Think you can handle the TRUTH? Here it is!

[fightingquaker13]

Actually guys let me clarify here. I don't care what the three authors thought or wanted. It is utterly irrelevant. How you WANT your book/rifle to be used goes out the window the second it leaves the publisher/factory and gets into peoples hands. Kalishikov was a dedicated comunist, or at least a Russian nationalist. Who care's? Does his rifle have cooties or something? Ditto with Gramsci and Alinsky, Machiavelli was just an Italian nationalist (one of the first modern nationalists ever which is why he scared the crap out of the Church) who was tired of seeing Spain and France use Italy as a chew toy. All three are dead, let them stay that way. The author is less important than the ideas.
As to how to counter them? The answer is easy. Look at why they are effective. They aren't (Gramsci and Machiavelli especially) just about revolution, they also talk  about why some govrnments survive and other's don't. They talk about what makes a state vulnerable, how to recognize that there are certain natural factions based on self interest, and balancing those correctly is the key to stability (cf Federalist 10 and 51), as well as how a stable government is based on a combination of consent and coercsion. If you can take away consent, without having to directly fight the instruments of coercision (like the army) then you fatally weaken them and force on force can work if done right. If you just play soldier and think you're going to fight the gummint while a majority still actively support it, you lose. Job one is attacking the states legitimacy ideologiacally. The reverse is to extend that legitimacy through reform, cooptation of the opponent,s base and bringing real benefits to the people with honest and limited government. The books work for both sides.
FQ13

[ericire12]

Actually guys let me clarify here. I don't care what the three authors thought or wanted. It is utterly irrelevant. How you WANT your book/rifle to be used goes out the window the second it leaves the publisher/factory and gets into peoples hands. Kalishikov was a dedicated comunist, or at least a Russian nationalist. Who care's? Does his rifle have cooties or something? Ditto with Gramsci and Alinsky, Machiavelli was just an Italian nationalist (one of the first modern nationalists ever which is why he scared the crap out of the Church) who was tired of seeing Spain and France use Italy as a chew toy. All three are dead, let them stay that way. The author is less important than the ideas.
As to how to counter them? The answer is easy. Look at why they are effective. They aren't (Gramsci and Machiavelli especially) just about revolution, they also talk  about why some govrnments survive and other's don't. They talk about what makes a state vulnerable, how to recognize that there are certain natural factions based on self interest, and balancing those correctly is the key to stability (cf Federalist 10 and 51), as well as how a stable government is based on a combination of consent and coercsion. If you can take away consent, without having to directly fight the instruments of coercision (like the army) then you fatally weaken them and force on force can work if done right. If you just play soldier and think you're going to fight the gummint while a majority still actively support it, you lose. Job one is attacking the states legitimacy ideologiacally. The reverse is to extend that legitimacy through reform, cooptation of the opponent,s base and bringing real benefits to the people with honest and limited government. The books work for both sides.
FQ13

Yeah, and the communist manifesto was just theoretical ideas

[tombogan03884]

FQ is right, what works to destroy the "Good guy's"  will also work to destroy the bad guys.

"If you can take away consent, without having to directly fight the instruments of coercision (like the army) then you fatally weaken them"

If the US were invaded by the UN right now, How much action do you think would be authorized by Obummer or Pelosi ?
The point ,  as Sun Tsu says, is not to defeat your foes Army, but to defeat the Leadership of your foes Army, whether it is by intimidation or subversion.

[fightingquaker13]

Yeah, and the communist manifesto was just theoretical ideas

No, it was a manifesto for a specific program, hence the title (clever those commies, always masters of subterfuge ). Hower, Das Kaptital (all three 600 page fun filled volumes ) and most importantly to our current discussian "The 13th Brumaire of Louis Napolean" are still damn useful works of political sociology. The 13th Brumaire in particular. Its where we get the phrase "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce". True words, no matter who wrote them. Ditto with the others. We may not agree with the ends, but you can still learn from the play book. None of these guys were dumb. Pretending you can't learn something from them......
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

What we are getting at is that motive has no tactical importance. It does not matter if we are discussing the pre revolution Bolsheviks,the pre "Home Rule" IRA, or the TEA Party movement, while the aims may be vastly different the tactical situations were nearly identical, grassroots organizations without wealth or an effective political voice seeking to change a vastly more powerful Government.

[Sponsor]

[ericire12]

I'm not talking about burning books here.... It doenst really matter if Alinsky documented and published his playbook or not. I am saying that Alinsky is a bad guy (and you can make the case for evil) because he spent his entire life trying to bring down our free society.

[tombogan03884]

Hell Eric, Most of the people on that reading list were bastards.
Michel Collins gained his position in the IRA as a security officer, killing informers, after torturing them for information.

[ericire12]

Hell Eric, Most of the people on that reading list were bastards.
Michel Collins gained his position in the IRA as a security officer, killing informers, after torturing them for information.

Yeah, but Quaker is trying to grant them tenture under the vail of "academic freedom"

[fightingquaker13]

Yeah, but Quaker is trying to grant them tenture under the vail of "academic freedom"

Did I ever say that? Seriously Eric, if you don't like me, that's fine. I assure you the feeling is mutual, but at least attack me for what I say, not what you imagine I said. Honestly, its like you have this huge list of grievances against liberal academia and have chosen me as your whipping boy. Here's a clue. I will carry no ones water but my own. You want me to apologize for something I didn't do? Godault will show up to take you to see the flying pigs ice skating in hell before that happens. I wouldn't hire any of them (except Machiavelli). However I would (and have) made sure sure my students read the name's on both mine and Tom's lists. If you're just reading people you agree with, you're wasting your time.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

Eric,  Just because some one is an SOB does not mean his ideas don't work.
You just saw an election run on many of those principles.

FQ, I DO have a "huge list of grievances against liberal academia", and you DO make a handy whipping boy since you are here and the truly guilty aren't.
I will be surprised if Eric gets the reference though  ;F