Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Locked
Nick_A
Posts: 4294
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Nick_A » 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.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5187
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:49 pm

1) Healthcare– Control healthcare and you control the people

While not 'universal' and 'single-sourced' the industry is largely in the hands of regulators, so: commies win.


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.

This is institutionalzed, has been for decades, so: commies win.


3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

Keynes shoulda been shot. This too is instituionalzed, so: commies win.


4) Gun Control– Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.

Despite multi-pronged efforts, this one is still in the land of 'what if', so: fuck you, commies.


5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income)

Another institution, so: commies win


6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.

Formal, traditional, education is done for, but the net is still open (you can find Max Stirner easy-peasy), so: partial win for the commies.


7) Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools

Religion is persistent. It keeps rearin' up in the oddest places, so: partial win for the commies.


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.

Institutionalized, so: win for the commies.


"why don't people see the danger of adopting them?"

Incrementalism: boil the frog without it knowin' diddly.

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 939
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:51 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:10 pm
7) Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools
Religion in government is much more characteristic of a socialist policy, because it's an attempt to provide more for the people than the mere protection of their rights. It usually leads to that government attempting to guide its people in a certain moral direction, whether that be indirectly or much more sinister. As a small example, this is how we get things like having tax benefits for having kids or getting married...even though if you're a low-income individual, you're actually making our economy a much worse place by choosing to have kids.

Establishing that there is a god is perfectly stable within a functioning society. But a state paying homage to a particular religion, is going to give way to much more socialist policies. I believe most of our founding fathers recognized the problem with this, and hence you will not see the word 'Catholicism' anywhere in our constitution or declaration of independence.

So, if you want to say that removing any mention of 'god' in an important government document is part of this meticulous agenda by the 'liver-licking commie scum,' that's fine. I don't really care one way or another. But since this rule is about 'religion,' then goes on to just mention 'god,' it's very important to make this distinction.
Last edited by Sir-Sister-of-Suck on Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Impenitent
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Impenitent » Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:52 pm

factors of a number that are equal to themselves...

-Imp

Nick_A
Posts: 4294
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Nick_A » Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:50 am

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:51 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:10 pm
7) Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools
Religion in government is much more characteristic of a socialist policy, because it's an attempt to provide more for the people than the mere protection of their rights. It usually leads to that government attempting to guide its people in a certain moral direction, whether that be indirectly or much more sinister. As a small example, this is how we get things like having tax benefits for having kids or getting married...even though if you're a low-income individual, you're actually making our economy a much worse place by choosing to have kids.

Establishing that there is a god is perfectly stable within a functioning society. But a state paying homage to a particular religion, is going to give way to much more socialist policies. I believe most of our founding fathers recognized the problem with this, and hence you will not see the word 'Catholicism' anywhere in our constitution or declaration of independence.

So, if you want to say that removing any mention of 'god' in an important government document is part of this meticulous agenda by the 'liver-licking commie scum,' that's fine. I don't really care one way or another. But since this rule is about 'religion,' then goes on to just mention 'god,' it's very important to make this distinction.
How would a government denying a higher authority "guide its people in a certain moral direction, whether that be indirectly or much more sinister.?

Alinsky's eight levels of control all lead to statist slavery taking the place of responsible freedom. That being the case, how IYO would government taking the place of a higher authority establish moral direction?

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 939
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:24 am

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:50 am
How would a government denying a higher authority "guide its people in a certain moral direction, whether that be indirectly or much more sinister.?
I specifically don't want them to do that. Maybe re-read my post and realize that was my point.

Nick_A
Posts: 4294
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Nick_A » Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:44 am

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:24 am
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:50 am
How would a government denying a higher authority "guide its people in a certain moral direction, whether that be indirectly or much more sinister.?
I specifically don't want them to do that. Maybe re-read my post and realize that was my point.
If there is no higher authority pertaining to morals and if the government isn't involved, who or what has the responsibility for being the guiding moral influence? Does it just boil down to everyone for themselves or might makes right? How long would that last until martial law is declared?

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Greta » Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:13 am

.
The OP is a fair summary of what appears to be rapidly growing right wing political correctness and retreat from reason. There is nothing interesting or philosophically relevant there at all. Just a political rant.

You ideally should go to Facebook or Twitter if that's your game rather than screwing up a philosophy forum.
.

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 939
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:48 am

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:44 am
If there is no higher authority pertaining to morals
What? Who proposed that? My point was that I don't want the government to take a specific religion in mind to its foundation. That will lead to its role being more than just the protection of our rights, and draws a pretty clear line to rationalizing things like socialized medicine.

This isn't a thread about morality, it's a thread about effective governing and what would likely lead to a 'socialist state.' I don't know who has the 'responsibility' to act as the moral guidance, probably should ask that in one of the ethic subforums. But who I want to have that role, are things like communions and charities, or any organization that works to do something like that.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5187
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"There is nothing interesting or philosophically relevant there at all."

Post by henry quirk » Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:51 pm

I disagree.

