Breitbart -- The Vetting, Part I: Barack's Love Song To Alinsky

Originally posted by jibeho
Funny how the usual defenders have yet to roost where the hard facts lay.

The hard fact lay in the fact that you guys are relentless -

You guys have presented 98 fake birth certificates, 179 law suits, all of which have been
struck down.

My favorite was this one

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and now this... Just because it looks like a play bill, does not make it authentic.

So ya, there aren't very many hard facts coming from you guys

reply to post by butcherguy


And it always helps to have the full quote for context.

Your quote from the book:

"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism."

Full quote from the book:

The prerequisite for an ideology is possession of a basic truth. For example, a Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order or the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage – the political paradise of communism. The Christians also begin with their prime truth: the divinity of Christ and the tripartite nature of God. Out of these “prime truths” flow a step-by-step ideology.

An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma. To begin with, he does not have a fixed truth – truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative changing. He is a political relativist.

Does this mean that the organizer in a free society for a free society is rudderless? No, I believe that he has a far better sense of direction and compass than the closed-society organizer with his rigid political ideology.

You see that little "FOR EXAMPLE" you just conveniently left out??? Oh, and he also has an example about Christians...I guess his book is all about Christianity too.

If you read the whole exerpt...you will see that he is advocating to NOT hold strictly to any ideology.


He is not advocating Marxism...he is using it as an example.

Have anything else you wish to distort???

Alinsky was quite good a practicing what he preached. He look innocent enough eh..

"True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties..."

www.crossroad.to...

That's why Obama et.al. are hell bent on concealing his radical past until it's too late to turn back.

Alinsky worked and played the system from the 30's until his death in 1972. He had the ear of and the wallets of the Millionaires and industrialists of his age. They were just part of his means to an end method.

How can I trust anyone how blatantly ascribes to this...

"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations...." pp.10-11

Its ok to lie and deceive. Saul said so...

To you OS. What's wrong with Alinsky hmmm.. Do you really have to ask or are you just bored.

"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody." p.24

www.crossroad.to...

Here is an oft used tactic around ATS so old and so played its obvious #13

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)

reply to post by jibeho


So now if people read books or watch plays involving certain ideas that means they believe in it?

reply to post by RealSpoke


Obama taught workshops during his Chicago years regarding the use of Alinsky methods to his band of community organizers. They have been infiltrating and concealing themselves for decades. Obama established his career in this realm. That is all that he knows aside from knowing how to dismantle the constitution.

ETA
He built his entire career around the Alinsky principles. He was trained by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation.

Its all Alinsky
www.industrialareasfoundation.org...
A bunch of cockroaches

The leaders and organizers of the Industrial Areas Foundation build organizations whose primary purpose is power - the ability to act - and whose chief product is social change. They continue to practice what the Founding Fathers preached: the ongoing attempt to make life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness everyday realities for more and more Americans.

The IAF is non-ideological and strictly non-partisan, but proudly, publicly, and persistently political. The IAF builds a political base within society's rich and complex third sector - the sector of voluntary institutions that includes religious congregations, labor locals, homeowner groups, recovery groups, parents associations, settlement houses, immigrant societies, schools, seminaries, orders of men and women religious, and others. And then the leaders use that base to compete at times, to confront at times, and to cooperate at times with leaders in the public and private sectors.

Obama was an underling of Mike Kruglik.
www.discoverthenetworks.org...

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

"The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be...."

How about this, also from Rules for Radicals?

And anyone that wishes to read, whether it be about Alinsky's childhood or the rest of his life... He was NOT pro-capitalist..... which is my point. Sure you can find where he stated that he was not a Communist.... but that is because he never would join any organization, according to his own words.

But, you have to take the mans words with a grain of salt, as telling lies to benefit the cause...whatever it might be, is part of the 'any means necessary' that he espoused so frequently.

reply to post by jibeho


Yes...I still see nothing evil about the man based on those quotes you gave.

Is that really the best you got?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

you will see that he is advocating to NOT hold strictly to any ideology.

Doesn't that seem just a tad chaotic and maybe even anarchist?

