[ProgressingAmerica]

Alinsky has come back into the news cycle, and this interview is one of the most thorough with regards to the many topics covered.

[ProgressingAmerica]

FYI...............

[Yo-Yo]

Which link is for the centerfold?

[sauropod]

Bkmk

[Federal46]

Boom mark

[Snickering Hound]

"Honey, I got the March 72' Playboy for the Alinsky interview, not the Ellen Michaels centerfold..."

[PMAS]

*

[Baynative]

ALINSKY: "Sometimes it seems to me that the question people should ask is not 'Is there life after death?' but 'Is there life after birth?' I don't know whether there's anything after this or not. I haven't seen the evidence one way or the other and I don't think anybody else has either. But I do know that man's obsession with the question comes out of his stubborn refusal to face up to his own mortality. Let's say that if there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell."

[Paine in the Neck]

[betty boop]

Thanks so much for the links!

[pieceofthepuzzle]

One of the very interesting issues raised in this interview is when Alinsky states that the middle class is large in numbers, and the poor are a relatively small percentage. He's stating this to make the point that fashioning a political movement by appealing to the poor and disaffected would not generate enough support. To me, this would be a positive, essentially saying that we were making headway against poverty and that we had a good shot at eradicating the relatively small percentage of poverty - and making everyone’s quality of life better.

He, and likely many of the current political elite on the left, see it differently. He wanted, and they want, to decrease the percentage of people in the middle class, and shift more and more of them to the ‘impoverished’. Then, and only then, will the impoverished represent a large enough percentage of the populace to allow the left to enlist them against the rest of society. Interesting.

[RayChuang88]

This part of the interview--the very end--is the most chilling part, in my humble opinion:

ALINSKY: Sometimes it seems to me that the question people should ask is not "Is there life after death?" but "Is there life after birth?" I don't know whether there's anything after this or not. I haven't seen the evidence one way or the other and I don't think anybody else has either. But I do know that man's obsession with the question comes out of his stubborn refusal to face up to his own mortality. Let's say that if there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell.

PLAYBOY: Why?

ALINSKY: Hell would be heaven for me. All my life I've been with the have-nots. Over here, if you're a have-not, you're short of dough. If you're a have-not in hell, you're short of virtue. Once I get into hell, I'll start organizing the have-nots over there.

PLAYBOY: Why them?

ALINSKY: They're my kind of people.

Some on the Left dismiss Alinsky's obsession with the Underworld in this interview and in the book Rules For Radicals as an attempt at a very dark form of the self-deprecating humor Jews are known for (Alinsky grew up in an Orthodox Jewish family), but once you finish reading Rules for Radicals, we wonder if he's really serious about his obsession with the Underworld....

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

bfl

[gigster]

Way back, in the 1960's,besides grabbing furtive gazes at my brother's Playboy magazines, about the hottest thing I saw was the then-sexy album cover for Herb Alpert's Tijuana Brass Whipped Cream and other Delights album cover.

[SamuraiScot]

Thanks so much for posting this. Very revealing. It's also necessary, I guess, to ask ourselves which of the many things he asserts about his life are actually true. His whole career consisted of the strategic use of lies, and reading his comments at length, he just sends up a smell of "posturing, self-promoting liar."

But of course there are real facts in there as well, and most important, we can see in one, encyclopedic rant, the philosophy and logic of the Marxist Progressives, who without blood or love gave birth to 0bama and Mrs. Clinton. We see their peculiar, pinched view of history and reality at its modern source.

FYI, I called my saved file, "SPEAK OF THE DEVIL—Saul Alinsky interview."

[Texas resident]

Alinsky wrote the book. Obama is putting it into reality. Hillary will double down.

[wideminded]

Alinsky appeared on Firing Line with William F. Buckley and this is on Youtube. But I didn’t find it to be one of Buckley’s better shows and I couldn’t get through the whole thing.

[little jeremiah]

Thank you for the ping. And pings.

[rlmorel]

In the year leading up to the 2008 election, I had been trying to figure out a way to obtain a copy of “Rules for Radicals” because as we all know, it is the bible followed by Obama and his associates. I had been trying to get it without paying for it, and the copies at the library were backordered for months. To my surprise, one finally came in after about a six month delay.

When I was about a third of the way through “Rules for Radicals”, I concluded that reading it tells volumes about the people who profess to following it as a bible, especially the ones pushing the legislation we have seen in the last seven years in particular, and much of the liberal legislation since the fifties.

The book explains a lot. And none of it is good.

I was going to actually dictate the entire thing and make an audiobook out of it to give to my close associates, who, like me, don’t want a single red cent to go to anyone associated with writing, printing or distributing that hideous work. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I couldn’t stomach hearing myself read it in a way that would make it easier on the ears to listen to (To put the inflection in the right places means you have to read it as if you believe it, and I gave up after one chapter.)

It is probably one of the most amoral, twisted works I have ever read. Given that Alinsky wrote a dedication to Lucifer, I shouldn’t be surprised. The dedication was taken out of later editions so as not to offend the clergy he was attempting to recruit, but the version I read had it. Apparently, the copy I had was a copy from the 1980's, and they figured it was safe to put it back in.

From what I can see, reading that book enables one to understand what makes Obama (and his devoted followers) tick.

The very FIRST paragraph exposes very clearly what they are all about:
"What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. 'The Prince' was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. 'Rules for Radicals' is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."

It is unrestricted class warfare, pure and simple. And it is the bible of Clinton, Obama, and their like-minded followers.

On another level, Alinsky tells a story in 'Rules for Radicals' that clearly tickles him, about a conversation with a Chicago boss who humorously berates him for thinking so little of his voting rights that have been paid for with the blood of Americans, that he only votes once on election day.

You can tell he loved that anecdote, as I am sure every acolyte of his does as well. Disgusting. But that is what we are up against.

[NotQuiteCricket]

bfl

[Mmmike]

Here he is on Firing Line with WFB. Comes across as a reptile's reptile who could climb out of the screen and strangle you in your seat.