"A WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING" Sunday May 17 at 1:30 PM EDT on EWTN (Television): Where did political correctness, gender conflict, gender confusion, Cu

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1cthlctrth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
27lw said:
The left has been using Alinksky’s tactics for decades (as he intended), with the complicity of the media. The right is just starting to use his tactics as wel.
Click to expand...
Just starting? These are standard political tactics that have been used since societies first formed. Alinsky simply documented them and put them to use in an organised way. That you can actually suggest that only one section of the political spectrum has been the only one utilising these ideas is bewildering.
 
Freddy said:
40.png
27lw:
Are you kidding? His seminal work is called “Rules for Radicals”…
Click to expand...
Why on earth do you think the term ‘radical’ only applies to the left? What an odd position to take.
Click to expand...
Plenty of leftists claim him as their own. What an odd thing not to know.

 
Last edited:
gracepoole said:
The point is that the Venn diagram involving all of these conspiracy theories is both interesting and accurate.
Click to expand...
Show us. What conspiracy theories? Alinsky was a real person, no? Much admired, especially by those on the political left?
Show us your Venn diagram, if you have one.
 
27lw said:
40.png
Freddy:
40.png
27lw:
Are you kidding? His seminal work is called “Rules for Radicals”…
Click to expand...
Why on earth do you think the term ‘radical’ only applies to the left? What an odd position to take.
Click to expand...
Plenty of leftists claim him as their own.
Click to expand...
Indeed they do claim the man as their own. But you seem to think that his ideas only pertain to the left of politics. And that the term ‘radical’ indicates that. Whereas grass roots movements such as the tea party (surely an example of the radical right) have used his ideas straight from the playlist:

“As an organization (the tea party), we have been very closely studying what the left has been doing,” explains FreedomWorks press secretary Adam Brandon, who says he was given a copy of “Rules for Radicals” when he took his current job . Brandon describes the Sept. 12 rally in D.C. as the “culmination of four years worth of work” …Conservatives use liberal playbook - POLITICO

You want to denigrate the tactics because someone from the left has used them but they’re an ideal method to push for change if the right does the same?

How does that work?
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
40.png
27lw:
40.png
Freddy:
40.png
27lw:
Are you kidding? His seminal work is called “Rules for Radicals”…
Click to expand...
Why on earth do you think the term ‘radical’ only applies to the left? What an odd position to take.
Click to expand...
Plenty of leftists claim him as their own.
Click to expand...
Indeed they do claim the man as their own. But you seem to think that his ideas only pertain to the left of politics. And that the term ‘radical’ indicates that. Whereas grass roots movements such as the tea party (surely an example of the radical right) have used his ideas straight from the playlist:

“As an organization (the tea party), we have been very closely studying what the left has been doing,” explains FreedomWorks press secretary Adam Brandon, who says he was given a copy of “Rules for Radicals” when he took his current job . Brandon describes the Sept. 12 rally in D.C. as the “culmination of four years worth of work” …Conservatives use liberal playbook - POLITICO

You want to denigrate the tactics because someone from the left has used them but they’re an ideal method to push for change if the right does the same?

How does that work?
Click to expand...
Oh! I think you forgot that whole “complicity of the media” thing.
I suppose his principles are effective. The political right wants to fight fire with fire. Did I say they were an ideal method to push for change? Where? Where did I denigrate the tactics because someone from the left has used them?

He intended his writings for the benefit of the political left. They have been using them for decades, and the right has begun to use them. The media has been complicit with the political left for decades. You can pretend that is not the case, but I doubt that many here are fooled.
 
Last edited:
Amen, Joe!

The 25 Richest is not a list packed with those wacky wight wingers.

And, it was an attempt to divert from the fact that we just had 8 long years of the Alinsky-trained, Chicago-based community activist president. Alinsky, quoted as choosing hell, as it would be populated with his “type” of people.

Saul knows the truth now. If only more would ponder it. But, his spiritual child agitates and organizes onward, having failed to strangle the Catholic Church, and leaving the dubious legacy of trans-gendered bathrooms.
 
Last edited:
27lw said:
I suppose his principles are effective.

The media has been complicit with the political left for decades. You can pretend that is not the case, but I doubt that many here are fooled.
Click to expand...
Nobody would use them if they didn’t work. It just surprises me that you think those on the right have just woken up and realised that there’s something called political tactics.

And if you think that partisan media is a bad thing then off the top of your head, give me the biggest TV news outlet in the US at the moment and let’s say the top two radio talk shows.
 
