Alinsky VS Paine (Part 6)

The purpose of these writings is quite simple. We wanted to provide an easy to use tool in understanding Alinsky’s teachings, the tactics used by his followers, their motives, and the contrast of these to the spirit of America and her forefathers. Alinsky’s goal was revolution, just as our forefathers; but the outcome of each revolution are as different as freedom vs slavery. You can find the archives HERE.

“WHAT FOLLOWS IS for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be.”

Above is the first sentence. Where do we even start? The first thing that comes to my mind is, this guy is trying to convince fools that they can change reality. The truth is that he is trying to appeal to young fools with the notion that they can create their world Utopia and he can lead the way. It is laughable at best, but dangerous in practice.

“Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it (power) away.”

Right here is the distinguishable difference between sleazy conmen and true American Patriots who sincerely care for their fellow man. Any honest man with real concern for the “Have-Nots” understands that taking power away from someone else will never cure their misery and will never lead them to a peaceful life filled with personal success and fulfillment.

Many of us are familiar with the old adage, “Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.” I have a different twist. “Give a man a fish, own him for life. Teach a man to fish and he will teach others, and find success, meaning and purpose in his own life.”

I once had a very eye-opening exchange with a fervent fan and Alinsky believer. He told me that Alinsky’s teaching was about empowering the poor. “Some of these people don’t even know how to be on time to an appointment. They need to be taught to be on time. “He went on to try and tell me that the community organizing was about teaching them to have pride in themselves and their community so that maybe they would be able to get a ‘Stop’ sign put in where it may be needed.

I told him he was full of crap. If he wants to teach them to be on time and care about their community, invite them to your home for dinner; expect them to be on time, and show them that you care about them as an individual. Show them that you value them enough to invite them to your home. They must care about themselves and find value in themselves before they can offer value to their community. The last thing the community needs is people with no self-worth thrusting themselves into the system because you got them all riled up over their lack of “Haves.” His response was that I was obviously very smart and would be successful in my life in whatever I chose to do with my future. Huh? Obviously he knew I was onto the scam, exposed it, and called on him to put real power behind his words.

The real intent and purpose for Alinsky was to feed on vulnerable and angry people to create an army willing to help him take power from others in order to empower himself and justify his own miserable existence. He wanted to offer a false promise of paradise to the young and idealistic in exchange for them becoming his personal soldiers to wage war against the “Haves.”

2) The world does not owe you your hearts desire simply because you exist and didn’t choose to exist in this world.

The reality of this world is that there are things you can control and things you can’t. What defines purpose and success in your life is how you handle the things you can control.

He continues into the second paragraph by claiming that his intention is to create mass organizations that will seize power, give it to the people, and then they will “realize the democratic dream of equality, justice peace…..” In other words, they will bring about Utopia. What he, again, cannot afford for these people to “realize” is that our forefathers already fought this war and provided our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution in order to give the power to the people. They already own this power in this country. It is up to them to use it wisely. The “Haves” have either done this themselves, or have parents who cared about them enough to provide it for them. The “Have-Nots” have the best opportunity in this country than any other to achieve the same. Just because you happen to think that someone does not deserve the fruits they deserve does not give you the right to take it; and it is an absolute travesty to abuse our political system as a means to do it for you.

PING!

Archives page can be found HERE

I hope this is useful, offers some insight and sparks some good dialogue....

I am open to any suggestions to make these threads more helpful if there is more I can do to make it better...

Thanks

and as always- let me know if you want to be added to the ping list...best to FREEPmail me in case I miss any posts in the threads....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky

Another "take" on Alinsky...

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."[4] Alinsky did not join political organizations. When asked during an interview whether he ever considered becoming a Communist party member, he replied:

"Not at any time. I've never joined any organization -- not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it's Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right.' If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide." [1]

as always ... interesting.

Well

1. revolution is always from the youth or early adulthood. (idealist)
2. somehow they buy into the ideas of some old rabid, extreme radical (He builds them up/incites them with the injustice of it all. They yearn for a cause.

3.They do not learn or know History. This socialist,communist idea never works ... after the revolution in Russia ... the poor were still very poor and worse oppressed more. IT WAS A LIE, THEY WERE SOLD.

4.The leaders they looked to ... lived luxurious lives. Lenin, Stalin, etc. were guilty of barbaric cruelty. How can they be due adulation?

5. What really happens is ... they divide and conquer. (while we watch?)

God help us in our day, in Jesus name, amen.

Still don’t get the headline. Its not Alinsky vs Paine. They were on the same side. Bill Moyers’ kid called his website thomaspaine for a reason....Paine is loved by the left because he is the odd man out in the American Revolution. He was used and then, correctly, discarded by the framers and founders. Paine hated Christianity and revealed religion. So did Alinsky. Paine went to France and conspired with the looters to steal Spanish property. The essence of Alinksy is theft.

Maybe the title should then be called "Rules for Radicals" vs "Common Sense". Call Paine what you want, but during the time of the American Revolution, the words written in Common Sense and in The American Crisis were used extensively as motivation to win. For example, from The American Crisis:

These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.

On his objections to established religion, Paine was a self-declared Deist as were others of the Founding Fathers. I find it funny that you, just like others of his time, could throw him completely aside because of his religious criticisms, especially when one of the MAIN reasons for America's existence is the fact that this is where many people came to run from religious persecution.

As for the liberal embracing of Paine, I can see where you are coming from. I never claimed that Paine was perfect or that ALL of his ideas held great merit. He did write some post-Revolutionary works that highlight abominations like progressive taxation and his bias toward "free" government programs. But, liberals also LOVE to paint conservatives as rigid. I refuse to believe that we as conservatives are so rigid that we cannot see the value of some of what Paine wrote during those years of the Revolution.

Maybe the title should then be called "Rules for Radicals" vs "Common Sense".

Rules for Radicals and Thomas Paine would be more appropriate. They were both agitators. Both leftists. Neither had a clue what to do once the establishment was overthrown. Paine's actions in France show his real motivation: money and looting.

Paine was a self-declared Deist as were others of the Founding Fathers. I find it funny that you, just like others of his time, could throw him completely aside because of his religious criticisms

Didn't base my entire critique of him on that did I? He was a leftist,a supporter of French revolutionaries, that along with deluded belief that "reason" could perfect man is why I reject him. He was despised by most of the framers and founders. They used him and tossed him away. Good thing they did too.

There were few deists around. It had died out in England before the Revolution and never gained a foothold in the colonies. Jefferson and Franklin toyed with it but never embraced it. Ethan Allen, Paine and a few other marginal figures did. William Beadle's slaughter of his wife and 4 children in 1782 had a lot to do with the name being anathema to most. That Paine didn't care shows where his head was.

I refuse to believe that we as conservatives are so rigid that we cannot see the value of some of what Paine wrote during those years of the Revolution.

Quite the contrary. It is not being rigid refusing to swallow the swill about Paine the government schools ladle out, the blending of all of that era together as if they were all on the same side ideologically and all were good (with the exception of that evil Hamilton and Federalists leftist would prefer no one read)

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.