Saul David
Alinsky, was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally
considered to be the founder of the modern community organizing movement.
(Socialism/Communism)
He is most noted
for his book "Rules for Radicals".
Died: June 12,
1972, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.
Education:
University of Chicago.
Books: "Rules for
Radicals," "Reveille for Radicals," "How to Create a
Social State,"
There are eight levels of control that must be obtained
before you can create a social state.
1) Healthcare -
Control healthcare and you control the people.
2) Poverty -
Increase the poverty level as high as possible. Poor people are easier to control
and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3) Debt - Increase
debt to an
unsustainable level. That way you will be able to increase taxes - and this will
produce more poverty.
4) Gun Control -
Remove the ability for citizens to defend themselves from the government.
That way you will be able to create a police state.
5) Welfare - Take
control of every aspect of their lives (food, housing, and income).
6) Education - Take
control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn
in school.
7) Religion -
Remove belief in the God from the government and schools.
8) Class Warfare -
Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent
and it will be easier to take (tax) the wealthy with the support of the
poor.
Does any of this
sound like what is happening in the United States right
now?
Or said another way...
ReplyDelete(1) in order to sabotage American military power, agitate for peace
(2) to demoralize society, sanctify abnormality
(3) to collapse the birthrate, promote infanticide
(4) to submerge national identity, flood the country with illegal aliens
(5) to destroy the family, degrade motherhood
(6) to divide and conquer, promote minority grievances.
Scott...No 5 This AM is saw in the news that I think that NBC stated that "Family life,Married with Children,Was an alternate lifestyle.
DeleteYou were warned just in case people were not listening.
ReplyDelete"Change You Can Believe In"
The Progressive Liberal Administration of Obama currently has this country on the Road to Socialism,admit it or not this country is being hijacked by the Progressives.
Interesting comments here but where is the substantive argument to bolster a group of trite suggestions?
ReplyDeleteWith the speech by Patrick Henry Give me liberty or..... The Gettysburg address of Lincoln and the Declaration of Independence I can include your Constitution, as originally written and presented to congress as among the greatest efforts towards constitutional government by your nation. As proof of the value of the fledgling thought process in the new nation, look to amendment 1 through 10.
May I suggest, with the greatest respect, that William and Scott have produced bubbles of rhetoric, more suitable for freshman debates, than for serious consideration by an electorate prepared to change their votes given even a reasonable excuse to do so?
Having said all that, I would still vote for the Elephants if I had a vote; I do worry a little when I sometimes see my friends with long trunks, growing long ears, it demonstrates a degree of indecision perhaps.
Cheers from Aussie
"Did you know Hillary's senior thesis was on Alinsky, and she has prevented it from being released ever since she came to prominence?"
DeleteObama taught workshops on Alinsky’s theories and methods for years and in 1985, he started working as a community organizer for and Alinskyite group called, “Developing Community Projects.” While building coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama was criticized for not attending church and decided to become an instant Christian. He then helped fund the Alinsky Academy. Obama was a paid director of the Woods Fund, which is a non-profit organization used to provide start-up funding and operating capital for Midwest Academy, which teaches the Alinsky tactics of community organization. Obama sat on the Woods Fund Board with William Ayers, the founder of the, “Weather Underground,” a domestic terrorist organization.
Hillary Rodham as a student at Wellesly in 1969, interviewed Saul Alinsky and wrote her thesis on Alinsky’s theories and methods. She concludes her thesis by writing, “Alinsky is regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such he has been feared, just as Eugene Debs or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most radical of political faiths, “democracy.”
Alinsky offered Hillary a job upon graduation from Wellesley but she decided to attend Yale Law School where she met her husband Bill Clinton.
“Rules For Radicals,” page 113, “From the moment the organizer enters a community he lives, dreams, eats, breaths, sleeps only one thing and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army. Until he has developed that mass power base, he confronts no issues.”
