Monday, October 13, 2008

"Eternal War Must Never End" - Barack Obama And The Alinsky Method: Leftist NewAge Beliefs

"(Barack) Obama worked in the organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky, who made Chicago the birthplace of modern community organizing...."
-- David Moberg, on "Obama's Community Roots", in The Nation Magazine.

"THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT --- An analysis of the Alinsky Model."
-- Hillary Clinton, in her BA Honors Thesis, Wellesley College, 1969, from Front Page Magazine.

“Is this manipulation?” asked Alinsky. “Certainly.”

“The organizer,” Alinsky wrote, “is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach -- to create, to be a ‘great creator,’ to play God.”

Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, “must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.” The organizer’s function, he added, was “to agitate to the point of conflict” and “to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy.’” “The word ‘enemy,’” said Alinsky, “is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people”; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.

But it is not enough for the organizer to be in solidarity with the people. He must also, said Alinsky, cultivate unity against a clearly identifiable enemy; he must specifically name this foe, and “singl[e] out” precisely who is to blame for the “particular evil” that is the source of the people’s angst. In other words, there must be a face associated with the people’s discontent. That face, Alinsky taught, “must be a personification, not something general and abstract like a corporation or City Hall.” Rather, it should be an individual such as a CEO, a mayor, or a president.

Alinsky summarized it this way: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it…. [T]here is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks.” He held that the organizer’s task was to cultivate in people’s hearts a negative, visceral emotional response to the face of the enemy. “The organizer who forgets the significance of personal identification,” said Alinsky, “will attempt to answer all objections on the basis of logic and merit. With few exceptions this is a futile procedure.”

Alinsky also advised organizers to focus their attention on a small number of selected, strategic targets. Spreading an organization’s passions too thinly was a recipe for certain failure, he warned.

Alinsky advised the radical activist to avoid the temptation to concede that his opponent was not “100 per cent devil,” or that he possessed certain admirable qualities such as being “a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband.” Such qualifying remarks, Alinsky said, “dilut[e] the impact of the attack” and amount to sheer “political idiocy.”

Alinsky stressed the need for organizers to convince their followers that the chasm between the enemy and the members of the People’s Organization was vast and unbridgeable. “Before men can act,” he said, “an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convinced their cause is 100 percent on the side of the angels, and that the opposition are 100 percent on the side of the devil.” Alinsky advised this course of action even though he well understood that the organizer “knows that when the time comes for negotiations it is really only a 10 percent difference.” But in Alinsky’s brand of social warfare, the ends (in this case, the transfer of power) justify virtually whatever means are required (in this case, lying).

Winning was all that mattered in Alinsky’s strategic calculus: “The morality of a means depends on whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.” “The man of action … thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action,” Alinsky added. “He asks only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.” For Alinsky, all morality was relative: “The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent on the political position of those sitting in judgment.”

Given that the enemy was to be portrayed as the very personification of evil, against whom any and all methods were fair game, Alinsky taught that an effective organizer should never give the appearance of being fully satisfied as a result of having resolved any particular conflict via compromise. Any compromise with the “devil” is, after all, by definition morally tainted and thus inadequate. Consequently, while the organizer may acknowledge that he is pleased by the compromise as a small step in the right direction, he must make it absolutely clear that there is still a long way to go, and that many grievances still remain unaddressed. The ultimate goal, said Alinsky, is not to arrive at compromise or peaceful coexistence, but rather to “crush the opposition,” bit by bit. “A People’s Organization is dedicated to eternal war,” said Alinsky. “… A war is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play.… When you have war, it means that neither side can agree on anything…. In our war against the social menaces of mankind there can be no compromise. It is life or death.”

Alinsky warned the organizer to be ever on guard against the possibility that the enemy might unexpectedly offer him “a constructive alternative” aimed at resolving the conflict. Said Alinsky, “You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying, ‘You’re right -- we don’t know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us.’” Such capitulation by the enemy would have the effect of diffusing the righteous indignation of the People’s Organization, whose very identity is inextricably woven into the fight for long-denied justice; i.e., whose struggle and identity are synonymous. If the perceived oppressor surrenders or extends a hand of friendship in an effort to end the conflict, the crusade of the People’s Organization is jeopardized. This cannot be permitted. Eternal war, by definition, must never end.
-- John Perazzo, on how the American people are being lied to and manipulated in the name of evil, for Front Page Magazine.

