Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

[henry quirk]

"...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."

Saul was scum.

[Nick_A]

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

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

Now you're talking.

The point is that the Alinsky quotes are accurate. they could come from a hundred different sources. In fact I used two different links.

But you are right. The future of impartial meaningful philosophy will go private. Efforts in that direction are no longer pertinent for usual philosophy forums concerned with the current debate over whose momma sucks. It will be a long time before that question is resolved and the deeper question of the purpose of government enters the secular head. As I wrote, it is encouraging that some in the world are opening to the value of philosophy for pursuing the human need "To Be."

[uwot]

Saul was scum.

Well, here's the bit that comes immediately before that quote:

Alinsky did not join political parties. When asked during an interview whether he ever considered becoming a Communist Party member, he replied:

"Not at any time. I've never joined any organization—not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much."

I think that is one thing you might have in common with him.

Here's some more from the wikipedia page:

"As an example, after organizing FIGHT (an acronym for Freedom, Independence [subsequently Integration], God, Honor, Today) in Rochester, New York, Alinsky once threatened to stage a "fart in" to disrupt the sensibilities of the city's establishment at a Rochester Philharmonic concert. FIGHT members were to consume large quantities of baked beans after which, according to author Nicholas von Hoffman, "FIGHT's increasingly gaseous music-loving members would tie themselves to the concert hall where they would sit expelling gaseous vapors with such noisy velocity as to compete with the woodwinds". Satisfied with his threat yielding action, Alinsky later threatened a "piss in" at Chicago O'Hare Airport. Alinsky planned to arrange for large numbers of well-dressed African Americans to occupy the urinals and toilets at O'Hare for as long as it took to bring the city to the bargaining table. According to Alinsky, once again the threat alone was sufficient to produce results. In Rules for Radicals, he notes that this tactic fell under two of his rules: Rule #3: Wherever possible, go outside the experience of the enemy; and Rule #4: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

Alinsky described his plans for 1972 to begin to organize the white middle-class across the United States, and the necessity of that project. He believed that many Americans were living in frustration and despair, worried about their future, and ripe for a turn to radical social change, to become politically active citizens. He feared the middle class could be driven to a right-wing viewpoint, "making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday". His stated motive: "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."

I'd never heard of Saul Alinsky, but he sounds like my kinda bloke. I find myself in the unusual position of being grateful to Nick_A. Cheers Nick!

[uwot]

The future of impartial meaningful philosophy will go private.

What you do in private is your own business, Nick. 'Private philosophy' is exactly what the worst type of 'politically correct social justice warrior' demands in their 'safe spaces'. They are as much a menace to progressives as conservatives. If you want to join them, then run away, but if you can't take someone thinking you're a fucking idiot, then you need to grow up.

[Nick_A]

Henry

I'd never heard of Saul Alinsky, but he sounds like my kinda bloke. I find myself in the unusual position of being grateful to Nick_A. Cheers Nick!

Many haven't heard of Alinsky even though progressives like Obama and Hillary view him almost as a God. When we get into the rules themselves you will see how they are being used in America to indoctrinate people eventually into statist slavery. It is all technique - style over substance. But as Simone wrote, if the human need for the freedom to be will be crushed at least we can begin to understand why.

If we ever begin to realize what we are losing due to his influence he may not appear so godly.

[Walker]

"... making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday". His stated motive: "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."

Good grief. Alinsky is describing himself, “taking it back” to his loony fantasy on horseback, an irony obviously missed.

That hypocritical tripe doesn’t cut it for thinking folks, who are never-the-less aware of the Progressive tactical manual of hatred and lies.

It takes progressive, creative innovation to do what Trump has done for the country.

Claiming those qualities and changing word definitions doesn't make it so.

[Nick_A]

The future of impartial meaningful philosophy will go private.

What you do in private is your own business, Nick. 'Private philosophy' is exactly what the worst type of 'politically correct social justice warrior' demands in their 'safe spaces'. They are as much a menace to progressives as conservatives. If you want to join them, then run away, but if you can't take someone thinking you're a fucking idiot, then you need to grow up.

No, The AWS for example is a private organization a person can join. It invites more than arguments over whose momma sucks which you seem to be attracted to. To each his own. I grow up from my study of those who have transcended the debate over whose momma sucks and have become concerned with the great questions concerning the meaning and purpose of human being the depths of philosophy invite us to ponder.

[uwot]

You missed a bit, Walker: "He feared the middle class could be driven to a right-wing viewpoint, making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday". His stated motive: "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."

It takes progressive, creative innovation to do what Trump has done for the country.

You mean like "promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday" by wearing a baseball hat that says 'Make America Great Again'. So how far back do you need to go to make America great again? Don't get me wrong, America has done many great things: Who doesn't love Rock and Roll? The Apollo Mission was a breathtaking achievement; the Vietnam War, not so glorious. Racial segregation in the South; really not my cup of tea. Helping defeat Nazism-Yay! Corporate greed causing the Wall Street Crash, grinding poverty and indirectly Nazism-Boo! Prohibition? The mob culture it created? The annihilation of native peoples? Slavery? Where would be a good place to stop?

