Saul Aliinsky

[Hemodoc]

Cloward–Piven strategy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward (1926–2001) and Frances Fox Piven (b. 1932) that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty". Cloward and Piven were a married couple who were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was formulated in a May 1966 article in left-wing[1] magazine The Nation entitled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty".[2]

The strategy

Cloward and Piven’s article is focused on forcing the Democratic Party, which in 1966 controlled the presidency and both houses of the United States Congress, to take federal action to help the poor. They stated that full enrollment of those eligible for welfare “would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments” that would “deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas.”[3] They wrote:
“   The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income.[3]   ”

Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews wrote that Cloward and Piven "proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system – by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice – that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy."[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy

[Hemodoc]

Alinski was very much a student and influenced by an Italian communist named Gramsci who taught to infitrate and overthrow through gradualism without a bloody revolution. This is the revolution that Obama is leading today in America.


How Obama Revolution Came to America: Antonio Gramsci and Saul Alinsky Style
 
How Obama Revolution Came to America

AIM Report  |  By Robert Chandler  |  April 6, 2009

This material has been excerpted, edited and updated from one chapter of Robert Chandler’s important new book, Shadow World, published by Regnery.

S. Steven Powell wrote in his 1987 book, Covert Cadre, that the revolutionary activity advocated by Marxist Antonio Gramsci involved the need to “infiltrate autonomous institutions—schools, media, churches, public-interest groups—so as radically to transform the culture, which determines the environment in which political and economic policies are played out.” Or, as Carl Boggs, author of Gramsci’s Marxism wrote, “the role of revolutionary theory is to create the foundation of a new socialist order precisely through the negation and transcendence of bourgeois society.” This “transcendence of bourgeois society,” Boggs explains, was the basis for Gramsci’s first priority—“the multi-dimensional transformation of civil society.”

The key to Gramsci’s formula for revolution centered on the idea of breaking what he called the “hegemony” or mind-control exercised by the ruling capitalists over the masses. Bourgeois societies were ruled, Gramsci believed, by educating the citizenry that their accommodation of the moral, political, and cultural values defined by the governing system was in their best interests. Hence, Gramsci designed a “reversal strategy” that would silently challenge the existing culture and value-systems that dominated bourgeois governance. That is to say, his formula was based on an ideological struggle that would transform a whole range of activities in civil society, including Judeo-Christian values, the family, schools, unions, and politics and popular trust in the existing government.


http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/how-obama-revolution-came-to-america-antonio-gramsci-and-saul-alinsky-style/

[Hemodoc]

There is no such entity as the Tea Party as we would think of the GOP or the Democratic Party. Instead, there are hundreds of organizations across America that identify with the "Tea Party."  Here is a list from one organization that tries to imply it is the Tea Party. Actually, there are several national organizations all claiming the same thing. At the heart of this is people like me who have never once joined any Tea Party organization, never once gone to a Tea Party rally that are sympathetic with the love of this nation and have a Judeo-Christian background. Most candidates that identify with the Tea Party run on a GOP platform modified to the so called Tea Party. Once again, there are hundreds if not thousands of Tea Party organizations, but there is no central command, no leadership as in the DEM or GOP. Most that identify with the Tea Party have never joined or will ever join one of these organizations.


Tea Party Command Center
COMMAND CENTER
MAIN
INVITE
MY PAGE
PHOTOS
BLOGS
FORUM
GROUPS
ELECTIONS
TAKE ACTION
Tea Party Groups
 
Tea Party State Groups

Please encourage your Tea Party organization to create their own page on our Command Center.
Please ask your friends to take advantage of our FREE services and grow! Because of the size of the Tea Party, no one group can have, or should have, all the members and be the one party for all.  The Tea Party is the manifestation of the will of the People.


 For more local Tea Parties go to: GROUPS

 

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/page/tea-party-groups

[Hemodoc]

Here are a couple mores so called Tea Party National organizations:

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/local/

http://www.teapartyexpress.org/

Now, Gerald, please tell me now to register to become a member of the "Tea Party?"

[Gerald Lively]

First you tell me there is no such thing as a Tea Party organization, then you about a hundred of them.  Go fish. You lose.

You haven’t denied that the Tea Party uses Alinsky.  I proved they do use Alinsky. You lose.

You condemn Alinsky’s work.  In doing so you deny the entire field of human behavior, and you deny what the Tea Party does.  You lose again.

