Posted on 11/05/2008 1:59:20 PM PST by samsmom
Please read post #27
I too was thinking about the education aspect. How does textbook development and selection fit into this whole scheme as well as curriculum development?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is a lot of excellent homeschooling curriculum already available.
Did you seriously just say we should act like communist activists?
We should act like and use the tactics of Marxists?
And there’s people here that think this is a good idea?!?!?!?!
Please read post #27. This explains conservative voucher foundations.
Most Christian churches are not going to open schools. There are too many government teachers in the pews and ministers are not going to bite the hand that puts money in the plate.
Christian families ( with the minimal financial help of conservative education foundations ) should open loosely organized one-room school houses, homeschool cooperatives, and tutoring centers. The brick and mortor school should be abandoned. They are too expensive and have too many zoning an health regulations.
Also...Conservatives should use the liberal’s laws against them. If Muslims can have charters, then conservatives ( Christian and non-Christian) should open charters too.
No.It won't work.
It is impossible to do so and remain conservative, for the simple reason that radicals criticize, condemn, and complain about the people who take responsibility to get things done - without accepting any responsibility for actually accomplishing anything themselves. That is all that any radical such as Alinsky advocates, and it simply is impossible for conservatives to do it.
Furthermore, journalism has a symbiotic relation with radical politics for the simple reason that journalism doesn't take responsibility for getting things done either, and is best at criticizing those who do.
I said this yesterday and it’s great to see that others agree. However, we also need to adopt another tactics of our liberal friends, incrementalism. We need small victories on the local level. We can’t expect to win big in 2010 just because it’s happened before. We have to start in our local communities. School boards, city councils, and on to state houses. Show up at these meetings and raise hell! Use the Alinsky tactics. They were to be used against “the establishment” well based on last night’s results, the libs are “the establishment’ and they will become just as drunk with power as anyone else, thus primed for us to use the same tactics against them. I do believe however that we can apply Alinsky’s tactics in an ethical way. We don’t need to bomb buildings, etc. I love the chapter about the “S___T in” at Ohare, as an example of how to get attention. It never happened of course but a powerful metaphor. We can have this same impact if we will organize. We don’t have to compromise our integrity, but the tactics can still work.
I said this yesterday and it’s great to see that others agree. However, we also need to adopt another tactics of our liberal friends, incrementalism. We need small victories on the local level. We can’t expect to win big in 2010 just because it’s happened before. We have to start in our local communities. School boards, city councils, and on to state houses. Show up at these meetings and raise hell! Use the Alinsky tactics. They were to be used against “the establishment” well based on last night’s results, the libs are “the establishment’ and they will become just as drunk with power as anyone else, thus primed for us to use the same tactics against them. I do believe however that we can apply Alinsky’s tactics in an ethical way. We don’t need to bomb buildings, etc. I love the chapter about the “S___T in” at Ohare, as an example of how to get attention. It never happened of course but a powerful metaphor. We can have this same impact if we will organize. We don’t have to compromise our integrity, but the tactics can still work.
Sounds like what we need is an Al Quaida of the Conservative Right.
The low road is the whole point - revolution is the goal, not the means to the end, etc.
When you talk to a moonbat, you are witnessing the creation of the unstable, neurotic golly knows what, whom is susceptible for even more manipulation. This indoctrination is started very early in some schools, to disorient the student rather than reinforce their good and noble upbringing by say, parents.
A good idea, but I would start with a non-political non-religious topic, American History, aimed at the same audiences. It sounds non-threatening, but it will plant seeds in the minds of these future voters of the way America should be.
Alinsky is a perfect example of why nutcases are so dangerous.
Anyway, people ARE “wise enough to diagnose their own problems, find their own solutions, AND (to some extent) determine their own destinies...”
That’s what education is all about, among other things. That’s why it is so hotly contested and under government purview apparently. Whoops.
Do it your way. Just don’t stand in the way of the Wolverines.
I think our name (per the last thread) is “Wolverines”
Please read post #27.
Also......
Conservatives should also identify bright students and mentor them with scholarships to **conservative** elementary and high schools, summer camps, internships, and conservative colleges. ( Just as Obama was mentored)
“Al Quaida of the Conservative Right”
Wolverines.
Here are the Rules:
RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
RULE 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.)
RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
“Obama, The Various Reverends, they all got their nice houses. O got his sweet real estate deal.”
Obama got his on the backs of others, as did the ‘reverends’ - spreading the wealth to themselves, from others. You could pretty much say the same about Ayers, considering he is a terrorist who got off on a technicality that was more than likely bought with daddy’s money.
It sickens me that BO made it to the presidency.
I agree that there's certain organizational tactics that are universal and work for all ideologies, but we need to be careful of who we throw in with and not to make a pact with the devil in order to regain political power. IMO, Alinsky's philophy is one we should be knowledgeable about but those of us with a sense of Christian morality should not adopt those tactics. Again, he was a Marxist. Do we adopt Stalin's tactics because they were effective (and lethal)? Hell no!
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.