July 22, 2017

Individual Human Rights

Print Friendly

The 1986 Lexicon Encyclopedia coverage of Hegel contains magic. In law school, we are not taught that our system is based on the expression of individualism, the same individualism that Hegel, Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Garrett Hardin (author of Tragedy of the Commons) and Alinsky reject. The encyclopedic reference says that Hegelian philosophy split into two wings, the left is Marx’ Communism and the right is essentially fascist nationalism. Too many people in the US think in terms of right/left. But the Communists and Fascists are Hegelian twins who reject individualism, the individual rights that are key to America’s exceptionalism from Communism.

Before reading that, I never thought of our system of having been borne of an expression of individualism. But it makes sense. All the rights are individual rights. And of the individual right of free speech, J. Roberts specifically said in US v. Stevens 559 US 460 (2010) that the benefits of individual free speech outweigh the burden on government. I submit that the benefit of all our sacred individual rights outweigh the burden on government.

In law school, they teach that only certain rights are fundamental and others, not so much. However, a reading of The Federalist And Other Constitutional Papers, Scott, 1902, shows that our founders considered the whole Constitution to be fundamental, and that laws contrary to the Constitution are null and void. That they considered our individual rights to be sacred and referenced a Maker. We are all entitled to sacred and fundamental individual rights, not just the worst criminals in the US.

Despite the pervasive underlying theme of the TV media, the true dichotomy is not between communistic-thinking Democrats and fascist-thinking Republicans, rather both Democrats and Republicans should reject Neo-Nazi Progressivism. As J. Edgar Hoover stated in his 1958 book “Masters of Deceit”, the setting of the classes against each other is an established tactic of the Communists. To Communists, every opponent is a fascist. As long ago as 1951, Ludwig von Mises wrote in “Socialism” that the communists do not respond to diverse views with reason, rather they immediately respond with a personal attack.

Notice how character assassination is used quite publicly. For example, the rancher in Nevada whose preference grazing rights prevailed against all humans, but not against the subhuman tortoise under the 1973 Endangered Species Act, was painted as a racist.

All the rights are individual rights, sacred and fundamental for humans only. The public policy of the Constitution is clearly one of humans first, a public policy that Congress had no authority to alter with the Endangered Species Act. In my view, Nixon capitulated more than just Vietnam to the Communists in 1973. 1973 was a dark year for Nixon. Impeachment was on the horizon. Did he think that Americans turned on him so, now, he turned on America? In 1973 Brezhnev secretly stated to his Communist comrades that Détente would not stop the Communists advancement of their various National liberation movements. And, for his comrades to trust him when he said that he expected to achieve most of their goals by 1985 without violence. (Page 359, Dupes, Kengor, 2010) In 1975, Animal Liberation was published. Some participants in the animal liberation movement seek to abolish private property in animals and the movement contains elements of civil disobedience to achieve its goals.Livy
Livy writes from the Southern High Plains of Texas

Share
  • Idaho_Roper

    What a quaint idea. Sadly what were taught is hardly what we were given and I can see no evidence that this government ever has or was ever intended to even recognize human rights.

    And of course congress has the authority to do anything they deem as “necessary and proper” as clearly stated in A1S8

    • GoldDust

      Humans=Hue-moons in darkness. The constitution has absolutely nothing to do with the individual rights of anything other than tyrannical centralized godlike authority over those subjugated under its powers. It in fact contradicts those individual granted rights attached to it via the Bill of Rights which supposedly restrained the anti rights con job. While it does preserve the sovereign rights of the Posterity of the Signatories of it. Apparently pushing misinformation is just a bad habit we’re never going to break.

  • Dave B.

    How exactly did Alinsky reject individualism?

  • GoldDust

    Articulate

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/articulate

    What does articulate have to do with knowledge? Truth? Facts? undeniable irrefutable solid evidence? The depth of ones research, or enquiry? hmmm.. Only going half the distance?

    How exactly did Alinsky reject individualism?

    He did this by promoting democracy which is group right over the right of the individual because the individual is a minority. Anytime anyone promotes any type of coercive political philosophy in an attempt to use power to take control of a society using coercive taxation for example the individuals rights are ignored. Alinsky was still promoting the opposite of the below definitions of freedom, of a corporate common wealth owned by the people not by a few collectivist capitalists posing as members of the people. Alinsky would have taken over the system and used it as a weapon of coerciveness against all of that society. This was already being done, Alinsky offered nothing.

