Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

[-1-]

Look, you quoted Albert Einstein from a book that was fiction, and you took it at face value. Then you built an argument around a fictional character's utterance.

I don’t know if you are just being low or just ignorant but either way calling Hermanns' book fiction is just nasty considering what he and Einstein witnessed. Here is a little on Hermann’s.

I AM GOING TO ANSWER YOUR ACCUSATION AND QUESTION, SO PLEASE READ CAREFULLY, BECAUSE THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S GOING ON:

This was neither ignorant by me, nor low. I did pose to you the question if Hermanns' book was fiction; you neither denied it, nor agreed with it. In other words, you gave me NO DIRECTION as to its nature. I had the liberty, therefore, given by you, to understand it was fiction.

Here's the documentation from our past converstation to prove it (in green):

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

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.

Now, Nick_A: in this following quote by you, you spake as if you'd already proven that Hermanns' book is not fiction. But there is not one iota of utterance that says that Hermanns' book is fiction or not. In other words, the entire text is idle talk, it is wasted verbal garbiage.

I don’t know if you are just being low or just ignorant but either way calling Hermanns' book fiction is just nasty considering what he and Einstein witnessed. Here is a little on Hermann’s. I’ll post the conclusion

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

In 1983 William Hermann's book Einstein and the Poet - In Search of the Cosmic Man was published by Branden Press. That same year the Einstein-Hermanns Foundation was incorporated by William Hermanns, Kenneth Norton and Ulf Sjödin to foster reliance on intuition for intercultural exchange and understanding. Through grassroots efforts the World Youth Friendship Parliament was inaugurated on July 1, 1988 at the seaside Villa Muramaris on the Swedish island Gotland in the Baltic Sea. In September 1989 the Mayor of Mönchengladbach honored him for his life’s dedication to reconciliation between Jews and Christians at a city-sponsored reunion of its citizens who fled the Nazis, and on the following day the Mayor of Verdun awarded him the Verdun Medal of Honor for his dedication to the reconciliation between the French and Germans.
This is just brief glimpse of his life, as he met many notable people, journeyed through a variety of religious traditions as a mystic and had the expansive poetical sensibilities that often quoted Heine who wrote of poets: Heaven high jubilating, to death sorrowing.
William Hermanns transitioned 7 months later on April 6, 1990 in San Jose, California.

This quote by you absolutely deals not with the question whether Hermanns' book was fiction or a documentary. You WASTED my time and yours by quoting an absolutely irrelevant text which is irrelevant IN THE SENSE of judging whether Hermanns' book was fiction or not.

Again: Dear Nick_A, you are skating and slithering like a slippery eel. You avoid topics, you don't respond to direct questions, you ignore pertinent facts shown to you when it is in your interest to pretend that these questions are not asked, and facts are not shown to you.

YOU DEMONSTRATED ONE MORE TIME YOUR INTELLECTUAL ABILITIES SUPPRESSED BY YOUR EMOTIONAL STATE WHICH CAN'T BEAR BEING PROVEN YOURSELF AND YOUR OPINIONS WRONG.

The entire forum population -- those who care to read your texts -- knows this about you. Along with some other catastrophic philosophical faults, which others have shown to you and to the rest of the forum.

HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY WHEN YOUR MENTAL CAPACITY IS SERIOUSLY DISABLED BY YOUR EGO WHICH CAN'T BEAR BEING PROVEN WRONG.

[-1-]

Please understand that I interspersed your quote with my responses to relevant parts of your text. This format preserves the flow, and highlights the responses to specific instances in your text. My responses are in capital.

There's lots of examples of Left shouting down Right.

BUT NOT FOUND BY THE MAN WHO ASKED PEOPLE ON CAMPUS OF THE OPPOSITE. HE NEVER EVEN ASKED THE QUESTION -- YOUR STATEMENT MAY BE TRUE OF OTHER CAMPUSES, BUT OF THIS CAMPUS, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT.