There is nothing left to debate - - since you lost.  Game over.

gerald

[Hemodoc]

First you tell me there is no such thing as a Tea Party organization, then you about a hundred of them.  Go fish. You lose.

You haven’t denied that the Tea Party uses Alinsky.  I proved they do use Alinsky. You lose.

You condemn Alinsky’s work.  In doing so you deny the entire field of human behavior, and you deny what the Tea Party does.  You lose again.

There is nothing left to debate - - since you lost.  Game over.

gerald

 

You are hysterical. 

[Hemodoc]

Gerald,

This is the Tea Party wrapped up in one man's testimony by song. Sadly, as the might military man you claim to be, it appears that this is completely foreign to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk6PA48uR50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WO40DMZWHQ&feature=related

You can't dance around this one man and his testimony Gerald. This is the Tea Party you are so intent on finding. It is not an organization, but instead the common bond that glues this nation together. Perhaps one day if your anger and resentment of that which is right and good diminishes, you will find that God is there for you as well Gerald. God has blessed this nation, but since we have turned our back on God as a nation, we are about to lose all the freedoms He granted.

John 8:28     Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
29     And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
30     As he spake these words, many believed on him.
31     Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32     And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

[RichardMEL]

[ moderator hat not on, writing personally, but hat is nearby... ]

I really wish you kids would take this squabble outside! Can't you agree to disagree and move on? It seems to me this is less of a debate and more of a contest of some sort where nobody will be satisfied until they have the last word. I'm reading volumes of material, much of which I am skipping as it hurts my eyes, and for what?! At this point I just don't care either way!!! I find the more sensible comments of folks like Monrein to be lost in the mire.

Oh, and I am not certain it is wise to just cut and paste entire pages of material, specially when it is copyright.....

[monrein]

Oh RMeltie, you find me sensible, and here I was trying to be a bit flip and lighthearted as I try to keep my head from being buried beneath the volumes of stuff posted.  You sweet man you!  Stop blushing. 

[Hemodoc]

[ moderator hat not on, writing personally, but hat is nearby... ]

I really wish you kids would take this squabble outside! Can't you agree to disagree and move on? It seems to me this is less of a debate and more of a contest of some sort where nobody will be satisfied until they have the last word. I'm reading volumes of material, much of which I am skipping as it hurts my eyes, and for what?! At this point I just don't care either way!!! I find the more sensible comments of folks like Monrein to be lost in the mire.

Oh, and I am not certain it is wise to just cut and paste entire pages of material, specially when it is copyright.....

Dear RichardMel,

IHD has hosted political discussions for quite some time and many have participated in honorable manner in the past on many occasions. However, of late, the political topics has devolved into bashing all right wing entities in often insulting and quite derogatory contests of ridicule. I for one will not remain silent on these issues on IHD or in public any longer. To be silent is to give quiet acknowledgement that they are correct, when instead it is often bigoted and false accusations laced with propaganda talking points.

Sadly, on IHD those that have attempted to counter these false allegations are met with a barage of personal attacks. So be it, that is the way politics in America is today sadly. Just today, I have had references against Tea Baggers and my military record was derided for only the purpose of provacation. I will not back down to bullies here or anywhere.

I do not give up my right to speak out against these false allegations until the time that IHD decides to no longer host politcal discussions and these false allegations are no longer tolerated.

If folks want to discuss politics, I believe it can be conducted in a polite and intelligent manner. If bullies wish to insult and demean, that should not be tolerated anywhere at all, most especially within politics.

Thank you RichardMel, I understand that you are in Australia and this whole political discourse in America is a bit foreign, but today, the politics of polarization and ridicule come from the highest authorities in our goverment. It is a sad commentary on the country that gave the world true freedom.

[galvo]

Can't be bothered to read this rubbish any longer. I got lost when the LORDwas dragged in.

[Sluff]

Nice going, Gerald!

It is always amusing to bait the ratbags of the right.

Galvo, please explain what makes the right believers "ratbags" or retract that comment. That would be no different than to say because of ones difference in religion or heritage or any belief that differs from yours a ratbag? Please clarify.

Sluff/Admin

[Hemodoc]

Can't be bothered to read this rubbish any longer. I got lost when the LORDwas dragged in.

Funny, that is how I felt about Alinsky's book once I found out he dedicated it to Lucifer.  And folks say this has nothing to do with religion.