    “The term republic, res publica, signifies the state independently of its form of government.”[3] That means that the power of the state remains with the people. Therefore the people must maintain their responsibility of being the government of, for and by the people if they wish to retain their rights. They cannot do this if they lack knowledge.

    “Republic. A commonwealth; that form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. In another sense, it signifies the state, independently of its government.” Black’s Law Dictionary 3rd Ed. p1536.

    A pure Republic allows the people the power or liberty of choice. They may retain their right to choose or waive it for what they believe is profitable or for gain but not without consequences.

    A democracy, direct or indirect, is not a republic. Although you may find a democracy within a republic.

    republican form of government they altered that form and were changed

    All the u.s. subjects know are altered versions of democracy and republics.

    Alinsky is the the Twentieth Century Marx, nothing more nothing less, just another Jesuit stooge using wordage to confuse whoever will listen to that reworded Vatican social justice garbage;

    How did Alinsky preserve individualism? By common consent? Is that the common consent of the “collective” endowed by the mob with certain privileges that can be taken away by the majority, or did Alinsky defend the rights granted man by God which are certain rights inherent in the individual in which we as individuals are responsible for? There are no such thing as group rights, groups are individuals separate from one another, vigilantes, mobs, power seekers, often functionally illiterate dolts believing what they’ve been told rather than what they’ve each sought out on their own.

    Which is why these non leader weak minded individuals seek out a group in search of an Alinsky to lie to them. So Alinsky rejected individualism by promoting the collective group think because he nefariously wanted the group to believe they would defend individualism when he was intent upon the destruction of individualist free will which is non existent outside of the group think. Alinsky was an expert in the use of Hegelian principles which are used tell the people what they want to hear when the intent is not what you intend to deliver.

    Alinsky delivered the opposite if individual free will. Alinsky was a tricky clever man that knew how to persuade an individualist minded society to listen and support his agenda which appeared to be in support of them when it was exactly the opposite. While Alinsky’s group was “leading” with the people’s immediate “individual” concerns, Alinsky’s group only pursued their own group agenda. An individual that needs a representative is not an individual thinker but a follower of a group. Alinsky created a political tribe that has nothing to do with individualism. Alinsky has so many social justice Jesuit finger prints all over his not so original thoughts it is obvious the man was mind controlled for the majority of his life.

    How has the Clinton’s and Obama or any other political hack in this society preserved individualism by rejecting it?

    • Dave B.

      Yes, that’s a nice proclamation. Too bad it’s your own ill-founded ideological critique and has NOTHING to do with anything Alinsky actually SAID. How about trying to support it with references from the man himself?

      • GoldDust

        I know what Alinsky said in the literal sense that you’re comprehending of what he said. He also stated clearly he would say anything that would suit his purposes in supporting his philosophy and he did. His motto was, “The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired results.” Once these power groups are established they can be methodically controlled by communist social engineering from various think tanks, and they have done just that because as he states as well, “He identified a set of very specific rules that ordinary citizens could follow, and tactics that ordinary citizens could employ, as a means of gaining public power.” Community power not individual power. Knowledge is power and Alinsky only wanted to exploit ordinary citizens. Citizens are subjects and subjects are human resources which are merchandise and no where does Alinsky tell them that truth in order that they might become individual thinkers outside of the box group he kept them inside of under his influence. Alinsky only added a touch of finesse to much of what Marx said before him. Which was said before Marx by who? And before them by who? Come on do tell us..

        • Dave B.

          More of the same ill-founded ideological critique. YOUR ideology– not Alinsky’s. If you’d actually READ his books, you wouldn’t have to just make stuff up like that. Don’t have a copy? No problem. You can read “Rules for Radicals” online:
          http://archive.org/stream/RulesForRadicals/RulesForRadicals_djvu.txt
          You can read most of “Reveille for Radicals” here:
          http://books.google.com/books?id=pZSxoneee7gC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
          Read them, and see for yourself instead of blindly buying that line you’ve been sold by those wanting to demonize the man.