America's dismantling (the theories [economic and social] under-girding that dismantling) is worth examining.

Walker
Posts: 6891
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Walker » Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:12 am

From the introduction to Rules for Radicals:

“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 ALINSKY

Nick_A
Posts: 4294
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Nick_A » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:36 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:48 am
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:44 am
If there is no higher authority pertaining to morals
What? Who proposed that? My point was that I don't want the government to take a specific religion in mind to its foundation. That will lead to its role being more than just the protection of our rights, and draws a pretty clear line to rationalizing things like socialized medicine.

This isn't a thread about morality, it's a thread about effective governing and what would likely lead to a 'socialist state.' I don't know who has the 'responsibility' to act as the moral guidance, probably should ask that in one of the ethic subforums. But who I want to have that role, are things like communions and charities, or any organization that works to do something like that.
This thread concerns the essential philosophical question: Is the purpose of Man to serve the state or is the ideal purpose of the state to serve Man? The attraction to freedom vs the attraction to conceptions of statist slavery? The eight methods of control described in the OP all refer to what is necessary to suppress the need for freedom and to recognize its value in favor of creating dependency of some form of government enforcing statist slavery.

For those like Greta the question doesn't exist. To even suggest it is some sort of right wing propaganda that must be banned. Political philosophy is the act of condemning Trump. So the question for the open mind is't how to govern but first the purpose of govenment. The Constitution asserts that government serves Man while for those like Alinsky Man serves the government

For those appreciating the philosophical value of this question be assured that others already discuss it in ways that would be banned by the Greta mind as belonging in Instagram but far from philosophy forums. That is why I recently added the 2019 American Weil society colloquy topic to the Simone Weil thread.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=24699&p=376727#p376727
We are hereby pleased to announce the 39th Annual Colloquy of the American Weil Society, which will be held at IQS (Institut Quimic de Sarrià), one of the schools associated to the Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, on April 25, 26 and 27, 2019, hosted by Oriol Quintana, Associate Professor at IQS. This colloquy will have an intentional international character, reaching scholars from around the world, specially from France, Italy and Spain. The topic of this year’s colloquy is: Rootedness, Identity, and Nation. This theme is deliberately broad, so that Weil’s religious, political, and/or ethical philosophy may be addressed under the heading.........................
It is a worthwhile struggle for me to ponder how rootedness, identity, and nation, can fit together into an organic whole. I recognize the need to belong but also the danger in becoming an atom of the great beast. How do I define an individual in a human rather than a societal perspective? How do I understand the value of a nation in these times where globalism is so popular? What are the benefits and drawbacks of patriotism?

All this isn't so easy. I see my ignorance I am grateful that there are ways in which people can join in making a better use of philosophy than the modern glorification of self importance. And of course I am grateful for those like Simone whose lives have inspired sincere questions as to the objective meaning and purpose of humanity

“To be rooted is perhaps the most important and least recognized need of the human soul.” ~ Simone Weil

Contemplating effective governing reguires first contemplating the purpose of government which requires opening to questions no longer fashionable for modern philosophy which limits itself to condemning Trump and how to indoctrinate people into a form of statist slavery. It offers hope for those whose minds are open to the depths of philosophy to know that that people will come from around the world to share on what is being condemned here by Greta. It means that others can also contemplate the difference between the attraction to freedom - human need to be and the willingness to abandon it in favor of an imagined security offered by the Ainsky mind.

Nick_A
Posts: 4294
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Nick_A » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:41 pm

Walker wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:12 am
From the introduction to Rules for Radicals:

“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 ALINSKY
A great question..Matthew16: 26 Jesus refers to it as well.
What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?

uwot
Posts: 4413
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Loons

Post by uwot » Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:28 pm

Greta wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:13 am
The OP is a fair summary of what appears to be rapidly growing right wing political correctness and retreat from reason. There is nothing interesting or philosophically relevant there at all. Just a political rant.
I dunno, Greta; Alinsky is an interesting bloke. What is especially interesting is how right wing nuts completely misunderstand. Plus ça change. Here's something he said that will have gone over a few heads:
"...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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky
Even better, Nick_A's source, the bolenreport, was written by Tim Bolen; number 31 in The Encyclopaedia of American Loons.
http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2010/ ... bolen.html
Greta wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:13 am
You ideally should go to Facebook or Twitter if that's your game rather than screwing up a philosophy forum.
Now you're talking.

Walker
Posts: 6891
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Post by Walker » Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:34 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:41 pm
Walker wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:12 am
From the introduction to Rules for Radicals:

“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 ALINSKY
A great question..Matthew16: 26 Jesus refers to it as well.
What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?
The gain need not be the whole world. For many the gain is just some comfort and security. The sacrifice in exchange for the soul, to put it in those terms, is what one knows to be true, whatever that is, for just a little bit of gold. Give up the known truth enough times, and lose the capacity to distinguish the truth. Like Winston Smith, 1984. Winston sacrificed what he knew to be true (love) to literally save face.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests