@Jake Sanders -- His understanding of human nature and of the consequences of his ideology escaped him. This is true for most leftists. They have no sense of human nature, and their utopian fantasies lead to atrocity and mass murder.
I wsh you were right, JustmeKasie, but I am afraid that this kind of program is exceedingly rare these days. The closest are on program in the alternative media - like Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman, or Democracy at Work with Richard D. Wolff, and some of the talk shows on RT.
Alinsky literally wrote the book on "community organizing". Think Ferguson, Baltimore, "hands up, don't shoot", Black Lives Matter and the recent melee at Trump's Chicago rally. None of these were spontaneous happenings - this is what his theory looks like in practice.
I didn't say he invented it. Obviously, disruptive protests are as old as society itself. Alinsky's book, Rules for Radicals, however, provides a step by step blueprint for affecting change through agitation, mobilization and provocation. As one of Alinsky's brightest pupils, Obama has successfully used these rules throughout his career in politics to advance his agenda.
The only one being reactionary in this dialogue is you. Am I a fascist? That's a hell of a leap, dude. You apparently don't know much about either Obama or Alinsky if you don't understand the connection between the two - especially to your second point. Alisnky's methodology was about changing the system from the inside. Revolution - or, as Obama put it, "transformation" - has a better chance of success when organized from the inside. That's why so many 60's radicals cleaned up their acts and started running for political office. That was a strategy right out of Alinsky's playbook. Maybe you should do a little homework on your subject before you start name calling.
Here, maybe this will help. It's a letter to the Boston Globe from Alinsky's son: archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2008/08/31/son_sees_fathers_handiwork_in_convention/
@XZDrake Yes, the French revolution was terrible. Certainly its starts had noble goals, but it continued getting co-opted by worse and worse ideologues culminating in Maximilien Robespierre, who chopped so many peoples' heads off that he ended up getting his own head chopped off, finally culminating in the crowning of a new Monarch, Napoleon, who despite his military acumen, ended up leading the entirety into a catastrophic military defeat that caused the country to descend into 100 years of revolution, counter-revolution, and military embarrassment.
I hear ya But COVID and the lessons learnt " This is the after math of revolution has many Marxists realizing what we had is much better Called the Edge !
It is absolutely amazing to watch a program like this one from 60 years ago. The appearance of the host, guest and even the audience is very proper, classy. The way Buckley speaks, his vocabulary. They both are calm and respectful of each other. I’m not saying Alinsky makes any sense because he does not. In recent weeks we’ve all seen the headlines confirming fluoride in fact has lowered the I.Q’s of American citizens by more than a few points. I firmly believe something far worse has been happening and it’s not just fluoride in the water. We have regressed. Such a shame. Society today, our culture is rotting from the inside out.
What I note is that Alinsky asked for a minute or two to explain his philosophy. Buckley offered him three. Then Alinsky droned on for five minutes with a rambling, boring, incoherent monologue.
that's Postmodernism and cultural marxism is all about: "The rich are to blame because: No one else speak or question me, bla bla bla so, in consequence, the rich is to blame"
but this fellow Alinsky here is clearly a cultural marxist, he is not, as you say, a revolutionary communist, he is a cultural marxist and hilary's ideological academic basis - cultural marxists wish to describe anything that isn't part of the racist anti white agenda as white supremacy, but then they are all lying psuedo academics who frequently come out with transparently untrue statements such as the one you just made, what a liar, liar's like you destroying the real left wing are the one's who forced america to vote trump - the best thing you could do for the left wing is go and join the conservatives - just to let you know, the hard left wing has spotted you, noticed the division racism and hatred you have been promoting with your lies and we are coming to get you - stop pretending - drop your fake ideology just long enough to spot your own fraud please, what a lie, "Cultural marxism is a fiction invented by reactionaries to provide a broad label for anything which is not white-supremacy.", you are a very very stupid person for attempting to make such a lie of a comment on an alinsky video for your lie is immediately exposed by the content - "Cultural marxism is a fiction" - no it isn't, there it is right infront of you, watch the video please try and have a little personal honesty, realise your mistake and review your hateful ideology, please, for the love of god, for the genuinely oppressed of the world, for the poor, for Syria, for Iraq, for the wartorn, for the Guantanamo prisoners - will you seriously tell me you believe what you are saying? - "Cultural marxism is a fiction invented by reactionaries to provide a broad label for anything which is not white-supremacy." - will you really repeat such an obvious and transparent falsehood? "Cultural marxism is a fiction invented by reactionaries to provide a broad label for anything which is not white-supremacy." - if you do wish to repeat that falsehood all i can say is - WATCH THE FUCKING VIDEO - THAT IS CULTURAL FUCKING MARXISM - THE DEFINITION OF CULTURAL MARXISM PRACTICALLY - jesus christ it's like these people are stuck in some brainwashing program - COME BACK TO HUMANITY - GET REAL YOU RACIST FRAUD - IT'S NOT BIG AND ITS NOT CLEVER - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA another cunt, omg
A lot of their ideas probably come from their cultural background. I imagine Alinsky came from a tough neighborhood growing up, and Buckley from a well to do upper middle class background. I could see their ideas about power coming from this. Alinsky had to fight for it, Buckley had it given to him because of connections from family and college.
@Mtpimenta it seems like you have confused my point about culture leading to different political worldviews with the wider discussion about power between Alinsky and Buckley.
A great example of a prime Alinsky tactic subtly inserted into the conversation at the 13:05 mark. A deflecting wisecrack about his adversary- An attempt to mock something, often of a personal nature, that might rattle or distract his pursuer. Verbal octopus ink, but Buckley is no ordinary barracuda. Alinsky was pretty good on his feet, but Buckley was far better.
MidWestBoy hahaha jesus fuckin christ....you officially lose our right to comment on other people's IQ levels when you use bullshit "words" like *cepin'*. That's a level of ignorance not often seen in my parts....or....to translate that into your language: "Boy, you is a special kind of stupid right there"
wayne russell Yea way over his head mired in the pretentiousness of William F Buckley. .. See: Chomsky, Buckley interview... he looks like a fool, it's pitiful.
As to the Chomsky debate.... Name, for me, just how Buckley was made the to look or performed in a "pitiful" manner.... Chomsky, the nazi sympathizer, was simply meeting all the points of fact with theoretical questions(key word there being THEORETICAL) or arguing semantics... Noam is a lightweight, at best...
Lol. You know that Chomsky us a Jew himself, and he was active in left wing zionists movements in his youth? Oh, and the only thing he did concerning holocaust denial, is allowing an actual denier to use one of his writings on free speech as an intro to a book. Not because he agrees with holocaust denial, but because he hates censorship.
Leftists are the only people talking about actual solutions to problems instead of ignoring them. The Right has the luxury of criticizing the Left without bringing anything new to the table.
Okay, seriously, what the hell happened to public discourse in this country? At about 3:30, Alinsky (in a very surly tone) asks Buckley to stand down for 1 or 2 minutes. Buckley says nothing for the next 2 minutes. Makes a quip that actually backs up Alinsky's point, then stays quiet about another two minutes. He actually doesn't reassert his point of view until the 7 minute mark. Seriously, this would never, ever, happen today.
+Matt Johnson It really pisses me off to no end. It goes both ways too: on TV debates today either people will ramble on endlessly until they are interrupted, or people interrupt or shout over when their opposition is saying something they disagree with. I mean FFS, of course you disagree! This is a debate! Interjecting with something that amounts to nothing more than "you're wrong!" is stupid, and you'll appear a lot better if you allow your opponent to finish before refuting his points. But then it gets back to the other problem - people will ramble endlessly until they are interrupted.
manufacturing consent as Chomsky would say became the thing. It’s not ideas anymore it’s strictly my propaganda vs your propaganda. Cable News is the perfect medium for that.
Alinsky was asked to describe his philosophy and Buckley accorded him the silence to do it. After 5mins he was unable to make anything clear. He meanders, inserts sub-clauses, and flows with random anecdotes. Now compare him to Ayn Rand who has thought deeply about philosophy and can present it when effectively asked the same question. _The following is a short description of Objectivism given by Ayn Rand in 1962:_ At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows: "Metaphysics: Objective Reality Epistemology: Reason Ethics: Self-interest Politics: Capitalism If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.” If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency-to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them-requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot-nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics. My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that: Reality exists as an objective absolute-facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. Man-every man-is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church". Isn't that clear?
Greendragon420able Over 50% of the comments against Ayn Rand all quote that one. And there is a reality that you and they are always missing. The public housing one is new and false.
+Greendragon420able And for how many years was Rand compelled to pay into SS and Medicare? This is the nastiest attack you so-called progressives habitually use.
