Posted on 06/16/2017 7:03:42 PM PDT by Ciaphas Cain
PROTESTER INTERRUPTS TRUMP ASSASSINATION PLAY IN CENTRAL PARK! SCREAMING “STOP LIBERAL VIOLENCE! — GOEBBELS WOULD BE PROUD! — YOU’RE A NAZI CROWD!!!”
The Shakespeare in the Park rendition of Julius Caesar is still scheduled to play this weekend in Central Park after the shooting of GOP Rep. Scalise by a devout Bernie Sanders supporter.
The New York Times and CNN’s parent company Time Warner are standing by their sponsorship of a play that depicts the brutal assassination of President Donald Trump, raising the question of whether the news reporting outlets should retain their credentials to cover and have access to President Trump. Delta Airlines and Bank of America have reportedly dropped their support for the play in the wake of public outrage over the play’s depiction of Trump’s assassination.
Tonight the performance did not go as planned.
Mike Cernovich posted video from inside the venue.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
>>Alinsky picked the losing side. His ideology is that of the Al Capone gangsters who mentored him in the 20’s and 30’s. And worse.
Don’t confuse tactics with ideology. Nazis invented unrestricted submarine warfare and the US used it in the Pacific. They invented Blitzkrieg and it is the standard for mechanized ground warfare.
With Alinsky, it’s the same thing. His ideology and his tactics were to do away with all morals. We don’t want this.
And so we don’t give Alinsky undo credit, let’s recognize Niccolo Machiavelli did the same thing.
More than four centuries before Alinsky.
>>And so we don’t give Alinsky undo credit, let’s recognize Niccolo Machiavelli did the same thing.
Not at all. Machiavelli gave us philosophy for a despot to exert force down. Alinsky turned that into something actionable for people to exert force up.
They both seek power for its own sake, at the expense of all morality. This is the most comprehensive description of them.
And be careful—the Alinsky deceptiveness might have you in its clutches. That is, if you think Alinskyism is about “the little guy.”
>>They both seek power for its own sake, at the expense of all morality. This is the most comprehensive description of them.
There is no morality in modern America. Everything is driven by greed and power. Don’t believe it? Post something here that says that some of the “laws” of economics are flawed for the information age and people will come out of the woodwork to quote Gordon Gecko at you and then they will call you a communist.
>>And be careful—the Alinsky deceptiveness might have you in its clutches. That is, if you think Alinskyism is about “the little guy.”
You really don’t know me well enough to know what I think.
I never said that it is about the “little guy”. It is about the collective though, specifically the collective prior to the conversion of the government to something socialist. Once the socialists gain power, then dissent is always unpatriotic...and punishable with the full force of the state.
I don’t care about the morals when I am fighting an enemy like the Progressives. In war, morals just get you killed. In this current cold war with the Progs, morals just make us lose.
You’re right, I don’t know you very well. But every comment you say fills the gap a little more. Don’t worry, sincere Freepers have nothing to fear from me.
Morals are the foundation of a good society. The war we’re in over the past many decades is one of the established good society fighting the invading bad one. They haven’t succeeded in doing away with morals, not by a long shot.
Be very careful. The Alinsky movement wants to fool traditional Americans into accepting its founding principle of having no principles.
>>You’re right, I don’t know you very well. But every comment you say fills the gap a little more. Don’t worry, sincere Freepers have nothing to fear from me.
I am not a disciple of Alinsky or Progressivism. These comments are just a sliver of my worldview. If you think that you are building an image of what I believe, then you are badly mistaken. Be very careful, people are more than the things they say in a single thread on a message board. I’m not going to post messages in this thread that are irrelevant to the thread.
But, if you can’t see our power slipping away in favor of the identity politics of the Left, then you do that at your own peril. Be very careful, we are quickly becoming strangers in our own land and as the Boomers die off and then the Gen X’ers start to hit age 65, the days of the American Conservative will be over. The Left will have won through patience and some generation in the future will have to fight for their freedom. They are’t trying to fool traditional Americans about anything. Time will eradicate us on its own.
