The Shamen
There's a guy in the place,
He's got a bittersweet face,
And he goes by the name of Ebeneezer Goode,
His friends call him Eezer and he is the main geezer,
And he'll vibe about the place like no other man could,
He's refined, he's sublime, he makes you feel fine,
Though very much maligned and misunderstood,
But if you know Eezer he's a real crowd pleaser,
He's ever so good, he's Ebeneezer Goode.....
Saul David Alinsky (January 30, 1909 – June 12, 1972) was an American community activist and political theorist.
(wiki)
And that sums up the how we are expected to see Saul Alinsky.
...throw in the current 'Hilary Clinton did her thesis on him, and 'his influence on Obama's life', and you can already see the narrative that's trying to be established about him...
However, if you spend the time to really dissect his book Rules for radicals - not through any specific ideological lens - then this saying is far more apt...
…..‘Though very much maligned and misunderstood…’
Personally, I've had a very hot/cold, love/hate relationship with him - depending where I was in my life.
I’ve fallen for the rhetoric pushed out by The Powers That Be (TPTB) in regards to the ‘leftist commie activist’ he's framed as being.
These are same 'Powers That Be’ that've been deciding what the narrative is to be , for public consumption. The same PTB that have been running things since before the days we were born.
The same 'Powers That Be’ that have decided for you, just how you’re supposed to see things on any given subject, at any particular time.
Question:
Why would Alinsky - and his works - be framed in this way?
A subversive, communist, agitator?
It's the 'Powers That Be’ that decide for you how you are digest the narrative they put forwards....
They choose to frame Saul Alinsky in this way.
....Why?
Because his philosophies and strategies pose a threat to the status quo, that's why.
Demonization of the man can lead to an automatic demonization his words and his thoughts - His ideas...
The disingenuous put image over substance, and thus they think 'destroy the image', tarnish 'the message'. (the disingenuous are also stupid).
I first read The Rules for Radicals in my early twenties, and being the naïve lefty that I was back then, I viewed it in the simplistic way that it was portrayed to me.
I did not appreciate the deeper meanings behind the words that I took at face value..
Later on in my life... I rejected the works out of hand.
The leftist naivety had left me once and for all, and with it, a wholesale rejection of anything that was labelled as ‘left’.
This included the book - The Rules For Radicals .
I revisited it once again, decades later - and cast my very cynical - and very suspicious - eye, over it once more….
I found myself drawn to the logic of his arguments, his philosophical perspectives, and the clarity in his understanding of Human psychology .
If you dispel with the political dogma that’s been forever associated with Alinsky’s works (a political dogma that he himself tries to distance himself from) then you will find acute observations and focused thought process, abounds.
(you might not be able to realize this , if you’ve can't read his works with a politically dispassionate, - disconnected - eye).
As The Shamen so eloquently said…
…..‘Though very much maligned and misunderstood…’
...I’m going to try to change this understanding in my next few @deepdives posts - and give Alinsky the credit – and respect – that he deserves.
Over the next few posts, I’ll be disseminating parts of his book ‘Rules for Radicals, and in doing so , I hope to be able illustrate the intelligence in his words, the total lack of any political dogma (and how it’s been twisted), and how it can be still used in today's world.
....ever get the feeling that you're being played..?
I’ve always been a radical .
I'm 'a natural' for some reason.
Not a political radical as such – but someone who’s never towed any lines, who’s never conformed to societies expectations, and someone who’s always been critical of the status quo.
That’s the affinity I have with Saul Alinskey.
He was a 'natural rebel' also .
The ‘Establishment status quo'' is something that I detest.
With that comes a quiet contempt for those that wish to maintain it. It's a contempt for both ‘the elite’ - those in positions of power - AND for the authoritarian loving conformist sheep that choose to listen to them - and follow them – i.e. the useful idiot.
I hope by the end of these deep dives, you'll find yourself seeing Saul Alinsky in a very different light.
His understanding of human psychology is excellent.
_Many low IQ lefties think that his works are about communist revolution, and not the application of a philosophy to create change.
Lets get disseminating shall we?
Grab your coffee, it's gonna be a long , and hopefully, very profitable journey...
"Where there are no men, be thou a man,"
—RABBI HILLEL
"Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul..."
—THOMAS PAINE
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our 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 he at least won his own kingdom —Lucifer.
—SAUL ALINSKY
A man after my own heart, Alinksy uses controversy.
A man after my own heart, he enjoys humor.
He values humor greatly - both as a vehicle of truth, and to be used as a weapon against his enemies.
His appreciation of humor and of having a sense of humor tells you far more about his own psychological position than any critique from an external observer.
Having a sense of humor can tell you many things about a persons perspectives on life, their values, and their intelligence.
You can see just from the opening quotes he uses, how he has respect for the free thinker, for the person 'standing up and being counted' ....'where there are no men, be thou a man '.
...Thomas Pain was one of the architects - and a big inspiration to others - in The American Revolution.
He uses tongue in cheek humor - and controversy - by throwing 'Lucifer' into the mix...
He knew full well what reaction that would illicit from the the establishment .
Context matters here, and at the time of him writing the book, 'the establishment' has a certain religious foundation to it, one that was highly critical of the 'free love' 'hippy' peace movement happening at the time.
He knew this.
He used it, the cultural zeitgeist of the time, to his advantage.