DeletePage 59, “But to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation. It is making a deal, getting that vital breather, usually the victory. If you start with nothing, demand 100 percent, compromise for 30 percent, you’re 30 percent ahead.”
DeleteLike I have said here many times, split the baby with a Marxist/liberal/progressive/democrat and you still have a dead baby.
The calamitous events of that decade turned Clinton away from the GOP of her Park Ridge, Ill., youth. Arriving at Wellesley, she became president of the Young Republicans, but she soon drifted left. She said that 1968, the year she met Alinsky in Chicago, was a watershed in her "personal and political evolution," marked by the escalation of the Vietnam War and the killings of Martin Luther King Jr. and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.
Delete"I basically argued that [Alinsky] was right," Clinton told The Washington Post in 1993. "Even at that early stage, I was against all these people who came up with these big government programs that were more supportive of bureaucracies than actually helpful to people. You know, I've been on this kick for 25 years."
In the end, Clinton gave Alinsky mixed reviews, admiring his charisma and his goal of democratic equality while questioning the usefulness and staying power of a small-bore approach based on stirring up conflict in the inner city. She noted that Alinsky was crafting a fresh appeal to the potentially powerful middle class.
For reasons Clinton and her staff will not discuss, the White House asked Wellesley to seal its copy of her thesis during her husband's presidency.
Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
DeleteThe second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people.
…The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
…the fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
…the fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
…the sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
…the seventh rule is: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
…the eighth rule: Keep the pressure on.
…the ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
…The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
…The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
…The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. — Rules for Radicals
I am probably one of the few here who has actually read "Rules for Radicals". Not because I view Alinski as some kind of hero, but rather because I was curious about how a dead community organizer could rile up the right of this country so much. Alinski, to me, is basically a shit disturber. He enjoyed wrenching power away from the entrenched to give it to those who didn't have it. Sorry to say William, your illustrious Tea Party is employing quite a few of these tactics, and a growing number of conservatives are also adopting these tactics.
DeleteWhy do political campaigns use negative ads even when the vast majority of America says they hate them? They use them because they work. If you actually read rules for radicals, you will find that Alinski does not preach for adopting a welfare state of any kind. His causes were certainly more aligned with workers and poor communities, but he also makes it clear that the poor are not some group to be pittied and babied. Karl Rove is a perfect example of a modern day Alinski.
Ted Cruz and to a lesser degree, Rand Paul, and the Tea Party in general have adopted these tactics and it was working well until they finally had their bluff called with the last government shut down.
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it. Nothing could better describe the tactics of the Tea Party and far right of this country.
While I had not read ‘Rules for Radicals’, the 1945 ‘Reveille for Radicals’ crossed my path several years ago. In the interest of this post I did download the previous and have given it a quick read. Alinsky to me is like so many socialist/communists when they try to convey their motives and purposes.
DeleteOne comment he made in his first book stuck with me as both a common sense fact and a contradiction to his purpose. I had to look it up to quote because I did not want to rephrase his actual words.
“The world is deluged with panaceas, formulas, proposed laws, machineries, ways out, and myriads of solutions. It is significant and tragic that every one of these proposed plans and alleged solutions deals with the structure of society, but none concerns the substance itself—the people. This despite the eternal truth of the democratic faith that the solution always lies with the people.
If, on the other hand, we confine our entire attention to the problem of structure we will revert to the ancient fallacy of assuming that laws make men rather than that men make laws. The disastrous experience of America’s futile attempt to enforce prohibition laws which were contrary to the desires of the masses of the American people is a conspicuous illustration of this type of specious, unrealistic, so-called reasoning”
This of course is standard fair for a small government libertarian such as myself and an opposite path pursued by today’s liberals. Everything is about molding mankind into ‘their’ idea of correct and they waste no effort in putting legal constrains upon all that disagree. Alinsky in this book actually introduced me to De Tocqueville; A curious person to quote but then again, confused principles lead the mind in several directions. These words by Tocqueville(not in the book) sums up confusion of Alinsky’s ramblings and indeed the structureless thought process of the socialist community in general. But then again, whoever said that utopia had to be rational.
