Sunday 25 April 2010

The Guide to Cameron's "Big Society"

On March 31 David Cameron unveiled his “Big Society” plan, listing a set of policies which he claims are designed to build a ‘Big Society’ based on responsibility and respect.

The very first of these is a proposal for “a neighbourhood army of 5,000 full-time, professional community organisers who will be trained with the skills they need to identify local community leaders, bring communities together, help people start their own neighbourhood groups, and give communities the help they need to take control and tackle their problems”, in relation to which he goes on to say:

“This plan is directly based on the successful community organising movement established by Saul Alinsky in the United States and has successfully trained generations of community organisers, including President Obama.”

It may be that the disingenuous Mr Cameron is attempting here to capitalise on the still widely held belief in Britain that Obama is a a successful and hugely popular American president. This might be a reasonable assumption, given that due to media censorship, although the British public are aware that Obama was swept to victory on a tilde of popularity and optimism in November 2008, very few are aware that, within months of taking office Obama's poll ratings were languishing amongst those of history's least popular presidents.

(Did anyone else notice the note of panic in the voice of Asian news reader Krishan Guru-Murthy, when Michael Heseltine alluded to that secret fact on last night's Channel 4 news?)

However, it remains rather bizarre that a European Conservative leader would pay such a fulsome tribute to a figure such as Saul Alinsky the author of “Rules for Radicals” considered my many to be a guidebook to modern communist revolution. Published in 1971, is a bible for many on the left and a significant tool in bringing about some of the worst aspects of our modern Orwellian society.

In the opening paragraph of Rules for Radicals Alinsky says: "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"

He goes on to say:

Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so future less in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.
Does this sound familiar? Can you see how Alinsky's guidance has been applied within our own society to replace so much that was good with so much that is so damaging.

Elsewhere, Alinsky says 'Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It.' “It” of course is a human being, but, as we have seen, the disciples of Alinsky are skilled dehumanisers.

Speaking of Saul Alinsky a respected commentator and friend of mine said: “This man was an aggressive communist, one for whom there was no right or wrong, only power, there was no morality only the will to dominate others. He is an absolute horror when you view the way he wants to break down society, destroy the Church and families, etc. He followed the Gramsci line of thinking, rather than the Stalin brute force approach, and therefore avoided direct confrontations. But he was constantly fomenting divisions, creating a sense of grievance, class envy, us versus them attitudes, the sorts of things that absolutely wreck society he saw as very useful. He was a destroyer.”

When challenged, Alinsky denied that he was a communist, but his writings, and the manner in which they have been used belie that denial.

A writer calling themselves “Jessie James” in an article entitled “Know your enemy” published on Western Front America said: The long term goal of Saul Alinsky and the socialist revolutionaries is to openly overturn the traditional order of society by taking power from the “Haves” and giving it to the “Have- Nots” of the world.

This goal of radical redistribution of wealth and power is the only “constant” ideology that an Alinsky trained “community disorganizer” is taught to accept. That the ultimate implementation of this redistribution on a global level would destroy each and every advanced white western country is either not understood by the the mostly white middle class disciples of Alinsky or they are so twisted that they see our destruction as desirable and justified.

Alinsky wrote his Rules for Radicals in 1971 for the specific purpose of harnessing the unfocused chaotic discontent of the 1960’s youth rebellion into a long term tool for the destruction of the current American system from the inside out. His goal was to produce a generation of “Realistic Radicals” who would worm their way into our churches, our government, our schools, our businesses, our labor unions and our media.”

This may be written from a partisan perspective, however, it remains beyond question that Saul Alinsky was no friend either of the white race or of the forces of conservatism.

The fact that the leader of a major European conservative party would choose not only to heap praise on such a figure, but to formulate policies based on his teachings leaves one with a troubling sense of unease. Are Cameron and his party acting through stupidity and ignorance, or is their motivation significantly more sinister?

Is the Conservative leader a fool, or is he something very different to what he would have us believe? Let us hope that it is the former and not the latter.

__________
Hat Tip: Dr. D

12 comments:

Dr.D said...

I think we are in an absolutely Lewis Carroll Alice-In-Wonderland sort of world when the Tory party would espouse such a blatantly communist approach to their philosophy. It contravenes everything the Tories have ever stood for historically and constitutes one of the greatest betrayals of the nation that has ever happened.

Americans had only a limited awareness of Alinsky until recently, although most of use are acutely aware him now, having seen the massive damage that we have suffered from the Obama team using Alinsky tactics. I fear that he is completely unknown in the UK, and this will be widely accepted as good. The British people need to understand that Obama is probably the least popular president we have ever had at this early point in his presidency. There is massive opposition to him and his policies, and we are working frantically to find ways to turn him out of office. There are few options, but all of them are being explored vigorously.

Anonymous said...

They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so future less in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past

There you go.... decades of destructive economic policies, creation of terrorism, smashing fo commuties, selfish excessive individualism, welfareism as life style, high crime rates, massive imigration... and cultural undermming, permissive living, drug taking , media stupefaction......demoralisation and softening up...

Anonymous said...

They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so future less in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past

There you go.... decades of destructive economic policies, creation of terrorism, smashing fo commuties, selfish excessive individualism, welfareism as life style, high crime rates, massive imigration... and cultural undermming, permissive living, drug taking , media stupefaction......demoralisation and softening up...

Anonymous said...

My prediction is that Obama will not be so easy to get out of office, even after his term is finished. Think of legal ways that will allow him to stay in office like martial law.

Beverly said...

