Alinsk's rules have been mentioned in several posts. They always try to tie these rules to Hillary, and President Obama to label them as communists. Read the rules, and don't look at the author's political leaning. Here they are form Glenn Beck's web site:

1) Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have. Power is derived from the sources people, and money.

2) Never go outside the expertise of your people.

3) Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of you enemy.

4) Make the enemy up to its own set of rules.

5) Ridicule is a man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It's irrational.

6) A good tactic is one your people enjoy.

7) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

8) Keep the pressure on. Never let up.

9) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

10) If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through, and become a positive.

11) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

12) Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

You can follow these rules, and communism is the furthest thing on your mind. These tactics are being used by both parties. Also, they are being used by national news station to attack each other.

Originally Posted by Guest

Alinsk's rules have been mentioned in several posts. They always try to tie these rules to Hillary, and President Obama to label them as communists. Read the rules, and don't look at the author's political leaning. Here they are form Glenn Beck's web site:

1) Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have. Power is derived from the sources people, and money.

2) Never go outside the expertise of your people.

3) Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of you enemy.

4) Make the enemy up to its own set of rules.

5) Ridicule is a man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It's irrational.

6) A good tactic is one your people enjoy.

7) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

8) Keep the pressure on. Never let up.

9) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

10) If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through, and become a positive.

11) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

12) Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

You can follow these rules, and communism is the furthest thing on your mind. These tactics are being used by both parties. Also, they are being used by national news station to attack each other.

These rules and the book have become much to publicized. His work and theory go far beyond this.

A poster in another thread mentioned his/her admiration for Alinsky and he was a man who was an activist for the downtrodden.

If yo read further, you will find that many who have studied him, including Hillary Clinton do not like the tactics LITERALLY, and I am not speaking only to these 12 rules. His philosophy, and these are my words, is to overthrow. I think in my reading some Clinton things, that is what stymied her.

Alinsky was for overthrow, and then there was a vacuum. He never offered what happens once you overthrow all the power. He believed every man can make it on his ow.

Never heard anyone critique the man for his ideas or his character, but he was an anarchist at best.

Would love to read H Clinton's thesis to see WHY it was sealed.

Do you mean Saul Alinsky?

Maybe you had him mixed up with Saul Hannity.

Those 12 steps sound exactly what the Regressives on this forum are doing with anyone who expresses a pro-Clinton opinion, don't they?

Originally Posted by Guest

A poster in another thread mentioned his/her admiration for Alinsky and he was a man who was an activist for the downtrodden.

His philosophy, and these are my words, is to overthrow.

Alinsky was for overthrow, and then there was a vacuum. He never offered what happens once you overthrow all the power. He believed every man can make it on his own.

Never heard anyone critique the man for his ideas or his character.

Saul Alinsky was not for overthrow of the government but for a government that believed in the rights of the people to be heard and expressed. He had great character, was a kind man, and was easy to talk with on any subject you brought up. A truly brilliant man with a marvelous sense of humor.

The alinsky radical has a single principle- to take power from the Haves and give to the Have Nots. He was a communist/Marxist without doubt

Originally Posted by Guest

Do you mean Saul Alinsky?

Maybe you had him mixed up with Saul Hannity.

Damn you! That was a set up, and you ruined it. A Republican was suppose to call me an idiot for not know his first name ie: Rule 5. With Sean Hannity's limited train of thought, he probably couldn't string 4 things together let alone 12. When you look at Jean's low brow, he has to be several steps back on the evaluation chain.

Apparently, one of the news organization got hold of some of her old letters. That thesis will probably follow. If it is sealed, maybe she should release it herself, if she didn't agree with his politics, and stated so in the thesis. Give it to an independent professor, there has to be one in the US, let him make his evaluation of the thesis public. That might offset some of the criticism she is receiving, and for good reason for not letting an independent source review her emails to determine the ones that were personal.

Will you please stop calling Republicans regressives? That got real old real quick. rule 7

Originally Posted by Guest

Damn you! That was a set up, and you ruined it. A Republican was suppose to call me an idiot for not know his first name ie: Rule 5. With Sean Hannity's limited train of thought, he probably couldn't string 4 things together let alone 12. When you look at Jean's low brow, he has to be several steps back on the evaluation chain.

Apparently, one of the news organization got hold of some of her old letters. That thesis will probably follow. If it is sealed, maybe she should release it herself, if she didn't agree with his politics, and stated so in the thesis. Give it to an independent professor, there has to be one in the US, let him make his evaluation of the thesis public. That might offset some of the criticism she is receiving, and for good reason for not letting an independent source review her emails to determine the ones that were personal.

Will you please stop calling Republicans regressives? That got real old real quick. rule 7

Friend,
You really should not try posting while under the influence of booze (or drugs). Auto-correct might be responsible but I suspect the former.

Anyhow, sleep it off.

Originally Posted by Guest

The alinsky radical has a single principle- to take power from the Haves and give to the Have Nots. He was a communist/Marxist without doubt

I only knew Saul for about 18 months. He was a remarkable man in many ways. The idea was to have low income people get more equality and recognition. He did not believe in Communism but Social Equality. This was always done in a non-violent way.

Communists ridicule religion. Saul was a fervant Universal Unitarian and the church practices were a big part of the community organizing movement.

Originally Posted by Guest

Damn you! That was a set up, and you ruined it. A Republican was suppose to call me an idiot for not know his first name ie: Rule 5. With Sean Hannity's limited train of thought, he probably couldn't string 4 things together let alone 12. When you look at Jean's low brow, he has to be several steps back on the evaluation chain.