"Barack Obama isn't really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway.

Dismiss it all you like, but I've heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who've been intuitively blown away by Obama's presence - not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence - to say it's just a clever marketing ploy, a slick gambit carefully orchestrated by hotshot campaign organizers who, once Obama gets into office, will suddenly turn from perky optimists to vile soul-sucking lobbyist whores, with Obama as their suddenly evil, cackling overlord."

Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul."

"Don't buy any of it? Think that's all a bunch of tofu-sucking New Agey bullshit and Obama is really a dangerously elitist political salesman whose inexperience will lead us further into darkness because, when you're talking national politics, nothing, really, ever changes? I understand. I get it. I often believe it myself."

Not this time."
-- Mark Morford, power mad whack-job columnist (and obvious NewAge pod person), in the SFGate.

Lucifer is a name frequently given to Satan in Christian belief. This usage stems from a particular interpretation, as a reference to a fallen angel, of a passage in the Bible (Isaiah 14:3-20) that speaks of someone who is given the name of "Day Star" or "Morning Star" (in Latin, Lucifer) as fallen from heaven. The same Latin word is used of the morning star in 2 Peter 1:19 and elsewhere with no relation to Satan. But Satan is called Lucifer in many writings later than the Bible, notably in Milton's Paradise Lost.

In Latin, the word "Lucifer", meaning "Light-Bringer" (from lux, lucis, "light", and ferre, "to bear, bring"), is a name for the "Morning Star" (the planet Venus in its dawn appearances; cf. Romanian Luceafăr). The Latin Vulgate version of the Bible used this word twice to refer to the Morning Star: once in 2 Peter 1:19 to translate the Greek word "Φωσφόρος" (Phosphoros), which has exactly the same literal meaning of "Light-Bringer" that "Lucifer" has in Latin; and once in Isaiah 14:12 to translate "הילל" (Hêlēl), which also means "Morning Star". In the latter passage the title of "Morning Star" is given to the tyrannous Babylonian king, who the prophet says is destined to fall. This passage was later applied to the prince of the demons, and so the name "Lucifer" came to be used for Satan, and was popularized in works such as Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost, but for English speakers the greatest influence has been its use in the King James Version for what more modern English versions translate as "Morning Star" or "Day Star".
Wikipedia

The best-selling American new age guru Deepak Chopra is fond of the word "quantum": reading his work, one begins to suspect that he has it set up as a shortcut in Microsoft Word, so that he doesn't have to type it out in full every time he wants to refer to "quantum health", "quantum healing" or "the quantum mind".

This kind of thing makes physicists want to sob uncontrollably, so they've learned to ignore him. But not long ago, Chopra used the word in a new context that bears closer inspection: if Barack Obama enters the White House as president next January, he declared, "it will represent a quantum leap in American consciousness".

Chopra, it turns out, is far from alone. A curious side-story in this year's election campaign is that the new age movement in the US has embraced Obama even more fervently than most of his supporters. New agers are traditionally liberal, so it's no surprise that they're backing the Democratic candidate. But the question that's been gathering steam among them in recent weeks goes much further than that, and brings - shall we say - a whole other dimension to the race: could Obama be a "lightworker"?

Many spiritually advanced people I know ... identify Obama as a lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who [can] actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet," wrote the San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford in a piece headlined "Is Obama an Enlightened Being?" On the higher astral planes of the blogosphere, the notion met with enthusiasm. "He may play a major role," one blogger wrote, "in bringing us to [what] the Hopi Indians call the Great Shift." The endorsement of Oprah Winfrey, increasingly involved in new age spirituality, underscored the point.

The cultish side of Obama-worship has been noted before: the online magazine Slate has been running an Obama Messiah Watch, as has a blog, obamamessiah.blogspot.com. Star Wars creator George Lucas said - perhaps facetiously - that he thought it "reasonably obvious" that Obama was a Jedi knight. But the Obama-as-lightworker notion is more than a matter of tone. We're talking about the dawning of the age of aquarius.

New agers are often unfairly maligned: look at life through a slightly different lens, and you instantly get associated with a tiny handful of crystals-cure-cancer maniacs. But if they want their preferred candidate to win, they might consider keeping quiet for now. Already, the right, in the form of unhinged pundit Michelle Malkin, has started exploiting the story to mock the Democrats. And Obama has quite enough to do to fight the threat of pigeonholing - as "the black candidate", "the elite candidate" - without becoming the kooky candidate too.
-- Oliver Burkeman, displaying how today's normal person - rather than showing the concern "kooky" people deserve - will breezily dismiss deadly serious NewAgers (even as a group) after they voice a determination to, somehow, attain power over non-believers lives, while writing in The Guardian.

"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer."
-- Saul "The Red" Alinksy, the community organizing godfather of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, in his book "Rules For Radicals", according to the World Net Daily.

“A light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack.”
-- Barack Obama

20 comments:

  1. Very interesting!

    Of course, a conservative would never "pick [a] target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it" and then try to "cultivate in people’s hearts a negative, visceral emotional response to the face of the enemy" now, would he?

    No, of course not. That would be unethical - even "Luciferian"!

    -------------

    # Barack Says Your Money Is For Somebody Else!!!
    # Barack Obama: This Is A Cult Building On Itself
    # Barack Obama's "Change" In Kenya: More Ugly News O...
    # TMR: It's All About Reality (Barack Obama's)
    # Now Louis Farrakhan Speaks: Barack Obama Is "The M...
    # Barack Obama - AGAIN: I Didn't Know
    # Who The Fuck Does Barack Obama Think He Is?
    # The Fact Of The Matter: Obama's Lying (Again)
    # Barack Obama: The Right Is Wrong About Ayers - And...
    # Obama Knew Bill Ayers Was A Terrorist!!!
    # The Obama Campaign: A Class Act All The Way
    # Can't Fool Me: Barack Obama Is NOT A Christian
    # Obama Supporters: Neither Ethical or Smart
    # Another Obama Creep Out With Kids
    # Obama And The NYT: They're Both Full Of It
    # Barack Obama: Terrorist "Educators" Are O.K.
    # Oprah, Obama, And Friends: Playing Both Sides Agai...
    # Because Of Obama - I'm In A Cult!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Funny that you didn't notice that none of these things are lies - an integral part of the Alinsky method - probably because that would destroy your argument. I didn't call Barack a "Lightworker" - his NewAge fans did - placing him clearly in the "Lucifer" model. I didn't make him hang with Jeremiah Wright, etc.. These are all facts, completely undeniable, yet you still wish to play "shoot the messenger" rather than deal with them head-on and act accordingly.

    This is why I call you a cult: you see what you want to see, ignoring truth and reason at your pleasure. You want to turn over the presidency to a man you don't know, and who has lied repeatedly, pretending that anyone who notices is a liar themselves. Now he's claiming he never worked for, or trained, ACORN workers. Unfortunately, a newspaper found documents that proved that is another lie. Where does it end?

    Sorry but lying is The Alinsky Method, and you, and your candidate of choice, are the only ones endorsing it.

    You, and your parents, must be so proud.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Funny that you didn't notice that none of these things are lies - an integral part of the Alinsky method - probably because that would destroy your argument. I didn't call Barack a "Lightworker" - his NewAge fans did - placing him clearly in the "Lucifer" model. I didn't make him hang with Jeremiah Wright, etc.. These are all facts, completely undeniable

    --------------

    Hmmmm... you seem to be arguing here that because you believe in your own spin RE: Wright, ACORN, etc, it's OK to use Alinsky's methods to demonize Obama; but do you actually doubt that leftist street protestors who have similarly demonized Bush aren't just as upset about Guantanamo Bay, FEMA's completely incompetent response to Katrina, etc, ad nauseum?

    You posted another article (above) talking about the need to accept reality and behave like an adult when the other side wins; maybe you should start by taking your own advice.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hmmmm,..that would be Guantanamo Bay, where Leftists are more concerned with our enemies than the war? And where Newsweek Magazine lied and said our Marines were flushing Korans down the toilet (have you ever tried to flush a book down the toilet?)?

    And Katrina, where no Democrat wants to investigate the actions of the Democratic Governor, who stood in the way as black people suffered - after doing who-knows-what with the millions of dollars given for the levies over decades - and then blamed Bush for the whole thing? Is that what you're talking about? Are those the two factual examples you want to lean on?

    I really don't think you want to go there,...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh - and Wright's kooky racism is my "spin"?

    ACORN's crimes - in 15 states - is my "spin"? That Obama was their lawyer and trainer is my "spin"?

    And I'm also "spinning" Alinsky's book dedication to Satan? It's my "spin" that Alinsky advocated a "means suits the ends" (otherwise known as "lying") method? It's my "spin" that Obama adopted his philosophy that explicitly includes lying? Really? I'm doing all that? Boy, I'm GOOD!

    Or you're a sucker for Left-Wing talking points. What are you going to tell me next? Oh, I know:

    "Barack was 8 years old when Bill Ayers was killing people."

    Right: that makes working with a murderer all better.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh - and one more thing:

    Barack Obama ain't the president and, still, may not be the president.

    So, in truth, it's you who should, in the last days of the Bush administration, try to grow up, and make up, for the last 8 years of bullshit you fools have been dishing out - that hurt your own country - by dissing your president.

    It's been fucking shameful.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh - and Wright's kooky racism is my "spin"?

    ACORN's crimes - in 15 states - is my "spin"? That Obama was their lawyer and trainer is my "spin"?

    And I'm also "spinning" Alinsky's book dedication to Satan? It's my "spin" that Alinsky advocated a "means suits the ends" (otherwise known as "lying") method? It's my "spin" that Obama adopted his philosophy that explicitly includes lying? Really? I'm doing all that? Boy, I'm GOOD!

    -------------

    Are you claiming to be some sort of detached and completely objective observer, with no emotional connection to the events and personages he writes about?

    Or are you instead an engaged and partisan commentator with strong opinions and some fairly obvious biases?

    If you didn't have strong opinions, why would you even bother maintaining this blog?

    Of course your commentary is biased, that's kind of the whole point.

    Given that you're the same guy who earlier claimed to have rejected all belief systems, while simultaneously denying that he was nihilist, I can only conclude that this must be just another area you simply haven't bothered to think through clearly yet.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Excuse me, but I came by my positions honestly - I used to be a Democrat; I know what's up: I know how Bill Clinton killed Ricky Ray Reckter to prove he was "tough on crime"; how he attacked Sister Soulja so he wouldn't be "outniggered"; how he lied every step of the way - including looking directly into the camera during the Monia Scandal - with Hillary by his side while she also manned the "war room", claiming all those women were liars. You can't fool me about the nature of Democrats and want they'll allow to attain power. Even as a Democrat I was disgusted, but was so trapped by the diversionary lie of race that I didn't see I had an out: just leave.

    It took living in France - and returning to those idiotic protests - that got me to see where all this nonsense leads: to being taxed until you can't breathe, until you don't want to get up in the morning because there's no point - you'll never save enough money to move up as Americans clearly do; where you've got no fight left in because your mind is so "open" anybody can talk you into accepting lies - and telling them (what did Fran Liebowitz (sp?) say? "Lying is talking to the French". Now I'm back and the Left is screaming "The French don't agree!" Fuck them. Fuck all of you that won't stand up for the greatest country on Earth and can't admit how good it's been to you. I've traveled, to both the capitals of Europe and Third World countries, and none of them compare to my home. I may not agree with every plank of the Republican Party but I know, compared to the Democrats, they get that much.