          • GoldDust

            Bullshit. I’m in possession of his books and many many more. I’m pulling “ill founded” definitions from the legalese system your Alinsky wanted to take over with people like you thinking like him. We’re observing Obama and Clinton in action, both Communitarians. Lets drop the legalese terms and get straight to the point;

            Let’s say your Alinsky revolution has been a success. You’re all living your dream. Oh but over here where I’m sitting I don’t want anything to do with the old system you’ve conquered nor the system you Alinskyites are recreating from your “original thinking” in replacement of the existing system which is the intellectual property of those you took out.{OR LET ME GUESS, YOU GENIUSES WANT TO STEAL THE SYSTEM ALREADY IN PLAY BECAUSE YOU AREN’T CAPABLE OF DESIGNING YOUR OWN SYSTEM?} So I’m not going to pay or play, I’m going to be an independent individual living on my own land growing and procuring my own meats and metals for trade. I’m going to be self determining my own destiny. I tell you guys pay for your own greater good. What pray tell are you going to do to me???? Come on smart boy I want to know, be careful because you’re about to slaughter your belief in my right of free will to indulge in my own fking individuality.

            {THIS SYSTEM IS ANTI INDIVIDUALISM, IT HAS BEEN SINCE 1783, EVEN BEFORE THAT. HOW DOES ALINSKY TRANSITION THE POWER OF THE SYSTEM INTO THE HANDS OF HIS GROUP AND CHANGE IT TO A SYSTEM OF INDIVIDUALISM WHICH IS A BIBLICAL CONCEPT IN WHICH ALINSKY WAS AGAINST??}

            He could not do it, he did not do it and you followers of him will never do it. You won’t do it because you will not listen.

          • Dave B.

            In addition to being “in possession of his books,” I’ve actually READ them. Try it. Like I said, if you had, you wouldn’t have to just MAKE STUFF UP. Feel free to try and support what you’ve said with actual references from his books.

          • GoldDust

            Go read Hegel, obviously Alinsky did because he mastered Hegel’s Dialectic.

          • Dave B.

            Can’t do it, can you?

          • Idaho_Roper

            Obviously this troll is incapable of reading or thinking for himself. And as a reply he uses Alinsky himself to try and cover up his inability to present a valid case against the exposure you brought upon him.

            I was really looking forward to his attempt to answer the question you just presented him without undermining his own position, but instead he rolls out Rule 5 in an attempt to not further break Rule 2 because he is incapable of accomplishing Rule 3. He had no other option as your facts destroyed his propaganda.

            Just another shallow thinker that incapable of realizing any ‘collective’ is a destruction of the individual.

            But let me answer the question for him……you will go along or they will crush you in the name of the greater good. Just exactly like every tyrant in history has done.

          • GoldDust

            I Know you get it but here goes anyway;

            Saul Alinsky at best was a true rebel ignorant of the cunning of the power elite controlling the establishment he meant to take back from them because he believed in taking it back for the people who also mistakenly believe in the fairy tale of who We the People is versus we the people. Maybe he knew the real history and maybe he did not. The real history is the Pope since 1213 owns England and the King of England via King Johns Concessions, and this includes the Crown Bank of London operated by the Rothschild family through various contracts before and after the Revolutionary War owned the corporation known as the British East Indies Company, The Hudson Bay Company, The Virginia Land Company, the United States of America Company, and the United States Company. All the same corporation bearing name changes through this nefarious financial endeavor by these Monarchs. The Holy Trinity mentioned in various International Documents in establishing settlement here. Or Alinsky was a Hofjuden Court Jew serving the papacy working under cover so to speak to draw out rebels into the open. This is the same technique the establishment uses to draw out sovereign citizen mentalities into the open. Right now in this country the establishment knows who the rebels are, who the real Christians are, the real atheists, Liberals, Communists, Constitutionalists, anti NWO, nihilists, etc..etc.. These people that set this corporation up in Paris own it and us. Citizen defined in law means world slave. Slaves do not own property they only are allowed the use of property. Human resource means merchandise, are you merchandise? I’m not. Now Alinsky and all of these other rebels speaking out on taking something back are talking about a corporation created by others by international contracts that has nothing to do with the rebels themselves. They are not signatories of any contractual agreements nor are they of the Posterity of those who were the signatories of those agreements. There have been many Alinsky’s, Marx’s, Kant’s, and Hegels throughout this mess. I’d like to see this thing taken down myself. The problem is all political revolution is fomented by it as a defense mechanism. Only one has the power to destroy this thing and he will when he is done using it to fulfill his Prophecy.

          • Idaho_Roper

            Considering Alinsky’s referenced Lucifer, I believed he was aware and in the end working for the corporate contractors. But perhaps not.

            His common reference to ‘democracy’ is what made me take his work with a grain of salt. True democracy is as vile a system as any oligarchy. The mob rule is perhaps even worse as humans seem to be at their most evil when they think they are the ‘majority’ and have the support of others. I believe it takes a huge dose of naivete to believe the outcome would be different if it were just ran by different people, perhaps with better intentions. Human nature is always ignored by these folks and they live in the emotional world that allows them to discount or even dismiss anything that would challenge their beliefs.

