Bye Bye Miss American Pie

I kept a wonderful article, but I wonder why.  Those of us who know, know.  Those of us not paying attention, don't pay attention.

Most of us lead lives of quiet stupidity punctuated by judgment against that which is not part of the hum of meaningless existence.  Being able to reject and mock make us feel good. After all, only gods can judge others. We need no longer read Lord of the Flies

In the slaving days, after the British made the trade illegal, the slaves were often pulled by their chains overboard by the first few who were thrown into the ocean. There was a chain reaction, literally, as the crime of trading slaves vanished with the last person to go into the water. I read one story where the British came upon an nearly empty ship with many bowls of farina on a table, still hot. Today, we have slaves who volunteer to jump and I do not want to be attached.

Below is good excerpt, I thought, that may awaken some people, but those who know, know and wonder what to do.  Those who don't know, won't even read the excerpt, which, now that I think about it, requires some awareness to even understand. Anyway, most people will just skim the crazy conspiracy talk, having been trained to think that conspiracy means fiction, then  check in at the concentration camp.

I usually find a funny or clever photo to capture the eye, but what's the point?  Those in the know, will be amused, but don't need it.  Those not in the know will add the image to cascade of meaningless data that passes by, as Vonnegut put it, their peep holes onto the world.

...Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

"Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one. (CourtesyDiscover the Networks.org)

Newsmax rounds out the picture:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation's wealth.

In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of "crisis" they were trying to create:

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.

No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:

1. 
   

   The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.

2. 
   

   The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.

3. 
   

   The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

Capitalizing on the racial unrest of the 1960s, Cloward and Piven saw the welfare system as their first target. They enlisted radical black activist George Wiley, who created the National Welfare Reform Organization (NWRO) to implement the strategy. Wiley hired militant foot soldiers to storm welfare offices around the country, violently demanding their "rights." According to a City Journal article by Sol Stern, welfare rolls increased from 4.3 million to 10.8 million by the mid-1970s as a result, and in New York City, where the strategy had been particularly successful, "one person was on the welfare rolls... for every two working in the city's private economy."...

No, you may think," this is crazy stuff.  Who would be so diabolical?"  You may think how good you are for being sensitive to those in need.  You may vote for Clinton because she speaks for women or some other nonsense.  What is this the Stockholm syndrome?

Then, you will go pay your school tax, your real estate tax, your federal income tax, your state income tax, your telephone tax, gas tax, tolls, social security premium, and read about how your electricity costs may double as that wonderful solution to no problem "cap and tax" may be enacted.  At least, we can feel good about supporting all the illegal aliens who can get here. This year, Clinton lectured the Pakistani:  tax everything, we do.

There is a cliff up ahead, to change metaphors.  I don't think I can watch anymore. There are a few historical instances of peoples throwing themselves off a cliff to avoid defeat or slavery, or to retain honor , but I can't find an instance where they jumped off because, well, come on, what is the big deal?

It may be time to set up a monastery to keep a library of what is being destroyed by the self-absorbed. those who don't trust other people, and a medieval religion. Or perhaps, find America's progeny and help dignity reawaken there. I wonder where that might be?

He's right, with a whimper.

A view of Alinsky via the FCC

In

Inspired by Saul Alinsky, FCC 'Diversity' Chief Calls for ‘Confrontational Movement’ to Give Public Broadcasting Dominant Role in Communications

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

you will find a break down of the Saul Alinsky method as raised by the new Obama administration as to how it can be applied to radio and TV. The government can tax and downplay our current system in favor of "public media" and eight new czars.  The mind set of these statists is, finally, clear to everyone but the severely challenged, those who can't deal with facts such as time lines, you know like Governor Dean. 

Statist is a very good word because the regime, though now fracturing, is made up of socialists, Marxists, "liberals" (the undefined term), oligarchs, and millions of useful idiots. Mark Levin created that term in his recent book. The collapse of the ruling clan is inevitable where power has been achieved. The main concern of normal people is that one group doesn't extinguish the others, such as the Bolsheviks. I would expect the oligarchs, the rich ruling class, will snuff out the rabble left fairly soon.  Watch. They will come to our rescue. 

