Alinsky - the liberal way

[russ1945]

[SIZE=+1]Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky's counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]
Barack Obama is also an Alinskyite. Trained by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation, Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project. Later, he worked with ACORN and its offshoot Project Vote , both creations of the Alinsky network.[/SIZE]

 

[russ1945]

[FONT=&quot][h=1]ALINSKY'S DAUGHTER: HERE'S THE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY THE MEDIA WON'T TELL YOU[/h]By: Jen Kuznicki | August 25, 2016

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

a katz | Shutterstock

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][h=3]Share[/h]

• https://www.conservativereview.com/...th-about-hillary-the-media-will-not-tell-you#
• https://www.conservativereview.com/...th-about-hillary-the-media-will-not-tell-you#
• https://www.conservativereview.com/...th-about-hillary-the-media-will-not-tell-you#
• https://www.conservativereview.com/...th-about-hillary-the-media-will-not-tell-you#

• Font Size
• A
• A
• A

Print Images Print

Don't Miss A Tweet Conservative Review@CR

FOLLOW
In 1993, the president of Wellesley College approved a new rule upon being contacted by Bill Clinton’s White House. The rule stated that all senior theses written by a president or first lady of the United States would be kept under lock and key. The rule was meant to keep the public ignorant about the radical ties of the first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to the radical Marxist organizer, Saul Alinsky. The 92-page thesis was titled, “There is only the fight…: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.”The thesis became unlocked after the Clintons left the White House and is now posted online. After being ruled by Barack Obama, another Alinskyite, for 8 years, perhaps one might think the fact that the modern Democratic Party is completely taken over by Alinskyites is old news, but the connection between Alinsky and Hillary is special.
Hillary describes Alinsky as a “neo-Hobbesian who objects to the consensual mystique surrounding political processes; for him, conflict is the route to power.” Alinsky’s central focus, she notes, is that the community organizer must understand that conflict will arise and to redirect it and, as she quoted him in her thesis, be “...dedicated to changing the character of life of a particular community [and] has an initial function of serving as an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions... to provide a channel into which they can pour their frustration of the past; to create a mechanism which can drain off underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. When those who represent the status quo label you [i.e. the community organizer] as an 'agitator' they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function--to agitate to the point of conflict.”

…it could very well be that Hillary’s model, which was to gain political power and wield it to gain social change, is simply her thesis finally realized.
​

The thesis in and of itself is limited to whether or not “social justice” can be attained through the tactics described by Alinsky in “Reveille For Radicals,” and the numerous speeches he gave on hundreds of college campuses in the 1950s and 1960s. What had become clear was that Alinsky’s previous organizing had fallen apart and almost all attempts to recapture the original intent had gone by the wayside.
Hillary noted that, “Alinsky's lessons in organizing and mobilizing community action independent of extra-community strings appear to have been lost in the face of the lure of OEO money.” Pointing out that the power of the government took away the work of the “local organizer.” It is here that we see her light bulb illuminate. With this reasoning, the better approach would be to be the government who had the power to force social change.
But just because Hillary criticized Alinsky’s model in 1969 doesn’t mean she disagrees with his politics. In fact, it could very well be that Hillary’s model, which was to gain political power and wield it to gain social change, is simply her thesis finally realized. She criticized Alinsky, not so much for his tactics, but for his focus on organization. What is possibly the best way to put Hillary’s philosophy is what she told the Black Lives Matter movement, saying, “I don’t believe you change hearts, you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate.”
Hillary questions whether organizing as Alinsky did in the Back of the Yards neighborhood in Chicago and eventually across the country was effective enough because of the unanticipated results. She pointed to other lefty thinkers that criticized Alinsky as a “showman rather than an activist.”

It is not whether Saul or Hillary are right about how to “achieve democratic equality,” or whose tactics are more effective, but of the failure of the philosophy behind it.
​

