From the keyboard of an anonymous internet poster:
Sometime in the early summer of 2007, the name
Barack Obama began to register in my consciousness.
I began to hear and see his name more often, and
within the next year, a plethora of terms that I had
heard of but not paid much attention to before began
to show up in things I read, saw and heard on a daily
basis:
"Economic Justice"
"Positive Rights"
"Living document"
"Black Liberation Theology"
"Saul Alinsky"
"Rules for Radicals"
And so on. In the summer of 2008, I decided
to read "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky,
because I knew both of the leading main
Democrat candidates were devotees of this
man and his work.
Funny thing was, I couldn't get my hands on the
book. I had determined not to buy it from the
snippets I had seen, because I didn't want any
of my money going to support anything that had
something to do with the book. So I tried to get
it from my library network, and I didn't receive
the book until August of 2008 due to the backlog.
Reading that book told me volumes about the people
who profess to following it as a bible. It explained a
lot, and none of it is good.
I was going to dictate the entire thing and make
an audiobook out of it to give to people such as
myself who don’t want a single red cent to go to
anyone associated with writing, printing or
distributing that hideous work, but I couldn’t
stomach hearing myself read it in a way that
would make it easier on the ears to listen to
(To put the inflection in the right places means
you have to read it as if you believe it, and
I gave up after one chapter.)
It is probably one of the most completely amoral,
twisted works I have ever read. Given that Alinsky
wrote a dedication to Lucifer, I shouldn’t be surprised.
The dedication was taken out of later editions so as
not to offend the clergy he was attempting to recruit,
but the version I have still carries it because it is a
later edition printed in the early eighties, and by that
time, the publishers determined that clergy wouldn't
be offended anymore. How things change. For those
who are interested,
THIS is the infamous dedication 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"
From what I can see, reading this book enables
one to understand what makes Obama (and his
followers) tick.
The very FIRST paragraph exposes very clearly
what they are all about:
"What follows is for those who want to change
the world from what it is to what they believe it
should be. 'The Prince' was written by Machiavelli
for the Haves on how to hold power. 'Rules for
Radicals' is written for the Have-Nots on how to
take it away."
It is unrestricted class warfare, pure and simple.
And it is the bible of Obama, Clinton, and many
MANY others in this country.
Now, as Alinsky relates to this subject (Because,
remember, the two go hand in hand, Alinsky and
Cloward-Piven) I had read pieces from the
Cloward-Piven white paper a few years back,
and I didn't give it much thought.
Here is a link to
The Cloward-Piven White Paper
in "The Nation" magazine, 1966 (Note: For those
of you who don't know what "The Nation" magazine
is, I suggest you read
"Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey"
by David Horowitz. (That will give you background,
and a lot more besides.)
Before I read Cloward-Piven, I initially thought
it was the stuff of conspiracy theorists. Then,
after I read it, I thought to myself, these are
the radical ramblings of some liberals that were,
by now, nearly 45 years in the past. How on
earth could this matter? This is old stuff, written
by now dead or desiccated people, right? And
besides, this couldn't happen in our country.
That's what I thought, until I saw this photo:
So, these weren't some hippies living out their
aging years in Sedona, still trying to shake the
flashbacks out of their systems. These were
flesh and blood people still engaged at that time,
dressed in the clothing of the establishment, and
wandering the halls of power in the Clinton
Administration. They not only weren't gone or
dead, they were active participants in ACORN
and other "community organization" groups.
The key thing in the Cloward-Piven paper
is the concept that the government MUST
guarantee income to all people, not require
that the recipients go to school or training,
work or have to divest themselves of their
existing assets to get that guaranteed
government income (I am NOT kidding here.
If you don't believe it, read the paper!) and
that the only way in their opinion that it can
happen is to bankrupt the current system
using techniques taught by Saul Alinsky.
(note Cloward and Piven never mention Saul
Alinsky, but if you have read "Rules for Radicals",
then the conclusion is inescapable.)
Cloward and Piven (and their disciples, of
which I suspect there are many) believe
that the system will not change on its own,
or through the legal legislative process. They
present statistics in their paper of how many
people are actually eligible for benefits from
the government, and how many actually seek
out those benefits.
They believe that through a variety of mechanisms
the government inhibits and prevents people from
taking advantage of government money, and the
two they mention are: deliberate suppression of
direct and active communication with those who
are eligible to inform and actively assist them in
getting what is due them, and secondly, the
imparting of shame on the victims, so that they
are shamed into getting by on less or working
harder to get a job. (again, I am NOT making this
up! They actually view the social exertion of
shame in this context negatively)
So here we are, in the present. The housing
market has imploded, and the ticking time
bomb (the economy) has yet to detonate
and cause social unrest on a large scale,
Even though by all accounts, real unemployment
in this country runs somewhere between 16-20%.