Here is a good sample of Alinsky-think, one not especially unusual, so you get a flavor of children in power: 

... Throughout history, Lloyd said, “[t]he most powerful communications tool was deliberately placed in the hands of one faction in our republic: commercial industry.” {No, I don't know of a non-commercial industry.}

“Neither Progressive era reforms nor new communications technologies have been able to correct the problems resulting from government abdication of a responsibility to advance the equal capability of citizen discourse,” Lloyd added. {What?}

“Corporate liberty has overwhelmed citizen equality,” he wrote....

Apparently, someone deliberately gave Edison the entertainment business that didn't exist before he and others invented it, and a major business to RKO before they created the radio networks.  How dare these business do business. Of course, radio, movies, and TV, before they existed, should have been given to the people to run.


Also, one has to surmise, it is an abuse of liberty of the citizen where, if the citizens doesn't listen to a bad show, it folds. This is obviously undemocratic. Obviously, the government must provide funding for the citizens who are too stupid to select their own programs. This is real democracy. Enlightened censorship is democracy. Peace is War. Good is Bad.

The interesting thing to keep in mind is that the major media is already leftist, click on the title for more discussion. I don't think you can seriously listen to someone who disagrees. They are disagreeing with those they defend. 

So, what we are faced with is a desire for more direct propaganda - and taxes of the commercial sector (which, surprise, means you.) We are faced with an attempt to silence any voice out of sync - hence the Internet is a target though it does not come under the FCC's enabling act. The Internet terrifies the oligarchs. They can get at Glenn Beck and Mark Levin in all manner of ways, but the Internet was established clear of the government's direct regulation. This area will require an overt fascism clear even to Silicon Valley.

Here is a parting view from Lewis: 

...“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”

“[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance,” said Lloyd. “[T]he problem is not only the warp to our public philosophy of free speech, but that the government has abandoned its role of advancing the communications capabilities of real people.”

So, take away this: the FCC has a diversity czar dedicated to creating an Obama controlled media by declaring the current media is "commercial." 


Another point to ponder is: how does this Alinksy approach to being radical (Alinksy wrote Lucifer was the first radical) work when you are actually in power? This makes no sense. Those in power need to create some other demon to attack - but they are in power. They gain power by pretending to champion the people, then when they are in power, they inflame things by attacking the people. 
-----


A lesson from the father of mass media control, a socialist oligarch:


Goebbels' project: 

...From the above, we can derive the following Joseph Goebbels™ principles: 1. There is no truth. 2. All information is irrelevant. 3. History and media messages are mere narratives. 4. Truth is what you choose to believe.

Saul Alinsky Rides Again

WALL STREET JOURNAL on Pailin:

...Contrary to most reports, her decision had been in the works for months, accelerating recently as it became clear that controversies and endless ethics investigations were threatening to overshadow her legislative agenda. "Attacks inside Alaska and largely invisible to the national media had paralyzed her administration," someone close to the governor told me. "She was fully aware she would be branded a 'quitter.' She did not want to disappoint her constituents, but she was no longer able to do the job she had been elected to do. Essentially, the taxpayers were paying for Sarah to go to work every day and defend herself."

This situation developed because Alaska's transparency laws allow anyone to file Freedom of Information Act requests. While normally useful, in the hands of political opponents FOIA requests can become a means to bog down a target in a bureaucratic quagmire, thanks to the need to comb through records and respond by a strict timetable. Similarly, ethics investigations are easily triggered and can drag on for months even if the initial complaint is flimsy. Since Ms. Palin returned to Alaska after the 2008 campaign, some 150 FOIA requests have been filed and her office has been targeted for investigation by everyone from the FBI to the Alaska legislature. Most have centered on Ms. Palin's use of government resources, and to date have turned up little save for a few state trips that she agreed to reimburse the state for because her children had accompanied her. In the process, though, she accumulated $500,000 in legal fees in just the last nine months, and knew the bill would grow ever larger in the future....

But Palin friends say such commentary misses the real point. "The Beltway media can't understand someone not consumed with presidential ambition," one told me. "Maybe Sarah Palin won't run for president and maybe her family situation made it tougher to handle the barrage of attacks that come with that territory. The real issue that should be asked is why a mean-spirited system has to treat people who run like that, instead of why someone may choose not to go through it."