YOU CAN'T DENY THE TRUTH IN THIS STATEMENT, NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY, NO MATTER HOW MANY COUNTER-EXAMPLES YOU BRING UP OCCURRING IN PLACES OTHER THAN IN THIS CAMPUS.


If he had offered a hundred bucks for examples of Left shouting down Right, he would have lost money, pronto Tonto.

THIS IS YOUR OPINION, NOT A FACT AT ALL.

As it was he lost nothing. Nothing.

The interviewer said, any campus. Not just that campus. I think you missed that little detail.

HE STILL DID NOT ASK THE OPPOSITE. THIS IS IRRELEVANT. IT DOES NOT AVOID THE TWO QUESTION NEEDING TO HAVE BEEN ASKED, "HAVE YOU WITNESSED THE RIGHT SHOUTING DOWN THE LEFT?" ALONG WITH "HAVE YOU WITNESSED THE LEFT SHOUTING DOWN THE RIGHT?" THESE TWO QUESTIONS WERE NOT ASKED, AND THIS IS THE FAULT FOR WHICH NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT OUGHT TO BE BUILT ON THIS INTERVIEWER'S EXPERIENCE.

Just because you're too lazy to research facts doesn't disappear the facts.

WHAT ABOUT THE TWO INSTANCES I QUOTED WHERE THE RIGHT TRIED TO SHOUT DOWN THE LEFT? THOSE ARE FACTS, TOO. CLEARLY, YOU FEEL YOU ARE ENTITLED TO IGNORE FACTS.

For that, you'll have to wait awhile until the media giants have total control of content and censorship.

THEY ALREADY DO. DON'T FOOL YOURSELF. IT'S JUST THAT THERE ARE LEFTIST AND THERE ARE RIGHTIST MEDIA GIANTS WHO TOTALLY CONTROL CONTENT AND CENSORSHIP -- OF THEIR OWN RESPECTIVE DOMAIN EACH.

[Nick_A]

-1-

This quote by you absolutely deals not with the question whether Hermanns' book was fiction or a documentary. You WASTED my time and yours by quoting an absolutely irrelevant text which is irrelevant IN THE SENSE of judging whether Hermanns' book was fiction or not.

When I introduced the book I purposely quoted the blurb from Amazon to explain why I believe it is factual account rather than fiction. I can’t verify it but from everything I learned about Einstein and his friendship with Hermanns I accept it as a factual account. After reading this blurb how could you believe it was intended as fictional account?

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 DEMONSTRATED ONE MORE TIME YOUR INTELLECTUAL ABILITIES SUPPRESSED BY YOUR EMOTIONAL STATE WHICH CAN'T BEAR BEING PROVEN YOURSELF AND YOUR OPINIONS WRONG.

Look,if I was fooled by Einstein, Hermanns, and Amazon, I’ll have to admit it was a good con job. But so far nothing has been written I know of to indicate it is a con job so I haven’t been proven wrong.

The entire forum population -- those who care to read your texts -- knows this about you. Along with some other catastrophic philosophical faults, which others have shown to you and to the rest of the forum.

HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY WHEN YOUR MENTAL CAPACITY IS SERIOUSLY DISABLED BY YOUR EGO WHICH CAN'T BEAR BEING PROVEN WRONG.

It is the nature of modern secular progressives to violently and emotionally reject the great ideas concerning the meaning and purpose of the universe and Man within it. I am attracted to these ideas introduced into the world by great minds. I know they are hated and why people have been killed for advocating them. I understand why the modern secular mind has been indoctrinated into doing whatever it can to rid the world of them. These ideas are considered intellectual faults and the literal sensual dualistic mind prefers instead efforts of indoctrination to create conditioned automatons fixated on society providing our species its objective meaning and purpose. It must remain closed to the greater realities responsible for the process of creation and the conscious Source which makes these lawful realities possible.

Those like Einstein defy the Alinsky quest to create conditioned automatons and suggest Man capable of a higher quality of being. Of course this suggestion must be hated when the Great Beast is considered the expression of the highest quality of human being.