    So yes, I am an unbiased observer - I haven't sold my soul but confronted it - and found the Democrats to be the ultimate problem we face; for inflaming race and sex issues until no one understands they're superficial. For squandering our money and treating us as their personal slush fund. For refusing to acknowledge you can love your country without being pissed at it. And on and on and on. It's all a lie and Barack Obama and his ugly "friends" are the representatives of it. I know it's a lie because, damn it, I'm no longer part of it and know we'd be so much better off without it. I'm sure you know it too, but you just don't have the guts to embrace it because - wow - that would be so uncool, right? Like the French, you want to be "sophisticated", always trying to act like you know more than you do without understanding they do the French have to do that: they've lost everything else. Power, influence, the ability to grow and prosper. That ain't us - but it will be if we keep sucking up to their ideas of what we are:

    They've got NO black politicians - none - but think they have the right to tell us who to vote for. They have NO black politicians - none - but have the nerve to say we're racist unless we accept this empty suit merely because he's black. They have NO black politicians - none - and don't plan on doing anything about it themselves in their own country. No, they'll just keep demanding we do what they say, when - just like the Democrats - they've been nothing but a contrarian (sp?) force, driving us apart rather than closer together.

    I'm in touch with our cities and the "fly-over country" with a fine appreciation for both. I'm not going to slight the "Real Americans" that the French don't accept as "authentic" because of our history - fuck that - we're better than that. We're better than them: NOBODY TELLS US WHAT TO DO.

    I'm with John McCain - and, yes, Bush before him - because they understand that. McCain's not going on some stupid tour, apologizing for who we are, like some self-obsessed assholes overseas, who haven't done half of what we have (in any category of life) are somehow our moral superiors. They're not. They're people, just like us, but - damn it - we try harder. We owe them nothing. What we owe now is to ourselves: to stop the insanity and get our mojo back - and we can't do that with lying Barack and his insane clown posse of socialists, communists, race-baiters, and other assorted liars. All we're going to get from them is weak. We'll be at each others throats forever - "Eternal War Must Never End" - it's all they know. All they've ever practiced.

    For America to live again they must be defeated.

    ReplyDelete
  9. So yes, I am an unbiased observer - I haven't sold my soul but confronted it - and found the Democrats to be the ultimate problem we face

    -------------

    I rest my case.

    On a related note, it seems you are having the same problem as the McCain campaign right now -

    You are against Democrats, "New Agers," liberals, the French, etc - fine.

    What are you for, besides resentment?

    Pretend I'm an independent voter. I'm not interested in rehashing the cultural arguments of the 1960s or esoteric conspiracy theories; I'm worried about whether or not I'm going to be able to keep my house, my job, my 401K.

    I look at the G.O.P.'s track record from the last 8 years: the dollar has lost half its value, the DJ is in meltdown, FEMA has been gutted, record surpluses transformed into record deficits, two Middle Eastern wars with no end in sight...

    I'm patriotic, yes, but not a glutton for punishment either - why should I consider giving the G.O.P. another chance?

    Genuinely curious...

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm for finally putting a stake in the heart of the Democratic Party. In the last 40 years, they've lost 7 out of the last 10 elections: a loss now will finally cripple them. They will have fallen and they can't get up. They will no longer be a force to be reckoned with. They will have to re-group and come to terms with the country they live in. If they win they'll go mad with power.

    Consider the last 8 years: the Democrats - during a war - have been nothing but a stone in their president's (and their country's) shoe. Lying that they could stop the war when they knew they couldn't - anything for power. Voting against funding the soldiers in harm's way - anything for power. Blaming the president for things that weren't his fault (Katrina) and dissing him at every turn, making it legit for our enemies to do what they can to weaken him - which, again, only served to hurt our country (that's me and you.) How anyone thought anything good was going to come out of that is beyond belief.

    I've made it clear that if Barack is my president, I'm going to play my part. The Democrats lost twice and never got the message of their responsibility to their country - to their fellow Americans - basically, they were selfish. And they didn't care.