Not exactly what main stream Americans want in a leader.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by jibeho

 

Yes...I still see nothing evil about the man based on those quotes you gave.

Is that really the best you got?

I'm not surprised Let's not use the word evil. I like nefarious much better. it fits Obama like a custom made suit stitched together by Bill Ayers.

reply to post by butcherguy


Are you trying to tell me that Capitalist don't use the "by any means necessary" philosophy???

The only difference is that the worst of Capitalists use this philosophy to build wealth for themselves...while Alinsky advocated to use this philosophy to make life better for others who don't have that wealth.


You guys are failing pretty hard on trying to make Alinsky out as some evil bad guy.

Your argument thus far: How dare he try to organize the "Have nots" to fight back against the "Haves" that have been, and still are, exploiting them for their own profit.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

you will see that he is advocating to NOT hold strictly to any ideology.

Doesn't that seem just a tad chaotic and maybe even anarchist?

Not exactly what main stream Americans want in a leader.

No...I see it as someone who can compromise and see other points of view.

Look at the worst people in history...did they compromise or were they hard line ideological tyrants that held very strictly to their own views????

reply to post by jibeho


From what I've seen this is all a conspiracy. So far what I read on Alinksy (which isn't much, so I could be wrong) it is just generally a liberal line of thought. Taking from the haves and giving to the have nots, is pretty standard liberal operating procedure. That statement is not going to sound bad to liberals, the only people that will care are die hard conservatives. You're ignoring a huge population of the populace that would LIKE Alinsky.

I could make an evil article about Ron Paul liking Ayn Rand. Paint her as an creepy right wing extremist if I REALLY wanted to. Then go post it on a liberal site and have all the liberals bad mouth Paul as an evil geed mongerer. It is so incredibly easy to create propaganda but I'm an advertising major so blah. Do you understand how ridiculous Libertarians sound to the average person? No public schools? No public firemen?

You do realize not everyone is conservative right? Empathy is at an all time low on ATS. Since I have no political affiliation and lie in the middle, I have the ability to easily see what each sides response to topics are.

Obama has already been labeled a socialist in the media and to the public, no one cared. This is why this is all pointless.

IF YOU WANT OBAMA OUT OF OFFICE THEN FOCUS ON ACTUAL CRIMES/VIOLATIONS, not party politics if you REALLY want to change the country.

NDAA
LIBYA
DRONES
SOLYNDRA
CONNECTIONS TO BANKS

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Your argument thus far: How dare he try to organize the "Have nots" to fight back against the "Haves" that have been, and still are, exploiting them for their own profit.

Not quite....

Add: By advocating the use of any means necessary to reach an end to means.

He makes a point of saying that any consideration of ethics in the fight goes against the fight. ANY MEANS NECESSARY any.... like bombing, murder...any. Nice guy.

reply to post by butcherguy


So our founding fathers were evil?

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Your argument thus far: How dare he try to organize the "Have nots" to fight back against the "Haves" that have been, and still are, exploiting them for their own profit.

Not quite....

Add: By advocating the use of any means necessary to reach an end to means.

He makes a point of saying that any consideration of ethics in the fight goes against the fight. ANY MEANS NECESSARY any.... like bombing, murder...any. Nice guy.

So you have decided to drop the whole "marxist" or "communist" angle???

That was easy.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by butcherguy

 

So our founding fathers were evil?

We all are, to some degree, of course.
Saul Alinsky takes nothing off the table, he said 'any means necessary'.

Did our founding fathers have any ethics? I believe that they did. They did not operate without rules.

Alinsky specifically says in his writings that having ethics and letting them get in the way is as bad as being the enemy that you are trying to take down.

reply to post by butcherguy

. In the opening paragraph of the book Alinsky writes, "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."

If you have ever read "The Prince" you would know it was about the elites maintain control over the peasants. Nearly everyone hates the "elites" on ATS and want to restore the power to the people. That is what Alinksy was referring to the have and have-nots comment.

I can't comment on the his whole book because I have never read it but probably will within the next few days.

