affiliates_expand_ch.html?cxntfid=blogs_postcards (Pay attention to the comments) SAUL ALINSKY Identified a set of very specific rules that ordinary citizens could follow, and tactics that ordinary citizens could employ, as a means of gaining public power Created a blueprint for revolution under the banner of "social change" Two of his most notable modern-day disciples are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Born to Russian-Jewish parents in Chicago in 1909, Saul Alinsky was a Marxist who helped establish the dual political tactics of confrontation and infiltration that characterized the 1960s and have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States. Though Alinsky is generally viewed as a member of the political left, and rightfully so, his legacy is more methodological than ideological. He identified a set of very specific rules that ordinary citizens could follow, and tactics that ordinary citizens could employ, as a means of gaining public power. His motto was, “The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired results.” Alinsky studied criminology as a graduate student at the University of Chicago, during which time he became friendly with Al Capone and his mobsters. Ryan Lizza, senior editor of The New Republic, offers a glimpse into Alinsky’s personality: “Charming and self-absorbed, Alinsky would entertain friends with stories -- some true, many embellished -- from his mob days for decades afterward. He was profane, outspoken, and narcissistic, always the center of attention despite his tweedy, academic look and thick, horn-rimmed glasses.” According to Lizza: "Alinsky was deeply influenced by the great social science insight of his times, one developed by his professors at Chicago: that the pathologies of the urban poor were not hereditary but environmental. This idea, that people could change their lives by changing their surroundings, led him to take an obscure social science phrase—‘the community organization’--and turn it into, in the words of Alinsky biographer Sanford Horwitt, ‘something controversial, important, even romantic.’ His starting point was a near-fascination with John L. Lewis, the great labor leader and founder of the CIO. What if, Alinsky wondered, the same hardheaded tactics used by unions could be applied to the relationship between citizens and public officials?" After completing his graduate work in criminology, Alinsky went on to develop what are known today as the Alinsky concepts of mass organization for power. In the late 1930s he earned a reputation as a master organizer of the poor when he organized the “Back of the Yards” area in Chicago, an industrial and residential neighborhood on the Southwest Side of the city, so named because it is near the site of the former Union Stockyards; this area had been made famous in Upton Sinclair's 1906 novel The Jungle. In 1940 Alinsky established the aforementioned Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), through which he and his staff helped “organize” communities not only in Chicago but throughout the United States. IAF remains an active entity to this day. Its national headquarters are located in Chicago, and it has affiliates in the District of Columbia, twenty-one separate states, and three foreign countries (Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom). In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution” -- a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted -- a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse -- to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed. As Alinsky put it: “A reformation means that the masses of our people have reached the point of disillusionment with past ways and values. They don’t know what will work but they do know that the prevailing system is self-defeating, frustrating, and hopeless. They won’t act for change but won’t strongly oppose those who do. The time is then ripe for revolution.”[1] “[W]e are concerned,” Alinsky elaborated, “with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which men have the chance to live by the values that give meaning to life. We are talking about a mass power organization which will change the world … This means revolution.”[2] But Alinsky’s brand of revolution was not characterized by dramatic, sweeping, overnight transformations of social institutions. As Richard Poe puts it, “Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.” He advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, subtly gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to introduce changes from that platform. This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935: "Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy’s camp."[4] Alinsky’s revolution promised that by changing the structure of society’s institutions, it would rid the world of such vices as socio-pathology and criminality. Arguing that these vices were caused not by personal character flaws but rather by external societal influences, Alinsky's worldview was thoroughly steeped in the socialist left’s collectivist, class-based doctrine of economic determinism. “The radical’s affection for people is not lessened,” said Alinsky, “… when masses of them demonstrate a capacity for brutality, selfishness, hate, greed, avarice, and disloyalty. It is not the people who must be judged but the circumstances that made them that way.”[5] Chief among these circumstances, he said, were “the larcenous pressures of a materialistic society.”