    I am for the restoration of that sense of "something bigger than yourselves", which is what McCain is running on. But we can only get there with a demoralized Democratic Party. Like a friend who becomes an angry drunk, they won't get the message - or accept it - without suffering a major beat-down. They'll just keep getting up, going "Oh yea? Want some more?" Throwing hay-makers that rarely connect but that you still have to look out for - in a fight that's totally pointless because you went to the bar together. To blame the GOP for that situation, without you - the bartender - taking the bottle away from the Democrats yourself, is totally unfair. They've done the best they could, during a tough time, while fighting a life and death battle with enemies from within and without. I'm for us taking responsibility for that.

    John McCain isn't for punishing anybody unless they've done real damage - Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Chuck Shumer come to mind for the financial crisis - and we can be sure he's going to do everything in his power to set things to right: to cut costs, cut taxes, to get legislation passed that includes the Democrats. Not just so they don't feel bad but because he believes in it.

    Obama's going to pick another fight - no doubt about it. He can't help it. He's going to rub emotions raw, somehow, just as he's already been playing the race card for no apparent reason and, now, talking about taking money from one group of people and giving it to another - that's not going to go over in this country - it doesn't go over with me. But it's part of who he is. It's all he knows: the Alinsky Method. I don't care how "cool" he is, there's a rage in there that he's written about in his books. He's merely playing a role. Let him in the Oval Office and we risk everything: we can't afford that now in a weakened state.

    So what am I for? Cutting taxes and growing jobs and, finally, ending the culture wars.

    But we can only do that by defeating the Dems.

    ReplyDelete
  11. By the way, I've posted our last exchange here:

    http://themachoresponse.blogspot.com/2008/10/hiding-behind-bigotry-wont-lead-us-to.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm for finally putting a stake in the heart of the Democratic Party. In the last 40 years, they've lost 7 out of the last 10 elections: a loss now will finally cripple them.

    -------

    Well, it is interesting, isn't it? We've had two terms of Clinton and two terms of Bush now, back to back; people have the perspective they need to compare their terms and achievements, and their domestic, foreign policy and economic records, and decide which governing philosophy produces better results.

    I do agree that if they lost now - if the American people did step up to the plate en masse and express a strong preference for the ideas and ideology of the Republican base over Obama's particular brand of Clintonesque centrism - that probably would kill the Democratic Party once and for all. I guess we'll just have to see.

    Best of luck - it was nice chatting with you.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If you study politics then you know Clinton got the benefits of Reagan's achievements. All Clinton did was micro-manage what happened and ride the wave.

    Bush, on the other hand, had to deal with Clinton's failures (terrorism) and he caught hell because the Left never got over a loss they thought they should've won. Bush's win in 2004 made the Democrats even more delusional, because they didn't understand it; crazy to the point where they were willing to destroy all of us to get at him. (BDS) The radical Democrat wing (the crazier Baby Boomers) feel entitled to rule because of the legend in their own minds and their numbers. The idea they've been wrong on the major issues - that their "enlightened" ideas are a dead end for society and are being rejected - is too much for them to take. That's one of the reasons they hate me: I'm making it clear I don't like everything they've done when they think I should be grateful (They've convinced themselves they freed me when the Civil Rights Movement was a product of the '50s - not the '60s). They don't understand that my foster parents and I want to be free in a decent world, not one where everybody's "freaky".

    I'll leave you with this: McCain/Palin represent America without the '60's influence. He is from before it and she came afterward. Barack Obama is the product of the 60s - he's accepted their crazy ideas, represented by Ayers - and I, for one, have had enough of that. I'm hoping the rest of America has had enough as well.

    You take care.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ...Clinton got the benefits of Reagan's achievements. All Clinton did was micro-manage what happened and ride the wave.

    Bush, on the other hand, had to deal with Clinton's failures...

    ...the Civil Rights Movement was a product of the '50s - not the '60s)....

    ...McCain/Palin represent America without the '60's influence. He is from before it and she came afterward. Barack Obama is the product of the 60s...

    --------

    Hello

    Very very interesting points you make here, especially regarding Reagan being responsible for Clinton's successes and Clinton being responsible for Bush's failures.

    One thing you might want to consider here is that it was the Reagan administration which originally funded and trained the Afghan mujahadeen (who later evolved in the the Taliban/radical Islamist terrorsits) to the tune of about $3 billion, since this eventually resulted in 9/11 and the death of 3,000 Americans I'm not sure we should consider that taxpayer money well spent.