This is our "progressive movement," the one that Obama worked for and Clinton praised in a thesis: Saul Alinsky's purpose in the Rules for Radicals -

THE PURPOSE

The life of man upon earth is a warfare...
--Job 7:1

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.

In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which man can have the chance to live by values that give meaning to life. We are talking about a mass power organization which will change the world into a place where all men and women walk erect, in the spirit of that credo of the Spanish Civil War, "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." This means revolution.

The significant changes in history have been made by revolutions. There are people who say that it is not revolution but evolution, that brings about change--but evolution is simply the term used by nonparticipants to denote a particular sequence of revolutions as they synthesized into a specific major social change. In this book I propose certain general observations, propositions, and concepts of the mechanics of mass movements and the various stages of the cycle of action and reaction in revolution. This is not an ideological book except insofar as argument for change, rather than for the status quo, can be called an ideology; different people, in different places, in different situations and different times will construct their own solutions and symbols of salvation for those times. This book will not contain any panacea or dogma; I detest and fear dogma. I know that all revolutions must have ideologies to spur them on. That in the heat of conflict these ideologies tend to be smelted into rigid dogmas claiming exclusive possession of the truth, and the keys to paradise, is tragic. Dogma is the enemy of human freedom. Dogma must be watched for and apprehended at every turn and twist of the revolutionary movement. The human spirit glows from that small inner light of doubt whether we are right, while those who believe with complete certainly that they possess the right are dark inside and darken the world outside with cruelty, pain and injustice. Those who enshrine the poor or Have-Nots are as guilty as other dogmatists and just as dangerous. To diminish the danger that ideology will deteriorate into dogma, and to protect the free, open, questing, and creative mind of man, as well as to allow for change, no ideology should be more specific than that of America's founding fathers: "For the general welfare."

The only people who tut-tut at statements that Obama, Clinton, Social Organizers and most of the left's leaders are Alinsky graduates are the democrats who don't pay much attention to things like books and resumes.

At least, they won't be afraid of what history teaches after a take over - the useful idiots, the self-proclaimed "intellectuals" are the first to be destroyed. They are a threat as they can undo what they have done.

Watch for money and jobs to quickly emmigrate, followed by people, those rich people who are supposed to pay for my new car.

Still here

What the heck, one more word, thanks to Rod.

Too much to recount in my topic, the depth of silent maneuver is broad,  so if you are interested, check out the diagram below, which I hope made it there, and the web site for more data.  At least, you will realize I didn't make up this stuff.  

Indeed, I would have added a few more names. All this stuff is right below the surface of the ABC News. Hence, critical thinking is not fostered (if teachers even have it.)

Safari treats Blogger differently, so I am not sure the blog worked.

Hope all are well.  Sorry that I haven't been around much.  Count your blessings.  I'm fine - had a stent put in my neck artery (the back one, the carotids are clear).  

Again, for those I wrote to, buy GE asap.  You would have made 15% on Friday, but the stock is a long term pick - huge dividend, low price, absurdly low PE ratio, and is the 2d largest company in the world. No brainer, but now follow it for dips, but don't lose it. Not a speculation.  I will go and put up some more wood.

Here goes. Hope it works.

Alinsky Students: Hillary and Barry (Barack)

Here is some food for thought, no matter how your preferences fall. The Alinsky school is new to me as a serious philosophy, which is the way he would want it, but it is worth investigating and fearing. Like I have said privately, something about the clearly bright Obama reminded me of the Manchurian Candidate.

When I heard him say he would "redistribute the wealth" I put him in the Marx box, along with Maxine Waters, who slipped the other day to say she wanted to "socialize" the oil industry. She quickly restated herself without much success by saying "we" would run the oil business [that didn't move off shore, I guess.]

Now we learn, Obama was a teacher of a methods of hidden revolution and paid (and brilliant) Alinsky "agitator," a job Hillary turned down to go to law school. Only recently did I hear of paid agitators. This is all a bit disturbing because it has gone on for a generation and is well established. Hilary's, now secret, senior thesis was on Alinsky. The media skips over the paid agitation days.

Let me quote "Kos," another self proclaimed rich, poor kid, on his interviewing for the CIA:

Every single one of them was liberal… people who want to make the world a better place… people who are internationalist… That was an eye-opening experience for me.