[6] To counter that materialism, Alinsky favored a socialist alternative. He characterized his noble radical (read: “revolutionary”) as a social reformer who “places human rights far above property rights”; who favors “universal, free public education”; who “insists on full employment for economic security” but stipulates also that people’s tasks should “be such as to satisfy the creative desires within all men”; who “will fight conservatives” everywhere; and who “will fight privilege and power, whether it be inherited or acquired,” and “whether it be political or financial or organized creed.”[7] Alinsky maintained that radicals, finding themselves “adrift in the stormy sea of capitalism,”[8] sought “to advance from the jungle of laissez-faire capitalism to a world worthy of the name of human civilization.”[9] “They hope for a future,” he said, “where the means of production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful.”[10] In short, they wanted socialism. In 1946 Alinsky wrote Reveille for Radicals, his first major book about the principles and tactics of “community organizing,” otherwise known as agitating for revolution. Twenty-five years later he authored Rules for Radicals, which expanded upon his earlier work. His writings, and the tactics outlined therein, have had a profound influence on all “social change” and “social justice” movements of recent decades. Alinksy’s objective, which he clearly stated in Rules for Radicals, was to “present an arrangement of certain facts and general concepts of change, a step toward a science of revolution.”[11] The Prince, he elaborated, “was written by Macchiavelli for the Haves on how to hold onto power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”[12] If radicals were to be in the vanguard of the movement to transfer power from the Haves and the Have-Nots, Alinsky’s first order of business was to define precisely what a radical was. He approached this task by first distinguishing between liberals and radicals. Alinsky had no patience for those he called the liberals of his day -- people who were content to talk about the changes they wanted, but were unwilling to actively work for those changes. Rather, he favored “radicals” who were prepared to take bold, decisive action designed to transform society, even if that transformation could be achieved only slowly and incrementally. Wrote Alinsky: "Liberals fear power or its application.… They talk glibly of people lifting themselves by their own bootstraps but fail to realize that nothing can be lifted except through power…. Radicals precipitate the social crisis by action -- by using power…. Liberals protest; radicals rebel. Liberals become indignant; radicals become fighting mad and go into action. Liberals do not modify their personal lives[,] and what they give to a cause is a small part of their lives; radicals give themselves to the cause. Liberals give and take oral arguments; radicals give and take the hard, dirty, bitter way of life."[13] If the purpose of radicalism is to bring about social transmutation, the radical must be prepared to make a persuasive case for why such change is urgently necessary. Alinsky’s conviction that American society needed a dramatic overhaul was founded on his belief that the status quo was intolerably miserable for most people. For one thing, Alinsky saw the United States as a nation rife with economic injustice. “The people of America live as they can,” he wrote. “Many of them are pent up in one-room crumbling shacks and a few live in penthouses.… The Haves smell toilet water, the Have-Nots smell just plain toilet.”[14] Lamenting the “wide disparity of wealth, privilege, and opportunity” he saw in America, Alinsky impugned the country’s “materialistic values and standards.”[15] “We know that man must cease worshipping the god of gold and the monster of materialism,” he said.[16] Profound economic injustice was by no means America’s only shortcoming, as Alinsky saw things. Lamenting the nation’s “rather confused and demoralized ideology,”[17] he further identified “unemployment,” “decay,” “disease,” “crime,” “distrust,” “bigotry,” “disorganization,” and “demoralization” as inevitable by-products of life in capitalist America.[18] Such a state of affairs, he said, made life for a majority of Americans nothing more than an exercise in drudgery. “At the end of the week,” said Alinsky of the average American, “he comes out of the hell of monotony with a paycheck and goes home to a second round of monotony…. Monday morning he is back on the assembly line.… That, on the whole, is his life. A routine in which he rots. The dreariest, drabbest, grayest outlook that one can have. Simply a future of utter despair.”[19] “People hunger for drama and adventure, for a breath of life in a dreary, drab existence,” he expanded.[20] According to Alinsky, this unhappy existence exerted a profoundly negative influence on the American character. Alinsky perceived most Americans as people who were governed by their prejudices, and who thus felt great antipathy toward a majority of their fellow countrymen -- particularly those of different racial, ethnic, or religious backgrounds. “[M]ost people,” he said, “like just a few people, and either do not actively care for or actively dislike most of the ‘other’ people.”