recommended reading
 

from the NEA website

NEA - Recommended Reading: Saul Alinsky, The American Organizer

For the past several months, the NEA website has recommended that its members read books by communist sympathizer Saul Alinsky. And, for a time, the website listed October 1 as a day for teachers and students to celebrate the anniversary of the Communist takeover of China by Mao Zedong.


Saul Alinsky, who has been described by his biographer Sanford Horwitt as a "Communist fellow-traveler," wanted to transfer power from the so-called Haves to the so-called Have-nots and transform the U.S. into a communist state.


In his book, Rules for Radicals, Alinsky states, "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."


Alinsky's amoral attitude extended beyond communist ideology; he completely rejected the Judeo-Christian principles America was founded on. He dedicated the first edition of Rules for Radicals to Lucifer: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: 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."

A lot of free time tonight huh? :huh:

-spence

1 o'clock in the afternoon, you can't even get that right..."tonight" I was fishing...you remember what that is... don't you???:fishin:

all smartass and no substance, lot's of wrong assumptions...you and Obama have so much in common....:uhuh:

Scott, you can be really rude sometimes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's all he really has, take that away and ... nothing ...

-spence

Spence's ankle biter chimes in as usual :uhuh: no comment on the rudeness of your hero???

very Saul Alynski, when you have no argument impune your target...no comment on the NEA encouraging their members to read up on and follow the directions of a communist organizer? ....hey Spence...nearly 10,000 posts on a fishing website from someone that doesn't fish screams of someone very desperate for attention from mom's basement somewhere :rotf2:

Read your own link.

It clearly states that while Alynski is controversial both the Right and Left can and have gained insight from his books on grass roots organization.

See, they're assuming the reader can actually think critically and not just follow mindless blog posts.

-spence

The following is a frequent sight for me in the political forum. Strangely, I don't remember ever seeing it in any of the other sections of the forums though.
"This message is hidden because scottw is on your ignore list."

I'm loving the Ignore function that I was alerted to. It has saved me from reading scott's nonsense copy/paste posts and pretzeling of the truth.

clearly stated....or clearly justified???

yeah, we need more of this in public education...


According to Alinsky, the organizer — especially a paid organizer from outside — must first overcome suspicion and establish credibility. Next the organizer must begin the task of agitating: rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities, and searching out controversy. This is necessary to get people to participate. An organizer has to attack apathy and disturb the prevailing patterns of complacent community life where people have simply come to accept a situation. Alinsky would say, “The first step in community organization is community disorganization.”

Through a process combining hope and resentment, the organizer tries to create a “mass army” that brings in as many recruits as possible from local organizations, churches, services groups, labor unions, corner gangs, and individuals.

According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”[2]

Alinsky codified and wrote a clear set of rules[3] for community organizing. His rules for radicals are now used as key tactics to learn in the training of new community organizers.

In a separate chapter he suggests that the perennial question, "Does the end justify the means?" is meaningless as it stands: the real and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is, and always has been, "Does this particular end justify this particular means?"

What's wrong with it?

-spence

I suppose if, as Alynski, your ultimate goal is "political paradise of communism"....that would be your response :uhuh:

But couldn't that information be applied to improve the grassroots organization of any goal with any objective?

If my mission is to lower taxes, wouldn't the first step be to rub resentments to fan the flames and create a mass army of people? Otherwise why would anyone want to change anything?

Isn't this exactly what the Tea Party is doing?

This thread is a severe departure from your usually low standards.

-spence

not at all, Alynski sought with his "rules" to subvert and turn on their head existing American institutions through aggressive and destructive means, note that in his "rules" he always refers to the "enemy"...and replace them with something tending toward communism...the Tea Party is organized as a call to maintain adherence to the US Constitution and our founding principles...you don't see the difference???? this is very instructive...keep talking... yikes..

Yet again, you're completely missing the point.

-spence

YOU ARE NOW ENTERING THE SPENCE SCOTTW ARGU-MENTAL TIME CONTINUUM...

http://i35.tinypic.com/j7ruw4.gif

You assume there's an equally valid counter point. This offends me.