In the light of that, I look at all the things that
have happened since the mid-Seventies,
spearheaded the whole time by liberal Democrats.
The Community Reinvestment Act.
The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.
The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial
Safety and Soundness Act (boy, does THAT
ever sound like something right out of "Atlas
Shrugged") which mandated Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac to securitize (purchase) these
sub-prime loans to the tune of requiring them
to buy 45% of all these types of loans.
Additionally, these organizations were
populated primarily by people deeply
invested politically in the Democrat party,
and they cooked the books (Franklin Delano
Raines, Jaime Gorelick) to force bonuses to
kick in where they made tens of millions of
dollars PERSONALLY from them.
The introduction by the Clinton Treasury
department of ACORN and NAC (Neighborhood
Assistance Corporation) into the process where
they were allowed to shake down and intimidate
banks and financial institutions much the same
way the Rainbow Coalition does with business,
further forcing them to abandon the normal banking
practices to lend money to people who should have
never got loans. Refusal on their part would have
allowed groups like ACORN to intervene with the
government to prevent and block banks from
expanding business, build more branches or
merge with other banks by withholding approval
at the behest of those groups like ACORN and NAC.
People like Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd
virulently demonizing the people who were trying
to warn everyone there was a storm brewing, even
rebuffing the Bush White House that was trying to
change processes that were out of control.
Given what I now know about Alinsky, Cloward-Piven
and all the people in the Democrat Party who subscribe
to the concepts laid out by them, one has to wonder:
How much of this were people like Cloward and Piven
(and others like minded) involved in these events and
where we are now?
I understand people see the words Cloward-Piven
(as I once did) and immediately, the specter of
conspiracy theory sets in.
But what if you simply substitute out terms? What
if you substitute "Home Ownership" for "Welfare"?
Certainly "Home Ownership" is a lot less controversy-
laden than "Welfare", and is less likely to cause people
to jerk their heads up and exclaim "They want my tax
dollars to do WHAT?" if they hear that money in some
bill is being allocated to foster "Home Ownership" rather
than "Welfare". But if you look at everything the
Democrat party has done since 1974 (with some help
from the Republicans, usually given in the form of
"political correctness" to avoid the impression of
being hostile to the poor, or the spirit of "reaching
across the aisle") it doesn't look quite so benign if
one knows and understands the concepts in
Cloward-Piven.
They first took that steps of making huge sums
of money available to people who should never
have been eligible for a mortgage, and made it
available as a government benefit. They used
the full power of the government to do this,
mandating Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to
securitize these loans, coercing banks to make
them available by threatening them with legal
action and denial of government approval for
business unless they complied with suicidal lending
practices, and later by flushing huge sums of tax
dollars into the programs to further incentivize
the process.
They also complied with Cloward-Piven in huge
advertising campaigns to those who are available
for the loans...no money down, no background
checks, you tell us you want to buy a house,
you get the money.
THIS MEETS BOTH STANDARDS SET
FORTH BY CLOWARD-PIVEN. THE GOVERNMENT
BENEFIT IS MADE AVAILABLE, THEN AS MANY
ELIGIBLE PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE ARE ENCOURAGED
TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE BENEFIT UNTIL
THE SYSTEM COMES CRASHING DOWN OF ITS
OWN WEIGHT FORCING THE GOVERNMENT TO
HAVE TO STEP IN AND WHOLLY MANAGE IT AS
THEY SEE FIT.
And here we are today. We are like a person
who has cancer, and has only dimly become
aware that there is something wrong. We can
see fine, we can breathe easily, we can go to
work, we might even be able to lift weights or
run five miles. But it isn't right, and we know it.
There is something wrong. Many of us don't
believe that it is impossible that the entire
structure will come crashing down.
Many of us also believe that there are people
who want change and will brook anything to
get it. The people who believe that:
Then Ends Justifies the Means.
No Good Crisis should go to waste.
I am not outright saying that Cloward-Piven is
the model followed that has brought on the
Subprime Morgage and economic crisis we face
today. The burden of proof required to
unequivocally state that is beyond my ability
to provide. I am saying, however, that it it
must be seriously considered, given all we have
seen. I welcome any criticism, because believe
me, I would love to have this torn down. But due
to my recent reflection on this issue, I need some
help to do that, because I am having trouble
understanding the motives behind events leading
up to where we are today. END.
I can give the short answer to that question,
these are tactics used by those who would
conquer America in order to set up a new order,
an order that promises total equality for everyone.
Yep, we would all equally be slaves. gs
I also highly recommend that everyone read
"Tragedy and Hope" by Carrol Quigley