It should also be noted that while Alinsky’s “Reville for Radicals” was directed at labor organizing, “Rules For Radicals” was directed at middle class youth, instructing them how to carry out his model in a new age. Ever the social observer, Alinsky recognized that the blue-collar workers of the 1930s were no longer, “where it’s at,” but that middle class youth of the 60s was ripe for organization. But also, the emphasis in the prologue of working within the system is eerily similar to Clinton’s argumentation. In her 2003 book, “Living History,” Clinton wrote, “He believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn't. Alinsky said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.”
At the end of Clinton’s thesis, she includes correspondence she received from Alinsky, and notes the personal interviews she conducted with him: twice in Boston in October 1968 and once at Wellesley in January 1969. She followed his organization, Industrial Areas Foundation, which was a training institute for communist radicals. She credited Saul Alinsky for both “providing a topic” and “offering me a job.” She never questioned the organization’s ultimate goal to achieve a Marxist utopia. What drove Hillary was how to get there.
Hillary’s whole life has been dedicated to socialist/communist ends. The fact that the arguments and the anger fomented by Alinsky in the 40s, 50s and 60s are the same arguments and anger of today’s Obama/Clinton model is telling. For 75 years, inner city blacks have been poor, labor unions have worked to put their members out of a job, and everyday there is some new group claiming it doesn’t have equality. All of these groups have been targeted by these so-called organizational geniuses. No matter what happens, either by the power/conflict ideals of Alinsky and Obama or by power grabs/money laundering of the Clintons, the lives of the people get worse. It is not whether Saul or Hillary are right about how to “achieve democratic equality,” or whose tactics are more effective, but of the failure of the philosophy behind it.
Hillary kept in contact with Alinsky throughout college and while in law school, she wrote him a letter claiming that she missed corresponding with him. The letter began, “Dear Saul, When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out — or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation? I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people,” — she added, a reference to Alinsky’s 1946 book on his theories of community organizing.
David Brock, in his 1996 biography, "The Seduction of Hillary Rodham," called Hillary "Alinsky's daughter." That is an apt label. Where Alinsky tactics are used now on both sides to confuse and agitate, Hillary is poised to become the supreme leader with all the power and tools of our monstrous government at her fingertips.
Saul’s daughter has it all figured out.


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/...-media-will-not-tell-you#sthash.ZmULABtC.dpuf[/FONT]

 

[thecentaur]

What up straw man .....I don't care about trumps papers 50 years ago

Hey Vitterd, be honest about things. I was honest about that Hillary GIF being irrelevant and made up trash.

You know damn well, if the stuff I said in post #18 were true Trump wouldn't even be in the race by now. You and you're lefties would be obsessed talking about Hitler (the left's favorite boogeyman) and the Trump family's ties to him.

It is absolutely 100% relevant who a politician's role models and mentors are, and who they chose to surround themselves with before their political life. I don't know how accurate this stuff with Alinsky is, but things like this matter and you know it.

 

[vitterd]

Hey Vitterd, be honest about things. I was honest about that Hillary GIF being irrelevant and made up trash.

You know damn well, if the stuff I said in post #18 were true Trump wouldn't even be in the race by now. You and you're lefties would be obsessed talking about Hitler (the left's favorite boogeyman) and the Trump family's ties to him.

It is absolutely 100% relevant who a politician's role models and mentors are, and who they chose to surround themselves with before their political life. I don't know how accurate this stuff with Alinsky is, but things like this matter and you know it.

They don't matter......to you maybe.....take a survey of those going into vote in November.....probably 95 percent of voters don't know who Alinsky is.....nor do they care. People change their views over the years all the time......just because somebody wrote a paper when they were 20......they could be completely different at 70. You should know this.

 

[thecentaur]

They don't matter......to you maybe.....take a survey of those going into vote in November.....probably 95 percent of voters don't know who Alinsky is.....nor do they care. People change their views over the years all the time......just because somebody wrote a paper when they were 20......they could be completely different at 70. You should know this.

Yes people can change their views. But when their actions and morals mirror those people it is of significance. Whether people know who Alinsky is or not isn't the point. Exposing Hillary's motives, and it sure looks like she goes to great lengths in hiding them, is the point.

Once again, you and I and everyone else know damn well if there was a link between Trump (and his family) and Hitler, it would be a monumental issue for democrats. So stop the "it doesn't matter it was years ago" argument. Just stop it

 

[vitterd]

Yes people can change their views. But when their actions and morals mirror those people it is of significance. Whether people know who Alinsky is or not isn't the point. Exposing Hillary's motives, and it sure looks like she goes to great lengths in hiding them, is the point.

Once again, you and I and everyone else know damn well if there was a link between Trump (and his family) and Hitler, it would be a monumental issue for democrats. So stop the "it doesn't matter it was years ago" argument. Just stop it

The difference is.....your example was Hitler. Of course that makes a difference. Sure it matters that people don't know Alinsky, it's because he's not a known figure like Hitler. Cmon man, not even in same ballpark.

So many of those "rules" could actually apply to republican campaigns.

 

[NFLTrends]

Yes people can change their views. But when their actions and morals mirror those people it is of significance. Whether people know who Alinsky is or not isn't the point. Exposing Hillary's motives, and it sure looks like she goes to great lengths in hiding them, is the point.

Once again, you and I and everyone else know damn well if there was a link between Trump (and his family) and Hitler, it would be a monumental issue for democrats. So stop the "it doesn't matter it was years ago" argument. Just stop it

Yet some of them here call him "Drumpf" a name his family used decades ago before they came to America, trying to tie him to Germany, or Hitler... there is no other reason to do it.

 

[thecentaur]

The difference is.....your example was Hitler. Of course that makes a difference. Sure it matters that people don't know Alinsky, it's because he's not a known figure like Hitler. Cmon man, not even in same ballpark.