[21] Having painted a verbal portrait of a thoroughly corrupt and melancholy American society, Alinsky was now prepared to argue that wholesale change of great magnitude was in order. What was needed, he said, was a revolution in whose vanguard would be radicals committed to eliminating the “fundamental causes” of the nation’s problems,[22] and not content to merely deal with those problems’ “current manifestations”[23] or “end products.”[24] The goal of the radical, he explained, must be to bring about “the destruction of the roots of all fears, frustrations, and insecurity of man, whether they be material or spiritual”;[25] to purge the land of “the vast destructive forces which pervade the entire social scene”;[26] and to eliminate “those destructive forces from which issue wars,” forces such as “economic injustice, insecurity, unequal opportunities, prejudice, bigotry, imperialism, … and other nationalistic neuroses.”[27] The objective of ridding the nation of the aforementioned vices dovetailed perfectly with Alinsky’s belief that all societal problems were interrelated. According to Alinsky, if segments of the population were beset by crime, unemployment, inadequate housing, malnourishment, disease, demoralization, racism, discrimination, or religious intolerance, it was impossible to address, to any great effect, any particular one of those concerns in isolation. They “are simply parts of the whole picture,” he said. “They are not separate problems.”[28] “[A]ll problems are related and they are all the progeny of certain fundamental causes,” Alinsky elaborated.[29] “Many apparently local problems are in reality malignant microcosms of vast conflicts, pressures, stresses, and strains of the entire social order.”[30] Thus “ultimate success in conquering these evils can be achieved only by victory over all evils.”[31] In other words, what was needed was a revolution, led by radicals, to literally turn society upside-down and inside-out. Alinsky then proceeded to lay out the method by which radicals could achieve this goal by forming a host of “People’s Organizations” -- each with its own distinct name and mission, and each of which “thinks and acts in terms of social surgery and not cosmetic cover-ups.”[32] These People’s Organizations were to be composed largely of discontented individuals who believed that society was replete with injustices that prevented them from being able to live satisfying lives. Such organizations, Alinsky advised, ought not be imported from the outside into a community, but rather should be staffed by locals who, with some guidance from trained radical organizers, could set their own agendas.[33] The installment of local leaders as the top-level officers of People’s Organizations helped give the organizations credibility and authenticity in the eyes of the community. This tactic closely paralleled the longtime Communist Party strategy of creating front organizations that ostensibly were led by non-communist fellow-travelers, but which were in fact controlled by Party members behind the scenes. As J. Edgar Hoover explained in his 1958 book Masters of Deceit: “To make a known Party member president of a front would immediately label it as ‘communist.’ But if a sympathizer can be installed, especially a man of prominence, such as an educator, minister, or scientist, the group can operate as an ‘independent’ organization.”[34] Alinsky taught that the organizer’s first task was to make people feel that they were wise enough to diagnose their own problems, find their own solutions, and determine their own destinies. The organizer, said Alinsky, must exploit the fact that “[m]illions of people feel deep down in their hearts that there is no place for them, that they do not ‘count.’”[35] To exploit this state of affairs effectively, Alinsky explained, the organizer must employ such techniques as the artful use of “loaded questions designed to elicit particular responses and to steer the organization’s decision-making process in the direction which the organizer prefers.[36] “Is this manipulation?” asked Alinsky. “Certainly,” he answered instantly.[37] But it was manipulation toward a desirable end: “If the common man had a chance to feel that he could direct his own efforts … that to a certain extent there was a destiny that he could do something about, that there was a dream that he could keep fighting for, then life would be wonderful living.”[38] In Alinsky’s calculus, the common man could achieve this renewed vitality of spirit via his membership and active participation in the People’s Organization. Alinsky viewed as supremely important the role of the organizer, or master manipulator, whose guidance was responsible for setting the agendas of the People’s Organization. “The organizer,” Alinsky wrote, “is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach -- to create, to be a ‘great creator,’ to play God.”[39] Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, “must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.”[40] The organizer’s function, he added, was “to agitate to the point of conflict”[41] and “to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy.’”[42] “The word ‘enemy,’” said Alinsky, “is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people”; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision. [43] But it is not enough for the organizer to be in solidarity with the people. He must also, said Alinsky, cultivate unity against a clearly identifiable enemy; he must specifically name this foe, and “singl[e] out”[44] precisely who is to blame for the “particular evil” that is the source of the people’s angst.