Thought I forgot?????????????
Posted on 03/05/2010 1:02:54 PM PST by Jo Nuvark
--As I read her thesis I am persuaded that Alinsky "rules" were hijacked and abused by organized crime and union thugs to further their power over those his "rules" were meant to liberate. (Jo Nuvark) -- this document helps us understand Hillary Rodham Clinton. (snip) For the entirety of the Bill Clinton Presidency it was hidden from the general public. Why you ask? read for yourself …
(Excerpt) Read more at gopublius.com ...
I’ve often wondered if we would be in the exact same place if Hillary had won. After reading parts of her Senior Thesis at Wellesley, I realize her core may actually be conservative. Perhaps her distorted leftism may have been induced through extortion and deals made with the devil.
SOMEONE PLEASE TELL OBAMA...
“... The essential difference between Alinsky and his enemies is that Alinsky really believes in democracy; he really believes that the helpless, the poor, the badly -educated can solve their own problems if given the chance and the means; he really believes that the poor and uneducated, no less that the rich and educated, have the right to decide how their lives should be run and what services should be offered to them instead of being ministered to like children. (THESIS PAGE 16)
What is a radical? (THESIS PAGE 10)
What does a radical want? (THESIS PAGE 11)
“... the difference between a radical and a liberal is that the liberal refuses to fight for the goals he professes...” --Saul Alinsky-- (THESIS PAGE 14)
“... In addition to aiding in formation of identity, conflict between groups plays a creative social role by providing a process through which diverse interests are adjusted. To induce conflict is a risk because there is no guarantee that it will remain controllable. Alinsky recognizes the risk he takes but believes it is worth the gamble if the conflict process results in the restructuring of relationships so as to permit the enjoyment of greater freedom among men meeting as equals. Only through social equality can men determine the structure of their own social arrangements...” — Saul Alinsky — (THESIS PAGE 14)
“... Welfare programs since the New Deal have neither redeveloped poverty areas nor even catalyzed the poor into helping themselves. A cycle of dependency has been created which ensnares its victims into resignation and apathy. To dramatize his warning to the poor, Alinsky proposed sending Negroes dressed in African tribal costumes to greet VISTA volunteers arriving in Chicago. This action would have dramatized what he refers to as the “colonialism” and the “Peace Corps mentality” of the poverty program. Alinsky is interested in people helping themselves without the ineffective interference from welfarephiles...” (THESIS PAGE 15 & 17)
NOTE: I am still parsing this thesis. Join me.
Would Saul Alinsky Have Been A Tea Partier?
[it was known, at first, as "Party Unity My Ass" ... yeah, after the Obammites rail-roaded the Hillarites...]
I was hoping to snag you out of the
heavens with my “Star” hook.
Good to hear from you. I’ve been
offline for a while taking care of
my 94 year old Dad. No internet
where he lives.
Alinsky was for the “people” in the same way Lenin was for the people (in fact, Alinsky quotes Lenin a lot).
Alinsky’s “ends always justify the means” tactics are inherently evil. Yes, I said evil. They always end up giving absolute power to a small group of men. Eventually you end up with tyranny.
The use of Alinsky rules always leads to tyranny. They did when Lenin used them. They did when Mao used them. They did when Castro used them. The idea that you can give absolute power to an individual and they won’t abuse that power is a pipe dream.
Yet, that is what many that follow Alinsky’s rules believe. That somehow “this time” it will be different. That their movement (and its members/leadership) are on a higher level than the failures of the past.
Alinsky’s rules should be reject by the Tea Party movement. The are antithetical to the ideas found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constititution.
Ahh... I see... I deserved to be snagged out of that other thread... LOL...
How’s he doing? I hope well... but 94, my gosh!!
Thought I forgot?????????????
No, Hillary’s gods are power and money and she is too indebted to the enemy. She will always be a front for them.
[... Alinsky’s rules should be rejected by the Tea Party...]
I disagree.
So what if Alinsky quoted Lenin. A good general will
study other successful generals no matter what side
they represent.
“... The essential difference between Alinsky and his enemies is that Alinsky really believes in democracy; he really believes that the helpless, the poor, the badly -educated can solve their own problems if given the chance and the means; he really believes that the poor and uneducated, no less that the rich and educated, have the right to decide how their lives should be run and what services should be offered to them instead of being ministered to like children. (THESIS PAGE 16)
Agree...
Unfortunately that was then and this is now.
Yup... 94 in December. He had a bonafide
miracle. After three EKG’s that showed
a serious heart valve leak, a 24 hour test
came back negative. God is amazing!!!
Yes indeed... that’s wonderful.
Have you actually read Alinsky’s book? I have.
Alinsky is about deception, manipulation, intimidation, and violence. He recommends the use of raw power to dominate others if that is what it takes to get your way. If you kill and maim on a mass scale, Alinsky is not only OK with it, he recommends it. Terrorism is an Alinsky tactic.
Alinsky cloaks his recommendations in flowery language about the downtrodden, but when you cut through the retoric and examine the actual tactics they are EVIL.
A book that recommends lying, cheating, stealing, & killing on a mass scale to acheive your goals should not be a roadmap for the Tea Party movement. It should be rejected.
Have you actually read Alinsky’s book? I have.
Well, I know a lot of people throw around the name here... :-)
I haven't ever wanted to read it, though. I just looked up some information about it, for anyone that is interested (just general info...).
Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals
And then about Saul Alinsky
If you go to Amazon and see "Rules for Radicals" you can get some idea about it by reading other people's reviews about the book.
I suppose the best reason for reading such a book would be to understand how certain people in political circles may think and how they may view things. That would be worthwhile, in and of itself, if you're heavily into politics and organizing.
I have read a lot of Saul Alinsky’s material
and I don’t see that he has ever justified
mass murder and maiming of the innocent.
Please point me to that material as I am in
the process of forming an opinion about Alinsky’s
core values.
TACTICS
“Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. ... Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves.” p.126
Always remember the first rule of power tactics (pps.127-134):
1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time....”
8. “Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.”
11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative.”
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’...
“...any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...’
“One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” (pps.127-134)
Very interesting... I personally don’t know much about him one way or the other... only by comments that I’ve seen here on Free Republic. I would be interested in what you find out, as you go along.
Alinsky says Ghandi would have used violence if it had been practical at the time.
He says the civil rights movement should move past the non-violent approach advocated by King and towards the use of violence becuase it will be more effective (remember, his book was written at the height of the civil rights movement).
Spend some more time in the “do the ends justfiy the means” chapter. Take some more time to think about the implications of what he says there. “Does this particular end justify this particular means?” Moral relativism unlies Alinsky’s entire approach, that’s why the end always justifies the means from an Alinsky standpoint.
bttt
OK... Good things to think about.
Sounds like Alinsky borrowed heavily, if not outright stole from Sun Tzu.
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.