Last edited:
27lw said:
You can pretend that Alinsky’s rules are just plain old political tactics.
Click to expand...
Well, they’re tactics. No doubt about that. And they’re used for political ends (by the radical right - which you may not have been aware of, and the radical left). So I’d suggest that yeah, they’re what could be described as political tactics. Don’t know what you’d use but that’s the term I’d use.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
Why on earth do you think the term ‘radical’ only applies to the left? What an odd position to take.
Click to expand...
Anybody who wants to organize for change might rely on his rules, but someone on the right who did it would be sharply departing from Christianity. It is a bare-knuckles ends-justify-the-means set of tactics. Still, being on the right and being Christian are hardly the same thing.
Freddy said:
Well, they’re tactics. No doubt about that. And they’re used for political ends (by the radical right - which you may not have been aware of, and the radical left). So I’d suggest that yeah, they’re what could be described as political tactics. Don’t know what you’d use but that’s the term I’d use.
Click to expand...
Yes, I’d say they were political tactics, but kind of in the same sense that Machiavelli’s The Prince describes political tactics. It is based on the willingness to exploit any dimension of human nature, including the less-virtuous ones. It is about power politics, about gaining influence.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
40.png
Freddy:
Why on earth do you think the term ‘radical’ only applies to the left? What an odd position to take.
Click to expand...
Anybody who wants to organize for change might rely on his rules, but someone on the right who did it would be sharply departing from Christianity. It is a bare-knuckles ends-justify-the-means set of tactics. Still, being on the right and being Christian are hardly the same thing.
Freddy said:
Well, they’re tactics. No doubt about that. And they’re used for political ends (by the radical right - which you may not have been aware of, and the radical left). So I’d suggest that yeah, they’re what could be described as political tactics. Don’t know what you’d use but that’s the term I’d use.
Click to expand...
Yes, I’d say they were political tactics, but kind of in the same sense that Machiavelli’s The Prince describes political tactics.
Click to expand...
Have you read the rules that Alinski proposed? They are applicable across the board. And have been used in politics for millenium. Read any treatise on politics and you’ll be able to tick them off one by one. I highlighted at least 5 that you can apply to Trump right now. I really am perplexed that some people treat them as being specifically left wing because someone from the left documented them.

I’m afraid that this attitude is all too common these day. It’s polarised politics. Give someone a brief policy statement and most people need to know who said it before they can decide if they accept it or not. That’s what’s happened with Alinsky’s ‘rules’. If they are used by the opposition they are bad. If they are used by your party then they’re just fine.

"For example, a study by Carlee Beth Hawkins and Brian Nosek shows that labeling policies as “Democrat” or “Republican” can influence policy support, depending on the implicit bias of participants toward each party. A 2017 study by David Tannenbaum and colleagues finds that support for policy “nudges”—such as changing 401k retirement accounts to opt-out rather than opt-in—was heavily influenced by whether they were framed as supporting the goals of the Democratic or Republican party. This was true of regular U.S. citizens and for senior government leaders. Similarly, a 2018 study by Leaf Van Boven and colleagues finds that the majority of Republicans agree that climate change is happening—but their support for policy solutions declined when presented by Democrats.

In other words, people like policies proposed by members of their own in-group—and they don’t like ideas generated by out-groups." What Are the Solutions to Political Polarization?

Any suggestions as to how to solve this problem will be gratefully received.

Edit: Some excellent examples of solutions can be found in the linked article.
 
Last edited:
Do any of the “Catholics” here support Alinsky or his subversive agenda? I can guess, but I’d rather they be honest and admit their allegiance.
 
Freddy, have you seen the documentary of Alinsky shown on EWTN? If you believe that there is a moral equivalence present in the tactics of Alinsky and the “Tea Party”, or in the “progressive” left and the MAGA right, then please PLEASE watch the film. And if you have any regard for ETWN, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, their credibility and trustworthiness, watch it and learn.
 
fide said:
Freddy, have you seen the documentary of Alinsky shown on EWTN? If you believe that there is a moral equivalence present in the tactics of Alinsky and the “Tea Party”, or in the “progressive” left and the MAGA right, then please PLEASE watch the film. And if you have any regard for ETWN, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, their credibility and trustworthiness, watch it and learn.
Click to expand...
If you’ve seen it then give us your personal impressions as to the validity of political tactics. I’ve given a few examples of specific Alinsky rules that anyone with a tv set would recognise as Trumps modus operandi. Are they acceptable if he uses them but not if the left does?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top