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.
***** A clear, foolproof blueprint for social change., February 21, 2010
By Peter J. Lusby (Vista, CA United States)
In the tradition of the Roman historians, here's my bias: I'm a Reagan republican, a Sarah Palin, Glen Beck & Rush Limbaugh fan, grimly clinging to my guns and religion, and I don't shop at WalMart. Got that?
OK - enough about me, what about Professor Alinsky? Briefly stated, the man was a sheer and utter genius. Would that the conservative movement had men of his caliber to instruct it on how to articulate its message and communicate with middle America. I may disagree with Professor Alinsky on his aims, but I cannot for a moment fault him on his methods. He has thoroughly understood how to galvanize people into action, how to build a crushing momentum, how to initiate an unstoppable populist movement. And he lays out, in simple, constructive terms, how to put all this into action. I could only wish that his genius had been directed in support of causes I believe in, rather than those I oppose. Nevertheless, this book should be the bible for anyone who has the least aspiration of bringing about social change, for the next four or five centuries!
Whoever you are, whatever you may believe in, Professor Alinsky has a clear, foolproof blueprint for organizing your support and making it happen. I am unbelievably glad I made time for this book. Ignore him at your peril!
I have read “The Art of War” and haven’t (so far)
found anything Alinsky has borrowed except that
organizers should use military terms.
[... I may disagree with Professor Alinsky on his aims,
but I cannot for a moment fault him on his methods...]
Guess I’m still asking if what Alinsky’s aims really were?
“... Alinsky is interested in people helping themselves
without the ineffective interference from welfarephiles...”
(THESIS PAGE 15 & 17)
**** Radical War!!!!!!!!!!, February 7, 2010
By Seth I. Skversky "Seth Skversky" (Philadelphia)
One of the first reactions I had after reading Rules for Radicals was haven't I read this before? It seemed somewhat nostalgic of Sun Tzu's infamous book The Art of War. The Art of War is one of my favorite books and it captivated me that these books written centuries apart could have such similar messages. What I then began to think about was the idea that maybe business, war, or even more currently grassroots mobilization has not changed all that much over the years. It is a simple thought and maybe an even simpler concept, but what if the rules to play the game have always been the same and the people that fail at this game are simply those that fail to learn them? The rules are simple; timing is everything and knowing your opponent's objective and every move is just as important as your own because their moves and objectives guide yours. After all Rules for Radicals is just that, a play book on how to not only win but excel in grassroots mobilization and even more radical (no pun intended) in revolution.
"Does the end justify the means?" Alinsky suggests that this is the "perennial" question asked throughout the years and is a question he focuses a great deal on in this book. I was surprised when I read this chapter in particular, because as a radical I thought Alinsky would have more concern for personal ethics. I am not sure why I felt this way, but I suppose it has something to do with my opinion that the majority of people involved in grassroots mobilization are deeply committed to the cause they are fighting for. So much so that any violation of their personal ethics would inherently violate the cause they are fighting for. I believe that it comes down to rationalization. If we as "radicals" can rationalize the means for which we achieve the ends to ourselves then the means no matter the cost is successful. I am not so naive to think that at some point personal ethics will not have to be violated in business, war, or even revolution, but I do believe that this is a decision that every person must make for themselves. I do not feel that Alinsky would agree with me on this matter, in fact I believe he would group me in with the people he calls the "non-doers." Either way, I am not opposed to doing things that may seem "ethically" unjust if I can rationalize it to myself that the means is justified but what I cannot do no matter what is violate my own personal sense of ethics. In any case I believe for a "radical" our sense of personal ethics is a true dictator of who we are as revolutionaries and if we violate that code we inherently violate the cause we are fighting for.
After reading this book I feel that there is an inherent underlining theme throughout the entire book. The idea that the rules are simple and easy to interpret, but that it is people who take these rules out of context and use them for their own personal gain. "The corruption of power is not in power, but in ourselves" (51). It was not until I read this quote that my feelings about the idea that people are inherently selfish was justified. The idea that power is just that, a word, or even in some cases arguably. Suddenly when if all of the connotations are taken out of the word "power" the word is not scary it is just another word. It is only when people add these connotations to this simple word that the meaning is misconstrued and more often abused. I then began to think about power and what makes it so powerful that it has the ability to corrupt the best of people into the most negative and corrupt person possible. One thing that I was found when thinking about this idea of power was that the need for power is written inherently into the way in which we do business, in the way our political system is run and even within the dynamics of a family unit. Thus, our need or better yet, hunger for power is learned at such a young age that the need and desire for it only seem natural. Even the idea of the manipulation of power which Alinsky suggest is also learned in the family unit when a child learns to play one parent against another. It is at this age that not only the need and hunger for power are learned but the most dangerous of all, the rewards.