            But it dumbfounds me at how anyone can promote that theory without understanding their destruction of the individual they are claiming to promote. How if 51 out of 100 make a decision, the other 49 must bend to the will even if it goes against their most core beliefs or desires. Where is the individulism for those 49? The easy answer is to just ignore it and hope you are in the ‘majority’.

            “People cannot be free unless they are willing to sacrifice some of their
            interests to guarantee the freedom of others. The price of democracy is
            the ongoing pursuit of the common good by all of the people.” _ Alinsky

            “WHAT FOLLOWS IS for those who want to change the world from what it
            is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli
            for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the
            Have-Nots on how to take it away.

            In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to
            seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of
            equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for
            education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those
            circumstances in which man can have the chance to live by values that
            give meaning to life. We are talking about a mass power organization
            which will change the world into a place where all men and women walk
            erect, in the spirit of that credo of the Spanish Civil War, ‘Better to die on
            your feet than to live on your knees’. This means revolution.” _Alinsky

            Now there is an oxymoron if one is talking individualism. By his own admission the individual must sacrifice. And by their desire to ‘take away power from those who have it’ are they not also infringing upon those individuals, evil or not? It is just another attempted power grab by those believing they have a better way.

            I can find no other explanation but to claim that in Alinsky’s work, individual is really synonymous with mob. And all others will eventually be dismissed as human nature takes over those whom have seized power, just as it has done in every example in history.

            These things can not be discussed or implemented in isolation of themselves. Many other factors such as unwavering history and human nature must be addressed, and once one does that, Alinsky unwinds like a spring released from its cage.

          • Dave B.

            So…individualism can ONLY mean unfettered freedom for each person, with NO concern at all for others? Yet at the same time, each individual MUST defer to whatever power or influence other individuals may have? O-kay.

          • Idaho_Roper

            Restricted freedom is no freedom at all, and restricted rights are not rights at all. Dismissing those facts does not make you correct, it makes you unwilling to admit what the word ‘individualism’ that you are trying to peddle actually means by your definition, “mob”.

            Yet you are unwilling to admit it because it does in fact expose your agenda as something different that you want the masses you expect to follow along to believe.

            True freedom and rights protect me from your imposition upon me, and you from mine. It protects my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (as I see it) without you or anyone else trying to steal it or limit it as long as I abide by the rights of others to do the same.

            Perhaps we should take a vote on this site as to whether or not you should be banned, while at the same time we proclaim to believe in free speech. When you lose the election are you going to walk away feeling like your individualism was protected and that our claims of supporting fee speech were valid? That’s democracy pal and it has nothing to do with protecting the individual by it’s truest definition. It is mob rule, period.

            Catch up and learn to think for yourself and consider the consequences of what you are trying to sell. The minute you find yourself in the minority, you will understand the true outcome.

            But, to answer your question directly…….no, individualism can mean many different things, even the deceptive definition you use. The changing of the meanings of words is just another tactic of the tyrants and deceivers.

          • GoldDust

            Full circle, how exactly did Alinsky reject individualism? He perverted the definition. He was not being original either. All of this group social justice horse shit goes way back in history. The majority of these hue-moons living in darkness are born alone, they seek out an artificial womb and spend all of their life in it, then they die alone.

          • Idaho_Roper

            Yep, and his little disciple here ended up being one of the most empty suits to stumble through the door in quite a while.

            If you read through the comments, he offered nothing and he really said nothing. I think he realized in your first reply that he was out of his depth, but his arrogance wouldn’t allow him to leave without proving it to himself. Status quo nanny stater. His basic argument was that of the typical juvenile…….. nuuuuh ughhh, yooou did!

          • GoldDust

            I don’t think these people are capable of recognizing depth. If these u.s. corporate citizens had researched and studied contract law extensively, since they’re supposedly corporate owners of this corporate model they’d know right away that they have no social contract to speak of and the social contract which is in place has nothing to do with them other than of being owned by that which they do not comprehend.

          • Dave B.

            I can sure recognize an illusion of depth when I see it.

          • Idaho_Roper

            And yet……..YOU have provided NOTHING. It seems a fool has a very hard time seeing himself the fool. You continue to prove GD’s points for him, for it is obvious you can not substantiate your own comment yet again, or perhaps you do and just wrote it in a manner which is really an admission to your own lack of depth even though you spend your time on the internet trying to convince others otherwise.