[cariad]

[ moderator hat not on, writing personally, but hat is nearby... ]

I really wish you kids would take this squabble outside!

I agree. I feel like any intelligent discussion is being held hostage by people who have turned this into a 'win or lose' issue and not the exchange of ideas. Additionally, I cannot help but notice that there are quite a few threads on IHD focused on the topic of religion. Saul Alinsky worked with many churches and held no religious ideology himself, per his own words on himself. Endless biblical quotes are completely off-topic and starting to make me (as an atheist) feel like my personal beliefs are being deliberately disrespected. If I march into a debate about religion (like the infamous ding! ding! thread that Epoman apparently held quite dear) then fine, bombard me with religious doctrine, I have just volunteered myself for that. However, I have not participated in that discussion for years and there's a reason - I have run out of interest in the topic. There was also a Bible Discussion thread started in an effort to satisfy those who seem to want to discuss it more frequently. However, the top three threads in a section devoted to Obama are simply overrun with biblical quotes and, as Richard has mentioned, it is making it difficult to read and maintain a discussion with any coherence to it.

Just to be clear, I hold no animosity toward anyone here, I am not trying to get anyone 'into trouble' (sounds so childish just writing it) and the only time I have ever used the 'report to moderator' button was when porn sites were trying to publicize their garbage on the forum. (No, I have nothing against people who enjoy porn. What do I care what how you choose to spend your leisure time? I say 'garbage' because it is spam.)

Well, I have 10 pages to go in Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and it continues to inspire, amaze, and amuse me. I was laughing aloud last night at a certain passage. I saw my work at suicide hot lines in this man's text. It is incredible how relevant this work still is today. I also love the Bill Buckley interview with him and wanted to see more, more, more. It was so mannered, and what a trip to see Alinsky smoking through the interview - this doesn't happen today.

I would have loved to have a place to discuss and yes, criticize, this person and his canon of work. Sadly, it looks like this cannot happen.

[cariad]

Can't be bothered to read this rubbish any longer. I got lost when the LORDwas dragged in.

Funny, that is how I felt about Alinsky's book once I found out he dedicated it to Lucifer.  And folks say this has nothing to do with religion.

OK, this is a perfect example. This is not true. He dedicated it to 'Irene' who it turns out was his wife. This is not a point up for interpretation. He dedicated the book to a real person and made a very amusing (my witty husband laughed when I read it to him - he knows humour) comment about Lucifer that is being blown out of all proportion. Sh!te. This is tedious.

[willowtreewren]

Can't be bothered to read this rubbish any longer. I got lost when the LORDwas dragged in.

Funny, that is how I felt about Alinsky's book once I found out he dedicated it to Lucifer.  And folks say this has nothing to do with religion.

OK, this is a perfect example. This is not true. He dedicated it to 'Irene' who it turns out was his wife. This is not a point up for interpretation. He dedicated the book to a real person and made a very amusing (my witty husband laughed when I read it to him - he knows humour) comment about Lucifer that is being blown out of all proportion. Sh!te. This is tedious.

Exactly, Alinski used Lucifer as an example of someone who fught the establishment on won his own kingdom for his efforts....it was a witty example of the extreme.

Aleta

[Gerald Lively]

Hey everyone!  I ended this discussion about one page ago.  All of the subsequent squabbling is a bit late.

gl

[Hemodoc]

Can't be bothered to read this rubbish any longer. I got lost when the LORDwas dragged in.

Funny, that is how I felt about Alinsky's book once I found out he dedicated it to Lucifer.  And folks say this has nothing to do with religion.

OK, this is a perfect example. This is not true. He dedicated it to 'Irene' who it turns out was his wife. This is not a point up for interpretation. He dedicated the book to a real person and made a very amusing (my witty husband laughed when I read it to him - he knows humour) comment about Lucifer that is being blown out of all proportion. Sh!te. This is tedious.

Alinsky did in fact write a tribute to Lucifer as an epigraph.

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history… 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.”

epigraph [ˈɛpɪˌgrɑːf -ˌgræf]
n
1. (Literary & Literary Critical Terms) a quotation at the beginning of a book, chapter, etc., suggesting its theme

In any case, you can argue it wasn't a dedication or not, technically it is an epigraph. Many have interpreted this as a dedication which we should note many authors have more than one dedication in their works. But that argument is meaningless in light of the fact that it does set in motion a thematic treatise against Christianity referenced both directly and indirectly in his diatribes against dogma. In several interviews he has stated he chooses to go to hell. He makes references to the devil in several places throughout his book.

