Obama, Clinton, Alinsky and Lucifer. No, really.

I understand the whole liberal artsy mythos behind the idea of Lucifer, and how liberal intellectual elites see it as more of a personification of subconscious undercurrents of human tendencies to rebel against authority, than.. y’know, the guy with horns and a tail who hates God and plans for the destruction and damnation of humanity.

Even so, this is kinda creepy. I mean seriously.

Hilary Clinton wrote her thesis on this book.

Obama was similarly influenced, and has been praised by Saul’s son for implementing his father’s ideals.

And who did Saul Alinsky dedicate this book to? The guy in the horns! No really!

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”


It reminds me of Aristophanes’ play, “The Clouds,” which ridicules Socrates and his school of philosophy. A son of the main character becomes a follower of Socrates and displays his erudite opinions to his shocked father (who paid for this training). The father goes along with all the zany ideas his son has swallowed until he gets to the proclamation that he can even hit his mother. At this, the father beats his son for his foolishness and incites a old school pitchfork and torch mob against the school of Socrates.

Sure, we can intellectualize our legends and common traditions, but at a certain point, shouldn’t some very elementary flags go up to warn us that we’re blithely rushing in where angels fear to tread? I should think taking on as an intellectual mentor someone who dedicates a work to Lucifer should be in that vein.

Maybe it’s just me.

I cling to my Platonic dialogues, but I cling to my Bible tighter.