I almost get chills from hearing Alinsky speak about power, progress, and especially when he says everything in history is a response to a threat. Sounds like what we can look forward to in the so called "Progressive" ideology prevailing in society today.
This can't be the end of the conversation! It doesn't even record Alinsky's answer to the last question! Also, Alinsky makes perfect sense if you envision the competition taking place in a market. All competitors are threats, progress occurs by out-competing the other.
Saul David Alinsky (January 30, 1909 - June 12, 1972) was an American community organizer, and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He is often noted for his book Rules for Radicals. In the course of nearly four decades of political organizing, Alinsky received much criticism, but also gained praise from many public figures. His organizing skills were focused on improving the living conditions of poor communities across North America. In the 1950s, he began turning his attention to improving conditions in the African-American ghettos, beginning with Chicago's and later traveling to other ghettos in California, Michigan, New York City, and a dozen other "trouble spots". His ideas were adapted in the 1960s by some US college students and other young counterculture-era organizers, who used them as part of their strategies for organizing on campus and beyond.[5] Time magazine once wrote that "American democracy is being altered by Alinsky's ideas," and conservative author William F. Buckley said he was "very close to being an organizational genius."[4]
People don't come here to learn much I find. They come here to help reinforce their existing beliefs. Buckley is giving these people the chance to convince him, to make a superior argument that is cogent, thorough, rigorous, and that can pass the BS test, or not espouse utopia or ungrounded assertions...we need this type of intellectual discussion so badly in this country. This whole thread is full of people defending their identity, not so much as their beliefs, which removes them further from any discovery of truth.
Saul Alinsky: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history, 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."
Thats is the very quote that everyone seems to use to make this guy look bad or appear as satanic. Give him a chance, I am. That quote is why I am here.
This episode was aired on December 11, 1967. (Alinsky never appeared on "Firing Line" before or after this. I suspect that he realized that he had met his match.)
Where's the rest of this? Alinsky keeps making these absolute statements which can easily be disproved simply by anecdote and I was looking forward to seeing Buckley crush his philosophy.
Saul - Stealing is not against the law if I'm poor. Lying is not immoral if it helps me sway opinion. Killing is not immoral if I do it for the party. His book teaches how to vilify your opponent so people don't listen. He teaches how to use half-truths to sway the masses to achieve political gains. He teaches basic marxists tactics that is evident in today's Democratic party.
I LOVE that Buckley, Jr. doesn't allow Alinsky to throw him off track at the end. I believe those founders he [Alinsky] speaks of would have called him "a classic snake oil salesman."
I lived in Detroit in 1967 (time of the riots) this is when Alinsky implies that the Black community is not being listened to. I would point out that the city of Detroit govt. went totally Democrat in 1961. It would remain that way until today. This is in fact the most dramatic example of how Democrat policies and governance has totally failed all of it citizens. Black, White etc.
@@Zayden. true however there is a measurable difference in quality of life when comparing major democrat strong holds to more conservative or republican ones. Compare NYC under R vs D's. Or California under Reagan and now (major loss of economic power). It's like saying the US is corrupt however it sure beats living in a lot of other countries.
+Kerry Burba The first give away..Saul Alinsky is the king of "tongue flicking" snakes. Watch for it in John Kerry, John Kirby, Trey Gowdey, Lionel Nation, etc..
@@mattm3729I was referring to speculation by many mental health professionals that Guevara, based on what he wrote in his diaries may well have had some serious narcissistic and sociopathic tendencies. A few things of note were him as a teenager raping the family's house keeper in front of his friends while his parents were gone. Another was his sadistic fascination with executions which he was known to summarily do quite often and then write about it in careful detail later. There are many realities about Earnesto Guevara that are quite shocking.
@@mattm3729 sorry matt I mistakenly replied to the wrong comment. However Alinsky was a lot like Guevara but much worse. He was absolutely a sociopath. Alinsky was a narcissistic genius. Social justice was merely a venue to to satiate his authoritarianism. Like all top tier leaders of socialist movements, they usually drape themselves in social justice and discourse with the angel but power is their motivation my friend and poor people and well meaning decent guys like you probably are...... are simply tools to be used and disposed of as the need arises.
@@tballstaedt7807 LMAO... Saul Alinsky frequently criticized hippies. He was also quite proud of the United States and quoted Jefferson and Paine. I'm not sure how you could say he's anywhere near Che Guevara.