-spence

go screw a jesus pony

http://i34.tinypic.com/2nqrtc4.jpg

[QUOTE=spence;789530]But couldn't that information be applied to improve the grassroots organization of any goal with any objective?

No. The first Alinsky step is not to improve a grassroots organization, but to "disorganize" existing organizations.

If my mission is to lower taxes, wouldn't the first step be to rub resentments to fan the flames and create a mass army of people? Otherwise why would anyone want to change anything?

No. If your mission is to RAISE taxes you might want to "rub resentments to fan flames and create a mass army of people" that wouldn't get their taxes raised and would benefit from the higher taxes of others. If your mission is to lower taxes, it wouldn't require such nefarious means (but you would be attacked by the Alinskyites who had used those means). Actually, such tactics are necessary when the truth does not suffice. And the truth is not sufficient when your ends are destructive to the current social order (unless that social order is so oppressive that the necessity of its destruction is self evident.)

Isn't this exactly what the Tea Party is doing?

No. They are not combining "hope and resentment" but demanding a truthful adherence to our Constitution as it was intended. They are not trying to "bait an opponent into reacting." They are trying to rally proponents and supporters of the Constitution to vote for those who promise to govern constitutionally. As Scott has said, the Tea Party is trying to maintain what is left of the constitutional order that we have inherited. It is this very constitutional order supported by a free market that the Alyinskyites wish to destroy wilth inflammatory, divisive tactics full of hope and change. Alinsky's rules for radicals is not appropriate nor necessary for what the Tea Party wishes to do. The truth is their means, so there is no need to justify their "means to an end."

Actually, you're missing your own point. If Alinsky's rules can apply to grassroots with any goal with any objective (which they don't), and if you believe that the Tea Party is doing just that without even reading and applying Alinsky's rules, then why is it necessary to read his version? If it is so natural that organizations do so in a spontaneous way, his rules are superfluous.

If you're suggesting that there are these universally natural methods interweaved in his otherwise RADICAL treatise, what is the benefit to reading it just to pick out the "good" stuff? Are the NEA members so stupid that they can't do what comes naturally to others, but must read a radical treatise and then be smart enough to pick out the simply organizational stuff and disregard the point of his rules? Are there other manuals of organization that are not politically oriented to which the members can be referred?

I could draw endless parallels, but it's easier to say that most substantial change requires some disruption to break a set pattern of behavior.

And the "truth" around lowering taxes is usually expressed in a manner intended to rub resentments. Economic arguments aren't sexy so instead we have the Welfare Queen, inner city people cranking out babies to get deductions, soaking the rich etc...

The idea that negative images are more powerful is as old as the news. Everybody does it, and it has nothing to do with Communism.

That's your romantic view of what the Tea Party means to you.

You're not serious are you?

Listen to any one of Sarah Palin's tweets, watch 5 seconds of Glenn Beck, just about anything Mark Williams says, Sharron Engle's invoking the Second Amendment or the lovely signs that seem to pop up at Tea Party rallies again and again (I know, that media conspiracy)...

Sure they're trying to rally supporters to vote for candidates who support their issues...BY PROVOKING THEM.


Ahhh that nefarious divisive tactic of "hope" :rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

The Tea Party is an attempt to market change to a people set in their ways. Many of those seen as the leadership consistently use divisive and inflammatory rhetoric to provoke those they wish to influence. It is a means to an end.

That's not to say that the Tea Party platform, or what one can assume the platform is, doesn't have many positive aspects, or that using visceral messages to drive home a point can't be done in a constructive manner.

The point being, that grassroots change, towards whatever "end" is desired tends to look the same. A great book on organizational change (called Switch) actually covers many of the same tactics as Alinsky.

So is it the tactic that's at issue or the end state? When I read in Switch about disrupting patterns of behavior I didn't find myself longing for borscht.

A valid question could be raised as to why recommend Alynsky when there are less controversial grass roots books on the subject? This as well is covered in the link noting that Alynsky is looked at as the origin of the subject.

Looking toward a radical voice to challenge ideas and perhaps derive innovative solutions may seem novel or overly intellectual, but if the end state desired is positive I'm not sure why there's any issue. I'm personally a big fan of irreverent and unique solutions to issues.

But to be honest, it's all a moot argument anyway as we all know the NEA is just a communist front trying to indoctrinate our children into a lifetime of servitude toward the State.

-spence

Spence's overall point is similar to the dribble that we were subjected to regarding Obama and all of his distasteful associations with radicals and communists and terrorists and 20 years in the Hamas supporting church of hate..."just because he surrounded himself with these people for his entire life doesn't mean he's like them"..."it just makes him open minded".....Alynski is a deeply disturbing amoral freak who justifies any depth of depravity of his own actions and methods by first deamonizing an enemy that he creates...his idea of right and wrong are determined by the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of his methods and not by any sense of decency...he is/was a deciever and a subverter....the idea that we should take from someone so depraved, instruction and guidance is pathetic...tells you exactly where the NEA is today...

"Looking toward a radical voice to challenge ideas and perhaps derive innovative solutions may seem novel or overly intellectual, but if the end state desired is positive this depends on who is defining "positive" doesn't it? I'm not sure why there's any issue. I'm personally a big fan of irreverent and unique solutions to issues."

"overly intellectual" that's hilarious, how about deviod of conscience, hey while you are at it, why don't you look to Hitler for radical, irreverent and unique solutions to population control...there are plently of people who have been screaming about overpopulation who might consider "the end state a positive" regardless of the method...if this is your "overly intellectual" standard

I have no doubt that you'd admire someone like Alynski, people like Alynski and Obama are very atttractive to wanna be intellectuals and as you've shown continually that the truth is something that you play games with, you demonize others for engaging in behavior that you stoop to regularly and you revel in continuing to twist and turn at the losing end of an argument, your first instict is to decieve and mock, like Alynski, you aren't bound by and sense of truth or fiction, right or wrong, any method which gets to "your" desired end is perfectly acceptable...

this is a common thread that runs through much of the controlling political class right now....their first instinct is to decieve, seems that much of the deception is catching up to them and time is running out but they are Alynskites from Obama on down, which makes them dangerous because they are not bound by any sense other than acheving their means...

I don't particularly admire him personally, but I do think he's looked at as a brilliant man who was very effective at what he did...because he had an incredible insight into how people really communicate...as ugly as it sometimes might be.

If there's knowledge in his writing that has value, it's up to the reader to apply it in a manner they see fit for good or bad. Hell, I'd wager Karl Rove has a leather bound edition of R4R on his desk for easy reference. It's not like the Right can claim virtue, in fact I'd argue that the Right is a hell of a lot better at deception than the left politically speaking. They're great at grass roots organizing as well...I'm sure it's all in the book.

All your other blather is just the same moral relativism argument rehashed over and over sprinkled with lame ad hominem attacks you substitute for real substance.

Keep trying.

-spence

history is repleat with bad, albeit very bright men that fit this description, we don't encourage America's educators to model themselves after them...or even wade through the garbage to find some positives

Nebe...please note that Spence can rarely get through a post without a condescending cheap shot....I'm not complaining, I think it's amusing...but don't act as though it just me

After much deliberation, I side with Scottw

I'd rather this once great country of ours teach how this country became great- by independent thinking and personal success... And not teach how awesome communism is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unfortunately, the idea of Alinsky as a vile, contemptible creature is somewhat limited to the Conservative circles who hated the man for being a very effective populist. I think the average person would view him as a bit of a radical, but don't loose any sleep over it. Then again, many on the Right just can't get over the 1960's.

The bottom line is that he's still seen as the father of grass roots organization and like it or not people on the Right and the Left gain insight from his writing.

You could have never heard of Alinsky, go create an effective organization process on your own, and chances are it would already be in his book. That's enough to justify reading it in my opinion.

This simply isn't true, in fact I try to take the high ground rather than be "baited" into an ugly response to your posts. Just as Saul taught you...

-spence

On Spences last point, I agree with him. He does take the high road most of the time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's not the high road that he takes ( and he does) it's the multiple left turns that go in circles:) that kills me.

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

Almost as bad as living in Detroit (irony intended for those who have driven there) :hihi:

-spence

HAHHAHAA :rotfl: