Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1976
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by -1- » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:25 am

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:19 pm
“We must create a cosmic man, a man ruled by his conscience.” Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 133.)
Nick_A:

(1) is your quote attributed to Albert Einstein (AE) an actual quote AE had uttered,

or

(2)is it a quote attributed to AE in a fictional work where the fictionalized character of AE uttered it, and only in the fiction book by William Hermanns?

Please respond meaningfully.

Nick_A
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Nick_A » Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:29 am

-1- wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:25 am
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:19 pm
“We must create a cosmic man, a man ruled by his conscience.” Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 133.)
Nick_A:

(1) is your quote attributed to Albert Einstein (AE) an actual quote AE had uttered,

or

(2)is it a quote attributed to AE in a fictional work where the fictionalized character of AE uttered it, and only in the fiction book by William Hermanns?

Please respond meaningfully.
I know enough about Einstein's views on conscience quoted in the following link to know that the quotes in Hermann's book pertaining to conscience are accurate. I also know enough about human nature to know why they must be hated by a sizable minority.

http://www.williamhermanns.com/Cosmicman.html

Here is the link to the book itself and the blurb introducing it

https://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Poet-Se ... 0828318735
Professor Hermanns interviewed Einstein in Germany before World War II, and in America after the War. They explored the nature of the cosmic man, but often discussed the horrors of the Holocaust and the implications of the atomic bomb. These verbatim conversations are published for the first time herewith. Einstein and Professor Hermanns knew too well Hitler’s visionary goal which was to make men automatons and strict followers of Nazism. Unwilling to succumb to Nazism as well as fulfilling his desire to survive rather than becoming himself a victim of the Holocaust, Einstein fled to America, where he explored the nature of man and man’s potential to achieve new heights as human beings. In his candid revelations, Einstein transcends physics and enters into a new sphere of humanism—one of a single humanity based on dignity. The theme throughout the four conversations surrounds the issue against a recurrent Anti-Semitism, especially that conducted by the Nazi.
You may call it fantasy but perhaps if you were in the middle of the Holocaust their concerns my be more meaningful. Many are content to become automatons while some wish to become human. Human nature.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1976
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by -1- » Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:14 am

Nick_A wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:29 am
-1- wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:25 am
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:19 pm
“We must create a cosmic man, a man ruled by his conscience.” Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 133.)
Nick_A:

(1) is your quote attributed to Albert Einstein (AE) an actual quote AE had uttered,

or

(2)is it a quote attributed to AE in a fictional work where the fictionalized character of AE uttered it, and only in the fiction book by William Hermanns?

Please respond meaningfully.
I know enough about Einstein's views on conscience quoted in the following link to know that the quotes in Hermann's book pertaining to conscience are accurate. I also know enough about human nature to know why they must be hated by a sizable minority.

http://www.williamhermanns.com/Cosmicman.html

Here is the link to the book itself and the blurb introducing it

https://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Poet-Se ... 0828318735
Professor Hermanns interviewed Einstein in Germany before World War II, and in America after the War. They explored the nature of the cosmic man, but often discussed the horrors of the Holocaust and the implications of the atomic bomb. These verbatim conversations are published for the first time herewith. Einstein and Professor Hermanns knew too well Hitler’s visionary goal which was to make men automatons and strict followers of Nazism. Unwilling to succumb to Nazism as well as fulfilling his desire to survive rather than becoming himself a victim of the Holocaust, Einstein fled to America, where he explored the nature of man and man’s potential to achieve new heights as human beings. In his candid revelations, Einstein transcends physics and enters into a new sphere of humanism—one of a single humanity based on dignity. The theme throughout the four conversations surrounds the issue against a recurrent Anti-Semitism, especially that conducted by the Nazi.
You may call it fantasy but perhaps if you were in the middle of the Holocaust their concerns my be more meaningful. Many are content to become automatons while some wish to become human. Human nature.
Thanks for the lengthy reply and lecture. However, I am a bit disappointed, as you did not actually answer my question.

You said the quote is "precise". That is undoubted; but the ORIGIN of the quote is what I wish to find out from you.

Is the origin (as quoted, perhaps in German original) from:

XXY: - Albert Einstein's mouth personally or else
ZZB: - the mouth of Hermanns' fictionalized figure of Albert Einstein

Please respond by stating either XXY or ZZB, but not both. XXY and ZZB are codes, which stand for their corresponding statement, immediately following them.

I need from you no more and no less, than XXY or ZZB, please. If you would be so kind.