No, wait...
I’d say the left doesn’t do anything it can officially admit to.
Especially regarding its active corrosion of foundational moral values. Starting with that of truth telling. And the worst thing normal Americans can do is to try to beat the left by becoming the left.
>>Especially regarding its active corrosion of foundational moral values. Starting with that of truth telling. And the worst thing normal Americans can do is to try to beat the left by becoming the left.
You obviously don’t know Alinsky’s Rules except in an abstract sense. You don’t have to lie to use them. The Left has to lie because the only way the rules work for them is through strawmen and absurd absolutes. We can use them with absolute truth.
But using them does require us to come down off our high horse and fight in the mud. We can stay up there on that horse and they will pull us off when it is convenient for them. Your high morals mean nothing to them. Those morals do not impress them or make them want to be better people.
They are calling for impeachment and assassination and you are acting like this is a freaking board game in a living room.
Well then, now this sounds very different. Maybe you’re talking about some strategy that didn’t really originate from Alinsky. Seems to me he used old ideas and mixed them with a anti-morals philosophy.
As for the rest—here are two basic and extremely different reasons to speak of morals. One, morals for the sake of appearance. Two, for the sake of the morals themselves. My usual assumption is that everyone knows the second is the only consideration.
>>Maybe you’re talking about some strategy that didn’t really originate from Alinsky.
TACTICS. I’m talking tactics. Tactics are part of a strategy. They are tools to achieve an end. The end varies according to your needs. Just as I can use a submarine in WW2 to sink American troop ships and I am a villain, but I can use it to sink Japanese troop ships and I get a Medal of Honor. Don’t confuse tactics with strategy, or goals.
Alinsky TACTICS are just that: tactics.
That’s a good distinction, I agree.
It could be that we disagree on very little, if anything at all. Did Loomer and Posobiec specifically name Alinsky tactics when they interrupted the play, or was there something they did that is only identifiable as Alinsky tactics?
I don’t mean to be too detail oriented here, but maybe if we just leave their tactics in place and throw away the name Alinsky there would be no argument.
About time we start to employ these kind of tactics. Turn the tables on these idiots.
>>I don’t mean to be too detail oriented here, but maybe if we just leave their tactics in place and throw away the name Alinsky there would be no argument.
Ahh. No Labels. I get it. Because long descriptions are better than proper nouns. OK.
So you agree the actions of Loomer and Posobiec were not Alinsky tactics.
>>So you agree the actions of Loomer and Posobiec were not Alinsky tactics.
They used Rules 3,4,6,7,8,10.
Have you read the book?
My general rule is that I don’t bother to read things I agree with because I don’t require constant confirmation that I am right. I do read the things I do not agree with to understand the mind of the enemy. So I read Alinsky and others. Most Progressives write from a position of strict Humanism which cannot apply for me. But Alinsky’s rules do work for anyone who is in a position to rebel against authority.
Remember, as a con artist Alinsky is not just a liar, he’s also a thief. Meaning he would steal credit for ideas that have existed since the beginning of history.
None of the “rules” you listed are novel ideas. Their only distinction is that Alinsky worded them in a particular way in his book.
In other words, Alinsky’s “rules” are like the message in a fortune cookie. Generic and applicable even when there’s no real connection. Loomer and Posobiec could have had Alinksy’s tactics in their back pocket as they did this at the theater, or they could have done exactly the same thing without ever having heard of Alinsky.
>>None of the “rules” you listed are novel ideas.
With the exception of scientific and technological breakthroughs, nothing is a novel idea. In most cases, the only thing new is bringing old ideas together in a synthesis to create something never created in that form before.
we often give credit to people who assemble old things into a new form. Your hatred of Alinsky doesn’t change anything, except in your own head.
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.