Alinksy to Buckley "Can you be silent for a minute . . .", ( meaning in reality ) can you stop shooting me down, because when I speak, the garbage I'm going to come out with won't stand up to the most basic scrutiny. And I can only impress these goggle-eyed 1st year politics students if I'm allowed to fill their heads with the unchallenged tripe I've been spewing for years.
Best explanation about this sorry SOB THIS GUY IS A BLITHERING IDIOT THAT ONLY HAS VIOLENCE AS A THOUGHT OF CHANGE OR A THREAT .......GEEZ TO ALINSKY EVERYTHING IS A THREAT
Iinteresting to see this calm, quite tepid, demeanor from Ailinsky. He seems reticent to bring forth the entirety of his radicalism despite Buckleys concerted efforts to draw that very thing out into the open. Also. When buckley gave him three minutes of promised monologue, he lost track of his thoughts. Hardly a crime to get off course but., as unflinching and honest as he carried himself,, parsing his responses suggests he didn’t want to give the full bore utterly honest and straightforward exposition of his ideas that Buckley wanted to draw out on camera. At least he genuinely revealed more of his political ideology and philosophy than Hillary or Obama or Mitt Romney or John McCain ever did when they were seeking popular mandates.
Alinsky's points are purely lucifarian. Do not apply reason, apply force and take what you want rather than earn it. " Do what thou wilt " Motto of the Church of Satan.
+XZDrake Quote from Saul D. Alinksy in his book ( Rules for Radicals ) Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical from all 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 at least one his own kingdom -- Lucifer. Apparently Saul Alinksy believed in the same fairytales. Condescension is the tape measure for the uneducated.
+XZDrake Really, then why didn't you derive meaning from my original statement ? People usually take meaning from the things they hold to be most true, and certainly do not give acknowledgement to fairy tails when wanting to be taken seriously. Besides, why does Alinsky get to derive meaning from writs and you withhold that privilege from me or anyone that doesn't fit your Cliché-ish narrative. Get some life experience, your lack of reading comprehension skills and 6th grade incivility give you away.
+XZDrake Being able to derive meaning (for) stories you do not believe to be true, but that does not mean you cannot derive meaning from stories you believe to be true. WTF???? Anyway......... Ok kid......first of all YOU are the one applying fiction where Saul or I did not.. Can one derive meaning from fiction, of coarse, but let's apply that meaning when fiction shows up. Let's not make fiction up where it does not belong and then rail at those who question why fiction is present. What is you obsession with reading books? Are you a librarian? Anyone with a third grade education can conclude that I am read up. Question: why is it that the people who can't take advise are always the ones wanting to give it?? Let's see if you can answer without insulting. If so, I will start civil discourse with you without rattling sabers. We should be able to discuss our opposing views without slander.
Holy fuck, I love listening to Buckley in this. He has such an obvious disdain for Alinsky in the beginning, I can't stop laughing because Alinsky IS a/the joke. His voice in the opening lines drawls out like one long run-on sentence to me; he does NOT like breathing the same air or sharing the same space with that man.
I admire William F. Buckley. He’s as clever as he is funny, and that reveals his strong intellect. I wish there were more like him. I also admire Saul D. Alinsky. I can follow his arguments, and sympathize with his efforts. His philosophy has been the basis of many effective movements, which reveals the truth of his insight.
