“The greatest enemy of individual freedom is the individual himself. . . To the questioner, nothing is sacred. He detests dogma, defies any finite definition of morality, rebels against any repression of a free, open search of ideas no matter where they may lead. He is challenging, insulting, agitating, discrediting. He stirs unrest. . .To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles. The real arena is corrupt and bloody. Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother off against his father in the politics of when to go to bed; he who fears corruption fears life. . .Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.” –Saul Alinsky
“He who fears corruption fears life.” This quote epitomizes one of the most influential and destructive men of the 20th century—and no, I’m not talking about Hitler, Mussolini, or Stalin. In some ways, I wonder if Saul Alinsky’s destructive effects were not even more far-reaching than those of the men just mentioned, although he ultimately had the same goal—to brainwash those he could, kill those he couldn’t, and destroy the past so effectively that the world could be completely rebuilt based on his radical ideology. He did it brilliantly, too. Even Stalin could have learned a few infiltration tricks from Alinsky. Alinsky wrote his thesis on Frank Nitti, one of Al Capone’s top henchmen—and participated in gang activities, including murder, to do so. Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals—which is dedicated to Satan and tells someone how to destroy a society from the inside out.
Alinsky was a raging atheist, a man who hated not only religion but morality—and whose most ardent supporters were high-ranking clerics in various churches. Whenever you do research into a modern religious, political, or societal crisis/cesspool, you almost always find Alinsky at the bottom of it. Particularly in America (though his influence extended at least to Europe as well), Alinsky largely shaped the world we now live in.
If, to kill a weed, you have to dig up the roots, it is essential for any American wishing to remedy our bleeding country now to understand the evil, manipulative Marxist who was the root of the modern American church/state crisis.
Both Americans and non-Americans aided Alinsky in his destructive work. For instance, Jacques Maritain was a highly influential French Catholic theologian of the 20th century. According to Russell Hittinger, Paul VI (the pope who was responsible for all the “reforms” of Vatican II, which, obviously, changed America as much as anywhere else) declared that Maritain had been a big influence on him. In fact, Paul VI tried to make Maritain a lay cardinal numerous times. A look into Maritain’s relationship with the infamous Alinsky reveals some troublesome facts, however. The man who was supposed to be such a faithful Catholic sent this note as an introduction for Alinsky to speak at the New York Union Theological Seminary in 1966 (after Alinsky had worked with Al Capone’s gang), “I have admired and loved Saul Alinsky for a great many years. His methods may seem a little rough. I think they are good and necessary means to achieve good and necessary ends. And I know . . . that the deep-rooted motive power and inspiration of this so-called trouble-maker is pure and entire self-giving, and love for those poor images of God which are human beings, especially the oppressed ones—in other words, it is what Paul calls ‘agape,’ or love of charity.”
Alinsky had already organized more than one violent riot at this time, including the now infamous 1964 Rochester riots. Alinsky also made no secret of his atheism. That Maritain, a man as influential in the Catholic Church as he was, should compare the ruthless, religion-hating Alinsky to the model set forth by St. Paul—nay, to praise Alinsky’s openly violent and Marxist methods—seems very strange. But Maritain did, and even (at least at one point in his life) hoped to rebuild France after World War II on the Alinsky’s political model. Maritain did later argue with this “friend” after Alinsky published his Rules for Radicals, but yet it could be said they had “an affectionate dialogue about politics, God, social justice, worldly spirituality, and democratic means to nurture freedom and equality and to empower citizens to work together for the common good” for several decades. Maritain later claimed that, though Alinsky denied God’s existence and thus the need to love God, God still must love Alinsky greatly for his “love for the . . . oppressed.” One can only presume Maritain was deliberately self-deluded.
American Dorothy Day has been considered more openly controversial for some time than Maritain. She wrote for explicitly Communists papers, she condemned capitalism—and she greatly admired Saul Alinsky. Her column in The Catholic Worker for October/November 1972 has a special section commemorating the dead, and she specifically mentions Saul Alinsky with enthusiastic praise, even likening Alinsky (again, the man who dedicated his famous book to Satan) to a “spiritual advisor”. She says, “I believe (he) did a great amount of good and had the clear intelligence the older St. Teresa so esteemed in spiritual advisors. I do not separate body and soul, secular and spiritual. They all go together . . . (he) brought about great clarification of thought . . . and brought hope and self-respect to the oppressed in the field of economics and education.” She then quotes St. Augustine (“All men are members or potential members of the body of Christ”) and, having completely taken the quote out of context, then says that Alinsky (who even denied God’s existence) should be considered as a member of Christ’s body because of his social work. Day ends by saying that, since Jesus told us to love our enemies, we should be careful “not to judge.”
