Alinsky, Obama, and the Midwest Academy

[edthecynic]

"We cannot afford to give ourselves moral airs when our most enterprising neighbour... humanely and judiciously liquidates a handful of exploiters and speculators to make the world safe for honest men."
George Bernard Shaw

Marxism: Opiate of the Intellectuals

Or, was this just a little Shaw joke, as well?

Shaw was a SATIRIST!!!!!!

Calm down...

OK, he was a satirist...I guess that means Stalin was too?

Wow, you guys...lose face, you go berserk!

No, that means Stalin was a Reagan CON$ervative.

How did I lose face when you had no idea what "Shavian Eugenics" is???

 

[Polk]

That doesn't matter, what matters is what she wrote about him.

That doesn't make sense.

To you and anyone else who is defending against such a notion it doesn't make sense, but to those of us who see through the lie it makes plenty of sense.

There isn't anything to defend. Writing a college paper on a topic doesn't mean you endorse the idea. When I was in college, I wrote a paper for a senior seminar about replacing the all other forms of taxes with a national sales tax. Doesn't mean I support that idea.

 

[Polk]

Wha...

...EatToNourish, there was no mention of MahaRushie in post #15?????

Are you off your meds again?

Ed's point is valid. Both sides used the methods outside by Alinsky.

Speaking of points, how about the one you missed...

Alinsky is a left wing ideologue, whose doctrines are designed to bring about the kinds of governments whose impediments to humanity we observed in the last century, those of communism, nazism, progressivism, the cause of more death and enslavement than any other movements or concepts in history.

That would be some hundred million human beings slaughtered. You did notice that, didn't you?

It is less than consequential that you are able to find some aspects which may or may not be comparble in the efforts of alternative persuasions.

Rather, it is an attempt to ameliorate the significance of said usage by contemprary leftists.
An unsuccessful attempt.

It's not "some aspects". It's the whole freaking enchilada.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ed's point is valid. Both sides used the methods outside by Alinsky.

Speaking of points, how about the one you missed...

Alinsky is a left wing ideologue, whose doctrines are designed to bring about the kinds of governments whose impediments to humanity we observed in the last century, those of communism, nazism, progressivism, the cause of more death and enslavement than any other movements or concepts in history.

That would be some hundred million human beings slaughtered. You did notice that, didn't you?

It is less than consequential that you are able to find some aspects which may or may not be comparble in the efforts of alternative persuasions.

Rather, it is an attempt to ameliorate the significance of said usage by contemprary leftists.
An unsuccessful attempt.

It's not "some aspects". It's the whole freaking enchilada.

You know, you are far better at picking out ties than articulating posts...

Are you ready to claim that a right-wing pundit uses Alinsky tactics in the same way and for the same purposes as folks like the communit organizers and so forth on the left?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Shaw was a SATIRIST!!!!!!

Calm down...

OK, he was a satirist...I guess that means Stalin was too?

Wow, you guys...lose face, you go berserk!

No, that means Stalin was a Reagan CON$ervative.

How did I lose face when you had no idea what "Shavian Eugenics" is???

I must admit, your derangement is exactly what I like about you.

It makes it so easy to expose the limitations of your knowledge and your discernment.

While I am sure it passes inspection by the eremites you hang with, anyone with knowledge of George Bernard Shaw....beyond the spelling of his name, knows that he was a supporter of eugenics, the killing of those who didn't live up to his expectations, and of the Bolsheviks, and that this thread leaves you as burned as Edgar Winter on an Ecuadorian beach!

And just when I think I've plumed the depth of your insanity, you top it, as in
"...Stalin was a Reagan CON$ervative!"

What can I say?
You get the blue ribbon.

Here are the two things you must remember: never write a post as dumb as this again, and Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on
the same night!

 

[edthecynic]

Calm down...

OK, he was a satirist...I guess that means Stalin was too?

Wow, you guys...lose face, you go berserk!

No, that means Stalin was a Reagan CON$ervative.

How did I lose face when you had no idea what "Shavian Eugenics" is???

I must admit, your derangement is exactly what I like about you.

