As I alluded to in Part One of my commentary on the "No Kings" protests, it's important that we see the agenda behind this latest movement of social mutiny and anarchy. And lest you think I'm going too far in calling the participants anarchists, let's consider the definition of the word ... anarchy is defined as "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority, or other controlling systems". I think that pretty much sums up the mindset of most of the protesters.
But this is not a new response to government in this country. I'm old enough to remember 1968 and being confused by the reaction of kids in the streets. The Vietnam War was in full swing and young people were not shy about voicing their disapproval and beliefs that the "undeclared war" was not worth the mounting death toll of America's young men. There became a distinct "line in the sand", if you will, between the WW2 generation [who never questioned their government's actions] and their politically active children. The shootings of unarmed protesting students on the Kent State college campus by National Guardsmen [killing four and wounding nine] solidified the divide.
America entered into a new paradigm of open criticism and activism by segments of dissatisfied citizens. I can also remember sitting in a Freshman College course on US Government, and hearing the Teaching Assistant, [a graduate student, himself] declare that he could not bring himself to teach American political history representing the time-period of post-1948. He declared that our politics had become "dirty" and our government no longer represented democracy or freedom after that date. I was a naive student, at the time, and was shocked to hear him speak of my country in that manner. And being the daughter of a WW2 Navy airman, I had a hard time looking through the rose-colored glasses of my patriotism. It was then that I began to see the seeds of "revolution and discord" being sown on our college campuses. [NOTE: Now, many years later, I can see that his opinion was not unwarranted. Politics has definitely been sullied by corruption and greed.]
It was student teachers and professors who led the way, and I had to forge my own path through their radical ideas, as well as being willing to pull the veil back on our history and see the spiritual battle being fought over America and its promotion of individual freedom. That was a difficult time in our country, and the spirit of rebellion, instigated and encouraged by Satan and his cohorts, has only been urged and incited in the years since. At the root of this rebellion is the temptation of wealth and power, and the willingness of men to sacrifice the uneducated and angry members of society to do their bidding in order to gain their own rewards. Among those who believed he held the answer to "peaceful protests" was Saul Alinsky, a political [and social] activist and organizer. He began to make a name for himself as a prominent influence, involving himself in various actions, including strikes and protests.
A self-proclaimed radical, Alinsky also thought of himself as a patriot and, no doubt, a social justice warrior, long before those terms were coined. Interestingly enough, in his first book, Reveille For Radicals (1946), he proposed the idea that with organization and leadership, citizens could best demonstrate democracy through legal protest and could exert their political power in positive ways. As the years passed, his tactics seem to have changed, and by the time he wrote his final book, Rules for Radicals (1971), he had become known (in a New York Times article written about him) for "goading, confusing, and infuriating the power structures" of American society with his "explosive mixture of rigid discipline, brilliant showmanship, and a street fighter's instinct for ruthlessly exploiting his enemy's weakness".
Let's consider some of his 12 Rules and see if they are still in play in the current barrage of "mostly peaceful" protests we see on the nightly news ...
RULE #1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have". Power is what both sides of the protest argument want, and there are two main sources for power -- money and people. When you have the wealthy elite (like George Soros) funding the money to hire the people to agitate and fuel the self-proclaimed "deprived" citizens, you have a recipe for violence .
RULE #3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy". Alinsky advised organizers to "look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety, and uncertainty". The organizers in LA, and around the country, certainly have enough arguments to stir up the protestors into civil disobedience: the illegal immigration issue; the economy; impending WW3; the lies and corruption in Congress ... it's a bubbling cauldron of demonic deception and unrighteousness.
RULE #4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, then send 30,000 letters. No one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation are at stake, and if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to target it and chip away at the damage).
RULE #6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy". They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. They want to create anger and fear.
RULE #8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up". Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach [to quell the protests] hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover, and re-strategize).
RULE #10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive". Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. It worked in the 60s when unions used this tactic when peaceful [yet loud] demonstrations incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence, bringing sympathy to the marcher's cause.
RULE #12: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. This is cruel but very effective.
These are not all the rules that Saul Alinsky promoted, and you can read all twelve of his "rules for radicals" here. And you can still see them at work in the streets of America today. Satan never abandons a good tactic that serves his purposes. These Rules for Radicals bear his fingerprints all over them. And Alinsky acknowledged Satan's influence in introducing "radical rebellion" in his book's dedication: Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to 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.
The problem is that Satan has conveniently wiped the subtitle of Alinsky's book from our social conscience. The complete [and original] title of the book was Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. According to his own "mostly peaceful" goals, Alinsky sought to create a guide for future community organizers to empower the people to gain social, political, and economic equality. The ultimate goal was to successfully unite people into an active organization with the power to affect change on a variety of issues.
But, since the 1960s until this first quarter of the 21st Century, there's a big difference in the motives and the means to carry out social change. Satan has upped his game. Alinsky's rules have been successfully adapted and adjusted in the hope of creating permanent division and discord in our nation. We can see the original intents of gaining more power through money and people (Rule #1); the increase of insecurity, anxiety, and uncertainty (Rule #3); overwhelming the system with "fake news" through media compliance (Rule #4); encouraging looting and destruction, which the "bought instigators" use to incite the sinful passions of the mindless sheep (Rule #6); constantly applying the tactics that work by keeping up the pressure and trying to overpower the system (Rule #8); taking the gloves off when it comes to violence, hoping to create more violence and more sympathy for your cause (Rule #10); and finally, pick a target, preferably individuals [like a president or an elected official] and point out how they are the cause of all the chaos and discontent among the citizenry.
We can see how Satan's escalation and expansion of these rules are having an effect on our society. The protests are becoming less peaceful, and the organizers are resorting to increased violence to promote their grievances, leading to violence by those trying to maintain control. Satan loves this! Violence plus violence begets chaos (disorder and confusion), which is the darkness that existed in Genesis 1:2. But God brought order to that chaos at the beginning of this world, and when He has reached His limit of man's rebellion against His rules, then His judgment will once again establish order, as it was in the days of Noah.
You see, Satan loves to see men caught up in "the virtue of struggle". That's where he can sow his lies of victimhood. But that only leads to disillusionment and discouragement. Jesus, the One True King, promoted His Father's own set of rules in Exodus 20; rules carved on tablets of stone nearly 3500 years ago. They don't require violence, money, or man's power. They are the solutions to all of society's woes. When men walk in morality and ethics, and adopt individual responsibility and accountability, we can manifest what God truly desires for us... plans to prosper us and not harm us; plans to give us hope and a future [Jeremiah 29:11]. Isn't that the true desire of all men's hearts?
Galations 5:10. I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty.