Humans are highly successful social animals and have always been able to organise themselves very successfully, notably in small communities. The problem which now exists is caused by the magnitude, arrogance and self-opinion of governments who believe that it is incumbent on them to solve everything using their only tool, pastiche legislation. The political climate of Britain has evolved to make this a unidirectional imposition on the population by those who mistakenly believe that they have the intellect and capacity which exceeds that of all others.
In fact people do very well without burdensome governments. If the government of Zimbabwe etherised, the country would be enormously better off. Italy since WW2 has had more than 50 governments, and therefore has effectively never had a government long enough to “govern”.
From small businesses to large retail chains people mostly organise and function superbly, despite the dragging burden which government places on individual enterprise.
Small administrative units are, of course, necessary and functional. But these must be small enough for their populations to have direct access to, and control of, their administrators, and be sufficiently close to “manage the administrators” by continuous feed-in. These administrators, in turn, need to be sufficiently sensitive to the dynamic needs of their populations, and readily and promptly subservient to them.
“Top-down” governing is totalitarianism by definition. But this is what Cameron proposes, yet another layer of “administrative control”, with all the clutter, inertial and lag that this brings. We need smaller, largely self governing units, of the county and parish dimension if the quality of the human condition in Britain is to improve.

brian boru said...

If anyone thinks that a disgusting, amoral creature like Cameron has the best interests of the British people at heart they are delusional. All of the leaders of parliamentary parties in the west are primarily selected by their jew handlers for their willingness to carry out orders no matter how destructive to the interests nation they are supposedly serving. In a just, honourable society vermin like Tony Blair would have been executed for their crimes. Indeed, they would never have been allowed into positions of power. Instead, Blair has been enriched by his vampire bosses. Cameron and Clegg are precisely the same types. If Cameron is installed then he will implement the jew Alinsky's destructive directives because his puppet master has instructed him to do so. Whether something is moral and right or good for the people never enters into the minds of these caricature humans. They are only interested in the trappings of power and in accumulating material wealth.

Dr.D said...

Anonymous has said of Obama, "Think of legal ways that will allow him to stay in office like martial law."

That idea is already much discussed. It is an open question as to how that would play out. It would quite likely lead to open insurrection. We have the posse commitatus act that forbids the use of US troops against American citizens, and most Americans think that the US military would not open fire on them. No doubt there would be some exceptions, and Obama is rapidly trying to bring as many foreigners into the military as possible. This is one reason why this must all be settled very soon.

We may very well be quite close to civil war in the US today. We live in interesting times.

Anonymous said...

They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so future less in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.

This reminds me of myself in 2006. Except that instead of "letting go of the past" and turning to communism, I grew to hate the present and yearn for the past and turned to the BNP!

If their plan was to get me to support the BNP, then they have played me like a fiddle and well done to them. But if it was to get me to support the leftism/EU/etc, then their plan has backfired.


Also, if you think about it, the Alisnksy followers of the 1970s are now actually the establishment and the "haves", whereas the BNP are the "have nots", so you could actually flip this around and say a new generation of nationalists could copy what the leftists did and infiltrate left wing establishments like the church, media, government, schools and bring them round to nationalism.

Dr.D said...

@ Anonymous 14:41

You said, "...you could actually flip this around and say a new generation of nationalists could copy what the leftists did and infiltrate left wing establishments like the church, media, government, schools and bring them round to nationalism."

This is true to a point. Alinsky was a totally immoral man, willing to do absolutely anything. His only principal was to win. We cannot take that position because it is immoral. There are a number of his ideas that can be used, and the Tea Party movement in the US is doing just that. But Alinsky cannot be adopted completely; you have to pick out the usable parts.

Adrian Peirson said...

I believe one of the ways to expose the inherant evil in the political classes is to expose that which they would prefer to remain hidden.
Such as the well over 1 million violent deaths in iraq since our invasion.

The use of depleted uranium and the effect it is having on the Iraqi people in the form of birth defects.

There is much information on these subjects youtube videos etc.

The BNP maybe need to be more hard hitting and open the public's eyes to the Crimes comitted in our collective name.

It also puts them on the back foot too, especially since it is undeniable that since Gulf war 1, almost 2 million Iraqis have died violently.
500,000 in Gulf war 1
500,000 during sanctions
and over 1 million since the last invasion.

What was Nick Griffin's crime again, amazing isn't it, the power of the media, the public have no knowledge of the atrocvities going on in their name in the Mid east, but they all know Nick Griffin once exressed and opinion in private that might have offended someone.
This is mass brainwashing, going on about a comment made in private, meanwhile censoring any reference to the 2 million dead Iraqi's or the hideous birth defects being experienced by the Iraqi people.

No wonder the Arab people call us the Great Satan.

Alex Jones has done a few shows on depleted uranium/birth defcts.

The Gaurdian ran an article on it last year I think.

This needs highlighting, ot shames us as a Nation.

Put them on the back foot for a change.

Anonymous said...

Obama was swept to victory on a tilde of popularity and optimism in November 2008

I think even that is overdoing it, he scraped through on something like 51% of the vote, little more than that.

I may be wrong, but we are certainly not talking Ronald Reagan scale popularity here. Not that the leftist media would ever want Reagan used in any positive context.

Anonymous said...

Big Society??

More like a big scam. This coalition government loses respect on a daily basis.
The government claims that a mega debt exists but no one knows just how much it is and to whom it is owed.
Debt? What debt...we the English can afford to be in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. No problems...do you see people in rags starving on Britains streets...No way. The burger joints are full of the fat lazy and complacent benefit scoundrels.
Big Society?? No ways, no one gives a XXXX society. I am all right jack...pull up the ladder.
Welcome to England...its beautiful in the Spring...pity about the swarms of ethnics littering and lurking around in their pyjamas.