Non Socialist

THEIR Playbook

Did you ever ask yourself, “WHAT in hell is he doing??“  This is one theory.

Keeping in mind that “progressives” (Marxists) want power.  Power over anything they can grab.  Also keeping in mind that Obama has shown himself to be a Marxist, his goal is, bluntly put, to collapse this country.  Why?  Once he has the country in chaos, hungry shell-shocked people will take whatever solution he offers (Cloward-Piven Strategy, page 5). 

Using steps from Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, he’s plowing ahead.  You will recognize many of them, both in the “Rules” and methods in the “Crisis Strategy” that follows. 

From Newsmax.com, Diane Alden, January 7, 2003:
 
Saul Alinsky died in 1972. He was a Marxist grassroots organizer who spent much of his life organizing rent strikes and protesting conditions of the poor in Chicago in the 1930s. However, unlike Christian socialist and activist for the poor Dorothy Day, Alinsky’s real claim to fame was as strategist for anti-establishment ’60s radicals and revolutionaries.
 
Indeed, Alinsky wrote the rule book for ’60s radicals like Bill and Hillary Clinton, George Miller and Nancy Pelosi. He considered Hillary Rodham to be one of his better students and asked her to join him in his efforts as an organizer of radical leftist causes. But Hillary had other fish to fry on her climb to national prominence.
 
“Rules for Radicals” begins with an unusual tribute: “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.”
 

The devil challenged authority and got his own kingdom, and that goes to the heart of what left is really about. That of course is to get power any way you can, including lying, cheating and stealing. The ultimate rule is that the ends justify the means.

 … Alinsky and his followers counted on the guilt and shame of the white middle class to get what they wanted. In order to take over institutions and get power, the middle class had to be convinced that they were somehow lucky winners in “life’s lottery.”

 Alinsky’s radicals found a perfect vehicle for their destruction of the American system and more particularly for taking and maintaining power. That instrument was the Democratic Party.

 Obama is proud to have learned and taught Alinsky’s methods for community organizing.

 Originally published in 1971, Saul Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals, a Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals.  Alinsky’s rules, which he calls “power tactics”, are listed.  Notes on his rules are in italics.  Pay particular attention to rules 5, 8, 11 and 13:

 RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”

 Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

 Sound familiar?  Did you realize, before the current administration how EVIL were the corporations that have fueled the jobs in this country?  How EVIL are wealthy people? 

 Obama is doing his best to divide this country solidly with the “haves” being humbled and their power (wealth) being taken “for the good of all”.  As he taxes us more and more, the number of “haves” grows smaller every day.  Don’t fool yourself; YOU are one of the “haves”!

 RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”

 When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.

 Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.  Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.

 You see an example of this taken and used against them accidentally in the “mobs” at the town hall meetings.  You notice that town hall meetings are being replaced by “one-on-one” events and “telephonic town halls”.  It is taking them from a situation outside their experience (angry people – especially conservatives – in large numbers) to a comfort zone.

 RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”

 Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

 This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.

 RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

 Historically, Republicans hold the moral and ethical high ground.  So tempt them and then absolutely hammer them with the results, whether the reported issue is true or not. 

 Remember Mark Foley, Republican homosexual Congressman in Florida?  He was accused of sending inappropriate emails to young male pages, and on the say-so of one young man, who led us to believe he was 16 at the time, was hounded out of Congress.  Foley’s a Republican and they are supposed to be moral, so he must go, right?  After all the hoopla and his resignation, it was found out that the page Mark Foley was exchanging emails with was 19 and over the age of consent.  This would be lauded if Mark Foley were a Democrat, but he was politically killed by lies, the Republican book of rules, and much help from the liberal media.

 RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

 It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule.  Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

 In line with this rule, smirking media talking heads are calling the Tea Party attendees “Tea Baggers” to ridicule them.  “Tea bagging” is a homosexual act.

 This is being used against them in the “Socialism” poster depicting Obama as the Joker.

 RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

 They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.  Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.

 Conservatives, are by nature, well… conservative.  You see them out in force now because they have come to recognize that their whole way of life is at risk.  You don’t/won’t see them laying in the streets to block traffic or handcuffing themselves to fences, they don’t enjoy the attention like the largely immature liberal constituency seem to do (look up “useful idiots” for more on this).  We generally don’t like to make a scene, that’s why Obama should be paying VERY close attention to these Tea Parties.  We aren’t having fun, the fact that they are so well attended means he’s got one pissed-off population!

 RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”

 Don’t become old news.  Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.

 Ever notice how a “traditional protest” has something of a party atmosphere?  Got to have fun!

 RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”

 Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

 Boy, are we seeing THIS one!  It’s something new every day!  We are fighting against them taking over our health care while they are working on food rules that need to be countered, cap and trade, and another (bigger) “stimulus” bill.

 Recall Rahm Emanuel (White House Chief of Staff) saying, “Never let a good crisis go to waste!”

 RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

 Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

 RULE 10: “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.”

 This ties in with Rule 11.  He wants a violent outburst from … anyone… so he can do… something.  Martial law, perhaps?  Gun grab, perhaps?