            If you take the time to read the comment here it quickly becomes obvious you are the one lacking knowledge or an ability to answer any question or provide any contrary evidence. All you have provided is two links to works everyone here already possess and a bunch of meaningless drivel in reply. You have not countered even one comment with anything meaningful.

            I mean, for shit sake, you are not even good at utilizing his rules, simple as they are.

          • Dave B.

            Like I said, I’ve just been trying to figure out what you guys base your claims on. And I reckon it’s obvious. Well, it’s obviously not based on what Alinsky actually wrote, anyway.

          • Dave B.

            I’ve just been trying to find out what you guys base your claims on.

          • Idaho_Roper

            Facts

            You should try it. They are enlightening.

          • Dave B.

            That’s a non sequitur within a non sequitur.

          • Idaho_Roper

            And yet, you are unable to disprove even one word of what we have presented. Denial does not change fact Dave. You seem to what to try and redefine what Alinsky actually says to try and fit into your wants and desires and also at the same time ignore the information from which he formed his opinion. He really presented nothing new albeit a little repackaged information from the likes of Marx’s, Kant’s, Hegels, Engals and gang.

            While it may sound all warm and fuzzy on the outside, the true outcome is just another form of tyranny, but tyranny just the same.

          • Dave B.

            Well, first I’ve been trying to get you to stand up and try to prove even one word of what you have presented. And instead of resorting to what the man actually said, you’ve gone on about your own ideology. I haven’t seen anything to indicate that you’ve actually read Alinsky at all, which is absolutely typical of people who use his name as if it were some kind of black magic incantation.

          • alrem

            “….gone on about your own ideology.”?
            Hardly. Both men have explained an ideology and listed several names that used this ideology (repeatedly), while explaining the facts and failures of such an ideology. Nothing new.

          • Dave B.

            Listed several names? Wow. I’m overwhelmed. How about just providing some actual quotes from the guy we’re talking about in support of their claims?

          • alrem

            I can see that you are overwhelmed. If you are not comprehending what’s been posted already I can’t help you.

          • Dave B.

            I don’t have a comprehension problem. You guys just have a problem with RELEVANCE.

          • alrem

            Well I hate being the bearer of bad news but it’s been repeated several times and yet you cannot seem to grasp what is going on regardless of how it is presented. As far as ‘relevance’ goes, the repeated ONE topic of discussion in these comments has escaped your comprehension, has it not?

          • Dave B.

            What’s been repeated? A lot of vague allusions and beating around the bush without actually providing anything from Alinsky’s writing to support it.

          • alrem

            “Go read Hegel, obviously Alinsky did because he mastered Hegel’s Dialectic.”

          • Dave B.

            And that’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Thank you.

          • alrem

            What is the Hegelian Dialect?

            “…the State ‘has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State… for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'” Author/historian William Shirer, quoting Georg Hegel in his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1959, page 144)

            In 1847 the London Communist League (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels) used Hegel’s theory of the dialectic to back up their economic theory of communism. Now, in the 21st century, Hegelian-Marxist thinking affects our entire social and political structure. The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution. If we do not understand how the Hegelian dialectic shapes our perceptions of the world, then we do not know how we are helping to implement the vision. When we remain locked into dialectical thinking, we cannot see out of the box.
            http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm
            Kurt Lewin:

            http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/kurt-lewin-change.htm

            The intentional process of radical social change demands continual tension or crisis. These may be spontaneous or manufactured. This book helped lay the foundation for the psycho-social strategies that have transformed education and culture around the world. Based on the research begun at Tavistock (England), continued at the Frankfurt Institute (Germany) then moved to MIT, Columbia University, Stanford and various tax-funded “Educational Laboratories” after World War II, it established the strategies for brainwashing that now permeate our schools, media and organizations. See Brainwashing in America.
            http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/brainwashing.html

          • Dave B.

            Okay, I’ll admit– I’m torn. This may be a MORE perfect example of what I’m talking about. It’s truly amazing the lengths you guys are willing to go to to avoid facing the fact that you can’t back up your claims with actual quotes from Alinsky.

          • alrem

            Here’s a partial quote from a comment below:
            “I don’t think these people are capable of recognizing depth.”
            Either you are quite confused, a troll, playing (sick) jokes or incredibly daft (brainwashed).
            I’d be interested in knowing your age and level of “education”.