"I have a passionate love for liberty, law, and respect for rights. I am neither of the revolutionary party nor of the conservative...Liberty is my foremost passion. Of the political consequences of the Social State of the Anglo-Americans, one also finds in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level, and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom".
Alinsky is confused in his thought process throughout the book. He decries the focus on organizational structure rather than the personal efforts of individuals who he freely admits, wants, indeed needs the individual ability to own that which he has toiled for and the pride in his own efforts of success yet his whole purpose in writing the book was to teach people how to organize… organize people, organize thought processes, organize structure and ultimately organize in a way that pressures government to give people ‘things’ rather than the autonomy to, with simple protection of law, strive for their own goals and desires. While he talks about the glory of the people, he does so only in the context of his ‘Peoples Organizations’. Nowhere in the book does it talk about personal responsibility other than the apathy of not joining and participating in his ‘peoples organizations’. He proclaims the struggle of men against what he called ‘native fascists’ and the need for people to own their own existence but does not see that his ultimate goal leads to a structure that traps people under a different authority… a different form of dependency.
Continued >>>>
With regards to Alinskyesk teachings and the Tea Party, I see a divergence. It is one of open honesty verse deception in the name of ‘eternal war’. The Alinsky ethos is to build groups, by hook or crook and then convert the group to a cause… the Tea Party presents the cause, straight up, and invites people to join… considerable difference as I see it.
DeleteThe original three premises of the tea party were; 1) fiscal discipline 2) limited government and 3) governance in accordance with constitutional principles. The tea party is not trying to promote anything that 1) hasn’t been successfully done in the past and 2) principles that are so genuine to America that De Tocqueville questioned its longevity and made Stalin so incensed by its lack of submission. None of the three contradict each other and all three openly support each other and just as importantly, the liberty of man on which this country was founded. With respect to your ‘pick a target and freeze it’ contention, I suggest that the ACA wasn’t the target… The budget, big government and constitutional principles was, is, and always will be because fiscal discipline is not about raising revenue to balance with out of control spending; it is bringing spending in line with small government and constitutional principles. So while Alinsky and his socialist rabble-rousers have set out to remake the world on principles that are not proven, have garnered much discredit in the past and are strongly against the reasons this country was founded, tea party folks and libertarians for that matter, much to your chagrin, are just trying to claw back that which is being stolen from them… America.
The loss of freedom should be of utmost concern to Americans. It took a Snowden to show how bad our government is and how much they have encroached on our freedoms. TSA and their x-rays, body searches, the secret orders issued to the NSA to violate the individuals rights, drone attacks on citizens on foreign countries by presidential order. Next up drone surveillance in the US.
DeleteSeems as long as the government provides the party faithful and the people with their hand out will never complain.
One day when people wake up to the police state it will be to late to easily dismantle the police state without many getting hurt.
Out of control government spending will take it's toll in the near future when the lenders of the world say no thanks, perhaps 10% interest and we will consider it. The 20 trillion debt we are sure to hit before obama is escorted to the door may be the break point for the US budget as the interest becomes the largest budget item surpassing SS and medicare.
What a pathetic country we have become.
Thank you TheScott for the most concise description of Tea Party aims that I have ever read.
Delete1773-2009 DollarInflation
"tea party folks and libertarians for that matter, much to your chagrin, are just trying to claw back that which is being stolen from them… America. "
DeleteThe problem is, they have been whipped into a frenzy and given marching orders to scream at precisely the wrong target. It is interesting that you claim Alisnki was on some great pogrom to make America see things his way, while suggesting the "SHUT IT DOWN" Tea Party is simply encouraging people to join them. You are a libertarian, I guess, which means you are smarter than everyone else and able to see through all bullshit because you are aligned with no one. Commie that I am, I call bullshit when I see it, whether it comes from Obama or elsewhere. I don't believe in saviors, but even more, I don't believe in an angry mob that easily lead by its nose to scream in outrage at whatever their leaders tell them to scream at.