I am not suggesting that this sort of record is unique to America. You could do the same hatchet job on the UK and most countries on the planet. The problem has always been letting people who think they are fit to run a country, actually run a country. A lot about America is great. You might miss your mothers milk, but the country has moved on without you.

[uwot]

The AWS for example is a private organization a person can join. It invites more than arguments over whose momma sucks which you seem to be attracted to. To each his own.

Aw, so it's me that sucks.

I grow up from my study of those who have transcended the debate over whose momma sucks and have become concerned with the great questions concerning the meaning and purpose of human being the depths of philosophy invite us to ponder.

You are free to join whatever groups you fancy. It was your choice to join this one, but some of us are a bit uncouth. Get over it.

[Nick_A]

The AWS for example is a private organization a person can join. It invites more than arguments over whose momma sucks which you seem to be attracted to. To each his own.

Aw, so it's me that sucks.

I grow up from my study of those who have transcended the debate over whose momma sucks and have become concerned with the great questions concerning the meaning and purpose of human being the depths of philosophy invite us to ponder.

You are free to join whatever groups you fancy. It was your choice to join this one, but some of us are a bit uncouth. Get over it.

I am well aware of how the great ideas concerning the potential for human being are hated. The secular intolerance thread along with worldly events like Socrates' execution have demonstrated the intensity of this hatred. So be as uncouth as you like. I prefer to be on the side of the principles America was founded upon:

Preamble to the U.S. Declaration of Independence, 1776.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Those like you and Greta believe our essential rights are created by the Great Beast, emotionally attack the meaning of the preamble, and call it philosophy. I support those who recognize the direction of our Source. They appreciate the value of the preamble and strive to defend it as Donald Trump has done in spite of the Alinsky influence.

[Walker]

You mean like "promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday" by wearing a baseball hat that says 'Make America Great Again'.

Make America Great Again refers mainly to economic prosperity.

The hat is not an upward economic indicator by itself, but maybe it will be in the future, just because it’s attached to Trump.*

On the other hand, the big lie is forever attached to Obama (If you like your doctor and your health plan, you can keep them both. Period.)

That boldfaced lie isn’t even condemned by the Alinskites who view the world in terms of, by any means necessary.

By any means necessary is the same view as Sharia taqiya.


* Whatever goes up, goes down.

[Reflex]

.
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.
.

Greta looking through the looking glass where everything is perceived backwards.

[uwot]

Those like you and Greta believe our essential rights are created by the Great Beast...

I'm still not entirely clear what you mean by "the Great Beast". Could you go through it again, please?

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

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?

I think that's a false dichotomy - the purpose of the state is to serve as a protection for man's rights.

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.

And I mostly agree that the things he mentions are bad, it's just the one about religion seems to cluster the idea of a state accepting god, with a state accepting a very specific god. The former thing I'm fine with, but If there were any examples of the government paying homage to a particular religion in our founding texts, that should be removed. And yes, removed because it actually goes against the goal of what this person is trying to achieve.

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.

There's a lot of valid criticism for trump, exactly because he's changing the role of our government in a way that gives way to rationalizing more socialized laws, though. I like his views on immigration, and I like his 'no-bullshitter' attitude around the media, the PC, etc. But other than that, I think he's mostly leading the republican party in a very bad direction, at least in terms of his economic policies. Putting tarrifs on china (which we are already paying for in other ways like the rising cost of certain goods, passing an infrastructure bill while we had already increased our annual government spending from last year. I believe he recently reaffirmed his previous view on outsourcing jobs as well, and wants to handle it not in a way that incentives these companies to stay in the US, but by penalizing them if they don't. Although I can't say if he has actually done anything about that, yet.

The way that he has handled the opioid crisis has been especially atrocious. I think this is actually the most clear-cut example of what I'm talking about, with trump setting a dangerous precedence for the party that's suppose to be against government overreach. You want to talk about the government serving man, trump has fallen into this trap that the government is the only agency with the power to thwart the dreaded 'opioid crisis.' He has completely removed people's personal responsibility, by forcing their doctors - at gun point - to have that responsibility for them. Guess what that sounds like?

Anyway, I'm just warning you, trump is not actually the guy a right-winger should be looking to as the light at the end of the tunnel. For every smut piece you see in our predominantly left-leaning media about this putin-trump conspiracy nonsense, there's about 12 libertarians and traditional conservatives in the intellectual dark web criticizing him for the things he actually deserves to be criticized for. Don't fall into this trap of 'either it's him or the democrats.'

[henry quirk]

Saul said: "Not at any time. I've never joined any organization—not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much."

Uwot commented: I think that is one thing you might have in common with him.

My God! You're right! We, he and me, could be twins!