Saul Alinsky 's America would have to have the [ Pruning ] done and anything less than Gulags to keep the masses on its feet is a must I don't think anyone has the Gutz
Saul Alinsky wrote the playbook for the democrat party.. Alinsky grew up on the streets of Chicago during a time when gangsters strong armed honest,hard working businessman, for so called, "protection money". He wrote the book on using the poor, the disadvantaged,environmental issues and minorities as a way of influencing the government and the entire hippie culture to buy into the premise that they are the good guys, looking out for the little man, the poor and so on.. They advanced their agenda by encouraging people into becoming sympathetic to their movement.. They encouraged people to call on government to right these, "so called" wrongs committed by the status quo.. California was fertile ground for this movement.. They had all the environmental wacko's, the global warming wacko's, the tree huggers, the non GMO freaks, and so on.. When the Soviet Union collapsed, all those high up in the communist government were welcomed into the democrat party and the green movement they would hide behind.. Saul Alinsky's book, "RULES FOR RADICALS" had long sense been the lefts playbook, but now they had real money and influence provided by the collapsed Soviet Union.. Rules for Radicals is a perfect name as it describes the left to a T.. Hillery spent alot of time with Saul alinsky before he died.. She was fascinated, using MOB tactics in government in order to lie, shift blame, cover up, destroy evidence, and all the other underhanded methods she used to cover up for her spectacular failures as secretary of state.. obama came into the picture as a community agitator, trouble maker in Chicago, backed by corruption and Saudi Arabia, he got into the Senate.. After doing absolutely nothing for two months, he suddenly became a presidential candidate. He had no background, no real name, but many aliases, no birth certificate, but was born in Kenya, claimed to have attended occidental college and Harvard Law but no one ever saw him there or can verify he even attended either school.. Before either of these schools there are just a few that remember Barry from some community college way back.. One woman who claims to have been close friends with Barry explained that he had 3 or 4 boyfriends he dated off and on during that time.. She claims he was openly gay for the most part.. This is further validated when he first took office in 09, when his boyfriends started turning up dead.. he had his gestapo chase these men around town until they got to them and juiced them with the so called, "heart attack" death juice.. I remember the last one calling a show i was listening to, he said he was tired of running, tired of looking over his shoulder.. He called the show to say his goodbye and give as much info on obama as he could.. He was found dead in a hotel room in NYC the next am.. Look what obama did to Andrew Breitbart !! Obama not only had him killed but also had the pathologist that did Andrews autopsy murdered within 24 hours of doing Breitbart's autopsy. The left in America is pure evil, nothing they say is true.. We must stand up for our rights... When they come for your guns, "SHOOT THEM" NO NEED FOR QUESTIONING !!
Very good. The discussion is not to solve any potential or specific problems but to see the areas of distain and try to halt them before they cause harm. If there is a better way of discribeing urban diversity feel free to add to the discussion. peace
I was trying to recall where I had previously heard Alynski's accent, and now you have reminded me. It was in some old James Cagney movies where Cagney is playing a mobster.
jonathan S Alinsky obviously hoped that people got so blinded by his syntax that he wasn't providing substantive solutions. For defenders of Alinsky I'm aware of his history (Woodlawn etc ). He should've written a book called "mob tactics in the name of social change".
Look how strong he holds his right fist against himself when confronted for the first time with facts and real questions, an actual interview, like he is so frustrated or wants to hit Mr. Buckley. God, he's gonna break his fists.
I love the Alinsky quote that Buckley got from Harpers, at 11:06. "There is no evolution without revolution, and there are no revolutions without conflict and this is the line that separates liberals from radicals." Meaningful change has only happened in this country when there was conflict initiated by radicals. It could be that it was only the thoughts and vision of these individuals that was radical, but because they were will to create conflict, changed occurred. This is true of change initiated on the right and the left. Alinsky was a great thinker. A radical.
Alinsky made zero reference to right or wrong, only the promotion of warfare between warring political factions, which is not suitable for any civilization, but is suitable, and expected, for primitive tribes vying for power to rule and to inspire fear in other tribesmen. Creation of goods and services and bilateral trade; volitional cooperation to mutual benefit, was as beyond this parasite as the procedure called science is beyond the average theist. A rational man will never desire nor attempt to attain the unearned and undeserved. Alinsky was not a rational man. He was a thief, a coward and a parasite. Not to mention a professional liar. yours, Lucifer
LucisFerre1 This is one interview. You need to learn more about Alinsky's life work before you judge him. See the youtube link I provided in the reply above.
dubarnik Please, enlighten me on how much I know about Alinsky. Since you seem to know more that I do about that, or so you seem to presume. yours Lucifer
Alinsky wants people to fight or he thinks nothing will get done and Buckley wonders why people can't simply try to work together for common goals. I think I would much rather have Bill as a neighbor than Saul. If Bill was my neighbor we would have a path between our homes and if I lived next door to Saul we would have a high, secure fence between our homes with no gate. This sums up President Obama's doctrine perfectly and is why we have such terrible race relations today. Saul can't even articulate his position so one can understand it. It's almost like disagreement IS the goal. What a sad man he must have been.
OMGWUNSIU we are living through Alinskys dream now... no jobs, middle class gone, everyone on food stamps, race riots... his book dedication (if true) was apt...
Jeez. Imagine waking up from your bed on a wonderful warm spring morning. Hearing birds chirping in a large oak tree. You push the sheets back, go to the window sill to open the window... ...Only to you the situation is that you awaken, you push the power back, you hear power chirping outside, you walk over to the power which you open and all you see is power sitting on a power. ... ... Because everything in your world is just about power.
