Posted on 08/27/2016 7:37:36 PM PDT by amorphous
In 1993, the president of Wellesley College approved a new rule upon being contacted by Bill Clinton’s White House. The rule stated that all senior theses written by a president or first lady of the United States would be kept under lock and key. The rule was meant to keep the public ignorant about the radical ties of the first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to the radical Marxist organizer, Saul Alinsky. The 92-page thesis was titled, “There is only the fight…: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.”
The thesis became unlocked after the Clintons left the White House and is now posted online. After being ruled by Barack Obama, another Alinskyite, for 8 years, perhaps one might think the fact that the modern Democratic Party is completely taken over by Alinskyites is old news, but the connection between Alinsky and Hillary is special.
Hillary describes Alinsky as a “neo-Hobbesian who objects to the consensual mystique surrounding political processes; for him, conflict is the route to power.” Alinsky’s central focus, she notes, is that the community organizer must understand that conflict will arise and to redirect it and, as she quoted him in her thesis, be “...dedicated to changing the character of life of a particular community [and] has an initial function of serving as an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions... to provide a channel into which they can pour their frustration of the past; to create a mechanism which can drain off underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. When those who represent the status quo label you [i.e. the community organizer] as an 'agitator' they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function--to agitate to the point of conflict.”
"…it could very well be that Hillary’s model, which was to gain political power and wield it to gain social change, is simply her thesis finally realized."
The thesis in and of itself is limited to whether or not “social justice” can be attained through the tactics described by Alinsky in “Reveille For Radicals,” and the numerous speeches he gave on hundreds of college campuses in the 1950s and 1960s. What had become clear was that Alinsky’s previous organizing had fallen apart and almost all attempts to recapture the original intent had gone by the wayside.
Hillary noted that, “Alinsky's lessons in organizing and mobilizing community action independent of extra-community strings appear to have been lost in the face of the lure of OEO money.” Pointing out that the power of the government took away the work of the “local organizer.” It is here that we see her light bulb illuminate. With this reasoning, the better approach would be to be the government who had the power to force social change.
But just because Hillary criticized Alinsky’s model in 1969 doesn’t mean she disagrees with his politics. In fact, it could very well be that Hillary’s model, which was to gain political power and wield it to gain social change, is simply her thesis finally realized. She criticized Alinsky, not so much for his tactics, but for his focus on organization. What is possibly the best way to put Hillary’s philosophy is what she told the Black Lives Matter movement, saying, “I don’t believe you change hearts, you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate.”
Hillary questions whether organizing as Alinsky did in the Back of the Yards neighborhood in Chicago and eventually across the country was effective enough because of the unanticipated results. She pointed to other lefty thinkers that criticized Alinsky as a “showman rather than an activist.”
"It is not whether Saul or Hillary are right about how to “achieve democratic equality,” or whose tactics are more effective, but of the failure of the philosophy behind it. "
It should also be noted that while Alinsky’s “Reville for Radicals” was directed at labor organizing, “Rules For Radicals” was directed at middle class youth, instructing them how to carry out his model in a new age. Ever the social observer, Alinsky recognized that the blue-collar workers of the 1930s were no longer, “where it’s at,” but that middle class youth of the 60s was ripe for organization. But also, the emphasis in the prologue of working within the system is eerily similar to Clinton’s argumentation. In her 2003 book, “Living History,” Clinton wrote, “He believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn't. Alinsky said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.”
At the end of Clinton’s thesis, she includes correspondence she received from Alinsky, and notes the personal interviews she conducted with him: twice in Boston in October 1968 and once at Wellesley in January 1969. She followed his organization, Industrial Areas Foundation, which was a training institute for communist radicals. She credited Saul Alinsky for both “providing a topic” and “offering me a job.” She never questioned the organization’s ultimate goal to achieve a Marxist utopia. What drove Hillary was how to get there.
Hillary’s whole life has been dedicated to socialist/communist ends. The fact that the arguments and the anger fomented by Alinsky in the 40s, 50s and 60s are the same arguments and anger of today’s Obama/Clinton model is telling. For 75 years, inner city blacks have been poor, labor unions have worked to put their members out of a job, and everyday there is some new group claiming it doesn’t have equality. All of these groups have been targeted by these so-called organizational geniuses. No matter what happens, either by the power/conflict ideals of Alinsky and Obama or by power grabs/money laundering of the Clintons, the lives of the people get worse. It is not whether Saul or Hillary are right about how to “achieve democratic equality,” or whose tactics are more effective, but of the failure of the philosophy behind it.
Hillary kept in contact with Alinsky throughout college and while in law school, she wrote him a letter claiming that she missed corresponding with him. The letter began, “Dear Saul, When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out — or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation? I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people,” — she added, a reference to Alinsky’s 1946 book on his theories of community organizing.
David Brock, in his 1996 biography, "The Seduction of Hillary Rodham," called Hillary "Alinsky's daughter." That is an apt label. Where Alinsky tactics are used now on both sides to confuse and agitate, Hillary is poised to become the supreme leader with all the power and tools of our monstrous government at her fingertips.
Saul’s daughter has it all figured out.
Hard to believe we are living in the same country as what we were in the ‘90s, isn’t it? I think even the lefties are surprised by their own “progress.”
To a NORMAL crowd, they'd be insulted.
But we're talking hard-core liberals.
Al Gore did the same "black preacher" schtick.
It didn't work, but the audience members certainly ate it up.
I bet you that the majority of the black voters who heard it were secretly laughing at her.
Doesn't mean they will stop pulling the democrat lever when they vote, but they still get a "kick" when a lily-white person grovels like that.
They LOVE groveling.
“Yes, the double standards are staggering, yet no longer surprising.”
If it weren’t for double standards the press wouldn’t have any standards at all.
This Double Standard is just the classic reaction of illogical people when encountering logical people.
Republicans tend to be logical .. therefore, they are to be called names, harassed, taunted, called names, mischaracterized, threatened, lied about, plotted against, and called names, etc., etc., etc.
THAT IS JUST HOW IT IS. The answer is: Trump - who never allows the illogical to score .. Brilliant.
Saul Alinsky would have been 60 when Hillary wrote her senior thesis in 1969. I remember comments that Hillary was quite promiscuous. I suspect that Hillary, with the morals of a whore, could have given old Alinsky the thrill of his life for the favor of writing her senior thesis. This pattern of behavior has been the hallmark of her life.
But now .. she prefers girls.
Bubba told us so.
Comment at Lucianne's site: "From the archives, this May 2008 article was a primer on Saul Alinsky and his strong connection to his disciples, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Obama never knew Alinsky, but was a devoted follower who used his tactics. Hillary did know him, almost went to work with him (went to law school instead), and stayed in regular touch with him. She was even involved in Alinsky-related activities while First Lady.
From the article:
"In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution”—a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted—a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse—to be followed by the erection of an entirely new and different system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed."
Chilling stuff and tells us how Hillary thinks and what she expects to happen. Heaven help us if she's elected President.
bkmk
Political prostitution is far more rewarding.
bookmark
Hillary is about Hillary. If she was told she could have all the political/policy goals she embraces all come true - if only she would accept being an unknown person with no credit/fame for any of it, she would not do it. It’s not about any policy or politics. It’s about being ‘special’. This is the same for way too many in politics, but she is a particularly alarming case.
IMHO you can’t truly understand Hillary (and people like her) without understanding her (their) narcissism. It’s what drives her. Narcissists tend to be leftists because it is the politics of the left that affords them the best opportunity to stamp their name and their persona on wide, sweeping, society altering laws/policies - thus allowing them to be seen as the ‘messiahs’ they see themselves as.
Excellent point.
“to provide a channel into which they can pour their frustration of the past; to create a mechanism which can drain off underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time.
YES! EXACTLY! This is just what Trump is saying to African Americans. (in a non Marxist way)
Trump is your “channel” and “mechanism” to wash away your guilt for having supported Democrats your whole life, by voting for TRUMP (a Republican) for president.
What the hell do you have to lose?
David Brock, in his 1996 biography, “The Seduction of Hillary Rodham,” called Hillary “Alinsky’s daughter.”
An apt description.
But she is not really a communist/socialist. She is a sociopathic opportunist.
Don’t count on Hitler-y falling down soon. She’s got the
media propping up her fat butt.
And here all this time I thought she was the spawn of Satan.
You think they’d even go all Fidel Castro and claim she’s still 98.6 degrees?
Yeah, probably.
There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a socialist state. The first is the most important...
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 the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4) Gun Control — Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are 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 the 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.
So is this Hillary's roadmap for America?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-27/hillary-clintons-roadmap-america
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.