To underestimate Alinsky's understanding of psychology is a grave mistake.
*By throwing 'Lucifer' into the mix as an illustration to what it meant to be 'anti establishment' - He was inviting the establishment to engage with him in a certain way.
And it worked.
Brilliantly.
He chose the ground where the battle was to be fought on, from the very beginning - not them. (this strategy that he employs is more fully explained , later on in the book).
I would recommend every one to read the book in it's entirety - from the 'political atheist', philosophical, perspective.
In my deep dive, I'll use excerpts that I think are relevant in the context of 'understanding Alinsky'.
Alinsky was the ultimate pragmatist , as will be become clear.
He begins in the prologue by giving a broad overview of the state of affairs at that time in the USA.
This is low hanging fruit, rhetorical broad brush strokes that require no understanding other than he's 'setting out his stall' for the rest of the book....
" ...As the young looked at the society around them, it was all, in their words, "materialistic, decadent, bourgeois in its values, bankrupt and violent." Is it any wonder that they rejected us in toto.
Today's generation is desperately trying to make some sense out of their lives and out of the world. Most of them are products of the middle class. They have rejected their materialistic backgrounds, the goal of a well-paid job, suburban home, automobile, country club membership, first-class travel, status, security, and everything that meant success to their parents. They have had it. They watched it lead their parents to tranquilizers, alcohol, long-term-endurance marriages, or divorces, high blood pressure, ulcers, frustration, and the disillusionment of "the good life."
They have seen the almost unbelievable idiocy of our political leadership—in the past political leaders, ranging from the mayors to governors to the White House, were regarded with respect and almost reverence; today they are viewed with contempt. This negativism now extends to all institutions, from the police and the courts to "the system" itself.
His rhetoric back then - nearly 50 years ago - has more than just faint echo's of the world that we live in today.
Maybe even more so.
He then goes on to give a scathing perspective of communism - and a pragmatic assessment of the reality of living in the US at that time.
"...Let us in the name of radical pragmatism not forget that in our system with all its repressions we can still speak out and denounce the administration, attack its policies, work to build an opposition political base.
True, there is government harassment, but there still is
that relative freedom to fight. I can attack my government, try to organize to change it. That's more than I can do in Moscow, Peking, or Havana.
Remember the reaction of the Red Guard to the "cultural
revolution" and the fate of the Chinese college students. Just a few of the violent episodes of bombings or a courtroom shootout that we have experienced here would have resulted in a sweeping purge and mass executions in Russia, China, or Cuba... Let's keep some perspective ".
It doesn't take long to realize that he's no ardent marxist ideologue , (or political zealot of any persuasion) .
He's ALL about reality, not ideology.
He's anti authoritarian !...first... second...and foremost.
More in part 2... a dance around, and a discussion of, some of the philosophies in the book..
SELF-INTEREST
(p65 Rules For Radicals, edited).
Self-interest, like power, wears the black shroud of negativism and suspicion.
The word is associated with a repugnant conglomeration of vices such as narrowness, self-seeking, and self-centeredness, everything that is opposite to the virtues of altruism and selflessness.
This common definition is contrary to our everyday experiences, as well as to the observations of all great students of politics and life.
The myth of altruism...
...It is one of the classic American fairy tales.
It's why I am powering down. Sorry that your fine work got hammered by 65 "community members".
Oh but we'll definitely be able to bring new blood here! ...
Appreciate the sentiments, matey.
When people outside of this echo chamber are presented with reality, 'new blood' might be just a distant memory of some wishful thinking.
Why you would attack someone who's been actively promoting the place is 'beyond low IQ' behavior.
There's an other side of the coin, to promoting.
The idiots.
Vote != endorsement, but I am not a fan of opinion downvotes at all, if that was indeed the intent here. It is the laziest possible form of disagreement.
Thanks very much for your support in this, and for pointing it out to 'certain people'.
After being notified by @joshman we discussed the downvote. It wasn't personal or anything - sometimes we counter big upvotes by accounts related to spam farms, in this case xeldal. The dv ended up being way higher than that upvote, which shouldn't happen. Lessons have been taken, sorry for the inconvenience!
Can you explain further how the account @xeldal is related to spam farms? I'm still a bit confused by the term being used in a variety of ways, by different users. Or post a link to a good article perhaps that clearly explains the term?
Also, I applaud you for removing the huge down-vote from @curangel and returning with an explanation of the action previously taken.
Which accounts were involved in the 'discussion?'
(transparency, yeah?)
@xeldal upvote's very good content, from my observations.
If you ever have to use the 'should', then you've just lost any legitimacy of position, imo.
....In the name of transparency (and not a defensive fear of being named), I think many hive users would be interested in who thought that it was an action that was warranted...
I'm not powering down but I'm very aggravated to keep seeing this shit going on. I hope this is being noticed...
This was discussed by the curangel delegators and the DV had been removed, see reply below.
Great thank you!
I hope you stay, this is a very long game and 'good' players will be needed all along.
I messaged you in the beechat, if you use that.
Thanks! I haven't used beechat yet, I clicked on the notification though and I don't think it did what it was supposed to. That is probably my fault with what I have on my browsers atm so I'll mess with it later :)
Somebody in the downvote trails I follow has begun following curangel, smdh.
UPVOTED...!!!