It makes it so easy to expose the limitations of your knowledge and your discernment.

While I am sure it passes inspection by the eremites you hang with, anyone with knowledge of George Bernard Shaw....beyond the spelling of his name, knows that he was a supporter of eugenics, the killing of those who didn't live up to his expectations, and of the Bolsheviks, and that this thread leaves you as burned as Edgar Winter on an Ecuadorian beach!

And just when I think I've plumed the depth of your insanity, you top it, as in
"...Stalin was a Reagan CON$ervative!"

What can I say?
You get the blue ribbon.

Here are the two things you must remember: never write a post as dumb as this again, and Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on
the same night!

CON$ are so humorless! The "Stalin was a Reagan CON$ervative!" crack was SATIRE designed to tweak humorless CON$. I obviously succeeded!

What I like about you is your condescension always bites YOU in your butt!

You know nothing about Shaw except the misinformation of GOP hate pundits who deliberately take Shaw's SATIRE out of context, in spite of the fact that in Shavian Eugenics women subconsciously selecting the mates most likely to give them superior children. So Shaw's eugenics was purely the elective choice made by women of who they mate with, with no murder at all. Unless you believe women kill their mates.
In 1910, he wrote that natural attraction, rather than consideration of wealth or social class, should govern selection of marriage partners, hardly the same as the eugenics adopted by the National Socialists of Germany that the GOP hate mongers try to brand him with. Anyone who ever read his works would know better.
In An Unsocial Socialist he condemned the democratic system of his time, saying that workers, ruthlessly exploited by greedy employers, lived in abject poverty and were too ignorant and apathetic to vote intelligently. In the first act of Buoyant Billions his protagonist asks:
"Why appeal to the mob when ninety-five per cent of them do not understand politics, and can do nothing but mischief without leaders? And what sort of leaders do they vote for? For Titus Oates and Lord George Gordon with their Popish plots, for Hitlers who call on them to exterminate Jews, for Mussolinis who rally them to nationalist dreams of glory and empire in which all foreigners are enemies to be subjugated.
In Man and Superman he argued that this deficiency would ultimately be corrected by the emergence of long-lived supermen with experience and intelligence enough to govern properly. He called the developmental process elective breeding, referred to as Shavian Eugenics, because he thought it was driven by a "Life Force" that led women—subconsciously—to select the mates most likely to give them superior children. The outcome Shaw envisioned is dramatized in Back to Methuselah, a play depicting human development from its beginning in the Garden of Eden until the distant future.

Shaw used satiric irony in order to mock those who took eugenics to inhumane extremes, similar to Jonathan Swift making his proposal that babies of the poor could be used as food, and some commentators have deliberately failed to take this into account. Regarding the quote the dishonest CON$ cite that you parroted, it was an example of Shaw satirically employing the reductio ad absurdum argument against the non-Shavian eugenicists' wilder dreams. Many in the Right-Wing press took his words out of their satirical context. Dan Stone wrote: "Either the press believed Shaw to be serious, and vilified him, or recognized the tongue-in-cheek nature of his lecture."

First and foremost, Shaw was a SATIRIST!!!

I'm an atheist and I thank God for it.
-George Bernard Shaw

 

[Polk]

Speaking of points, how about the one you missed...

Alinsky is a left wing ideologue, whose doctrines are designed to bring about the kinds of governments whose impediments to humanity we observed in the last century, those of communism, nazism, progressivism, the cause of more death and enslavement than any other movements or concepts in history.

That would be some hundred million human beings slaughtered. You did notice that, didn't you?

It is less than consequential that you are able to find some aspects which may or may not be comparble in the efforts of alternative persuasions.

Rather, it is an attempt to ameliorate the significance of said usage by contemprary leftists.
An unsuccessful attempt.

It's not "some aspects". It's the whole freaking enchilada.

You know, you are far better at picking out ties than articulating posts...

Are you ready to claim that a right-wing pundit uses Alinsky tactics in the same way and for the same purposes as folks like the communit organizers and so forth on the left?

Yes. They use them toward different ends, but they use them in the same way and with the same purpose (achieving their preferred ideological outcome). The only "ties" you've shown between Obama and Alinsky fall in those first two columns.

 

[edthecynic]

Speaking of points, how about the one you missed...

Alinsky is a left wing ideologue, whose doctrines are designed to bring about the kinds of governments whose impediments to humanity we observed in the last century, those of communism, nazism, progressivism, the cause of more death and enslavement than any other movements or concepts in history.

That would be some hundred million human beings slaughtered. You did notice that, didn't you?

It is less than consequential that you are able to find some aspects which may or may not be comparble in the efforts of alternative persuasions.

Rather, it is an attempt to ameliorate the significance of said usage by contemprary leftists.
An unsuccessful attempt.

It's not "some aspects". It's the whole freaking enchilada.

You know, you are far better at picking out ties than articulating posts...

Are you ready to claim that a right-wing pundit uses Alinsky tactics in the same way and for the same purposes as folks like the communit organizers and so forth on the left?

January 24, 2007
RUSH: One of the techniques that Alinsky has advocated be used against people you need to destroy is ridicule, because there's no response to it. When you get ridiculed and made fun of, that's the toughest thing to have a response because everybody's laughing at you... In order to execute the strategeries and the policies of Saul Alinsky, you cannot have a soul, you cannot have a conscience, because your sole objective is to destroy people and ruin them.

November 11, 2009
RUSH: I think that's the fastest way to persuade people, you know, is to ridicule and make fun of the people that you're having problems with.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's not "some aspects". It's the whole freaking enchilada.

You know, you are far better at picking out ties than articulating posts...

Are you ready to claim that a right-wing pundit uses Alinsky tactics in the same way and for the same purposes as folks like the communit organizers and so forth on the left?

January 24, 2007
RUSH: One of the techniques that Alinsky has advocated be used against people you need to destroy is ridicule, because there's no response to it. When you get ridiculed and made fun of, that's the toughest thing to have a response because everybody's laughing at you... In order to execute the strategeries and the policies of Saul Alinsky, you cannot have a soul, you cannot have a conscience, because your sole objective is to destroy people and ruin them.

November 11, 2009
RUSH: I think that's the fastest way to persuade people, you know, is to ridicule and make fun of the people that you're having problems with.

The tactics of Alinsky are being taught at the Obama-funded Midwest Academy, where they outline them as 'direct action for the purpose of confrontation and intimidation.'

See, the purpose for which MahaRushie uses ridicule are entertainment.

See the difference?
Or, as one of my friends said, "LIBS are so humorless! The routines that Rush uses are SATIRE designed to tweak humorless LIBS. He obviously succeeds!"

Don't you agree, Red?

 

[edthecynic]

You know, you are far better at picking out ties than articulating posts...

Are you ready to claim that a right-wing pundit uses Alinsky tactics in the same way and for the same purposes as folks like the communit organizers and so forth on the left?

January 24, 2007
RUSH: One of the techniques that Alinsky has advocated be used against people you need to destroy is ridicule, because there's no response to it. When you get ridiculed and made fun of, that's the toughest thing to have a response because everybody's laughing at you... In order to execute the strategeries and the policies of Saul Alinsky, you cannot have a soul, you cannot have a conscience, because your sole objective is to destroy people and ruin them.

November 11, 2009
RUSH: I think that's the fastest way to persuade people, you know, is to ridicule and make fun of the people that you're having problems with.

The tactics of Alinsky are being taught at the Obama-funded Midwest Academy, where they outline them as 'direct action for the purpose of confrontation and intimidation.'

See, the purpose for which MahaRushie uses ridicule are entertainment.

See the difference?
Or, as one of my friends said, "LIBS are so humorless! The routines that Rush uses are SATIRE designed to tweak humorless LIBS. He obviously succeeds!"

Don't you agree, Red?

Only a SOULLESS CON$ervative would consider destroying people "entertaining."
Thank you for your candor.

 

[edthecynic]

You know, you are far better at picking out ties than articulating posts...

Track 12 - Take Off The Yellow Tie by The Flying Monkey Orchestra


Flying Monkey Orchestra on Napster

If you like that track, try track 8 also, it's even better.