Apparently, one of the news organization got hold of some of her old letters. That thesis will probably follow. If it is sealed, maybe she should release it herself, if she didn't agree with his politics, and stated so in the thesis. Give it to an independent professor, there has to be one in the US, let him make his evaluation of the thesis public. That might offset some of the criticism she is receiving, and for good reason for not letting an independent source review her emails to determine the ones that were personal.

Will you please stop calling Republicans regressives? That got real old real quick. rule 7

Guys, this is the age of information....you should try and gain information...might help you.

First Saul Alinsky was an activist. He only talked and wrote about bringing down governments and society in the name of the people. FACT is in his book prior to Rules For Radicals, Reveille for Radicals he is pretty clear that all he wants is NO government.

A few quotes and I will tell you although I doubt any of you care, if you want to know about this man, do some reading. He was the best organizer ever. He was a good man if you judge only by his wanting to help the oppressed, but all of his works simply leave the people he "saves" in a vacuum,

He has been studied by BOTH parties and in all political science courses. Most advocates understand the limits to following him. He was the master community organizer..now those few quotes...

First, about Ms Clinton..he thesis is public now if you really want to look and read it....

"The thesis offered a critique of Alinsky's methods as largely ineffective, all the while describing Alinsky's personality as appealing. The thesis sought to fit Alinsky into a line of American social activists, including Eugene V. Debs, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Walt Whitman. Written in formal academic language, the thesis concluded that "[Alinsky's] power/conflict model is rendered inapplicable by existing social conflicts" and that Alinsky's model had not expanded nationally due to "the anachronistic nature of small autonomous conflict."[1]

In the acknowledgements and end notes of the thesis, Rodham thanked Alinsky for two interviews and a job offer. She declined the latter, saying that "after spending a year trying to make sense out of [Alinsky's] inconsistency, I need three years of legal rigor." Rodham, an honors student at Wellesley, received an A grade on the thesis.[1]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillar..._senior_thesis

"The problem with the Alinsky method is that the end game is amorphous; the end game is the acquisition of power but little is said of what to do with that power once acquired. The core of Alinsky's method is destruction, destruction of the "system" that allows a disparity of wealth. There is no discussion of what is to replace this system once it is brought down. However, there is little doubt that Alinsky's idea of a better "system" is one that brings forced equivalence or Marxism. Fundamentally, the struggle to get power is the essence of Alinsky, what to do with the power once acquired is another matter altogether."


Just a moment...

A link to his words from his first book...a nice summary...

Reveille for Radicals by Saul Alinsky

And by the way, he has also been studied by the White Supremecy groups who still to this day think they can make it work.

Why would anyone object to our leaders using it to perection....from one of the links above...

"“Change” is both the tool and the goal, but it is rarely defined in any way that is not strictly local and economic; better housing for the poor, better economic opportunity, better wages, better municipal services, etc. However, at the national level "change" is left undefined. In fact it seems, the process of change itself, not the implementation of "change," is the goal.
This is amoral political agitation that appears to be about something positive but is really about deconstruction. Once the institutions of "oppression" that require "change" are destroyed, there is no plan delineated by Alinsky (nor his current crop of followers) as to what will replace them."


If you limit your knowledge of Alinsky to the commandments then you do not and will not understand Alinsky.

Originally Posted by Guest

I only knew Saul for about 18 months. He was a remarkable man in many ways. The idea was to have low income people get more equality and recognition. He did not believe in Communism but Social Equality. This was always done in a non-violent way.

Communists ridicule religion. Saul was a fervant Universal Unitarian and the church practices were a big part of the community organizing movement.

He actually detested ALL forms of government. It was all for the people....my name is anarchy because he never said much about anything after his practice over threw what was in place, but remember, all of his writings were based on LOCAL situations. He never wrote on national views.

Frankly and this is why this gets lots of press....if you read his works, a national program based on Alinsky is scary.

But, he was not a bad man as some make him out to be, but he also is not the person to idolize as others do. He was a great organizer.

Originally Posted by Guest

He actually detested ALL forms of government. It was all for the people....my name is anarchy because he never said much about anything after his practice over threw what was in place, but remember, all of his writings were based on LOCAL situations. He never wrote on national views.

Frankly and this is why this gets lots of press....if you read his works, a national program based on Alinsky is scary.

But, he was not a bad man as some make him out to be, but he also is not the person to idolize as others do. He was a great organizer.

You are right. Saul did not like organized government. Anarchist is just a person who does not believe in organized government and it can work only at a local level. He knew that.

Idolize him is too strong a word. Amazing friend is more like it. I was only 24 when he passed away but he taught me many things about life.

Originally Posted by Guest

You are right. Saul did not like organized government. Anarchist is just a person who does not believe in organized government and it can work only at a local level. He knew that.

Idolize him is too strong a word. Amazing friend is more like it. I was only 24 when he passed away but he taught me many things about life.

Thanks for the input. It is really great.

But you understand that our current folks who are strong believers of his are using the same tactics on a national and in some cases, international level. That is scary.

I have never said a bad word about the man, except his relationship with our administration has always concerned me. What is happening within the black/white in our country is what he would want LOCALLY as you said, but he wanted the hate, the strict black/white lines...he wanted confrontation in order to get what he wanted or the group wanted.

"Amorality is fundamental to Alinsky and to his followers; an ideology that justifies the abandonment of morality and ethics is attractive to many – to the detriment of us all.
"Integrity! What ****." (Alinsky interview)
In fairness to Alinsky, the above was said relating to a specific local situation, but the dismissal of integrity is illustrative. Alinsky saw the march of history as driven by revolution; without revolution there is stagnation (lack of development of humanity in his view). It is stunning to see someone dedicated to destruction and deconstruction so self-convinced that he is an agent of human necessity and development; "

I am making no claims about the breakdown in morality that is happening because that is not fair at all, but he would like all the unsettled situation and the riots, etc.