[45] In other words, there must be a face associated with the people’s discontent. That face, Alinsky taught, “must be a personification, not something general and abstract like a corporation or City Hall.”[46] Rather, it should be an individual such as a CEO, a mayor, or a president. Alinsky summarized it this way: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it…. [T]here is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks.”[47] He held that the organizer’s task was to cultivate in people’s hearts a negative, visceral emotional response to the face of the enemy. “The organizer who forgets the significance of personal identification,” said Alinsky, “will attempt to answer all objections on the basis of logic and merit. With few exceptions this is a futile procedure.”[48] Alinsky also advised organizers to focus their attention on a small number of selected, strategic targets. Spreading an organization’s passions too thinly was a recipe for certain failure, he warned.[49] Alinsky advised the radical activist to avoid the temptation to concede that his opponent was not “100 per cent devil,” or that he possessed certain admirable qualities such as being “a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband.” Such qualifying remarks, Alinsky said, “dilut[e] the impact of the attack” and amount to sheer “political idiocy.”[50] Alinsky stressed the need for organizers to convince their followers that the chasm between the enemy and the members of the People’s Organization was vast and unbridgeable. “Before men can act,” he said, “an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convinced their cause is 100 percent on the side of the angels, and that the opposition are 100 percent on the side of the devil.”[51] Alinsky advised this course of action even though he well understood that the organizer “knows that when the time comes for negotiations it is really only a 10 percent difference.”[52] But in Alinsky’s brand of social warfare, the ends (in this case, the transfer of power) justify virtually whatever means are required (in this case, lying).[53] Winning was all that mattered in Alinsky’s strategic calculus: “The morality of a means depends on whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.”[54] “The man of action … thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action,” Alinsky added. “He asks only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.”[55] For Alinsky, all morality was relative: “The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent on the political position of those sitting in judgment.”[56] Given that the enemy was to be portrayed as the very personification of evil, against whom any and all methods were fair game, Alinsky taught that an effective organizer should never give the appearance of being fully satisfied as a result of having resolved any particular conflict via compromise. Any compromise with the “devil” is, after all, by definition morally tainted and thus inadequate. Consequently, while the organizer may acknowledge that he is pleased by the compromise as a small step in the right direction, he must make it absolutely clear that there is still a long way to go, and that many grievances still remain unaddressed. The ultimate goal, said Alinsky, is not to arrive at compromise or peaceful coexistence, but rather to “crush the opposition,” bit by bit.[57] “A People’s Organization is dedicated to eternal war,” said Alinsky. “… A war is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play.… When you have war, it means that neither side can agree on anything…. In our war against the social menaces of mankind there can be no compromise. It is life or death.”[58] Alinsky warned the organizer to be on guard against the possibility that the enemy might offer him “a constructive alternative” aimed at resolving the conflict. Said Alinsky, “You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying, ‘You’re right -- we don’t know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us.’”[59] Such capitulation by the enemy would have the effect of diffusing the righteous indignation of the People’s Organization, whose very identity is inextricably woven into the fight for long-denied justice; i.e., whose struggle and identity are synonymous. If the perceived oppressor surrenders or extends a hand of friendship in an effort to end the conflict, the crusade of the People’s Organization is jeopardized. This cannot be permitted. Eternal war, by definition, must never end. While Alinsky endorsed ruthlessness in waging war against the enemy, he was nonetheless mindful that certain approaches were more likely to win the hearts and minds of the people whose support would be crucial to the organizers’ ultimate victory. Above all, he taught that in order to succeed, the organizer and his People’s Organization needed to target their message toward the middle class. “Mankind,” said Alinsky, “has been and is divided into three parts: the Haves, the Have-Nots, and the Have-a-Little, Want Mores.”[60] He explained that in America, the Have-a-Little, Want-Mores (i.e., members of the middle class) were the most numerous and therefore of the utmost importance.[61] Said Alinsky: “Torn between upholding the status quo to protect the little they have, yet wanting change so they can get more, they [the middle class] become split personalities… Thermopolitically they are tepid and rooted in inertia. Today in Western society and particularly in the United States they comprise the majority of our population.”