There is one more quote I must address before I conclude this review, it is found in the beginning of the book before the text even begins. "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology, leaves off and history begins or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom-Lucifer"(Saul Alinksy). I was going to try very hard to ignore this quote but I feel I cannot. It is not that this quote offends my religious beliefs or views but to applaud the devil regardless is untactful and disturbing. I read this quote before I even began reading the book and I seriously just looked in shock for a few seconds. Now this is not to say that I don't see the point that Alinksy was trying to make by using this quote, but I must say this is when those personal ethics that he is not too fond of should come into play or perhaps his idea of everything being for the better good. If some one could be as kind to explain to me how congratulating the devil is for the better good? I apologize for my feelings and opinions on this quote but I feel this quote in a sense darkened an otherwise bright book. But then again, maybe I am reading too much into it and it was simply inserted to do just what it has done, cause controversy. In that case, well done Alinsky.
But I thought her thesis was not released? Is this a credible copy?
[... the first radical known to man who rebelled
against the establishment and did it so effectively
that he at least won his own kingdom-Lucifer”(Saul
Alinksy). (snip) If some one could be as kind to
explain to me how congratulating the devil is for
the better good?...]
I am beginning to see Brookhaven’s point.
I was thinking about posting it here, but with it coming in at around 90 pages... I thought twice about doing that... LOL...
It’s there in PDF format and you can download it to your computer. I’ve done that and I’ll look over it later on. I’m sure it will “enlighten me” as to how some liberals think... :-)
It looks authentic to me and apparently someone scanned it into their computer and made minor corrections on it (see the paper; it will say). So, they must have had a “hard copy” to work with and so maybe they went to the school library and copied it off on the copy machine...
I am beginning to see Brookhaven’s point.
Still, if someone is involved in politics and needs to understand what is going on out there, it's very useful to know this.
And as with any methodology and tool and technique... it's not always the methodologies and techniques that may be bad (not in all cases, but perhaps in some cases), but rather the purposes that they are put towards.
Learning how to open locks with a pick or some kind of tool would be a bad thing to do if your aim were to break into houses and steal stuff from them. However, if you're a locksmith, you better know how to do it, or else you're not a good locksmith... :-)
This is not a modified "the ends justifies the means" -- but rather not all methodologies and techniques carry some "inherent" moral quality to them.
Again, another example, you may train to kill someone, but it may be in self-defense. On the other hand some do it for evil reasons and purpose ...
It is good to read Alinsky’s book so you understand the tactics being used by the left. In fact, that is another reason I don’t think the Tea Party movement should adopt them.
Once Alinsky’s tactic become more widely known, they will become less effective. You see this already with Obama. The Alinsky tactics that were once so effective for the left are losing their effectiveness, because more and more people realize what is happening now.
If you use deceit and manipulation to get your way (which is what the left has done) what happens when people realize they have been decieved and manipulated? A huge backlash. I think you are seeing that backlash among many Obama voters, who have had their eyes opened.
If you go through Alinsky’s rules, you’ll see that deciet and maipulation are required to make them work. The idea that we should openly debate ideas (and have the best idea win) is just not in line with Alinsky.
If you go through Alinsky’s rules, you’ll see that deciet and maipulation are required to make them work. The idea that we should openly debate ideas (and have the best idea win) is just not in line with Alinsky.
I'm in full support for openly debating ideas. I've always thought that this was the way to go and I've always been persuaded of that.
But, it's not just Alinksky who may prefer underhanded tactics which may stifle and trample on open and free debate and making things clear. That also goes on (to a certain degree) here on Free Republic. :-)
It's unfortunate, but I've seen it a lot, in that if one doesn't "fall into line" on a certain subject, there can be no debate or consideration of all aspects of an issue. There is way too much "knee-jerk" response with some posters here. I do like to consider different aspects of an issue and then hear someone out and (of course) debate back at them... :-)
So, yes, I would agree there...
Agreed.
But there is a solution: ignore them.
True, true... and it works most of the time, until... my resolve gives way... :-)
Alinsky was into power ... Hillary notes that, “The key word for an Alynsky-type organizing effort is ‘power.’” Like Nietzche, Alynsky defined the moral good as that which enhances power.
Now power in the political sense means nothing more than the ability to coerce others.
Coercion is antithetical to liberty.
Power can be virtuous, but only to the extent that it is used to deter those who would seize and use power to coerce others. Unfortunately, few who have power have the self-discipline to use it in this way only.
Didn’t he dedicate his book to Lucifer?
Kinda...
See posts 24 & 26.
It doesn’t take long to realize you’re in a debate with someone who is not open minded.
If you are, disengage.
Thank you, Jo.
Get a load of this:
“The immigrants also successively lowered the wage scale and
fragmented the Church into bickering nationalistic divisions. The area’s
depressed economy was accompanied by acute environmental problems such as
overcrowded housing, insufficient sanitation, unpaved streets, few rec-
reational facilities, high delinquency and crime rates, and inadequate
schools.”
So Clinton admits that unchecked immigration places an undue burden on a free society.
Solution?
Turn up the immigration flow and turn off the freedom.
Wow.
Nice catch!
Who wudda thunk Hillary = conflicted conservative?
Her values are induced by power and synthesized by agenda.
She would give her own thesis a failing grade.
bttt
bttt
Proves there is not a dime’s worth of difference between PIAPS and BHO. Both “progressives”, both disciples of Alinsky, both would take America towards communism.
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.