 RULE 11: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”

 Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

 THIS is what he’s trying to do with some of the push-push-push.  Union thugs beat up a man the other night.  They are pushing people around.  How long before someone defends themselves with a weapon?  THEN the union is the underdog.

 RULE 12: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”

 Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.  Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power.

 We MUST learn to use this one against them!

 RULE 13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

 Remember how they demonized President Bush?  Remember Joe the Plumber?  Sarah Palin?  The CIA?  Targets picked and polarized.

 They generally go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.  This is cruel, but very effective.  Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.

CLOWARD-PIVEN

 The “Crisis Strategy”

 

www.DiscoverTheNetwork.org

 Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis

 First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

 Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called “crisis strategy” or “Cloward-Piven Strategy,” as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.

 In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

 The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.

 The authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare — about 8 million, at the time — probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a “massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls.”  Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be “a profound financial and political crisis” that would unleash “powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level.”

 Their article called for “cadres of aggressive organizers” to use “demonstrations to create a climate of militancy.” Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of “a federal program of income redistribution,” in the form of a guaranteed living income for all — working and non-working people alike. Local officials would clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act.

 This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements — mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown — providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That was the theory.

 Cloward and Piven recruited a militant black organizer named George Wiley to lead their new movement. In the summer of 1967, Wiley founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). His tactics closely followed the recommendations set out in Cloward and Piven’s article. His followers invaded welfare offices across the United States — often violently — bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law “entitled” them. By 1969, NWRO claimed a dues-paying membership of 22,500 families, with 523 chapters across the nation.

 Regarding Wiley’s tactics, The New York Times commented on September 27, 1970, “There have been sit-ins in legislative chambers, including a United States Senate committee hearing, mass demonstrations of several thousand welfare recipients, school boycotts, picket lines, mounted police, tear gas, arrests – and, on occasion, rock-throwing, smashed glass doors, overturned desks, scattered papers and ripped-out phones.  “These methods proved effective.  ”The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley’s wildest dreams,” writes Sol Stern in the City Journal.  “From 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite mostly flush economic times. By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city’s private economy.  “As a direct result of its massive welfare spending, New York City was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975. The entire state of New York nearly went down with it. The Cloward-Piven strategy had proved its effectiveness.

 The Cloward-Piven strategy depended on surprise. Once society recovered from the initial shock, the backlash began. New York’s welfare crisis horrified America, giving rise to a reform movement which culminated in “the end of welfare as we know it” — the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed time limits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements. Both Cloward and Piven attended the White House signing of the bill as guests of President Clinton.

 Most Americans to this day have never heard of Cloward and Piven. But New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani attempted to expose them in the late 1990s. As his drive for welfare reform gained momentum, Giuliani accused the militant scholars by name, citing their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate economic sabotage. “This wasn’t an accident,” Giuliani charged in a 1997 speech. “It wasn’t an atmospheric thing, it wasn’t supernatural. This is the result of policies and programs designed to have the maximum number of people get on welfare.”

 Cloward and Piven never again revealed their intentions as candidly as they had in their 1966 article. Even so, their activism in subsequent years continued to rely on the tactic of overloading the system. When the public caught on to their welfare scheme, Cloward and Piven simply moved on, applying pressure to other sectors of the bureaucracy, wherever they detected weakness.

 In 1982, partisans of the Cloward-Piven strategy founded a new “voting rights movement,” which purported to take up the unfinished work of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Like ACORN, the organization that spear-headed this campaign, the new “voting rights” movement was led by veterans of George Wiley’s welfare rights crusade. Its flagship organizations were Project Vote and Human SERVE, both founded in 1982. Project Vote is an ACORN front group, launched by former NWRO organizer and ACORN co-founder Zach Polett. Human SERVE was founded by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, along with a former NWRO organizer named Hulbert James.

 All three of these organizations — ACORN, Project Vote and Human SERVE — set to work lobbying energetically for the so-called Motor-Voter law, which Bill Clinton ultimately signed in 1993. The Motor-Voter bill is largely responsible for swamping the voter rolls with “dead  wood” — invalid registrations signed in the name of deceased, ineligible or non-existent people — thus opening the door to the unprecedented  levels of voter fraud and “voter disenfranchisement” claims that followed in subsequent elections.

 The new “voting rights” coalition combines mass voter registration drives — typically featuring high levels of fraud — with systematic intimidation of election officials in the form of frivolous lawsuits, unfounded charges of “racism” and “disenfranchisement,” and “direct action” (street protests, violent or otherwise). Just as they swamped America’s welfare offices in the 1960s, Cloward-Piven devotees now seek to overwhelm the nation’s understaffed and poorly policed electoral system. Their tactics set the stage for the Florida recount crisis of 2000, and have introduced a level of fear, tension and foreboding to U.S. elections heretofore encountered mainly in Third World countries. 

 Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros‘s Open Society Institute and his “Shadow Party,” through whose support the Cloward-Piven strategy continues to provide a blueprint for some of the Left’s most ambitious campaigns.