[62] Alinsky stressed that organizers and their followers needed to take care, when first unveiling their particular crusade for “change,” not to alienate the middle class with any type of crude language, defiant demeanor, or menacing appearance that suggested radicalism or a disrespect for middle class mores and traditions. For this very reason, he disliked the hippies and counterculture activists of the 1960s. As Richard Poe puts it: “Alinsky scolded the Sixties Left for scaring off potential converts in Middle America. True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within.” While his ultimate goal was nothing less than the “radicalization of the middle class,” Alinsky stressed the importance of “learning to talk the language of those with whom one is trying to converse.”[63] “Tactics must begin with the experience of the middle class,” he said, “accepting their aversion to rudeness, vulgarity, and conflict. Start them easy, don’t scare them off.”[64] To appeal to the middle class, Alinsky continued, “goals must be phrased in general terms like ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’; ‘Of the Common Welfare’; ‘Pursuit of happiness’; or ‘Bread and Peace.’”[65] He suggested, for instance, that an effective organizer “discovers what their [the middle class’] definition of the police is, and their language -- [and] he discards the rhetoric that always says ‘pig’ [in reference to police]. Instead of hostile rejection he is seeking bridges of communication and unity over the gaps…. He will view with strategic sensitivity the nature of middle-class behavior with its hang-ups over rudeness or aggressive, insulting, profane actions. All this and more must be grasped and used to radicalize parts of the middle class.”[66] A related principle taught by Alinsky was that radical organizers must not only speak the language of the middle class, but that they also must dress their crusades in the vestments of morality. “Moral rationalization,” he said, “is indispensable to all kinds of action, whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.”[67] “All great leaders,” he added, “invoked ‘moral principles’ to cover naked self-interest in the clothing of ‘freedom,’ ‘equality of mankind,’ ‘a law higher than man-made law,’ and so on.” In short: “All effective actions require the passport of morality.”[68] But Alinsky understood that there was a flip side to his strategy of speaking the palatable language of the middle class and the reassuring parlance of morality. Specifically, he said that organizers must be entirely unpredictable and unmistakably willing -- for the sake of the moral principles in whose name they claim to act -- to watch society descend into utter chaos and anarchy. He stated that they must be prepared, if necessary, to “go into a state of complete confusion and draw [their] opponent into the vortex of the same confusion.”[69] One way in which organizers and their disciples can broadcast their preparedness for this possibility is by staging loud, defiant, massive protest rallies expressing deep rage and discontent over one particular injustice or another. Such demonstrations can give onlookers the impression that a mass movement is preparing to shift into high gear, and that its present (already formidable) size is but a fraction of what it eventually will become. “A mass impression,” said Alinsky, “can be lasting and intimidating…. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”[70] “The threat,” he added, “is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”[71] “If your organization is small in numbers,” said Alinsky, “… conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does.”[72] “Wherever possible,” Alinsky counseled, “go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.”[73] Marching mobs of chanting demonstrators accomplishes this objective. The average observer’s reaction to such a display is of a dual nature: First he is afraid. But he also recalls the organizer’s initial articulation of middle-class ideals and morals. Thus he convinces himself that the People’s Organization is surely composed of reasonable people who actually hold values similar to his own, and who seek resolutions that will be beneficial to both sides. This thought process causes him to proffer -- in hopes of appeasing the angry mobs -- concessions and admissions of guilt, which the organizer in turn exploits to gain still greater moral leverage and to extort further concessions. In Alinsky’s view, action was more often the catalyst for revolutionary fervor than vice versa. He deemed it essential for the organizer to get people to act first (e.g., participate in a demonstration) and rationalize their actions later. “Get them to move in the right direction first,” said Alinsky. “They’ll explain to themselves later why they moved in that direction.”[74] Among the most vital tenets of Alinsky’s method were the following: “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more live up to their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.”[75] “No organization, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book. You can club them to death with their ‘book’ of rules and regulations.”[76] “Practically all people live in a world of contradictions. They espouse a morality which they do not practice.