Hence, the undercutting of the Iraq effort by the CIA and State Department who are out to get President Bush, et al, as noted int a previous blog entry. They don't follow the chain of command, being smarter than the rest of us and all. "Internationalist" is to "Marxist" as "progressive" is to "socialist."

The term "liberal" no longer means liberal, it means, to me, a busy or stupid anarchist who is pissed off. Its original meaning was a person willing to push beyond the status quo to assure individual rights, which is what many "liberal" think it still means as they follow the "liberal" Alinsky fans, who are actually in favor or the state stamping out individual rights. {For the common benefit, of course. Are these people forgetting something called history?}

Here is Poe's article. He is a successful author and has a current book out with David Horowitz, which means half of you already deny it, so won't bother reading it.

Hillary, Obama and the Cult of Alinsky

by Richard Lawrence Poe Monday, November 26, 2007 12:00 am Eastern Time

Archives 2 Comments ShareThis

MOST AMERICANS never heard of Saul Alinsky. Yet his shadow darkens our coming election. Democrat frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both worship at the altar of Alinskyism.

In a 1971 book called Rules for Radicals, Alinsky scolded the Sixties Left for scaring off potential converts in Middle America. True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within.

Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.

In his native Chicago, Alinsky courted power wherever he found it. His alliance with prominent Catholic clerics, such as Bishop Bernard Sheil, gave him respectability. His friendship with crime bosses such as Frank Nitti – Al Capone’s second-in-command – gave Alinsky clout on the street.

In our book The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Siezed Control of the Democratic Party, my co-author David Horowitz and I trace the rise of Alinsky’s political influence since the 1930s.

He excelled at wooing wealthy funders. Start-up money for his Industrial Areas Foundation – a training school for radical organizers – came from department-store mogul Marshall Field III, Sears Roebuck heiress Adele Rosenwald Levy, and Gardiner Howland Shaw, an assistant secretary of state for Franklin Roosevelt.

Alinsky once boasted, “I feel confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he was certain to be executed on Monday.”

One Alinsky benefactor was Wall Street investment banker Eugene Meyer, who served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1930 to 1933. Meyer and his wife Agnes co-owned The Washington Post. They used their newspaper to promote Alinsky.

Agnes Meyer personally wrote a six-part series in 1945, praising Alinsky’s work in Chicago slums. Her series, called “The Orderly Revolution”, made Alinsky famous. President Truman ordered 100 reprints of it.

During the Sixties, Alinsky wielded tremendous power behind the scenes.

When President Johnson launched his War on Poverty in 1964, Alinsky allies infiltrated the program, steering federal money into Alinsky projects.

In 1966, Senator Robert Kennedy allied himself with union leader Cesar Chavez, an Alinsky disciple. Chavez had worked ten years for Alinsky, beginning in 1952. Kennedy soon drifted into Alinsky’s circle.

After race riots shook Rochester, New York, Alinsky descended on the city and began pressuring Eastman-Kodak to hire more blacks. Kennedy supported Alinsky’s shakedown. The two men had an “understanding”, Alinsky later wrote.

Alinsky’s crowning achievement was his recruitment of a young high school student named Hillary Rodham. She met Alinsky through a radical church group. Hillary wrote an analysis of Alinsky’s methods for her senior thesis at Wellesley College. They remained friends until Alinsky’s death in 1972.

Alinsky tried to hire Hillary as a community organizer, but she chose instead to attend Yale Law School. Nonetheless, Alinsky’s network continued guiding Hillary’s career.

Fresh out of law school at age 26, Hillary received a prestigious appointment to the House Judiciary Committee’s Watergate investigative team in 1974. She got the job on the recommendation of Peter and Marian Wright Edelman.

The Edelmans have been trusted mentors of Hillary since 1969. New Republic editor Martin Peretz called Marian “Hillary’s closest sister and ideological soulmate”. Marian Wright Edelman also happens to be an Alinskyite, having served on the Board of Trustees of Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation.

Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.

Barack Obama is also an Alinskyite. Trained by Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation, Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project. Later, he worked with ACORN and its offshoot Project Vote, both creations of the Alinsky network.

Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer.

That Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama share an Alinskyite background tells us two things. First, they are leftists, dedicated to overthrowing our Constitutional system. Second, they will go to any length to conceal their radicalism from the public.

That is the Alinsky method. And that is today’s Democratic Party.