Ahhh, Alinsky

There has been a good deal of misdirection in the Occupy <insert name here> movement. People are becoming message obsessed. I don’t even mean the media who has been trying to cobble together what the message even is. Both sides have been arguing about the need for a message itself.

First, there is no message. The idea of occupying a place would have the message that it belongs to everyone. Even that message only holds if it includes everyone. Any message at all about anything political or social starts to divide people. Instead, we get various forms of consciousness raising. People are there for an unending hippie dippy jam session. Different views are welcome, but they will be disavowed by the movement at large.

This ends up being the opposite of the Tea Party philosophy. Tea Partier Number One, Rick Santelli, was talking about the government bailing out people with underwater mortgages. It moved on to bank bailouts and taxation. It gained traction with Obamacare. It culminated with 2010 electoral victories for Obama’s opposition. The message was focused (and occasionally refocused) and the meetings were a corollary to action.

So what’s going on here? Why get a group of people together with no goal? The answer is to get bodies. These protests are designed to fill the streets, interfere with public life and stress the system.

Saul Alinsky isn’t just the boogeyman for conservatives who think he’s going to dismantle the federal government with communists and cronies. He’s also the kind of amoral organizer who figures if you can’t get to the people at the top, make things a pain in the ass for the middle and the bottom and they will attack the people at the top who are supposed to keep order. Anarchy is a kind of power in itself.

Unfocused gatherings and complaints about “society” are a form of liberal-minded masturbation. The calls against the power of the rich is the porn. It feels a lot better than looking at the standard-bearer for the Democratic Party killing Americans for polls and profit or running guns to drug cartels.

About 1539days

I'm like a word a day calendar for executive disasters.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Ahhh, Alinsky

  1. elliesmom says:

    This is an organized distraction. People are legitimately angry, and anger makes people vulnerable. When the occupation moves to the front gates of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I’ll believe that it’s a grassroots movement, but as long as it’s being used to divert attention from what’s happening in DC, it stinks. Unfortunately, good people are getting sucked in. The disillusion will be painful when it comes – again. It’s not time to come back from exile yet, but for some of us our need to identify with a tribe is very strong. And it makes us jump on bandwagons before we know where they’re headed.

  2. WMCB says:

    OT Hilarious photo! Obama is reading a book to the kiddies, and it’s a book about…. himself. OMFG, how narcissistic can he get?!!


  3. Monster from the Id says:

    The very fact the Tea’Hadar were so focused smells like astroturf to me.

    • Monster from the Id says:

      *sigh* The very fact THAT the…


      • DandyTiger says:

        It’s like life. You open your mouth and say something, and just after you look for the edit button. 🙂

  4. Lola-at-Large says:

    A lot of the 1% is in Washington, elected to Congress. That needs to be said and taught, too.

    • Monster from the Id says:

      True. I’ve been comparing the pols to overseers and the MOGWs to masters. I should mention more often that some of the pols ARE MOGWs themselves.

  5. ralphb says:

    The Tea Party started out, if you believe the hype, being against the bailouts of the big banks with tax payer dollars. I would have thought that meant they would have been for regulating the banks so they couldn’t tank the economy with what should be criminal fraud again.

    That turned into anger about Obamacare which was sure justified. However, the response to that anger is passingly strange. Now the Tea Party is all in for electing people who promise to lower taxes, indiscriminately cut spending, and further deregulate the banks and other corporations.

    If existing regulations were not strong enough to prevent the prior economic collapse and resulting bailout, why would even fewer regulations be better?

    It’s enough to make me suspicious that the Tea Party has been taken over by right wing groups to further their own agenda. That leaves out God, gays, and guns which is also so attractive but wouldn’t seem to have much to do with bank bailouts.

