Quotations from three contemporary writers – all of them dedicatees of the book – which are applicable to L.
David Horowitz on Saul Alinsky:
“Alinsky begins his text by telling readers exactly what a radical is. He is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer. In his own mind the radical is building his own kingdom, which to him is a kingdom of heaven on earth. Since a kingdom of heaven built by human beings is a fantasy – an impossible dream – the radical’s only real world efforts are those which are aimed at subverting the society he lives in. He is a nihilist. This is something that conservatives generally have a hard time understanding. As a former radical, I am constantly asked how radicals could hate America and why they would want to destroy a society that compared to others is tolerant, inclusive and open, and treats all people with a dignity and respect that is the envy of the world. The answer to this question is that radicals are not comparing America to other real world societies. They are comparing America to the heaven on earth – the kingdom of social justice and freedom – they think they are building. And compared to this heaven even America is hell.”
Thomas Sowell on the self-exaltation of the intellectuals and the inaccessibility of modern art:
“Intellectuals’ downplaying of objective reality and objective criteria extends beyond social, scientific, or economic phenomena into art, music, and philosophy. The one over-riding consistency across all these disparate venues is the self-exaltation of the intellectuals. Unlike great cultural achievements of the past … which were intended to inspire kings and peasants alike, the hallmark of self-consciously ‘modern’ art and music is its inaccessibility to the masses and often even deliberate offensiveness to, or mockery of, the masses. … A society can survive a certain amount of forces of disintegration within it. But that is very different from saying that there is no limit to the amount, audacity and ferocity of those disintegrative forces which a society can survive, without at least the will to resist.”
Daniel Greenfield on the cult of Obama:
“Cults shift the burden of failure from the guru and the progam to the participants. It isn’t the man or the idea that failed, but the people. In the end it’s not the enemies who bear the final burden of Obama’s fall, but the people who weren’t good enough. Cults demand more and more from their followers to impose upon tnem an unreasonable and unshakeable burden of guilt. …[Obama provided] a sense of imminence, the perception of a transformative figure who could change the country and the world. That magnetic tug wasn’t Obama, it was the confused mess of desires, fears, dreams and wishes that the people were encouraged to project onto him.”