Some examples:

1) 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

2) It is a world not of angels but of angles, where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles; a world where we are always moral and our enemies always immoral; a world where "reconciliation" means that when one side tests the power and the other side gets reconciled to it, then have reconciliation; a world of religious institutions that have, in the main, come to support and justify the status quo so that today organized religion is materially solvent and spiritually bankrupt. We live with a Judaeo-Christian ethic that has not only accommodated itself to but justified slavery, war, and every other ugly human exploitation of which-ever status quo happened to prevail:

3) The history of prevailing status quos shows decay and decadence infecting the opulent materialism of the Haves. The spiritual life of the Haves is a ritualistic justification of their possessions.

4) Our cause had to be all shining justice, allied with the angels; theirs had to be all evil, tied to the Devil; in no war has the enemy or the cause ever been gray. Therefore, from one point of view the omission was justified; from the other, it was deliberate deceit.

5) It suggests a phantasmagoria of the nether regions. The moment the word power is mentioned it is though hell had been opened, exuding the stench of the devil's cesspool of corruption. It invokes images of cruelty, dishonesty, selfishness, arrogance, dictatorship, and abject suffering.

6) The myth of altruism as a motivating factor in our behavior could arise and survive only in a society bundled in the sterile gauze of New England puritanism and Protestant morality and tied together with the ribbons of Madison Avenue public relations. It is one of the classic American fairy tales.

7) The ego of the organizer is stronger and more monumental than the ego of the leader. The leader is driven by the desire for power, while the organizer is driven by the desire to create. The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach--to create, to be a "great creator," to play God.


I find this last quotation very interesting in light of Alinsky's epigraph giving tribute to Lucifer since the quote above is very much the same as a quote from Lucifer himself in his rebellion against God:

Isaiah 14:12     How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13     For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14     I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15     Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Playing God is one of the grand delusions of man since the time that Satin/Lucifer tempter Eve in the garden. Unfortunately, the record is clear that they shall have the same fate the Alinsky stated several times over that he would choose and that Lucifer earned with his rebellion to be cast into the pits of hell.

It is clear that Alinsky is following in the dogma of Marxism with his Anti-Christian diatribes. This is readily evident in the interview by Buckley and how Alinsky attacked Billy Graham over and over again in the interview. Billy Graham became one of the central themes in the Buckley interview. Alinsky follows the Marxist anti-materialism, anti-Christianity and oganizing for the sake of power alone. Power is the goal

[galvo]

Sluff,

Ratbag is Aussie slang for  troublemaker or someone causing havok - When the word Ratbag is used its used in a non offence way (Urban Dictionary). Now I don't claim that Hemodoc is a 'troublemaker' but his constant quoting of the bible certainly creates havoc with my mind. Proselytisers, of whatever 'faith', are an anathema to me. I have my beliefs, and I don't try to ram them down other peoples' throats; and I would appreciate the same courtesy being applied to me.

Funny that Hemodoc has quoted my post without appearing to take offence. But as you, Sluff,  are an Admin, your word is law and I RETRACT.

Hemodoc, I love you like a brother. You too Gerald. As a mater of fact I love youse all!!!!!
Matthew 6:12.

[Hemodoc]

Neo-Marxism

[Saul] Alinsky adapted the Marxist approach to conflict as an organizing tool, but without using the explicit Marxist approach to class struggle. This was accomplished by crystallizing support in minority and low-income communities by attacking the local community power structure and making demands on them for things such as jobs. Not only was this considered impertinent, but it was also usually done by explicitly making it clear who the individuals in the local power structure were. For example, instead of just picketing an important local company at its factory gates, Alinsky would organize pickets at the boss's home, embarrassing the person in his own neighborhood. Tactics such as these were considered outrageous but usually helped define a “we” (of the minority and low-income population) versus a “they” (of the local power structure). During the civil rights movements of the 1960s, Alinsky's approach to organizing was popular in Chicago; in Buffalo, Syracuse, and Rochester in New York State; in St. Louis, Missouri; and in various places in California....

http://www.markfoster.net/struc/nm.html

[Hemodoc]

