Is it just me or have you also noticed that Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and President Obama have been silent about the protests?
The very people who have the power to stop these protests and riots with just a few well-spoken words have been completely silent on the issue.
During her concession speech, Clinton said, “We must accept this result, and then look to the future. … Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.”
After that, she has been mum on the entire thing. -Daisy Luther Activist Post
Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them." -Matthew 7:15-16
If you don't understand what's happening in our streets, then I challenge you to watch A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing with an open mind to the very end. This video portrays the history of community organizing established by Saul Alinsky. I believe President Obama, Senator Sanders, and Hillary Clinton are silent on the issue of violent protests because they share the same perspective on community organizing.
A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
rent or buy docudrama
rent or buy docudrama
"Community organizer, Saul Alinsky, enrolled in a class that would change everything for him. The course social pathology... the professor E. W. Burgess... and Robert E. Park... was focused on reforming American cities. They believed the diseases of crime and poverty of social disorganization to have an external or ecological cause. Chicago sociology was all about field study and the processes of social control and engineering. It had a Darwinian based secularist evolutionary view of social change... pragmatism... and progress. Marriage and family were devalued and self identity was achieved by imagining how we look from another person's perspective. This collectivist mental image is called the "Looking Glass Self."
Fr. Pacwa: If you have as your intention an abstract goodness, then you will have an abstraction of the objects of your intention. You'll treat them as abstractions because you are seeking abstract goals.
Stephanie Block: He may have had an Utopian vision but what he's laying out is a situation whereby it has to create the unrest and disparities that he would say that he is trying to fight against.
Reveille for Radicals: A work filled with the bad seeds of an amorality gathered from the blood red Marxist fields of Europe's dying culture. One that discards civilizations most basic moral principle that the noblest of ends does not justify an amoral means.
Saul Alinsky: Organized people can achieve limitless objectives only through the achievement and constructive use of power... can people better themselves. Nothing can be lifted or moved except through power."
We must understand where the seeds of discontent come from as to not allow this to happen again. Whether you adhere to a religious faith or not virtue and the power of love is what uplifts and moves the masses. Here's an earlier 3rd Dog Script post We are going to set this world right on our own power which demonstrates by faith or by reason there can't be a large-scale revolution until there is a personal revolution, on an individual level. Alinsky claimed there were no other means of organizing people; I believe there is a natural way to organize people. However, this revolution requires looking inside to find the individual Self and not externally to find the "looking glass self." One can prove by sheer reason alone that justice or virtue is necessary for human beings.
The standard procedure is virtue is religious talk and reason is finances, administration, or building something. There’s a huge split, but it wasn’t always that way. The ancient Greeks for example, use reason for science but they also talk about justice by reason. The church came along and added justice by faith as well. Then later on, the reformation knocked out philosophy and just went on virtue or justice by faith.
The Republic by Plato
The argument starts this way; Plato has Socrates as the champion for virtue pursuit for its own sake. Sophist says that virtue or justice is merely a useful good. The reason it is a useful good is because let’s say you’re a crook and everybody knows it… Well, your cover is blown…because everybody knows it. But, on the other hand if you are virtuous by cover you can steal or rob whenever you get an opportunity. So the ideal combination is to look at virtue as a useful good. You use it as a cover and when you get a chance to steal you go for it.
Socrates is to defend the notion you shouldn’t steal or cheat your neighbor. The game Risk is a good example. The nature of the game is that you make alliances with each other to knock off some other party. Who’s going to be the winner of the game? He’s going to be clever, because he has to lie to someone to knock off someone else. At the end of the game he is the Master of the world and his virtue is a useful good.
Socrates is going to uphold telling the truth, being nice to people, and probably be killed by the people he’s attempting to be nice to. That’s what happened to Socrates. You wonder now whose going to win the argument? Two conditions Plato puts on the argument: Socrates can only use reason. He can’t use the religious justification. If you are evil in this life you are going to go to hell in the next. By the way, the Greeks did have a notion of hell. The snakes have a lot of good lies in the beginning; I mean it looks rather difficult. Well eventually as you might expect Socrates wins the argument. But why you ask?
How can Plato work it out that Socrates is going to convince us by reason that we should choose to be just to people even though they might kill us in the end? How by reason can you persuade anybody with that outrageous proposition? I’ll tell you why, Plato had a great sense of the heroic and we now in America have that sense. Take what happened in 9/11 when 400 policemen and firemen went into the building and it collapsed. 300 to 350 didn’t come out and that touched the heart of America. Today, we struggle with black lives matter and blue lives matter movements. These ordinary men are willing to lay down their lives to save people. They have a wife and children, but they are willing to sacrifice that. That is what you call the heroic or admirable. That is what touches people. It is an absolute standard that captures a way a (man or women) fireman, policeman, soldier or activist fighting for a worthy cause wants to live. It commands respect and it doesn’t matter which culture you talk about.
The relativist point of view may say, well it’s stupid. However, you can’t play that game in the face of that kind of courage. There is something about virtue that breaks through in real life as just, and, it renders relativism as a cowardly sort of thing. What a community needs and what an individual needs is a sense of what a man or woman can measure up to. Then you can be proud of a country like that, people with that kind of dedication, and it is a universal thing for all men. Religion doesn’t come directly into it as far as arguments are concerned. By faith or reason, uniting in a common good should be our goal. There can't be a large-scale revolution until there's a personal revolution, on an individual level. It's got to happen on the inside first and there is the place where we meet to set the world right on our own power; the collective unconscious.3rd Dog @3rddogscript