It is right to do right. It is right not to impede a blind man on his way, it is the right thing to do to feed the hungry or clothe the naked, or do some other good deed. This is a basic religious teaching common to Judaism and Christianity and it is also a commandment that is observed by many others including those of no religion.
It is these individual and local acts of un-coerced goodness that make the world a better place. But no matter how much we would like the world to be perfect to our eyes, we cannot create a heaven on earth, and the results of attempts to create Utopian societies just brings about various types of totalitarianism.
The ‘perfect’ world of the Deep Green environmentalists or the Stalinists looks to me more like someone’s concept of Hell rather than Heaven. The same applies to yours or my concept of a ‘perfect’ world, it would be hell for someone else.
I’m very suspicious of Utopianism and its tendency to oppressive thuggery and this article by D.L Adams in the New English Review, meditates on the amorality and dubious contacts and behaviour of the ‘community activist’ Saul Alinsky, a person who has had much influence on the British and American Left. I dislike Alinskyite entities, because they by way of noisy and often undemocratically chosen activists, attempt to subvert the political process and try to bypass democratic opinion, and in my experience they are none too choosy about who they work with, and ally themselves with. An Alinskyite Utopia would be an oppressive one where individualism and challenge would be ruthlessly suppressed.
A utopia like that created by those who believe that the ends justify the means and in change for the sake of change, will soon turn to silencing individuals, as well as opposing ideas.
D.L Adams said:
“Many Americans have read Alinsky’s books and understand his methods; this is excellent as so few read Mein Kampf, and fewer still have read the Koran, Sira, and Hadith. These are the foundational texts of existential opposition to the existence of the United States in its present form.
The fact that our current President and Secretary of State (wannabe President Hillary Clinton), are followers of Alinsky is beyond disturbing. That so many Americans know Alinsky is heartening but few know the motivations behind the agitation that is so central to the Alinsky method and further what it means when a professional agitator acquires the power that they claim to require. What kind of effective governance is possible from the permanent agitator when the reins of power are handed to him/her? We have seen the results.
The problem with the Alinsky method is that the end game is amorphous; the end game is the acquisition of power but little is said of what to do with that power once acquired. The core of Alinsky’s method is destruction, destruction of the “system” that allows a disparity of wealth. There is no discussion of what is to replace this system once it is brought down. However, there is little doubt that Alinsky’s idea of a better “system” is one that brings forced equivalence or Marxism. Fundamentally, the struggle to get power is the essence of Alinsky, what to do with the power once acquired is another matter altogether.”
Read the rest of this fascinating article here:
Corrected/Alternative link to DL Adams article.