These elegant discussions and endless cut and paste dramas are pretty meaningless. There has always been and always will be a divergence between the philosophers and those that have to toil every day for their bread. With few exceptions, what I predominantly hear is a drivel of ideological bombast that doesn't have shit to do with the real world. People want to feed their families, have a roof over their heads and live with some stability. They will vote for whomever appears to provide the best shot of helping them get that.
The ACA is not the target, per se. However, it comes from Obama and just like everything else that was never a problem until now, it is simply something we can't afford. We MUST keep taxes here. We MUST keep playing empire in the world. We MUST keep paying millions in subsidies to farmers for our shitty factory farmed and modified food. And of course, we MUST keep supporting a brutally inefficient health care system wherein millions use the ER for their primary care while pretending that doesn't affect the rest of us. The libertarian approach is basically, "Just cut eveyrthing and fuck everyone who isn't smart enough to rise to the top," Yeah, that's elegant and it speaks to the best of the species God created in his own image.
One other thing, this idea that something was stolen from them by the left is ridiculous nonsense. Starting with the end of Carter's presidency, we have done nothing but roll back taxes on the rich while increasing them on the working class. This was done by Dear Leader Reagan. I challenge anyone here to provide proof they've lost some essential freedom as a result of a Democrat. I'm well aware of what far left types would like to see in this country, and i want no part of it which is why I did not vote for Al Gore. With the exception of Lou, I don't think a single one of you right of center has the ability to call bullshit on the people you vote for.
DeleteHey Max. How's life.
DeleteThe healthcare debate continues. Personally the ACA is a wreck. fix 1 thing break 2. Doesn't matter as it's not changing. The Dem's nor Obama will change it as it's their handy work/legacy. The Repub's see it falling apart. It will either make it with huge government infusions of cash of fail, that will depend on the 2016 election.
The entire concept while meaning well stinks. Probably would have been better off with a single payer system run by a few healthcare system, not the government and funded with a national sales tax. Everyone uses it, everyone pays. Eliminate all private healthcare plans, especially the presidents and congresses, that way they feel our pain.
As to the Regan tax cuts, yes he did reduce the rates but he also eliminated deductions. Remember it well, they called it revenue neutral but I did pay more in Federal Income tax with a lower rate. Never carried credit card debt after that.
As to a loss of freedom. One could argue that the ACA is an intrusion on rights. You are required to have healthcare or pay a tax. Your healthcare will include maternity care. Your healthcare will have certain features, like it or not and you will pay for them.
Every president signs laws passed by our well meaning congresses past and present that have removed our rights. The patriot act under Bush. The patriot act on steroids under Obama. I hate the personalized intrusive TSA so I burn gas, pollute the air now instead of the strip search. All for the facade, illusion of security. Those people couldn't find their ass with both hands behind their back.
From your point of view fair points….I suppose. Let’s take a look at some of them.
Delete“And of course, we MUST keep supporting a brutally inefficient health care system wherein millions use the ER for their primary care while pretending that doesn't affect the rest of us.”
I have asked these questions many times before… How and why has our medical system and its costs gotten so out of control? Why is insurance even part of our daily life with respect to medical services? How come a medical facility doesn’t post the general cost of basic procedures on a price menu when you enter a hospital? Why do we no longer have a network of charity hospitals? Why are doctors starting to pull away from accepting insurance? The answer to each and every one of these questions can be found in some misguided government action from wage freezes to cost shifting to interference in wage disputes to manufacturing regulations that only serve to add cost. When you call bullshit on the mountain of stupid regulations and market interference that has created the vast majority of this problem, then I will believe that you understand the essence of the problem and aren’t just seeking a method by which government can have more control over …. Well…. Everything. King has made a point of trying to nudge discussion on this forum in the direction of debate but debate can never happen if a question is never answered because the truth of the answer is inconvenient.