While the Breitbart death creates more conspiratorial questions than it answers, I am left to consider that there is more to the video tapes than we have been led to believe.

While the tapes I hope will one day soon be released, I am also very perplexed why such tapes were not immediately released on March 1, as we were told, even if it was the day that Breitbart met his death.

Giving respect to the dead and the family and for the funeral arrangement and period of grieving is a logical excuse that was used, but I suspect there is much more going on than most want to even think about.

Since I see Breitbart's death from another completely different angle for the sake of this posting, I want to share some thoughts on what concerns me regarding this failure to release the tapes on March 1 or even in the days that followed.

Since we are hearing that the tapes will be released in 7 days, 10 days, a couple of weeks, or any number of other excuses and timelines, it is this type of delay that should be center focus for "What is causing the delay?".

Bringing Alinsky and his type of anti-Americanism into the picture or showing what many Americans knew long before Obama ever got elected is not in my opinion what is at the bottom of these tapes.

Consider that Obama recently signed NDAA and as POTUS possesses the ability to kill anyone, even Americans who are deemed a threat to National Security or whatever trumped up lie could be conjured.

NDAA could have been used to assassinate Brietbart and part of that order was to make it look natural so that there is no "BLOW-BACK" on the sitting administration. Add some measure of deniability that the Obama administration can embrace while calling anyone with ideas of a so called political murder and other ideas as just pure conspiracy nutz and the stage is set.

While the secret use of NDAA by Obama is in my opinion a hidden aspect of this Brietbart conspiracy, I think there is much more beyond losing re-election in this Breitbart conspiracy that we have yet to discover.

Once you consider the facts, you have to then ask "What" would be so harmful to the re-election success of Obama in a supposed video tape that only shows what we already knew or suspected about Obama's associations with known anti-Americans?

It did not keep Obama from winning the presidency in 2008, so I have to consider that much more is on that tape or that it has nothing to do with Alinsky, but perhaps something else that if revealed would undermine the national security of the existing administration in addition to helping lose re-election.

When I contemplated what such a concern could be, I thought a couple of things that I wish to share.

First, is the possibility that it is not the so called "Alinsky" associations or beer drinking contests that is on those video tapes. This supports the idea that whatever is on those tapes must be so harmful to National Security, that the NDAA is then secretly used by Obama to silence Brietbart to prevent public release of the video tapes that reveals something else and not just some negative college days behavior or associations with other anti-American college types.

Second thought is that if it is not Alinsky that is the main concern, then what could it be?

This of course got me to thinking and as we all know that can get dangerous, but I did give it some thought and while there are a multitude of reasons beyond losing the election, it is the possible and secret use of NDAA over some secret national security concern that kept me thinking on this puzzle.

There are those that are sure to think that it could also be some private gay sex tape or some compromising drug use picture of Obama, but then I had to consider other considerations along with the new ones I considered and after a while I came back to my first concern.

I think that by not releasing the video tapes immediately after Breitbart's death will bring the future allegations once the video tapes are finally released, that perhaps the videos are faked or doctored and edited to give the false impression it portrays.

To achieve this all they need is a CIA type of Osama Bin Laden production that can easily be refuted and shown to be faked, so that the administration will be assisted by such intentional tampering, so that "Hoax" could be used repeatedly by the media to discredit the video tapes.

Lastly, is the possibility that the videos show something that if ever viewed by the public, will allow someone somewhere to connect some conspiracy dots about Obama and if that conspiracy is connected to the same group that seeks Obama's successful election, then the use of NDAA to assassinate Brietbart is the loudest example of what tells me that it is not the Alinsky angle that is on those video tapes, but something that would undermine or expose those that control Obama or someone we may have never considered or someone who seriously does not want to be identified.

Thanks again for the thread.

reply to post by butcherguy


The quote you use with the term "any means" is shortened and never includes the word necessary. Perhaps you could post the whole thing?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
You think that the Weathermen didn't study and use Alinsky's methods?

I understand that he didn't believe in adhering strictly to any ideology. What do you think that his IDEA of taking from the 'haves' and giving to the 'have nots' aligns with??? Capitalism? What system does it agree with?

Do tell.