You said what happened years ago shouldn't make a difference. Are you now saying unless everyone knows the person it doesn't make a difference?

 

[thecentaur]

Yet some of them here call him "Drumpf" a name his family used decades ago before they came to America, trying to tie him to Germany, or Hitler... there is no other reason to do it.

:aktion033

 

[vitterd]

You said what happened years ago shouldn't make a difference. Are you now saying unless everyone knows the person it doesn't make a difference?

Uh no......I said it would make a difference to a lot of people. I wouldn't be one of them though.

Seriously, walk up to 1,000 people and say "do you care if someone is aligned with Alinsky or Hitler"......you will get either hitler or who is Alinsky for answers. The example you made was flawed.

Just like Senator Byrd.....he was a klan guy decades ago....clearly he's changed and recognizes how wrong he was. People can and do change.

 

[thecentaur]

Uh no......I said it would make a difference to a lot of people. I wouldn't be one of them though.

Seriously, walk up to 1,000 people and say "do you care if someone is aligned with Alinsky or Hitler"......you will get either hitler or who is Alinsky for answers. The example you made was flawed.

Just like Senator Byrd.....he was a klan guy decades ago....clearly he's changed and recognizes how wrong he was. People can and do change.

I'm not denying people can and do change. How about let us decide if she has or not. It's pretty important.

I think you are misunderstanding my Hitler example. I am saying the significance is in who they were and what they believed in, not in how many people know who they are. Not sure why that is so important to you.

 

[vitterd]

I'm not denying people can and do change. How about let us decide if she has or not. It's pretty important.

I think you are misunderstanding my Hitler example. I am saying the significance is in who they were and what they believed in, not in how many people know who they are. Not sure why that is so important to you.

Your making a comparison between Hitler and Alinsky......you're saying if Hillary was an Alinsky follower that it's comparable if Trump was a Hitler follower. If you're comparing who they are and what they did.....kinda crazy. Not comparable.

Its not important to me. You made the claim of it mattering to people.....and in terms of Alinsky, it doesn't matter to people. If Hillary was aligned with Hitler.....that would matter to many people

 

[Dave007inVegas]

You said what happened years ago shouldn't make a difference. Are you now saying unless everyone knows the person it doesn't make a difference?

He doesn't have a clue, just posts for the sake of posting.


Look at his join date and post total. It's impossible to post that much
and remain relevant.

Redundancy is his middle name.

 

[vitterd]

Lmao.....Dave can't help but bring me up every day!!!

just some background on Dave

1) Birther( actually lied here about what on Obama bc)

2) Supported anthrax being sent to Obama and dems

3) said molesting your sister is just "boys being boys"

4) mentions me daily and begs for my response so he can post a dog picture

5) known loon and thinks people still follow Alinsky

there.....you are now caught up on old dumb Dave.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

 

[thecentaur]

Look Vitterd, you said what happened years ago doesn't make a difference. I offered someone having ties to Hitler. Now you are saying if that person isn't famous it doesn't make a difference. So now I offer this. What if Trump wrote that paper about Hermann Göring or Joseph Goebbels? Heck, how about some SS General? Wouldn't matter to you and the other libs?

 

[vitterd]

See!!! #4:missingte

 

[GasMan]

Notice how vit doesnt deny Obama and Hillarys ties to Alinsky...only deflects and says it doesn't matter to most people. It's not arguable what Obama and Hillay are up to....the destruction of capitalism and our Republic.

And vit and the Dems are ok with that. Sickos..straight up sickos.

 

[vitterd]

Look Vitterd, you said what happened years ago doesn't make a difference. I offered someone having ties to Hitler. Now you are saying if that person isn't famous it doesn't make a difference. So now I offer this. What if Trump wrote that paper about Hermann Göring or Joseph Goebbels? Wouldn't matter to you and the other libs?

Wow.....you're not grasping this. I didn't say anything like that. I'm just trying to bring you into reality. You made the comparison of two people who are not comparable. It's silly to make the comparison you did. Be glad you're at the RX forum though.

Nobody but the far right cares about Alinsky or knows who he is. No dems are following his rules of anything. Why you guys need a boogeyman and want to make dem leaders evil is beyond me.

Your questions have been answered. What somebody did 50 years ago in college....doesn't matter to me....maybe to some but not me. But lay off the Hitler stuff.....you can't compare him to really anybody else.

 

[vitterd]

Notice how vit doesnt deny Obama and Hillarys ties to Alinsky...only deflects and says it doesn't matter to most people. It's not arguable what Obama and Hillay are up to....the destruction of capitalism and our Republic.

And vit and the Dems are ok with that. Sickos..straight up sickos.

Ties? Didn't he die like 40 years ago? Neither Obama or Clinton have any ties or care about Alinsky. He is only ever mentioned by the right.