“People want to feed their families, have a roof over their heads and live with some stability. They will vote for whomever appears to provide the best shot of helping them get that.”
We can both agree on that. Can you tell me the proximate cause of the price rises of housing over the last couple of decades? From where I sit, it is government interference. Government programs, well intended though they may have been, pushed house prices and supported lending programs that were a moral hazard. The government had its fingers in 75% of all loans created in the last 20 years and when the prices went to a bubble and burst… in rides the government to prevent those artificially high prices from falling with programs to prop up asset prices. Government programs for ‘alternative energy’ shift food from mouths to motors… and of course the government has done such a good job educating our children that they know how to use condoms but can’t add or read past the eighth grade level…. They also seem to have warped the prices structure and relative value of the entire post secondary educations system as well.
As far as voting for whoever might give them that… The democratic appeal is easy to understand.. ‘vote for me and I will solve all of your problems’ you don’t have to think and now you don’t even have to go to work… It’s easy to elicit a vote when people don’t understand or don’t care that to keep that promise, you, as a government official, have to take it away from someone else first.
“I don't believe in saviors, but even more, I don't believe in an angry mob that easily lead by its nose to scream in outrage at whatever their leaders tell them to scream at.”
You mean like ‘Occupy’ who should have been screaming at the president in front of the White House for all the things the bankers got away with… and are still getting way with… (Because we seem to have forgotten, in certain donor cases, the rule of law… a principle function of the executive) or the folks bussed into Wisconsin that pushed their way into government buildings… or the state representatives who left the state rather than do their jobs.. ?
Continued>>>>>
“We MUST keep playing empire in the world. We MUST keep paying millions in subsidies to farmers for our shitty factory farmed and modified food.”
DeleteInteresting… I guess you have never read anything I have said about our military incursions around the world…. Or about our governments unbridled support for Monsanto… or about the turnstile of governance at the FDA. I have said about the many failings of Bush, obviously missed, but the point is that Obama had the opportunity and might I even suggest, the mandate, to do something about it.
“The ACA is not the target, per se. However, it comes from Obama and just like everything else that was never a problem until now, it is simply something we can't afford.”
Interesting that the Tea Party formed around the bailouts proposed and passed before Obama was elected… Interesting that objections to the Patriot act, homeland security, the TSA and my personal pet peeve ‘free speech zones’ have been around long before Obama and it was in fact the hope that Obama would fix these things… he only solidified those problems and made them worse.
“I'm well aware of what far left types would like to see in this country, and i want no part of it which is why I did not vote for Al Gore.”
The desires of the Democratic Party are NOT a zero sum game… it is the very definition of the word progressive… The policies and ideology of the Democratic Party never stops wanting something from someone else and unfortunately we have many in the Republican party who are most willing to cooperate in our ‘go along to get along’ congress. At some point, somewhere, someone needs to say stop! Sorry it appears to have been on your guys watch… I am sorry it came to a head when ‘your’ guy decided to double down on almost every government related problem we have.
Louman has gained your respect and I am glad about that… perhaps tact isn’t my strong point or I don’t express myself correctly but make no mistake, I don’t think that he and I are far apart on most issues. If I am wrong he is more than welcome to publicly take me to school.
Pretty interesting when government gets involved prices rise.
DeleteMedical costs out of control?
Think it has to do with the people poor/illegals not paying the bills?
Think it has to do with people demanding more and the latest technology?
Think it has to so with redundant tests to ensure the provider doesn't end up in court with a malpractice suit?
Think it has to do with the cost of insurance for physicians to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits?