          • Idaho_Roper

            I have already posted some quotes, which you were incapable of either countering or seemingly understanding. To take Alinsky at his word without understanding and research of where he came up with ‘his’ version is both willful ignorance and opening oneself up to being just another blind sheep.

            Put yourself in a box Dave and board up the windows because looking out them might unwind your simplistic views and beliefs. Reading one mans work and believing you have all the answers is exactly the ignorance that has allowed this society to be the apathetic buffoons we have become. You have proven you are part of the problem, not the solution.

          • Dave B.

            So how exactly did he “pervert” the definition? For that matter, how did he define it in the first place?

          • GoldDust

            Alinsky is actually continuing the perversion of the definition by the very establishment he “desired” to change. Since you can recognize an illusion of depth when you see it you should already know what we’re discussing so a lengthy dissertation explaining our ill founded illusion of depth will not be forthcoming. Just about every hint or clue I’ve tossed our here comes from Supreme Court Case decisions, legislative and or congressional actions, lengthy research of the communist philosophies, various wordages and terms usages and the Bible. And provably the historical record of social justice which is an original Biblical concept using charity for worthy causes which has also been perverted by the imaginations of several infamous philosophers, and societal establishments resorting towards coercive social injustice. You’re obviously a know it all with your mind made up so I wouldn’t dream of sharing legitimate source material which you’ve no doubt already studied in great depth well beyond mine or others of this sites enquiry into the multiple philosophical variables of this subject matter. I’ll give you a hint, read the massive writings concerning social justice by the Jesuits which surpasses Alinksy and Marx and Lenin by a long country mile.

            “You don’t understand the class structure of American society,” said Smetana, “or you would not ask such a question. In the United States, the working class are Democrats. The middle class are Republicans. The upper class are Communists.”

            — Whittaker Chambers, Witness, pg. 616

            The working class are slaves, the middle class are slaves and the upper class are collectivist capitalists who rate also slaves have been destroying free market capitalism for 100 years now.

            Every imagination of the thoughts of THE heart OF MAN IS only evil continually outside of the Biblical Law set forth for each man and his participation in a Biblical social Order of the Creator of man. The Devil through man has perverted the Biblical Law. Biblical free will free markets free invention and creation including charitable donations for worthy causes versus man law which is coercive restraint and taxation forced donations for all causes most being worthless and state theft or suppression of inventions and creations. Destruction of free markets. Bondage. Destruction of Individuality because individuality is suppressed, by the existing establishment and by the supposed political philosophies that would make bondage fair. Like man made social justice which is a communist utopia. Has been tried many times in history and failed, is failing now, is the reason communist socialist justice advocates murder late into the establishment of their utopia because many people do not want to participate in coercive communism. I don’t. Keep forcing it. Come here and try and force this filth which is not even your own original ideology upon myself and see what happens.

            Now this is where you will repeat yourself saying something stupid because your own individuality has been compromised since birth and the possibility of this being true threatens your individual down loaded identity which not original thinking on your part because you’ve never had an original thought of own, even your insults here are no so original.

            From the time we are born we are inundated with social and psychological programming, linguistic syntax, theory and rhetoric sold for truth. Some of it takes, some of it doesn’t. Most of the time we buy it and we buy it wholesale. Occasionally we have breakthroughs to varying degrees into out of the box unoriginal ill founded shallow enquiry examining the mass mans perception of reality.

            Now you do some deep thinking buddy..

          • Dave B.

            There you go. That’s that “illusion of depth” I was talking about.

          • GoldDust

            Now that is a well articulated concise explanation of the one dimensional, one reality of the social and psychological programming, linguistic syntax, theory and rhetoric sold for truth in reality ignorance of reality you’re mired down in. Downs syndrome. You have the only truth of this world, you must be a god.

          • Dave B.

            I beg your pardon, I didn’t realize I’d stumbled on some Secret Anarchist Clubhouse. And I didn’t realize I had some Secret Agenda that I expect the masses to follow along with.

            Where, exactly, did I so much as infer that the word ‘individualism’ (that I am trying to peddle?) actually means by my definition, “mob”?

          • Idaho_Roper

            Your agenda is not secret, it is just misguided. By defending Alinsky’s definition of individualism, which any thinking person can easily understand means “mob”. By promoting simple democracy, you are promoting simple mob rule. By failing to answer very straight forward questions honestly in an attempt to not have to admit your outcome and dream would also crush the individual that would not follow along.