SUNDAY, JANUARY 29, 2012
Tea Party Likes Saul Alinsky

Though Newt Gingrich often compares President Barack Obama to radical community organizer Saul Alinsky, Gingrich and the tea party have adopted Alinsky's tactics, the Christian Science Monitor claims. FreedomWorks, the tea party group headed by former Republican House Leader Dick Armey, gives copies of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to its leaders. "His tactics when it comes to grass-roots organizing are incredibly effective," FreedomWorks spokesman Adam Brandon told the Wall Street Journal.

http://www.drudge.com/news/152925/tea-party-likes-saul-alinsky

This illustrates how the rank and file, grassroot Tea Party sympathizers are subject to an extreme attack even internally. Once again, there is no central Tea Party organization but instead a huge collection of diverse organizations claiming to be the Tea Party. If folks wish to believe that Dick Armey speaks for all of the people in America with conservative values, then that is up to them.

We are now seeing the manifestation of Alinsky tactic #13 over and over again.

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...
     "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'
     "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

Take a look at one of the goals of Freedomworks under Dick Armey:

In addition to this Freedomworks launched a Super PAC in 2011.[25] The purpose of this PAC is to " FreedomWorks for America aims to empower the leaderless, decentralized community of the tea party movement as it continues its hostile takeover of the GOP establishment."[26] Freedomworks for America has already endorsed candidates including: Don Stenberg, Ted Cruz, Jeff Flake, Richard Mourdock, and others. [27]

FreedomWorks is primarily funded by individual donations. According to the progressive media watchdog group Media Matters for America, FreedomWorks has also received funding from Verizon and SBC (now AT&T).[28] Other FreedomWorks funders have included Philip Morris and foundations controlled by the Scaife family, according to tax filings and other records.[29][30] It also receives funding through the sale of insurance policies through which policyholders automatically become members of FreedomWorks.[31]

FreedomWorks is closely tied to its founder, corporate lobbyist and former Republican Congressman Dick Armey, whose former lobbying firm DLA Piper from which he resigned in August 2009, represents Bristol Myers Squibb, among other pharmaceutical companies.[32][33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreedomWorks

It seems a whole lot of folks are more interested in power than real freedoms in America. Freedomworks is the work of one man more than any. He is a GOP insider and former member of the GOP house leadership. The GOP has shown no love for the Tea Party. This is not the tactics of the people I know and understand who identify with the Tea Party. In any case, the GOP has already eliminated all of the conservative candidates. I don't consider Gingrich anything more than one of the establishment.

Very disturbing information but not surprising at all. Freedomworks does  not represent the grass roots person who is a conservative and has an abiding love for America and for God. This is not the work of folks like me.  Once again, application of Alinsky rule #13.

We have known in the Christian church for  a long time that these times were coming. An hour of darkness where God gives the world over to those that align against Him. Your joy of overcoming people like me shall be short lived. I won't bother to explain that statement since folks have an aversion to Bible truths. I wonder how many other "Tea Party" groups are undermining conservative Christian America. Frankly, I don't really want to know.

In any case, this exercise has answered a lot of questions that needed answering. That which we knew was coming is upon us.  Good luck folks, be careful who you serve.

[cariad]

Sluff,

Ratbag is Aussie slang for  troublemaker or someone causing havok - When the word Ratbag is used its used in a non offence way (Urban Dictionary). Now I don't claim that Hemodoc is a 'troublemaker' but his constant quoting of the bible certainly creates havoc with my mind. Proselytisers, of whatever 'faith', are an anathema to me. I have my beliefs, and I don't try to ram them down other peoples' throats; and I would appreciate the same courtesy being applied to me.

Funny that Hemodoc has quoted my post without appearing to take offence. But as you, Sluff,  are an Admin, your word is law and I RETRACT.

Hemodoc, I love you like a brother. You too Gerald. As a mater of fact I love youse all!!!!!
Matthew 6:12.

We love you too, galvo!!

I especially love how you are able to get your point across with humour and grace in so few words. Teach me your secret! I think you are the very embodiment of the axiom 'brevity is wit'.

I now intend to adopt the word ratbag in my personal life. G and I are forever looking for new terms of endearment, but they must have an edge to them that screams 'these people have been married for a long time....'

