Liberals are Useful Idiots.

TYBEETIDE@aol.com	8:26 PM (9 hours ago)
to me

Saul Alinsky died about 42 years ago, but his writings influenced those in
political control of our nation today.

Died: June 12, 1972, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA

Education: University of Chicago

Books: Rules for Radicals, Reveille for Radicals

Recall that Hillary did her college thesis on his writings and Obama writes about him in his books.

Anyone out there think that this stuff isn't happening today in the U.S. ? - All eight rules are currently in play.

How to Create a Social State by Saul Alinsky:

“There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are
able to create a social state. The first is the most important.”

1) Healthcare– Control healthcare and you control the people

2) Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people
are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing
everything for them to live.

3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are
able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

4) Gun Control– Remove the ability to defend themselves from the
Government. That way you are able to create a police state.

5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing,
and Income)

6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take
control of what children learn in school.

7) Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools

8) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This
will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy
with the support of the poor.

Does any of this sound like what is happening to the United States ?

Alinsky merely simplified Vladimir Lenin's original scheme for world
conquest by communism, under Russian rule. Stalin described his converts
as"Useful Idiots." The Useful Idiots have destroyed every nation in which they
have seized power and control. It is presently happening at an alarming rate
in the U.S.

If people can read this and still say everything is just fine…they are “
useful idiots.

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."

 

"The earth was made round so we can't see too far down the road."~ Isak Dinesen ~

Politics

Mises:

Posted on October 29, 2014 by The Ludwig von Mises InstituteViews: 1,240

19 Shares

UPIFILE

This essay, written by Mises Daily editor Ryan W. McMaken, was originally published on the Ludwig von Mises Institute’s website.

NPR recently reported on a June 2014 journal article in which political scientists Shanto Iyengar and Sean Westwood conclude that one’s political affiliation is now the primary source of group polarization in America, outpacing even race as a major source of conflict.

The Report Findings

Iyengar and Westwood write, according to NPR:

Research shows: More and more residential neighborhoods are politically homogenous. Partisan politics has become a key indicator in interpersonal relations. There is a greater tendency by parents these days to raise objections to a son or daughter marrying someone who supports the opposing political party. “Actual marriage across party lines is rare,” the report points out. “In a 2009 survey of married couples, only nine percent consisted of Democrat-Republican pairs.”

In the report itself, we also find that the reasons for such strong segregation between the two groups is not based on “favoritism” of one’s own group, but on “animus” toward the other group. In other words, while ethnic favoritism can often be explained by familiarity with the culture of one’s own co-ethnics, the political division is driven primarily by outward-looking hostility. One could reasonably conclude then, that in such cases, fear is a major consideration in regarding the members of the “other” political group.

Past Ideological Divides

While partisan divides have always been non-trivial in American society, fifty years ago, they were regarded as generally weak. In addition, during the nineteenth century, partisan divides were important, but were less important than other issues such as the North-South or urban-rural divide, ethnic origin, and religion.

Such non-political variables have long been recognized as a determinant of one’s political affiliation, and rightly so. But now one’s political affiliation may be working in reverse, determining what states people live in, what neighborhoods they choose, and with whom they associate in general. In other words, one’s politics was once determined by non-political realities, but politics now determine one’s non-political life too, determining potential spouses, friends, neighbors, and even business associates.

Politics now rivals, or has even replaced, family group, ethnicity, or community of origin as a determinant of one’s behavior and everyday preferences.

The More Powerful the State, The Higher the Stakes

Iyengar and Westwood attribute this growth in partisan animosity to the rise of negative campaigning and “news sources with a clear partisan preference.” The rise of overtly partisan major news channels may be relatively novel, although anyone familiar with Nixon’s 1950 campaign against Helen Gahagan Douglas might be skeptical of the proposition that negative campaigning is something new.

It appears more likely that the rise of politics to a position of prominence in the daily lives of an ever-greater number of people is the fact that the political stakes are, in fact, very high.

In a society where a government is weak, decentralized, and unable to enact the more radical wishes of any majority group, a losing side is less likely to regard the winning side as a genuine threat to one’s daily life. Winning or losing elections remains important, but is not considered to be determinant of the losing side’s ability to keep one’s property, livelihood, and way of life relatively safe from the winners. On the other hand, if a state is very powerful, and the winning side is able to regulate, tax, and coerce in an ever more heavy-handed fashion, the stakes of each election are very high indeed.