            And you did it here…..”So…individualism can ONLY mean unfettered freedom for each person.” _ You

            And by ignoring this……. “True freedom and rights protect me from your imposition upon me, and you from mine.” _Me

            And by not understanding that without ‘true freedom and rights’, the individual can not exist without being oppressed and oppression is the destruction of the individual.

            Clear enough or do I need to simplify it more for you? I have to ask because in spite of your own claims you seem very poor at reading, comprehension and linking more than one thought together. In all honesty, you are becoming quite the bore.

          • Dave B.

            Good grief. Having actually READ Alinsky’s books, I can assure you that your purported “Alinsky’s definition of individualism” is utter nonsense. Who’s “promoting simple democracy”? What have I said in that respect? What the heck did Alinsky say in that respect?
            And GOOD GRIEF! I didn’t ignore your assertion, “True freedom and rights protect me from your imposition upon me, and you from mine.” You made that IN REPLY to my question about your idea of individualism. If YOU had actually read Alinsky’s books, you’d have found that his idea of ‘true freedom and rights’ and the dignity of the individual is not that different from yours.

          • Idaho_Roper

            Your continued attempt to make erred claims that we have not read his work while at the same time doing nothing more than a juvenile argument equivalent to ‘nuh uh’ leads me to wonder if in fact it is you whom has not read and understand his work.

            His definition is completely different than mine as his is actually a destruction of the individual in favor of mob rule just as we have pointed out for days. While you may think they are close, one has to realize that even the slightest differences can have catastrophically different results in the outcome. Real freedom is a fickle mistress that is easily destroyed by those wishing to seek control or believing they have a better way. A forced ‘collective’ in any form is the end of individualism for at least some of the people affected, as in the end, all collectives demand full participation even by those whom disagree.

            So, I will ask this question one more time……..

            In Alinsky’s dream society I decide that I do not want to participate. I do not want to pay, I do not sacrifice any of my freedoms or property and I will not follow any of your laws that infringe upon my freedoms, I as an individual demand to exist without your infringement upon my inalienable rights and freedoms. What is THAT society going to do to me? Try and answer it honestly, for you know as well as I do that it would not be tolerated.

            While Alinsky emotionally sounds good, when one interjects facts and reality into it, it quickly becomes obvious that the outcome of his ‘revolution’ is no different than any other system that eventually leads to tyranny. I am sorry Dave, but history supports my position and the emotionally based delusion that it could all be different if only different people were in charge has no standing that supports it.

          • Dave B.

            You keep referring to “His definition.” How, exactly, does he “define” individualism?
            Where do you come up with this business about Alinsky’s “dream society”? How, exactly, does Alinsky describe a “dream society”?

          • Idaho_Roper

            My word man………I have no options left but to consider you incompetent to have a conversation with. Perhaps try having a third grader read the comments GD and I have made and have them explain it to you.

            First, I already explained his definition, as has GD. And if YOU had read his work with any understanding it is obvious what his desired outcome was, just as we have both already posted.

            Or…….

            Answer the question and prove to us that you have read it and do understand it. There is only one answer that could come out of Alinsky, and you’re avoiding it because you can not defend it and still claim individualism, as in ‘the’ individual, is protected.

            Alinsky is mob rule albeit a different mob. Same outcome, same tyranny in the end.

          • Dave B.

            So that’s it? “Alinsky is mob rule albeit a different mob”? THAT’S your “Alinsky definition” of…individualism?

          • TRemington

            Dave B. – You have brought nothing to this conversation. The only reply you have made since the very first one was to accuse other commenters of not having read Alinsky…nothing more and nothing less. You continue to repeat that claim and nothing more. This is the typical actions of a troll only wishing to disrupt actual, intelligent conversation. So, either change your tactics or shut up. If it continues I will take further action. There is not time to deal with trolls.

          • Dave B.