Apparently, Day conceives Jesus’ injunction toward charity as including a blindness to outright evil in certain individuals. Considering what Alinsky did and who he was, considering that this was written after his death (and thus after the publication of Rules for Radicals and Alinsky’s open avowal of Marxist and mafia influences and tactics), Day’s warm and even extravagant praise of him, using quotes from Jesus Christ and Catholic saints to bolster her point, is very shocking.
There were numerous other “Catholic” friends of Alinsky—Fr. Jack Egan, Monsignor George Casey, Bishop Bernard Shiel, Cardinal Meyer, and Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. “Alinsky organized his first community organization in Chicago’s Back of the Yards in 1939, and critical to the success of Alinsky’s first organization and all subsequent organizations was the foundational participation of the Catholic Church,” said scholar Lawrence J. Engel.
Catholics were not the only religious leaders to admire Alinsky, however, though perhaps the hierarchical structure of the Church made Alinsky’s impact on American Catholicism more obvious and long-lasting than in other denominations. As indicated above, Alinsky was invited to speak at (among numerous other religious institutions) the Protestant Union Theological Seminary. Further, Alinsky’s famous and violent riots in Rochester in the mid-1960s occurred because Alinsky had actually been invited there to gin up some social change by several leftist clergy members, and he was wined and dined for his efforts by several Protestant ministers.
A Methodist church sent a delegation to the first Chicago meeting of Alinsky’s Organization for the Southwest Community. Methodist minister Jim Reed enthusiastically praised Alinsky’s work in the latter instance. In fact, a significant number of Chicago’s Protestant ministers joined Alinsky’s Organization for the Southwest Community and his Woodlawn Organization, some even choosing to continue to work actively with Alinsky under threat of losing their jobs. Dean R. Hoge and Jeffrey L. Faue, in an analysis of Protestant activism in America, went so far as to call the atheist Marxist “Saul Alinsky, (the man) whose views have influenced many church social action leaders.”
In 2018, Christian writer Douglas de Celle warmly praised Alinsky, his book, and his methods, concluding, “He was a man for others. He found much to criticize, but expected the future to be good. . . . He showed us how to lower ourselves for a high cause. He left us, in his final book, a wise summation of his method. Above all, he reminded us of the importance of breaking free from every bully and rule that keeps us from living as God intended.”
But Alinsky’s mark is just as clear, if not clearer, on the political scene. In 1969, Hillary Clinton wrote a “fawning thesis” on Saul Alinsky. Hillary praised Alinsky, particularly his personality, although she did criticize him too—for not being radical enough. She thought that, at the time, his model for destroying society was too small-scale. As Dinesh D’Souza noted in his movie Hillary’s America, Hillary believed that, to work, Alinsky’s model and tactics had to be enforced by the major organs of government and society—education, the courts, etc. Alinsky originally envisioned his “revolution” being initiated and run by people on the ground, fighting the powers-that-be. Hillary’s vision was to infiltrate the government and society to the point that the “revolution” could be carried out against the people by the powers-that-be.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama’s main “job” before entering politics was as a “community organizer,” a concept created by Alinsky, who advocated his followers create divisions in society and “rub raw the resentments of the people.” In an opinion piece for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Matt Patterson lays out the connections between President Barack Obama and Saul Alinsky.
“Obama received a comprehensive course in Saul Alinsky during his years as a community organizer in Chicago, an experience Obama recalled as ‘the best education he ever had,’” Patterson recounts. “In those years, Obama was schooled by disciples of Alinsky himself, including Mike Kruglik, who remembered Obama as ‘the best student he ever had,’ a ‘natural . . . undisputed master of agitation.’”
After analyzing various Alinskyite tactics Obama put to full use while in the White House, Patterson ends, saying:
“Obama the student has become Obama the master.”
And don’t forget that the current usurpers of the roles of President and Vice President (Biden and Harris) both worked for Obama and, in Harris’ case, worked with him even apart from his presidency. In fact, several reports from various different news sites on Obama’s endorsement of Biden’s presidential run had one thing in common in their commentary—they identified the “new”, radically leftist Joe Biden with “Saul Alinsky(’s)” tactics and beliefs.
“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion,” said George Washington, and John Adams declared, “Human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.”
If the sentiments of our Founding Fathers are true, Alinsky’s massive influence on Christianity in America should seriously concern us. But if you are less religious, then the fact that Alinsky was undoubtedly the progenitor of the modern Democrat party (the party now controlling every political, cultural, and economic organ of power in the US) should gravely alarm you.
With Biden and Harris occupying the White House, Alinsky’s dreamt-of takeover of America seems complete. It is up to we, the people to decide if we are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to root the evil Alinskyite ideology out of America once and for all.