Hillary Clinton remains little more than the dark disciple of Saul Alinsky

by Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer FOR COACHISRIGHT.COM

Rubbing Resentments Raw is a main theme of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s analysis of the Alinsky model of community organizing and political activism to gain power by conflict over the establishment. Her senior dissertation on “There is Only the Fight” not only reveals the continuing, enormous effect of Saul Alinsky on Hillary Rodham today, but also shows the immersion in his philosophy that directs her drive to become America’s first woman president. She says of her role model: “Saul Alinsky is more than a man who has created a particular approach to community organizing; he is the articulate proponent of what many consider to be a dangerous social/political philosophy.”

The irony seen here-as her lengthy senior academic dissertation develops-is that Chicago, home of both professor and student, is every bit as bad and perhaps far worse than it ever was when they envisioned a social justice paradigm to rescue its underprivileged residents from poverty. Rubbing raw resentments is now the meme used by academics and their gullible students to effect what they feel will be beneficial change. But are their empty words a false symbol of lack of beneficial action?

Hillary Rodham’s student paper cites the Alinsky dream of a bridge from nationalistic chauvinism to a horizon of a New World Order for mankind. We now begin to see how she has steeped herself in this Chicago, political organizer’s fanciful theme of having “this feeling for and with the people.” Of course, the hypocritical Clinton will occupy a station of importance far above that of “the people,” given that she considers herself better than those she was born to lead.

Is changing America into just another New World Order satellite nation what we really want?

Alinksy’s theory that power, rather than good will, is the engine that drives societal change, is a subtle attack on Christianity’s beneficence. “Be prepared for Conflict; Conflict is the route to power,” says Alinsky. So let’s couple the idealistic musings of both Mrs. Clinton and her mentor with what we are seeing in real time and we have to wonder if what they evince is just more academic double talk. If we consider this week’s events at the University of Missouri along with the Ferguson effect, we need to ask ourselves just what is being accomplished.

“Social conflict is both healthful and necessary to precipitate and direct a community’s conflict pattern,” says Alinsky. Wanting to serve as an “abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community,” now becomes chaos for the sake of chaos with no positive result anywhere in sight. Other aims HRC cites include “fanning latent hostilities and being a channel to pour out frustration” so Alinsky can “agitate to the point of CONFLICT.” Just what is being accomplished by the constant turmoil the Obama years have brought? Will Mrs. Clinton give us more of the same?

What societal change is coming as a result of those inflamed classroom discussions? How is constant conflict helping America solve its many pressing economic problems? Can we truthfully say we are better off now after the Alinsky/Obama/Clinton push to “fundamentally change” our American way of life? “Alinsky’s anti-fascism, built around anti-authoritarian, anti-racial superiority, anti-oppression (are) his ideological justification for his move into organizing.”

While all of this conflict and turmoil are going on with the right hand, what is Mrs. Clinton planning with her left? Commenters on conservative threads keep pointing out the nature of governance-by-distraction that has gotten Obama the shroud of confusion he needed to implement all kinds of new laws, regulations and Executive Orders that affect us in varied and dangerous ways. Is Mrs. Clinton taking what she learned as Alinsky’s ardent admirer to start her own march through our way of life?

Hillary says “a radical is one who advocates sweeping changes in existing laws and methods of government in Marxian terms. . .(to) drastically alter the causes of societal conditions.” Yes, these are Saul Alinsky’s words that she is quoting. But are these same words forever imprinted on her own philosophy? Did not entire segments of voters look to Obama as the young idealistic change artist who would solve our country’s social strife? Does strife solve strife?

Our country is more racially divided, more violently corrupted, more drug addicted, more at risk from our foreign enemies, more in debt than ever before in our history. Is this what following Saul Alinsky has brought, not just to Chicago, but to America? Chicago’s murder rate is at all-time highs among its minority populations and no liberal politician seems able or willing to fix this city’s problem.

Alinsky saw Chicago as his home and indeed, he has made his Chicago school of community activism the driving force for his acolytes, Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. “No individual or organization can negotiate without power to compel negotiations,” he says. We must face the fact now that Hillary’s academic studies fundamentally have imbued her with the notion of social conflict and power mobilization for America’s future. How much of this woman do we see on her debate stage? It is the dark shadow of Saul Alinsky that follows her everywhere.