Think it has to do with our poor eating habits and the resulting over weight obesity explosion? 60% of Americans are over weight or obese, that has a cost in diseases related to the conditions. And people expect to be treated for their destructive behavior.
Think it has to do with regulations imposed on the healthcare industry?
Think it has to do with government cost controls?
Government determines what they will pay for a standard doctors visit. It's under the cost of doing business. The doctor passes the loss to medicare and the insured. The doctor still has a loss, the doctor passes the higher cost to the cash customers. Applies to hospitals as well as all providers. Just because the government says the doctors time is worth 50 an hour doesn't reduce the real cost of 100 bucks for the service. We all pay for that intervention. Medicaid users pay when no one will accept them as a patient forcing them into the ER.
Having said all that, there are numerous reasons, people, government,
insurance, all end up costing the insured more.
A few stories:
My brother in law is a doctor, sports physician deals with muscles and related injuries. He was called by the hospital to look at an 85 year old who had severe muscle atrophy. The guy died the next day. The family sued the hospital and everyone that say the 85 year old. The case was eventually dismissed as they guy essentially died of old age. my brother in law's malpractice insurance doubled and has never gone down as the claim is still on record 15 years later. Probably the same for everyone else except the hospital which was self insured.
My physician just quit his practice as the government said it is now law, ACA and must digitize all records. The estimate to digitize all records, 120K. Government offered 30K reimbursement. Don't do it, they fine you every year. He's older so said bite me and closed his practice.
A friend of mine delivers babies. He wants to retire but cannot afford to retire. He is required to maintain his malpractice insurance to 28 years beyond his last delivery. he is held liable until the last kid delivered is 18 years old and 10 years after the 18th birthday. He is now a general practitioner working the minimum hours a week to pay the insurance costs. Is this good healthcare when your physician is a part time worker?
Are insurance companies the best vehicle for delivering healthcare services to the public? No but the alternative, government is worse.
My rant complete.
How and why have our heatlh care costs gotten out of control? It's simple, we aren't willing to pay for what we consume. It's a fair point to blast the illegals that don't pay, but we had 40 million something people without coverage. Are they all illegal? At one time, most people who worked had insurance, and then we took that away. Your points TS, always come back to the government. Working in the health care system, I see a ton of things that drive cost sky high that have nothing to do with the government. I really don't want to see the goverenment per se, controlling health care. But the market driven system that we currently have is a joke. Your agenda is possibly to drown the government in bathtub. Good luck with that.
DeleteTo the contrary Max; At one time no one had insurance... medicine was a cash business and only before WWII did catastrophic insurance even have a market among the very rich. Insurance, in any measurable way, made its entrance as a market reaction to Roosevelt wage freezes of WWII. Business needed some why to attract and retain qualified talent so it offered catastrophic policies as an inducement.... Later labor unions got insurance policies codified as a legitimate benefit... and the rest with regard to employer derived medical insurance is history. And of course as time went on policies became more comprehensive and more control was ceded to third party payers.
DeleteAlso during that time most doctors saw indigents for free and charity hospitals, operated through generous philanthropic donations... That hospital network has been run out of business by government meddling. I am sorry but if you dig deep enough, you will find some government intervention that caused the problem and this is where you and I most disagree.
When you talk about 40 million people without coverage, you are talking about recent history... now we may not be able to rewrite history but we certainly can objectively look at just how we got into the situation that we are in and roll it back. Look, I know that free markets can have problems from time to time but government is way to proactive in intervening and then when a law is written, it is never repealed and it only becomes the basis for compound band aids as the consequences are felt... Laws and consequences that are massively contorted by the ACA. I understand that there is only as small minority of 'commies' in this country but without trying to understand and undue the negative laws which create many, many problems in the market, which, like it or not, gave us the standards of living that even the poorest today would hesitate to give up, the entire left look like commies....
There is no doubt that Obama is trying to transform this US in to a totalitarian socialist state
ReplyDelete