We follow different paths

[Walker]

Please understand that I interspersed your quote with my responses to relevant parts of your text. This format preserves the flow, and highlights the responses to specific instances in your text. My responses are in capital.

You’re a nit picker, so I’ll join you on this molehill for the last time.

These are the facts.

“Today we’re at the University of Georgia, offering a hundred dollars to any student that can give me an example of a liberal speaker shouted down by conservative students.”
- Interviewer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWHLEgzPWvE

Forty-four seconds into the video, the interviewer says, “any campus.”

*

So, your continued harping about “this campus,” and the tweaking of parameters with off-campus examples is irrelevant to this link.

Barring rare exceptions, if a kid knows of an example, the kid will speak it and collect the hundred bucks. You assert that this is not a fact until it actually happens. Translation of your assertion: the fact of something happening is not the actual fact that the fact happened until the fact actually does happen. Well, so what.

Setting that nonsense aside, on the planet earth and within the world of relativity, the probability is high enough within the interviewer’s parameters to call the hundred dollar exchange a predictable and repeatable causal event, barring the rare exception that the student has renounced money (except at mealtimes and for whatever reason), and also barring the exceptions introduced by any new stipulations, such as an off-campus event involving non-students.

The consideration of a liberal speaker shouted down by conservative students is a relevant contrast for analysis*, for it merely flips the principals within the same situation of on-campus students. It does not introduce new principals, or a different off-campus situation.

However, you’re simply playing around** with whether or not my opposing example is a fact in your world, which is apparently a place where giving away money***, rather than not giving away money, is necessary to prove a fact. This is not to say it doesn't happen. Government agencies spend like pigs because appropriations are based on expenditures, as every climate researcher knows.

*For the purpose of any analysis, the original stipulations must be arbitrary absolutes.
** Future non-response will be factual proof that indulging silly nit-picking has expired.
*** A fool and his money are soon parted.

[Walker]

Alinsky says that in war, the end justifies the means.

Alinsky methods can neutralize* Alinskyites.

Alinsky neutralizing Alinskyites is like a double-negative.

It’s a positive.

Agree/disagree?

*A non-Alinskyite will neutralize rather than destroy, although falling short of total ruthlessness may weaken the effectiveness of the philosophy.

[uwot]

...there is not one iota of utterance that says that Hermanns' book is fiction or not.

This might be of interest: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... .research1

[-1-]

Forty-four seconds into the video, the interviewer says, “any campus.”

Any campus... any campus what?

You present a phrase without any relevance to the context, and build an argument on it.

It's even more far-out and unphilosophical than your earlier blunder of generalizing from an illogical point of view.

*

So, your continued harping about “this campus,” and the tweaking of parameters with off-campus examples is irrelevant to this link.

No, sir. I only objected to the deliverance of the logic. This is not nit picking. The interviewer strictly avoided the opposite question, and without that, your logical deducing is invalid. That's all I wanted and still want to show.

So, your continued harping about “this campus,” and the tweaking of parameters with off-campus examples is irrelevant to this link.

if anyone excluded off-campus examples it's you, not me. You kept saying, and keep on saying, that examples are not needed. Why not? The point in question:

You ignored my two examples where rightists / religious hecklers interrupted and shouted down leftist / atheist speakers. I did give two very valid examples, and yet you act as if those examples did not exist. Of course they don't exist if you desperately need to ignore them in order to prove your point.

[-1-]

...there is not one iota of utterance that says that Hermanns' book is fiction or not.

This might be of interest: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... .research1

Thanks, uwot, for the link... could I please ask you to write down here in a post the essence of the link? I am not going to read the article, because I am not able to. Please, if you want me to accept its point, I need to read its point (in relevance to this thread) in this thread, in a few words.

In my limited store of mental energy to read, I can't squander that precious little lot I am given, to read an entire article for getting one small point. Sorry, it is the economy of the situation that prevents me from reading your suggestion.