We used to call each other bastard, which is actually something I used to call all of my friends before I even met Gwyn. It came from a brilliant speech given by comedic actor Steve Martin at the Tony Awards show (Broadway self-congratulatory extravaganza). The theme of his speech was 'what to say when you've just seen a friend's show and it was terrible'. I worked in theatre for a long time, and this was, as you may well imagine, the never-ending problem. One of Martin's suggestions was to march into the dressing room and declare in a jaunty, chummy tone 'you bastard!' This advice changed my life.

I did later develop my own strategy which was to say 'Congratulations! I had fun.' People would put their own interpretation on those words, saving me the effort and the stress of outright lying. But I better shut up before I reveal too many trade secrets....

I do love learning about these cultural differences. Shame that America seems the only nation bellicose enough to have these arguments on the internet. OK, maybe that's not such a shame, but I would love to hear more about Aussie politics (I do know that you have the word liberal backward, or maybe it's upside down, and that should I go to Oz, I must drop my love of that word instantaneously. )

Perhaps there is a Saul Alinsky of Australia. I wonder how well his tactics would work over there. They worked quite brilliantly over here, yet that still did not stop him writing in Rules for Radicals about his years spent teaching organizers:

As I look back on the results of those years, they seem to be a potpourri, with, I would judge, more failures than successes. Here and there are organizers who are outstanding in their chosen fields and are featured by the press as my trained "proteges," but to me the overall record has been unpromising.

Saul Alinsky was all about the context and the place where he was called in to help. He was every bit an anthropologist in that way. Of course, he majored in sociology, which is anthropology's fraternal twin, so this shouldn't surprise that he was so good at getting at the cultural underpinnings of an area.

[Willis]

Hemodoc, I probably agree with 99% of what you have written. I am a conservative and a Christ-follower. But your approach just seems to be coming from anger. Yes, "righteous" anger may be justified at times; yet, as often quoted Francis of Assisi said "[we should] preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words."

I realize it's hard to get to know one another on an internet forum and words are our only medium. But still, I think your overly verbose and sometimes heavy-handed responses--even when I agree with them--are not the best examples of love and submission to Christ and merely harden hearts rather than lead to reflection or conversion.

1 Corinthians 13:-21 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

 

[cariad]

Here is excellent satire from Bill Maher about the sudden conversion of Saul Alinsky into a household name. I don't know if those outside the US can even view it, or how well it will translate if they can. Glenn Beck is mentioned - he's a conservative talk show host who is best known for his messy chalkboard scribblings that resemble confusing flow charts and somehow find conspiracy theories in most world events. I'm pretty sure everyone else is at least known to some extent outside the US as they have run for the presidency. This clip answered the question 'why is this man suddenly being resurrected?' concisely and humourously.

If you take offense at strong language or do not like political satire directed at conservatives, then I urge you to refrain from clicking below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtLEPPgbNyM

[Hemodoc]

Hemodoc, I probably agree with 99% of what you have written. I am a conservative and a Christ-follower. But your approach just seems to be coming from anger. Yes, "righteous" anger may be justified at times; yet, as often quoted Francis of Assisi said "[we should] preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words."

I realize it's hard to get to know one another on an internet forum and words are our only medium. But still, I think your overly verbose and sometimes heavy-handed responses--even when I agree with them--are not the best examples of love and submission to Christ and merely harden hearts rather than lead to reflection or conversion.

1 Corinthians 13:-21 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

 

Yes, you are right Willis, I have been angered by the outright false accusations against people like you and me. Yes, anger is not an easy emotion to control especially in the face of direct provocation. Thank you for the reminder. This is a spiritual battle as evidenced by the complete lack of response to reason and evidence. In the end, this is the response that Alinsky seeks to provoke. In that, this last two weeks has been a learning experience for me. I have understood for quite some time that politics is not how America will be restored if it is ever to be restored. Sadly, the freedoms and love that we have for this nation are hard to let go, but in the end, this is not our home and we seek a heavenly home that is soon to come.

Thank you again, I have pretty much come full circle in all that I have explored for myself in these last two weeks to answer my own questions about these issues. Yes, anger is correct. In the end, these folks shall get what they are asking for as the Scriptures have plainly declared, the sad news is you truly need to be careful what you ask for at times. It is indeed hard to let go of things that we love and see them slipping away under a morass of false propaganda, but that is part of the strong delusion we knew would come.

Have a great day Willis, I take your reminder to heart.

God bless,

Peter