| Guest |
07-19-2015 02:29 PM |
Quote:
Posted by Guest
(Post 1088421)
He wanted everyone to be equal. He had no end game however and really wanted no governing bodies of any kind. He believed that the people could work it out.
Why people fear his process on a national level and everything he wrote was from the perspective of LOCAL, is because inherent in his beliefs is attack and make enemies...that was the crux of most of what he preached. Attack them, make them hate you, etc. THAT is what make people nervous on a national stage and if you restrict your understanding of Alinsky to this forum without doing some reading, it is not easy to understand.
Bottom line...he DID believe in helping the downtrodden...he DID believe in overthrowing the power to be, but never offered any replacement. I have always felt he really was an anarchist.
I suggest everyone read his writings. A very interesting read, but warning to you all, he uses very non political correct language :
" You are white, native-born, and Protestant. Do you like people? You like your family, your friends, some of your business associates (not too many of them), and some of your neighbors. Do you like Catholics, Irish, Italians, Jews, Poles, Mexicans, Negroes, Puerto Ricans, and Chinese? Do you regard them with the warm feeling of fellow human beings or with a cold contempt symbolized in Papists, Micks, Wops, Kikes, Hunkies, Greasers, *******, Spics, and Chinks? If you are one of those people who think of people in these derogatory terms, then you don't like people."
Reveille for Radicals by Saul Alinsky
I have read his works. I have done a bit of research. I admire his feeling for downtrodden. I detest his feeling that there must be hate involved. I detest his not wanting to work within, but to destroy and he is pretty clear on that stff.
|
Dear Guest: You begin with he wanted everyone to be equal. But is that the way nature operates? Is it realistic? You then state he wanted no governing bodies. But corporations tried a self-directed work force it failed miserably. And in addition to that nature again steps in because natural leaders rise either by evolution or revolution and followers follow
You then cite the fear of attack national vis a vis local I believe the events in Ferguson and Baltimore speak to those issues. You then address the downtrodden. But before one can discuss this further a definition of the downtrodden is needed. Can it be that 47% of the American population is downtrodden? Was he an anarchist ? I won't label him but his beliefs clsoely align with marxist/communist beliefs. Of course the problem with communists and socialist is that the former always seems to appoint the elite
who dominate by force and for the latter as Thatcher said pretty soon you begin to run out of other people's money.
You then reference the ethnic debate. And my response is people like Alinsky and progressives do more harm then good. Further their introduction into society of political correctness blocked a needed national conversation. And in their own words both Thomas Sowell and Jason Riley state that liberals policies have kept black enslaved. the Asian American communities have sued because universities are manipulating entrance requirements to restrict their numbers in favor of blacks. don't Asian lives count?
finally you ask do you like..........My opinion about any person is based on their personality actions and contribution to this nation. A Thomas Sowell/Jason Riley are held in high esteem while a Al Sharpton offers no positive contribution.
Personal Best Regards: |