His philosophy is simply, anarchy. For supposedly learned, intelligent people to have come under such complete influence by this man is mind boggling. He is completely transparent and illogical. Buckley destroys this man not only intellectually but in his clearly expounded social constructs dismantling his nonsense. My anger at Alinsky and the devastating damage his influence has achieved is equal to the anger I feel at those whom have actually aligned themselves to his poison.
Yul Hubbart I would say that Bush senior and Junior were not Conservatives. Most astute Conservatives regard Alinsky for the radical community organizer that he was. The real application of his life's work is more so attractive to modern-day Progressive Statist types, who have become the radicals in our govt.
Because he actually gave a shit about the poor and disenfranchised. He wanted equality for everyone and encouraged people who felt powerless to realize they were the power. Alinsky and Obama may both be democratic and want change for the people doesn't make them as like-minded as you perceived. So explain to me why motivating people to stand up for their rights makes someone the bad guy in this scenario? People have been fighting for their rights for centuries, encouraged by men and women who wanted better lives. Our forefathers did it to gain independence from England so we could enjoy our freedom now. People died and bled for it. And the strong of this nation always will...even for ungrateful people such as yourself.
Saul Alinsky reminds me of the character, Ellsworth Toohey, from the Ayn Rand novel, 'The Fountainhead'. Alinsky knew that he was exposed as a fraud in the first exchange with William Buckley. He is the ultimate pseudo-intellectual.
+Ken Power Funny, I came up with Adolf Hitler as the real life version of Toohey. Then again, Alinsky, Hitler, and Toohey are all pretensive collectivists, aren't they?
I'm from 2022 at 65 and if we could have had tudors even pilots Auto Mechanics with access to High Proformance cars an alternative of Adrenline seeking drugs and use these types of rewards to success ! Imagine how many lives could have been saved because these experiences would change the molecular structure of the thinking
I always get a kick out of people who strongly believe one side won a debate. What they're actually saying is: "A's argument aligns with my beliefs, therefore, A won".
I 'm impressed by the subtlety of Buckley's point. If I understand him, he's characterizing Alinsky's methods as highly coercive. Alinsky seems to be saying that political power is never given, so if a group of people who want political power don't take power by way of pressure (coercion), they will never achieve the kind of power that they need to obtain the ends that they are looking for. Buckley rightly questions this point of view in our society.
Here's the sad thing: Two brilliant minds divergent because of two different philosophies and perspectives. Alinsky - results by "social" coercion, Buckley - results by discussion and compromise. We see that substantially prevalent still today. Maybe more-so than ever before.
*"Here is the ideology of the new Democrats. Self interests."* - The idea that self interest is bad and "selflessness" is a virtue is defunct. It's defunct because goods and services are created and traded to mutual benefit, not static resources to be scavenged, hunted and gathered from the environment. What you're talking about is the evil quest of more and more political power by a process that harms others, and that, dear friend, is what the Dems are all about. They grow a crop of poor voting constituents like a farmer grows corn. yours, Lucifer
But there are also two elements common to all, and that is the accumulation of power. Then comes the quest for dominance. Once these goals are achieved, the idea of equality, the original motivation, then becomes unimportant to the people who were motivated by it.
machia0705 The non-stupid left already know that "equal means fair" is nonsense outside the arena of legal rights. They use it as an appealing talking point in their attempts to gain more political power to use against others. yours Lucifer
Alinsky sure shows a lot of body language here, nervous , sweating , licking his lips, clearing his throat. Typical Liar doesn't tell you who he really is. Alinsky was a complete fool.
Sanders, Obama, Hillary are all his disciples! Alinsky was a devote aethist and communist who learned to use Satanism to present a moral argument to convince masses to agree despite having completely different agendas. He wanted to see the USA burn, knew he couldn't win unless you worked from within the system so he went out to college campuses to instill his beliefs to others.
As an Englishman it has taken me a long time to warm to Buckley; I think it's his demeanour, his mannerisms etc however, warm to him I have! I only came across him watching Thomas Sowell etc (Buckley not such a big name this side of the pond) - he is/was truly excellent! I shouldn't be so quick to judge a person... having said that I still find his manner a little uncouth and unrefined lol I guess I've come to know him now, so I can look past that!