[-1-]

...there is not one iota of utterance that says that Hermanns' book is fiction or not.

I was referring to Nick_A's utterances, not to general utterances of anyone in the universe.

But still, of course, I am curious what the Guardian article says about the point, but please present it, I don't have the mental energy to read that article, as I pointed out already.

[uwot]

Thanks, uwot, for the link... could I please ask you to write down here in a post the essence of the link?

Here's the opening paragraph: "Throughout his adulthood, Albert Einstein must have endured a continual barrage of visits by unstoppable, if kindly intentioned, eccentrics. One, the persistent poet William Hermanns, later wrote a book called Einstein and the Poet." Long story short: Hermanns was a crank.

[-1-]

Thanks, uwot, for the link... could I please ask you to write down here in a post the essence of the link?

Here's the opening paragraph: "Throughout his adulthood, Albert Einstein must have endured a continual barrage of visits by unstoppable, if kindly intentioned, eccentrics. One, the persistent poet William Hermanns, later wrote a book called Einstein and the Poet." Long story short: Hermanns was a crank.

thank you.

Sh'ma, o Israel. Hear this, o Nick_A.

[Walker]

You ignored my two examples where rightists / religious hecklers interrupted and shouted down leftist / atheist speakers. I did give two very valid examples, and yet you act as if those examples did not exist. Of course they don't exist if you desperately need to ignore them in order to prove your point.

Your examples are not valid, and this has already been explained to you.

They don't apply to the hundred dollar challenge, which is:

“Today we’re at the University of Georgia, offering a hundred dollars to any student that can give me an example of a liberal speaker shouted down by conservative students.” And, to this he added, on any campus.

The logic from Planet Earth says:

If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park* or a college campus, folks will take it if they can.

You could not take it, because like the college students, you don't have any examples.

Good thing for you it's not a betting situation, with your own money, because you would have lost a hundred bucks, because you don't have an example.

On the other hand, many examples exist of a conservative speaker shouted down by liberal students. If you doubt this, go on a college campus and start offering a hundred bucks to someone, for an example. You should probably take a roll of hundreds with you, because if you repeatedly make the offer and don't pay up, it probably won't go well for you, but that won't be an established fact until you actually welsh.

* words of James Carville (D).

[Arising_uk]

They don't apply to the hundred dollar challenge, which is:

“Today we’re at the University of Georgia, offering a hundred dollars to any student that can give me an example of a liberal speaker shouted down by conservative students.” And, to this he added, on any campus. ...

https://reason.com/blog/2017/10/16/whit ... p-shutdown

How do I get my $100?

[Walker]

They don't apply to the hundred dollar challenge, which is:

“Today we’re at the University of Georgia, offering a hundred dollars to any student that can give me an example of a liberal speaker shouted down by conservative students.” And, to this he added, on any campus. ...

https://reason.com/blog/2017/10/16/whit ... p-shutdown

How do I get my $100?

If you have to ask, you don't deserve it.

Unfair, isn't it.

"This time, the hecklers were neither liberal nor students. They were conservative activists, and adults (in age, if not temperament)."

[Walker]

13. “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.

Example:

Alinskyites are now targeting wildly successful entertainer Kanye West, for uttering supportive words for the president.

These Leftists are saying Kayne has to get his mind right.

“Kanye West is what happens when negros don’t read.”
“Folks are about to trade Kanye West in the racial draft.”
“He’s an attention whore, like the president.”
“He’s the token negro of the Trump administration.”
“No one should be taking Kanye West seriously. He has issues, he’s already been hospitalized …”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SucfJ1XzzSw

“What I saw was a minstrel show today.”
“The president is exploiting someone who needs help.”
“This is an embarrassment. Kanye’s mother* is rolling over in her grave.”
“We’re watching someone’s demise right before our eyes.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpBoUFjfVR0

The content of what West said is ignored because for Alinskyites, it's about personal destruction, not truth.

*Yo mamma.

Just imagine, if you will, if a conservative had said this shit about a black Alinskyite.