    That’s not even taking into account that I see no way for government spending cuts in the midst of a demand driven recession to do anything other than contract the economy further. That should be great for unemployment numbers.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      While I can’t say I have read every Tea Party treatise out there, I can say I’ve never seen anything supporting deregulation of banks coming from the tea party. Not even deregulating corps. Now fighting further regulation of businesses, yes, with the specific caveat that such regulations prohibit hiring. There’s also a rhetorical flow on the supposed increase in paperwork filings and regs on small and medium sized businesses, but I can’t speak to whether there has actually been an increase as I don’t own a business.

      The Tea Party as I understand it has the following agenda:

      Eliminate Obamacare
      Live within our means
      Distrust of government to spend money wisely
      Trust in the free market to increase economic opportunity

      And that’s basically it. It’s mostly an economic movement, which can also be said of OWS right now. They do have some things in common.

  6. Dario says:

    Maybe John Choon Yoo is working for the Obama administration.

    WP: Political, legal experts want release of Justice Dept. memo supporting killing of Anwar al-Awlaki

    A bipartisan chorus of political and legal voices is calling on the Obama administration to release a declassified version of the Justice Department memo that provided the legal analysis sanctioning the killing in Yemen last week of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen.
    They said that the reasoning behind the extraordinary step of killing an American cannot be kept secret from scrutiny if the public is to continue to support counterterrorism operations. Awlaki was killed in a CIA drone strike.
    “While U.S. counterterrorism operations are, by necessity, classified, I do believe the administration should make public its legal analysis on its counterterrorism authorities, whether in the form of a legal opinion or a white paper,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “For both transparency and to maintain public support of secret operations, it is important to explain the general framework for counterterrorism actions.”
    Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also said this week, “I would urge them to release the memo. I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t.”
    The White House did not respond to a request for comment. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.
    Both Feinstein and Levin said they supported the lethal action.

    • Karma says:

      A memo…huh?

      So are they going to Post-it to the Constitution or will there be official letterhead which would require a staple or a paper clip?

    • WMCB says:

      Dayum. So that’s how it works! I reckon when I get ready to go murder my ex with an axe, I’ll get me a fancy lawyer to write me something on the back of an envelope saying how it’s okay for me to do that, seeing as how he’s an evil asshole and all.

    • Three Wickets says:

      Obama doesn’t need Yoo, he’s got Harold Koh.

    • Three Wickets says:

      There is a difference between a traitor and a traitor who organizes the killing of 16 American soldiers at Fort Hood. The latter requires an investigation and if warranted a trial, the former does not. At least in peacetime.

  7. lurker says:

    BTW, what does Occupy Wallstreet mean? I was not brought up here so not sure i understand.
    Are they planning to eventually enter the NYSE floor and fill it?
    or, enter the Fed Reserve/Investment banks and stop them from working?

  8. Three Wickets says:

    This ends up being the opposite of the Tea Party philosophy. Tea Partier Number One, Rick Santelli, was talking about the government bailing out people with underwater mortgages. It moved on to bank bailouts and taxation. It gained traction with Obamacare.

    Santelli reports on bond markets. He looks after the interest of bondholders who btw have survived the financial collapse remarkably well given the bailouts from the treasury and the fed…we’ll be paying for those bailouts in one form or another for many years to come. Given current treasury rates, bondholders have kicked ass lately, probably the only asset class that’s been making serious money.

    As to the “government bailing out people with underwater mortgages,” when did that happen exactly. The government bailed out banks and investors holding underwater mortgages. Big difference.

  9. yttik says:

    “First, there is no message.”

    I think there really is a message Days, they want less crony capitalism, the right to keep more of their money, and a voice in their government. They’re ticked off that wall street got bailed and main street got the bill.The problem is, that’s a conservative message. Most of these people are fans of the left. How do you express what you want, without sounding like a conservative? I don’t think you can.

    • 1539days says:

      Nope. Some people may feel that way. Others are dyed in the wool socialists who think the rich have enough money to pay for everything. There is no consistency I can see.

      Frankly, some of these people are closer to the Tea Party than they think, but they are too far away from what they think the Tea Party is.

Comments are closed.