Nick_A
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Nick_A » Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:45 am

-1-
Thanks for the lengthy reply and lecture. However, I am a bit disappointed, as you did not actually answer my question.

You said the quote is "precise". That is undoubted; but the ORIGIN of the quote is what I wish to find out from you.

Is the origin (as quoted, perhaps in German original) from:

XXY: - Albert Einstein's mouth personally or else
ZZB: - the mouth of Hermanns' fictionalized figure of Albert Einstein

Please respond by stating either XXY or ZZB, but not both. XXY and ZZB are codes, which stand for their corresponding statement, immediately following them.

I need from you no more and no less, than XXY or ZZB, please. If you would be so kind.
How would I be able to judge XXY or XXB or anything else. I wasn't there. All I know is that Hermanns wrote the book. Some people witnessing a holocaust feel the need to transcend argument and seek to understand. It seems that Einstein and Hermanns had this need. I can't verify it but having read some of Einstein these quotes reflect his depth.

The Alinsky perspective and its connection to statist slavery seeks the creation of automatons Einstein referred to. I know this to be true by experience. i see no reason to support this descent into madness.

But there is no way to answer your question with experiential certainty since I wasn't there. I do know that Einstein was expressing ancient knowledge and see no reason to believe the account to be fantasy.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11323
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Arising_uk » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:22 am

Nick_A wrote:... The concept of objective conscience, a quality of apriori knowledge we can remember, is poison to the Alinsky mind since it questions the supremacy of the state in matters of right and wrong.
And yet you want to install a 'state' which teaches a religious metaphysical doctrine that presumably, given how you respond here, cannot be questioned?

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11323
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Arising_uk » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:36 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:10 pm
"even if we can't prevent the forces of tyranny from prevailing, we can at least "understand the force by which we are crushed." Simone Weil

It does seem that the compulsion to create a form of statist slavery must defeat the need for freedom. There are many reasons for this but it may help us to understand why it happens by exploring how it happens. Why are Alinsky's rules for radicals so dominant with so many?

http://bolenreport.com/saul-alinskys-12-rules-radicals/

Before getting into the psychology of the rules, how many of the eight levels of control outlined in the link suggested by Alinsky to be necessary to create the socialist state being advocated now and why don't people see the danger of adopting them?
There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.
1) Healthcare– Control healthcare and you control the people
2) Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4) Gun Control– Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income)
6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.
7) Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools
8 Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.
Dear oh dear, you certainly show your slips.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/how-t ... ial-state/

"... But this list is not something taken from the actual writings of Saul Alinsky, nor does it even sound like something he would have written (e.g., the line about “controlling health care” is anachronistic for his era, and the idea of “increasing the poverty level as high as possible” is the very antithesis of what Alinsky worked to achieve). ..."

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1976
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by -1- » Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:18 am

Nick_A wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:45 am
-1-
Thanks for the lengthy reply and lecture. However, I am a bit disappointed, as you did not actually answer my question.

You said the quote is "precise". That is undoubted; but the ORIGIN of the quote is what I wish to find out from you.

Is the origin (as quoted, perhaps in German original) from:

XXY: - Albert Einstein's mouth personally or else
ZZB: - the mouth of Hermanns' fictionalized figure of Albert Einstein

Please respond by stating either XXY or ZZB, but not both. XXY and ZZB are codes, which stand for their corresponding statement, immediately following them.

I need from you no more and no less, than XXY or ZZB, please. If you would be so kind.
How would I be able to judge XXY or XXB or anything else. I wasn't there. All I know is that Hermanns wrote the book. Some people witnessing a holocaust feel the need to transcend argument and seek to understand. It seems that Einstein and Hermanns had this need. I can't verify it but having read some of Einstein these quotes reflect his depth.

The Alinsky perspective and its connection to statist slavery seeks the creation of automatons Einstein referred to. I know this to be true by experience. i see no reason to support this descent into madness.

But there is no way to answer your question with experiential certainty since I wasn't there. I do know that Einstein was expressing ancient knowledge and see no reason to believe the account to be fantasy.
Thank you. In this case I charge you with ORIGINALLY (but you cleared up the case, and the charge no longer stands) misleading the reader. You quoted Albert Einstein (AE) and it was highly ambiguous whether the quote came form AE or from another. Now you admit that you were indeed ambiguous, and you yourself don't know the truth; therefore in effect you here in this above post in one fell swoop invalidate your own claim as being unfounded (when the only real foundation would have been a certainty that the quote originated from AE.)