            I have had no intention of disrupting actual, intelligent conversation. My intention has been to INCITE and participate in actual, intelligent conversation, and I hope I will be allowed to do so. But if your idea of a troll is someone who goes against the prevailing current of opinion on a forum, well, I’m your troll. And you can’t say I’ve brought nothing at all, can you? I provided a link for easy and open online access to Alinsky’s writings. Was that of no value in a discussion of them?
            I’ve been asking for explanations that haven’t been forthcoming– there has been, as I have said, a great deal of beating around the bush; I have wanted to cut through it to get on the trail of real truth. And I have been trying to do that by asking questions. Do you really think “Go read Hegel” is a substantial, intelligent, good faith answer to a question about what Saul Alinsky said HIMSELF?
            And should I be expected to defend some straw man?
            If I will be allowed to continue, I’d like to address some of the more recent replies to me, and I will try to do so in a manner less objectionable to you. In particular, I’d like to discuss the quotes provided by Idaho_Roper. I apologize for saying no quotes had been provided; but I honestly overlooked those because I didn’t recognize them as an answer to the question about Alinsky’s “definition” of individualism. I’m still a bit perplexed by that. I cannot promise to ask no more questions, or to be drawn out to defend a straw man.
            So if you wish to exclude me, or to let me continue, just say so.

          • TRemington

            We’ve been waiting for 8 days for you to do something besides sound like a broken record of, “You haven’t read Alinsky. I have.” So get on with it.

          • Idaho_Roper

            And yet, you still fail to answer the question. As I see Mr. Remington has grown weary of your empty, rhetorical quips it is time to walk away as I do not believe you capable of reply’s with any more depth and your continued nonsense will only lead to your eventually being smacked by the ban hammer.

            I wish you well and hope for your eventual acceptance of the truth over the fantasy you now seem to revel in.

          • Dave B.

            I’m perfectly capable of reading and thinking for myself, which is why I haven’t bought into this nonsense about Alinsky being some kind of supervillain. See, I’ve read what the man actually WROTE, and not what somebody else wants me to believe about it.
            To what “facts” are you referring?

          • Idaho_Roper

            You are contradicting yourself again. Claiming to being able to read and think yet incapable of understanding the information GD presented to you.

            Are you going to answer his question, or just ignore it?

            I am also interested in knowing what the mob is going to do if I decide as an individual that I do not want to pay or participate in your ‘creation’?

          • Dave B.

            GD didn’t present information; GD stated a barely comprehensible opinion. To what question are you referring?

          • Idaho_Roper

            Wow….really? And still you make claims of reading comprehension. If you actually missed it, it only exposes one of two things…..
            1. You are not reading his information
            2. You really are not capable of reading comprehension

            Here it is again, just as he presented it.

            “Let’s say your Alinsky revolution has been a success. You’re all living your dream. Oh but over here where I’m sitting I don’t want anything to do with the old system you’ve conquered nor the system you Alinskyites
            are recreating from your “original thinking” in replacement of the existing system which is the intellectual property of those you took out.{OR LET ME GUESS, YOU GENIUSES WANT TO STEAL THE SYSTEM ALREADY IN PLAY BECAUSE YOU AREN’T CAPABLE OF DESIGNING YOUR OWN SYSTEM?} So I’m not going to pay or play, I’m going to be an independent individual living on my own land growing and procuring my own meats and metals for
            trade. I’m going to be self determining my own destiny. I tell you guys pay for your own greater good. What pray tell are you going to do to me???? “_GD

            Notice the “?” at the end, that means he was posing a question for you to answer.

          • Dave B.

            You mean I’m supposed to seriously address that hypothetical straw man and the goofy rhetorical question? Why would I bother? I don’t HAVE any “Alinsky revolution” to begin with.

          • Idaho_Roper

            Can’t do it, can you?

            Of course you can’t and for the very reasons I stated above. You are proving yourself a shallow fool Dave and in serious violation of Rule 2.

            But let me answer for you as I answered it above when I knew you would avoid it.

            The minority will go along with the mob or they will crush you in the name of the greater good. Just as every tyrant in history has done.

            You are either ignorant or completely aware that what you are trying to promote is nothing new and just another form of tyranny that has reared it’s ugly head all through history. Personally, I am hoping for ignorance, it is curable and perhaps one day you will see through the fog that currently blinds you.

          • Dave B.

            Can’t do it? Why, I believe you’re absolutely right! It’s GD’s made-up hypothetical that doesn’t have anything to do with me. Of course I can’t answer it. I’m stuck here in REALITY. All by myself, it appears.

          • Idaho_Roper

            Reality…..yes, keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile the people will read the comments here which plainly show you as having no clothes.

            Good day and better luck with the next crowd you try and BS.

  • GoldDust

    Yeah, the Luciferian Doctrine which Alinksy was all about, was all about Individualism for tyrants with ordinary slaves for a slave class working for them. We all live in such a kingdom thus was Alinsky contradicting himself or was he a flat out liar?

    “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.” —“Rules for Radicals”—Sal Alinsky

    • Dave B.

      Is that as far as you got?