… This dilemma can and should be fully utilized by the organizer in getting individuals and groups involved in a People’s Organization. It is a very definite Achilles’ heel even in the most materialistic person. Caught in the trap of his own contradictions, that person will find it difficult to show satisfactory cause to both the organizer and himself as to why he should not join and participate in the organization. He will be driven either to participation or else to a public and private admission of his own lack of faith in democracy and man.”[77] Alinsky taught that in order to most effectively cast themselves as defenders of moral principals and human decency, organizers must react with “shock, horror, and moral outrage” whenever their targeted enemy in any way misspeaks or fails to live up to his “book of rules.”[78] Moreover, said Alinsky, whenever possible the organizer must deride his enemy and dismiss him as someone unworthy of being taken seriously because he is either intellectually deficient or morally bankrupt. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength,” said Alinsky.[79] He advised organizers to “laugh at the enemy” in an effort to provoke “an irrational anger.”[80] “Ridicule,” said Alinsky, “is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”[81] According to Alinsky, it was vital that organizers focus on multiple crusades and multiple approaches. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag,” he wrote. “Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time … New issues and crises are always developing…”[82] “Keep the pressure on,” he continued, “with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”[83] Toward this end, Alinksy advised organizers to be sure that they always kept more than one “fight in the bank.” In other words, organizers should keep a stockpile of comparatively small crusades which they are already prepared to conduct, and to which they can instantly turn their attention after having won a major victory of some type. These “fights in the bank” serve the dual purpose of keeping the organization’s momentum going, while not allowing its major crusade to get “stale” from excessive public exposure.[84] A People’s Organization, said Alinsky, can build a wide-based membership only if it focuses on multiple issues (e.g., civil rights, civil liberties, welfare, rent, urban renewal, the environment, etc.) “Multiple issues mean constant action and life,” Alinsky wrote.[85] Alinsky cautioned organizers to judiciously choose to initiate only those battles which they stood a very good chance of winning. “The organizer’s job,” he said, “is to begin to build confidence and hope in the idea of organization and thus in the people themselves: to win limited victories, each of which will build confidence and the feeling that ‘if we can do so much with what we have now, just think what we will be able to do when we get big and strong.’ It is almost like taking a prize-fighter up the road to the championship -- you have to very carefully and selectively pick his opponents, knowing full well that certain defeats would be demoralizing and end his career.”[86] Alinsky also taught that in some cases the mission of the People’s Organization could be aided if the organizer was able to get himself arrested and thereafter exploit the publicity he derived from the arrest. “Jailing the revolutionary leaders and their followers,” Alinsky said, “… strengthens immeasurably the position of the leaders with their people by surrounding the jailed leadership with an aura of martyrdom; it deepens the identification of the leadership with their people.” It shows, he said, “that their leadership cares so much for them, and is so sincerely committed to the issue, that it is willing to suffer imprisonment for the cause.”[87] But Alinsky stipulated that organizers should seek to be jailed only for a short duration (from one day to two months); longer terms of incarceration, he said, have a tendency to fall from public consciousness and to be forgotten.[88] During the 1960s Alinsky was an enormously influential force in American life. As Richard Poe reports: “When President Johnson launched his War on Poverty in 1964, Alinsky allies infiltrated the program, steering federal money into Alinsky projects. In 1966, Senator Robert Kennedy allied himself with union leader Cesar Chavez, an Alinsky disciple. Chavez had worked ten years for Alinsky, beginning in 1952. Kennedy soon drifted into Alinsky's circle. After race riots shook Rochester, New York, Alinsky descended on the city and began pressuring Eastman-Kodak to hire more blacks. Kennedy supported Alinsky's shakedown.” Alinsky died in 1972, but his legacy lives on as a staple of leftist method, a veritable blueprint for revolution (which he and his disciples euphemistically refer to as “change”). Two of his most notable modern-day disciples are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. This profile was written by John Perazzo in April 2008. -----------------------------------------
|
|
Catholics, tell your Parish Leaders and Bishop.....NO WAY.
|
I've
been reading your posts and took particular
notice of the subject of Dan Short. I've known him since the late 70's
when he was the Executive Director of Catholic Social Ministries and
once called him a friend. But he has gone off the deep end. I have no
desire to associate with him after reading what you have posted.