Nick_A
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Nick_A » Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:30 pm

-1- wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:18 am
Nick_A wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:45 am
-1-
Thanks for the lengthy reply and lecture. However, I am a bit disappointed, as you did not actually answer my question.

You said the quote is "precise". That is undoubted; but the ORIGIN of the quote is what I wish to find out from you.

Is the origin (as quoted, perhaps in German original) from:

XXY: - Albert Einstein's mouth personally or else
ZZB: - the mouth of Hermanns' fictionalized figure of Albert Einstein

Please respond by stating either XXY or ZZB, but not both. XXY and ZZB are codes, which stand for their corresponding statement, immediately following them.

I need from you no more and no less, than XXY or ZZB, please. If you would be so kind.
How would I be able to judge XXY or XXB or anything else. I wasn't there. All I know is that Hermanns wrote the book. Some people witnessing a holocaust feel the need to transcend argument and seek to understand. It seems that Einstein and Hermanns had this need. I can't verify it but having read some of Einstein these quotes reflect his depth.

The Alinsky perspective and its connection to statist slavery seeks the creation of automatons Einstein referred to. I know this to be true by experience. i see no reason to support this descent into madness.

But there is no way to answer your question with experiential certainty since I wasn't there. I do know that Einstein was expressing ancient knowledge and see no reason to believe the account to be fantasy.
Thank you. In this case I charge you with ORIGINALLY (but you cleared up the case, and the charge no longer stands) misleading the reader. You quoted Albert Einstein (AE) and it was highly ambiguous whether the quote came form AE or from another. Now you admit that you were indeed ambiguous, and you yourself don't know the truth; therefore in effect you here in this above post in one fell swoop invalidate your own claim as being unfounded (when the only real foundation would have been a certainty that the quote originated from AE.)
AE said as recorded by william Hermanns is not ambiguous. There is no attempt to mislead since I quoted the source. This would be like saying Jesus said this or that as recorded in the Bible. There is no attempt to mislead.

It seems suspicious to you since it goes against the current trend towards superficiality and pettiness. Einstein and Hermanns should have been debating whose momma sucks but they were concerned with how and why the human condition can lead to obvious atrocities and at the same time become capable of such obvious compassion. This is too old fashioned to be taken seriously

Now people know that all this existed in the past and the indoctrinating techniques of the Alinsky agenda will bring about societal utopia putting an end to atrocities. Get rid of the opposition to utopia and the problem is solved. The Alinsky techniques provide the means to bring about utopia. Simple enough.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1976
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by -1- » Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:57 pm

Nick_A, you are contradicting your own words. If you glance above what you most recently wrote, you'll see this had been written by you:

"How would I be able to judge XXY or XXB or anything else. I wasn't there. All I know is that Hermanns wrote the book."

Then now you say they mean the same thing. A DOCUMENTARY about AE would have yielded you right; but you were asked to identify if it was FICTION or DIRECT quote and you said you did not know.

You are always saying in the last minute what justifies your stance in the last minus one minute, but your incoherent lies completely contradict anything or most things you had said in last minus two or more minutes.

You can't even keep your own record straight; how can you expect others to give you even a smidgen of credit, when you so obviously and easily get into self-contradictions?

Enough of this already. Backpedalling, calling progress "pettiness", and referring to AE as his knowing ancient knowledge (All his life AE advocated to reject ancient knowledge in favour of brand new insight!) is too much.

Walker
Posts: 5569
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Walker » Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:57 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:10 am
Notice how the Alinsky agenda is only concerned with rights defined by the agenda. The idea of objective human obligations is foreign to it. Obligations are defined by the agenda. The essential obligation is to further the will of the agenda. It is what a slave does. That is why the greatest atrocities are justified when they are believed to further the agenda. “The Ends Justify The Means.”
What happens when agenda is denied? Failure is not an option for this bunch. They escalate.

In the USofA, the Alinskyites may lose majority in all branches of the federal government for at least the next two years. Oh dear.

When Alinsky methods are turned back upon Alinskyites by a street-smart thriver not limited by their understanding of reality, causing them to lose their objective of overthrow and seizing power, then what do the Alynskyites do?

Well at this point, the word from Hillary and Eric Holder is, they’ve been too civil.

This sounds like a signal to the minions.

At this point, what could less civil possibly mean?

:shock:

Impenitent
Posts: 2005
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Impenitent » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:09 am

Walker wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:57 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:10 am
Notice how the Alinsky agenda is only concerned with rights defined by the agenda. The idea of objective human obligations is foreign to it. Obligations are defined by the agenda. The essential obligation is to further the will of the agenda. It is what a slave does. That is why the greatest atrocities are justified when they are believed to further the agenda. “The Ends Justify The Means.”
What happens when agenda is denied? Failure is not an option for this bunch. They escalate.