    You also make an interesting point about the Civil Rights Act of 1968 being a product of the Eisenhower era, actually when you look at it that way the 1960s weren't even a product of the 1960s, e.g., LSD was discovered in the 1920s, the gay rights movement started during WWII (so did feminism as women entere dthe workforce) and the importation of Hinduism yoga etc to the Western world occurred in the 1890s.

    Finally, speaking of products of the 1960s, Sarah Palin was born in 1964 so technically both she and Obama (b. 1961) are products of the same decade.

    Other than some general confusion about the concept of linear time and how cause and effect work you are doing excellent work here - keep it up! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Man, the way NewAgers will skitter around, warping information and history, is amazing:

    How you seem to think Reagan was supposed to know the Mujahadeen would evolve into the Taliban is a mystery, whereas Clinton knew exactly what Al Qaeda was up to - very selective reasoning you do there.

    And the way you decided to limit my comments on the Civil Rights "Movement" (which was started in the 50s) to the 1968 Civil Rights "Act" is wild - how'd you do in school with that kind of mischief going on in your head? And what it has to do with LSD, Gay Rights, Feminism, and Yoga, I don't know. But then, you're the NewAger and I'm not.

    As far as Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, though born in the same decade, Sarah's upbringing rejected the "teachings"/lunacy of the 60s, while Obama seems to have been swallowed whole by them, evidenced by his relationship with Bill "I can kill who I want to and rationalize it" Ayers.

    Considering that "general confusion about the concept of linear time and how cause and effect work", I'd say you and Barack and Bill seem to have a lot in common, wouldn't you?

    ReplyDelete
  16. How you seem to think Reagan was supposed to know the Mujahadeen would evolve into the Taliban is a mystery, whereas Clinton knew exactly what Al Qaeda was up to - very selective reasoning you do there.

    ----------

    It is true that Clinton did know exactly what Al Queda was up to, which is why during the transition to the Bush admin, the incoming Admin was warned that counter-terrorism should be a "top priority."

    The historical record shows that this advice was discarded by Ashcroft in favor of making the suppression of pornography a top priority.

    Now how was Bush to know that Al Queda would be a bigger threat to the US than pornography? Besides the warnings from the outgoing admin, he didn't - hindsight is 20/20.

    ----------

    And the way you decided to limit my comments on the Civil Rights "Movement" (which was started in the 50s) to the 1968 Civil Rights "Act" is wild - how'd you do in school with that kind of mischief going on in your head? And what it has to do with LSD, Gay Rights, Feminism, and Yoga, I don't know. But then, you're the NewAger and I'm not.

    -----------

    You earlier referenced the 1960s as something that people are "products of."

    You claim that Palin (born 1964) isn't a product of the 1960s, so its clear you aren't talking about actual time - the decade.

    Instead you seemed (at first) to be discussing the general milieu of social protest and counter-culture experimentation that most social historians are referring to when they discuss the "1960s" - "Flower Power," anti-war hippies, etc.

    However, it soon becomes obvious that you know almost nothing about American culture when you then pull a reverse face and announce that you have no idea what the gay rights movement, drugs, feminism and the occult have to do with the 1960s either (!) - so who knows what you are talking about when you talk about the 1960s?

    I don't even think you know what you mean, quite honestly.

    -----------

    As far as Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, though born in the same decade, Sarah's upbringing rejected the "teachings"/lunacy of the 60s,

    --------

    What "teachings" would those be? Certainly not anything having to do with civil rights, the "new age," feminism, social protest, or any of the other things the rest of us see as products of the 1960s, since you have already dismissed those as evidence merely of a warped understanding of history which have nothing to do with the 1960s.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Now how was Bush to know that Al Queda would be a bigger threat to the US than pornography? Besides the warnings from the outgoing admin, he didn't,..."

    Well see, that's the tough thing about an outgoing administration that 1) you couldn't trust, and 2) that almost brought down the United States government because it's leader couldn't keep from whipping out his wang to interns: the rest of us normal people get confused.

    "I don't even think you know what you mean, quite honestly.

    Bullshit - I meant what I said, and I said "the Civil Rights Movement" - it was you who decided to stretch it out to 1968. I was talking about the 50s. It is you who are, clearly, confused by your own NewAge rhetoric and delusions. You've even chosen, in this instance, to mix the topic of the Civil Rights Movement with our (almost separate at this point) discussion of Sarah Palin. Here's my advice: lay off the drugs, man: you can't take it.

    Now you go back to the (separate) topic of Sarah Palin and the "teachings" of the 60s:

    "What 'teachings' would those be? Certainly not anything having to do with civil rights, the 'new age,' feminism, social protest, or any of the other things the rest of us see as products of the 1960s, since you have already dismissed those as evidence merely of a warped understanding of history which have nothing to do with the 1960s."

    Let me hip you to a few things:

    1) The Civil Rights Movement was a product of the 50s.

    2) Not one black person marched with a sign saying "I'm A Man" so anybody can drop acid.

    3) Nobody was worshiping crystals or claiming they could walk through walls.

    4) Rosa Parks, and other women, were elected to be a leaders within the movement without any of the men having to consult with Gloria Steinem.

    5) Social protest was organized, and dignified, and never designed to bring down the government or other such nonsense - we love our country.

    6) Nobody wore chaps.

    Like I said, it's you who are confused (and have absolutely no appreciation for) American history.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rosa Parks was arrested during the bus boycott on December 1, 1955. On December 5, 1955, Martin Luther King was elected president of the Montgomery Improvement Association, making him the official spokesman for the boycott.

    That, my friend, ain't the 60s,..

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm making it clear I don't like everything they've done when they think I should be grateful (They've convinced themselves they freed me when the Civil Rights Movement was a product of the '50s - not the '60s).

    ---------

    According to Wikipedia, the Civil Right movement extended through the late 1960s and was the result of alliances between various groups with overlapping liberal goals.

    So sorry, you are wrong.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_rights_movement#American_Jewish_community_and_the_Civil_Rights_movement

    "Many in the Jewish-American community supported the Civil Rights Movement and Jews were more actively involved in the civil rights movement than any other white group in America. Many Jewish students worked in concert with African Americans for CORE, SCLC, and SNCC as full-time organizers and summer volunteers during the Civil Rights era. Jews made up roughly half of the white northern volunteers involved in the 1964 Mississippi Freedom Summer project and approximately half of the civil rights attorneys active in the South during the 1960s....

    The liberal coalition.... gained passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964[1] and the Voting Rights Act of 1965...

    King was becoming more estranged from the Johnson Administration. In 1965 he broke with it by calling for peace negotiations and a halt to the bombing of Vietnam. He moved further left in the following years, speaking of the need for economic justice and thoroughgoing changes in American society..."

    ReplyDelete
  20. "According to Wikipedia, the Civil Right movement extended through the late 1960s,..."

    O.K., now you're just becoming tedious: "extending through" is not the same thing as being "a product of" the 50s - it's beginning. That's what I hate about NewAge Liberals: you just can't concede a fucking point and be done with it. (That's partially why I hate boomers and hippies, too: they take credit for everything, whether they deserve it or not. Please, please, please, hurry up and die. The Maharishi has already and you followed everything else he did. Come on.) Excuse me, but I didn't notice any hippies riding with Rosa Parks in 1955, so fuck off. What was going to happen was going to happen and the hippies just joined a movement that was already rolling without 'em, then claimed - as usual - it was all about them. Liars.

    "The liberal coalition.... gained passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964[1] and the Voting Rights Act of 1965..."

    How many times do I have to repeat this: we weren't talking about the Civil Rights "ACT" but the beginning of the Civil Rights "MOVEMENT". You can keep insisting otherwise, but that would be stupid, you know why? It's all written down, dumbshit. Scroll up the page and look: you're making a fool of yourself by trying to swing the conversation to your topic of choice but I ain't going with you: I made my point and sticking with it, so either concede the point or fuck off.

    You're wrong.

    ReplyDelete

COMMENTS ARE BACK ON