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville noted that while Americans vigorously debated proposed laws and new candidates, the losing side invariably and immediately accepted the outcome of the election. This is often interpreted as some kind of devotion to the wonderfulness of democracy, but it more likely reflects the fact that the losers (assuming they’re whites who enjoyed full citizenship) knew that it was unlikely that they would face any real reprisals from the winning side. Unlike many regimes at the time in Europe and Latin America (such as Revolutionary France), losing a political contest in America did not entail exile, executions, or separation from one’s property. The American state (at that time and place) was simply too weak to do such things.

Consequently, one could ignore politics (for the most part), and daily life was governed more by economic, religious, and familial interests.

In modern America, however, this is not the case at all. With pervasive government spying, police statism, a bureaucracy that can shut down your business at any time it likes, and a health care system that forces one group of people to pay for the sexual activities of another group, the political stakes are very high indeed.

It is no wonder that partisan group now regard the other side with fear and loathing. Who can say what misfortunes await us in case the other side wins?

Now, many keen observers of politics will note that there’s indeed precious little difference, in the big scheme of things, between the political parties. Anyone who’s paying attention can see that party elites get along fine while most of the rancor can be found among the naive rank and file. There’s a reason for this. Regardless of who wins, virtually nothing will be contemplated that might lead to meaningful reductions in regulation, taxation, or the punitive excesses of the criminal justice system. The larger trend in the growth of the state overwhelms any tiny adjustments that DC is willing to make in the present political climate.

Nevertheless, the enormous size, power, and scope of the modern American state, and the knowledge that it extends to every aspect of life, has made it plausible to even the most ignorant partisan that the next lost election may bring with it enormously high costs and even destruction to one’s way of life.

Diminish Conflict by Weakening the State

Iyengar and Westwood assume that the partisan divide is problematic, as does most of the mainstream-media commentary. Yet the proffered solutions only range from tame to pointless, usually involving education or “greater personal contact” between groups, as if the problem of state coercion is nothing at all but something in our imaginations. The real solution lies in greatly weakening, dismembering, and decentralizing the state (through secession, nullification, and the end of majority rule) to the point where the political winners cannot wield immense power over the losers.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

This entry was posted in Medialogue and tagged Liberty. Bookmark the permalink.

Post navigation

← U.S. military action against Ebola no guarantee of success, experts say

Conservative groups build ground game in key election states →

The Ludwig von Mises Institute

was founded in 1982 as the research and educational center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics. It serves as the world's leading provider of educational materials, conferences, media, and literature in support of the tradition of thought represented by Ludwig von Mises and the school of thought he enlivened and carried forward during the 20th century, which has now blossomed into a massive international movement of students, professors, professionals, and people in all walks of life. It seeks a radical shift in the intellectual climate as the foundation for a renewal of the free and prosperous commonwealth.

You know what happens when you point your finger...

Jan 17, 1961:

Eisenhower warns of the "military-industrial complex"

Previous DayJanuary 17CalendarNext Day

0

In his farewell address to the nation, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warns the American people to keep a careful eye on what he calls the "military-industrial complex" that has developed in the post-World War II years.

A fiscal conservative, Eisenhower had been concerned about the growing size and cost of the American defense establishment since he became president in 1953. In his last presidential address to the American people, he expressed those concerns in terms that frankly shocked some of his listeners.

Eisenhower began by describing the changing nature of the American defense establishment since World War II. No longer could the U.S. afford the "emergency improvisation" that characterized its preparations for war against Germany and Japan. Instead, the United States was "compelled to create a permanent armaments industry" and a huge military force. He admitted that the Cold War made clear the "imperative need for this development," but he was gravely concerned about "the acquisition of unwarranted influence...by the military-industrial complex." In particular, he asked the American people to guard against the "danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

Eisenhower's blunt language stunned some of his supporters. They believed that the man who led the country to victory in Europe in World War II and guided the nation through some of the darkest moments of the Cold War was too negative toward the military-industrial complex that was the backbone of America's defense. For most listeners, however, it seemed clear that Eisenhower was merely stating the obvious. World War II and the ensuing Cold War resulted in the development of a large and powerful defense establishment. Necessary though that development might be, Eisenhower warned, this new military-industrial complex could weaken or destroy the very institutions and principles it was designed to protect.

Axial piston engine

Ever wonder why sand gnats itch so much?

Roll Tide!

You need more stuff!