In the USofA, the Alinskyites may lose majority in all branches of the federal government for at least the next two years. Oh dear.

When Alinsky methods are turned back upon Alinskyites by a street-smart thriver not limited by their understanding of reality, causing them to lose their objective of overthrow and seizing power, then what do the Alynskyites do?

Well at this point, the word from Hillary and Eric Holder is, they’ve been too civil.

This sounds like a signal to the minions.

At this point, what could less civil possibly mean?

:shock:
those liberal democrats who kick NRA members might tend to get shot

1861 in America... jihad everywhere else

-Imp

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11323
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:38 am

Walker wrote:Notice how the Alinsky agenda is only concerned with rights defined by the agenda. The idea of objective human obligations is foreign to it. Obligations are defined by the agenda. The essential obligation is to further the will of the agenda. It is what a slave does. That is why the greatest atrocities are justified when they are believed to further the agenda. “The Ends Justify The Means.”
I see you're still using your 'fake news' Alinsky agenda then. :roll:

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11323
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:44 am

Walker wrote:... a street-smart thriver ...
You think the draft and tax dodging daddy's rich boy would last two seconds on your 'streets'? He'd have been shot toot-sweet by his troop if his widdle imaginary 'bone-spurs' hadn't got in the way and the irony that his daddy made his money of the taxpayer through pork-barrel contracts(I think you call them) and he through dodgy finance from his banker mates is too much for words given his claim to be there to drain your swamp. :lol:

Nick_A
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Nick_A » Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:16 am

-1- wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:57 pm
Nick_A, you are contradicting your own words. If you glance above what you most recently wrote, you'll see this had been written by you:

"How would I be able to judge XXY or XXB or anything else. I wasn't there. All I know is that Hermanns wrote the book."

Then now you say they mean the same thing. A DOCUMENTARY about AE would have yielded you right; but you were asked to identify if it was FICTION or DIRECT quote and you said you did not know.

You are always saying in the last minute what justifies your stance in the last minus one minute, but your incoherent lies completely contradict anything or most things you had said in last minus two or more minutes.

You can't even keep your own record straight; how can you expect others to give you even a smidgen of credit, when you so obviously and easily get into self-contradictions?

Enough of this already. Backpedalling, calling progress "pettiness", and referring to AE as his knowing ancient knowledge (All his life AE advocated to reject ancient knowledge in favour of brand new insight!) is too much.
I really don’t see what your problem is. Where is the incoherent lie? I quoted Einstein and used the Hermann’s book as a source. That isn’t a lie. What is so impressive about a documentary? Do you really believe a documentary on Obama written by advocates of the Alinsky agenda will have any truth in it? What I do know is that Einstein and Hermann’s had direct knowledge of the atrocities the human condition is capable of and were capable of a depth of thought frowned upon by the Alinsky agenda.

The concept of objective conscience or soul knowledge described by Plato is ancient knowledge that was well known even before Plato. What is so odd about saying that it is only through awakening objective conscience that humanity can survive the human condition? Of course it is poison to secularism which insists that indoctrinated social morality is the path to human ethical evolution. The concept appears so offensive to you that you must call introducing it is just “too much.”.

Of course I cannot verify if Plato wrote anything or if Einstein thought anything. What has been attributed to them has given the world something valuable and I am invited to verify it through efforts of self knowledge.

God forbid I would associate what is called human progress with superficiality and pettiness. If you’re ever open to debating if modern culture is defined by superficiality and pettiness and the most profound exchange of depth of collective opinions takes place in tweets, I’ll be your huckleberry.

Walker
Posts: 5569
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Walker » Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:55 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:44 am
Walker wrote:... a street-smart thriver ...
You think the draft and tax dodging daddy's rich boy would last two seconds on your 'streets'? He'd have been shot toot-sweet by his troop if his widdle imaginary 'bone-spurs' hadn't got in the way and the irony that his daddy made his money of the taxpayer through pork-barrel contracts(I think you call them) and he through dodgy finance from his banker mates is too much for words given his claim to be there to drain your swamp. :lol:
Thriving on the dirty streets of politics, a fresh shoe shine, a clean suit and shirt every day.

He’s got the Left on tilt, and not a hair out of place.

Like the wicked witch they're howling as they melt, oh what a world, what a world.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests