Cloward-Piven: Alinsky Drones

Back before most people that may cross the path of The Snooper Report were born, an item of interest referred to as the List of 45 was read into the Congressional Record in 1963. In 1966, two prominent Socialist Professors Sociology Professors professed a manner of which to topple the United States of America and reign in a Socialist State because communism was such a grand concept. What is the List of 45? Pull up a chair and, as they say in Texas, "I'll toldya sumptin'".

The List of 45 is the program by which the Soviets developed after the fashion of the Revolution of the Soviet which enabled the Aunschluss of the USSR, now defunct. The list can be located within the book written by W Cleon Skousen who was a life-long FBI Agent investigating communist agent infiltrations into the United States and their sphere(s) of influence. The book is entitled, The Naked Communist.

Beginning on page 259, under the heading of Current Communist Goals, the List begins. The vast majority of the forty five actions have been successfully engaged and adopted with the remaining in process. To view this list, either buy the book at Amazon or review the references tab below this article.

Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven are not the only Saul Alinsky drones. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama are products of the "radical socialist" Alinsky. The common theme between the previously mentioned citizens is this: they are Americanized Marxists. Hillary wrote the thesis, "There is Only One Fight..." which was held secret for many years and due to due diligence, it was "discovered" and, yes, I have a copy. It is a thesis of 90+ pages of pure Stalinist tenets. Obama's writings are under lock and key someplace having learned that Hillary's secret place was discovered.

However, be that as it may, Barack cannot run away from the article in The Nation, penned and published in May of 1966, three years after the List of 45 was made known. And, yes, I am in possession of the Cloward-Piven article as well. It is entitled, "THE WEIGHT OF THE POOR A STRATEGY TO END POVERTY", by Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. After reading the eight-page article, I couldn't help detecting the influences of Saul Alinsky (yes, I have read his book).

In the description to Rules For Radicals, the Alinsky Manual for Subversion, we find the following:

Saul Alinsky was born in Chicago in 1909 and educated first in the streets of that city and then in its university. Graduate work at the University of Chicago in criminology introduced him to the Al Capone gang, and later to Joliet State Prison, where he studied prison life. He founded what is known today as the Alinsky ideology and Alinsky concepts of mass organization for power. His work in organizing the poor to fight for their rights as citizens has been internationally recognized. In the late 1930s he organized the Back of the Yards area in Chicago (the neighborhood made famous in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle). Subsequently, through the Industrial Areas Foundation which he began in 1940, Mr. Alinsky and his staff helped to organize communities not only in Chicago but throughout the country. He later turned his attentions to the middle class, creating a training institute for organizers. He died in 1972.

The reviews that have been printed (mine didn't make or pass muster) are as follows:

*I found this book very enlightening. I am not a politician but I wanted to know why people were comparing Obama to Alinsky! I beleive that this book is the blueprint and map that Obama used to get where he is now and God help us on where he is leading us!

*I read this book assuming it to be the rant of an insane Liberal Stooge hell bent to tell others how bad their lives are when in fact they are fine. And I got that in the conclusion when Saul couldn't contain himself and ranted a near unintelligible plea to FIGHT THE MAN!!!!! But I digress, the book isn't awful. It has some decent ideas, and he is honest on how he manipulates people to his cause, this book is an example, but like all Liberals dating back to the 18th century, the message is only legitimate to the person saying it, hallow words, with no significance besides the authors untested notions. The problem with Liberals is that their views aren't real, nor can exist, nor do people on a majority level want them to exist. Its human nature. But the Liberals like Saul, simply come to their own conclusion that they know the ways of man, and all is needed is a simple conversion that capitalism is evil, and the man is evil. To see the weakness of the Liberal argument one only has to go as far as the stats. Alinsky failed. The haves won. The have nots lost. The Have nots don't do anything and take handouts, they are now slaves to THE MAN. But all this aside, I found the book hilarious in many regards. He knows his argument is weak and BS. So he tries to quote as many legitimate great men as possible to make it seem like he is on their side. He quotes the founders, as if they would somehow side with him. He quotes great presidents to form an illusion that if he can misuse the words to his advantage, a less sophisticated person may take the bait. But where he fails is that all the Socialist Marxist, Leninist, Communist, Anarchist losers, that came before him didn't need to use other peoples words to make their points, no matter how weak they were, all Alinsky can do is try to fake it. Like he says he needs to connect the human experience so people will truly grasp what he is saying. By the time I got to page 108 I got the point. But Saul kept on going praising himself, himself, and himself, redundantly saying the same thing, again, again, again.As far as I know, no one thought Alinsky was greater besides himself. And this narcissistic tirade of his infantile protest is testament to that. He actually describes having a group of Negros farting at a concert like the Man standing in front of the tanks at Tiananmen Square. It's truly pathetic that our Secretary of State, and POS Commander and Chief idolize this man.

*I'm 54. I vote strictly Republican. I am conservative. Rush is my favorite. I read this book on advice from Hannity. I expected to be disgusted by it. What I discovered was that Alinsky makes a lot of sense. Whether or not you agree with the ends of his methods, his methods are logical and certainly ring true. He spells out human nature. Then he describes and gives examples of how to use that nature to gain one's objectives.

Which one of the above reviews is either from a poser or a very confused individual?

I remember having argument after argument with my high school teachers and later on college professors. The Alinsky mental illness permated every corner of Academia. It was truly sickening. So, what does all of this have to do with Barack Obama? Everything.

I am going to place a screen shot of a piece of the "Strategy" as explained by the socialists Cloward and Piven.

But, Obama isn't a socialist. Just ask him. He may just have to call you and clarify. The current financial crisis is a contrived and invented crisis and it has been going on for decades. And, Obama is right smack dab in the middle of it and he knows it and is proud of it. The body language says it all.

The Snooper Report. Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly

Comments

[JSanders]

If you know anything about the writers mentioned here, this piece is unintentionally hysterical.

Cloward and Piven's "strategy" was explicitly to *oppose* Alinsky and community organizing as a strategy. The community organizing approach, Alinsky's approach, would try to build different power relationships by engaging citizens and institutions inside of the "current system". Cloward and Piven's thought that naive and overly conservative and proposed, in direct opposition to that, the strategy cited above of using the welfare system to incite a political crisis. The two strategies are, and were at the time, not only totally different, but in direct opposition to one another.

To damn Alinsky and community organizing because of the ideas of some of his biggest opponents is bizarre -- like blaming Winston Churchill for being such an adherent to the tenants of National Socialism. Author needs to read more before he writes.

[Mark "Snooper" Harvey]

Nice try JSanders but we cannot be spun here. Run along little one.

[Mark "Snooper" Harvey]

I see JSanders the coward and pathetic spin-meister hasn't returned.

Here is a quote from the article:

"To generate an expressly political movement, cadres of aggressive organizers would have to come from the civil rights movement and the churches, from militant low-income organizations like those formed by the Industrial Areas Foundation (that IS, by Saul Alinsky), and from other groups on the Left. These activists should be quick to see the difference between programs to redress individual grievances and a large-scale social-action campaign for national policy reform."

That is on page 513 of the article which clearly shows the Cloward-Piven model is built upon the Alinsky model. In opposition? Ummmm - NOT. Moron libtards.

The libtard would needs to read more before IT writes.