Think you can handle the TRUTH? Here it is!

[tombogan03884]

Billt is right, and you do not need to be psychic to see it coming.
All you have to do is look at history, Especially Europe after the world wars.
First the Communists took over the Gov. and unions then if any one resisted they were killed.

[Pathfinder]

Posted on lucianne.com today:

[fightingquaker13]

The far left knows no bounds when it comes to despicable behaviour. They've all but memorized Saul Alinsky's playbook. This guy was as evil of a thinker as Hitler IMHO.

Here is where you're wrong Bill. Alinisky was no more evil than Kalishnokov or Stoner or Browning. He built a weapon, how its used depends on who picks it up. He wrote about power, how its acquired, maintained and lost. His Rules for Radicals should be required reading for any serious student of politics (and was for several of my classes). Also he wasn't an innovator, just a popularizer. The real ideas are found in the writings of Antonio Gramsci (the PHd. Level version of Alinsky) and his inspiration, Niccolo Machiavelli. Alinsky, and especially Gramsci teach us, among other things, to look at the state as a brick wall. Most focus on how high and tall it is. These guys say no, just look at the bricks themselves and the mortar holding them toghther. Find the weak spot, then insert the crowbar. Its not their fault the right never picked up on this any more than its Kalishnakov's fault we never adopted the AK. As I said, Rules for Radicals, The Prison Notebooks and the Prince are weapons. Pick them up and learn from them or don't, but if it comes to challenging state power and you haven't read them, you'll wish you had.
FQ13 who will note that all three are available in paperback and can easily be found used. There is no excuse.

[Solus]

Here is where you're wrong Bill. Alinisky was no more evil than Kalishnokov or Stoner or Browning. He built a weapon, how its used depends on who picks it up. He wrote about power, how its acquired, maintained and lost. His Rules for Radicals should be required reading for any serious student of politics (and was for several of my classes). Also he wasn't an innovator, just a popularizer. The real ideas are found in the writings of Antonio Gramsci (the PHd. Level version of Alinsky) and his inspiration, Niccolo Machiavelli. Alinsky, and especially Gramsci teach us, among other things, to look at the state as a brick wall. Most focus on how high and tall it is. These guys say no, just look at the bricks themselves and the mortar holding them toghther. Find the weak spot, then insert the crowbar. Its not their fault the right never picked up on this any more than its Kalishnakov's fault we never adopted the AK. As I said, Rules for Radicals, The Prison Notebooks and the Prince are weapons. Pick them up and learn from them or don't, but if it comes to challenging state power and you haven't read them, you'll wish you had.
FQ13 who will note that all three are available in paperback and can easily be found used. There is no excuse.

In general, I would agree...but because the weapons a man may create are not evil in themselves, the men, themselves, may or may not be evil depending upon how and why they use the weapons they created.

I use "evil" as a moral label, so what I see as an evil man, others may see as a hero.  The legal question is much for cut and dried.

With the way things are going, if major changes do not occur, "our side" might find these works, these weapons, useful for offensive.  For defense, it's never a bad thing to be able to read the oppositions playbook.

[ericire12]

John,

Once again you are wrong.

Alinsky did not just speak about the "how to" he also was very clear about "why" the weapon should be used. It was not like he was just talking theory about how to destroy a government if perhaps one wanted to, he was very clear about why it should be done. He wanted to tear down society so that he could build it back in his own image... as he saw fit. He wanted to force his will on people. He was about power, plain and simple. He did not care about the means, and he certainly did not care about the "less fortunate" that he always claimed he wished to help. He wanted to enslave the free people of this nation and have them live under a dictatorship.

[Sponsor]

[Pathfinder]

Here is where you're wrong Bill. Alinisky was no more evil than Kalishnokov or Stoner or Browning. He built a weapon, how its used depends on who picks it up. He wrote about power, how its acquired, maintained and lost. His Rules for Radicals should be required reading for any serious student of politics (and was for several of my classes). Also he wasn't an innovator, just a popularizer. The real ideas are found in the writings of Antonio Gramsci (the PHd. Level version of Alinsky) and his inspiration, Niccolo Machiavelli. Alinsky, and especially Gramsci teach us, among other things, to look at the state as a brick wall. Most focus on how high and tall it is. These guys say no, just look at the bricks themselves and the mortar holding them toghther. Find the weak spot, then insert the crowbar. Its not their fault the right never picked up on this any more than its Kalishnakov's fault we never adopted the AK. As I said, Rules for Radicals, The Prison Notebooks and the Prince are weapons. Pick them up and learn from them or don't, but if it comes to challenging state power and you haven't read them, you'll wish you had.
FQ13 who will note that all three are available in paperback and can easily be found used. There is no excuse.

OK, Prof. Einstein, answer this. How do you counteract Alinsky? How do you proceed as a society where some members see no reason to perpetuate that society, and actively and aggressively - and even violently - act to subvert that society rather than simply address the societal ills and try to remedy them? How do you protect the mortar and bricks when Alinsky himself instructed people that the very existence of the brick and mortar is evil and must be destroyed?

? ? ? ? ?

[tombogan03884]

Heck Path, that's an easy one.
You use their own tactics against them.
Two of the first cliches I remember hearing as a kid involved fighting fire with fire, and setting a thief to catch a thief.

[Solus]

We've had the discussion often about how you need to fight the home invader, the mugger....you do what you need to do to survive and you do it to them as hard and fast as you can.

Without even discussing which "way of life...or government or society...is right", if those opposing yours go outside the legal means to modify it, you cannot win by staying between the lines.

[ericire12]

Heck Path, that's an easy one.
You use their own tactics against them.
Two of the first cliches I remember hearing as a kid involved fighting fire with fire, and setting a thief to catch a thief.

No, I think you just bring them up on charges of treason. If they are actively trying to bring down our society its treason.... they should be shot.

[tombogan03884]

Will not work Eric.
First, the Courts are owned by the enemies of America, secondly, they don't shoot traitors any more.
Ask Jane Fonda.