Archive for the ‘Social Justice’ Category

GamerGate and Chivalry

Posted: September 7, 2014 by ShortTimer in Culture, Media, political correctness, Social Justice
Tags:

What’s gone on with GamerGate in the last few weeks has been a microcosm of greater culture, and it’s fascinating because it moves so far and so fast.

Let’s begin this with a female indie game developer giving her thoughts on the oppressively PC video game journalism subculture:

Despite (or rather because of) all of the pontificating by left-leaning social justice types in the game industry about oppression, the easiest way for talentless hacks to break into the indie gaming industry is to associate with the sort of hipster liberal types that are getting all the publicity for their oppression. And worse yet, they get in over people with actual skills.  …

Let’s be completely honest: most women don’t play Quake III. Most of those few women like me who actually like first person shooters, grand strategy, space sims, and all those other genres that make up “core” gaming don’t care if they can play as a female protagonist, or if the girls are wearing skimpy outfits, or if you have to rescue the princess. They like the exact same things as men who like those games, and they just want good games, nothing more nothing less. And most of them feel that all this rambling on about representation is distracting from the real issue: big developers and publishers are making shitty games for mass appeal instead of the kind of awesome games we played growing up. When you distract from that to rant about what is literally imaginary misogyny you’re hurting women like me who just want good games.

Now, onto Chivalry, and not that archaic concept of men having different authorities and responsibilities than women, but the game Chivalry: Medieval Warfare.

The GamerGate story has parallels to something that happened a couple years ago to Torn Banner Studios, the small independent company that makes a cathartically violent Chivalry.

There was a very interesting response to Chivalry, and one of the few things I read about it in video game media/reporting (though that’s mostly because I care more if the game’s fun than what some reporter says – and Chivalry is a fun game, though obviously people have different tastes).

A forum member asked for female characters to be included in the game, and the developer said no, because he thought that an already violent game with the addition of female characters would lead to a horrible reaction in the fan community – basically that there would be verbal abuse by hyped-up male players playing a violent game.  He was pretty sure he knew the audience for his kind of game, and saw that as potential trouble.   As written by one of the devs:

This is a tough one, I actually think that adding female characters to a game like this would make it appeal less to females. Which at first sounds strange, but from my experience of the general maturity level of the internet and the unfortunately male dominated FPS market… I don’t think that it would add to the experience for women or men given the actions that would likely occur.

Hopefully that helps you understand why we decided not to go that route… I am totally fine with women fighting, but its the fact that it would probably overall harm the way the community would play the game that has me concerned.

And of course it was picked up by Kotaku as an example of sexism.  Yes, the same horribly biased, social-justice demanding Kotaku that’s been central to GamerGate.  Their article, while short, existed to tell Torn Banner that they were wrong, because sexism or something.  It’s a very short article from two years ago, but one that exists solely to say that a developer is wrong because he won’t put women characters in his game.

Just for reference, this is gameplay from Chivalry (don’t click play if you don’t want to see knights dismembered):

Now, in a game where one teamplay mode has one team literally killing off a village full of defenseless screaming peasants:

Would it really be a good idea to have screaming women involved in that, too?

If women were included, wouldn’t the response be that Chivalry is a game that hates women and literally rends them limb from limb?

Frankly, the developer made a hyperviolent game – one that is wonderfully cathartically fun – and made a decision not to include women in the game because he thought few women would be playing it anyway, and that it would only make things worse for those women who would.  Like the female indie dev said – most women don’t play this kind of “core” game – and if they do, they don’t care about having a female character model, or need to hear a female voice choking on her own blood or watching her head roll down a hill.

We’ve seen in the last few weeks that the point of a lot of video game “journalism” isn’t to rate or review games, it’s to allow smug jackasses to benefit themselves financially and to lord their own moral superiority over the very people they profess to be writing for.  It’s self-congratulatory social justice leftism on a holier-than-thou crusade to tell you, the gamer, that you suck – the same thing we see on a larger scale in society, but less rapid and less visible.

And it’s been going on for a while now.

found on KYM

An Intro To GamerGate

Posted: September 6, 2014 by ShortTimer in Corruption, Culture, Media, political correctness, Social Justice
Tags:

The short version is that a few weeks ago, a man who was cheated on posted a long, long blog post about how his ex-girlfriend had used him, cheated on him, and all around mistreated him horribly (including raping him by her own definition).

Turns out that woman was a game developer.  And of the five guys she’d cheated on her boyfriend with, it seems a few, if not all of them, were pretty big in the video game journalism world at places like Kotaku (associated with Gawker), and that she used her relationships with them in order to get her games published and get other people crushed.

Add a little bit of social justice to it and the power of journalism directed to demonize anyone who disagreed with her as a sexist misogynist; as well as the ability to crush game events and redirect them to her own financial ends – and that being found to be a common practice in the incestuous world of social justice game journalism and indie game development, and you have the makings of a huge scandal.

InternetAristocrat explains it really well.  Buckle in, it’s a long ride, but it’s a microcosm of the larger culture.  The first video will give you an idea of the genesis of this, the later ones reveal more and more, but are probably the best way to get caught up on the story.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

And the story was recently picked up on by HotAir after Adam “Animal Mother” Baldwin tweeted about it.

Drudge has a link to Krugman’s piece at the NYT as his big headline today.  Why?  Because Krugman, ever the idiot that he is, is rambling on about a 91% tax rate from 1950, and how the “rich must pay their fair share”.

the ’50s — the Twinkie Era — do offer lessons that remain relevant in the 21st century. Above all, the success of the postwar American economy demonstrates that, contrary to today’s conservative orthodoxy, you can have prosperity without demeaning workers and coddling the rich.

Today’s conservative orthodoxy isn’t about either coddling the rich or demeaning workers.  Bosses don’t get good results from employees who are hurt, and bosses who are favored by government (like Obama and bestest buddy Jeffrey Immelt from GE) means that there is no free market as the govt. picks winners and losers.  A rising tide raises all boats.

Consider the question of tax rates on the wealthy. The modern American right, and much of the alleged center, is obsessed with the notion that low tax rates at the top are essential to growth. Remember that Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, charged with producing a plan to curb deficits, nonetheless somehow ended up listing “lower tax rates” as a “guiding principle.”

Yet in the 1950s incomes in the top bracket faced a marginal tax rate of 91, that’s right, 91 percent, while taxes on corporate profits were twice as large, relative to national income, as in recent years. The best estimates suggest that circa 1960 the top 0.01 percent of Americans paid an effective federal tax rate of more than 70 percent, twice what they pay today.

And here we’re going to begin the misty-eyed dreaming of days gone by from the leftist perspective.  Lower tax rates at every level are necessary for growth.  Lower tax rates at the top free up capital, and stability in government and politics establishes confidence in business owners to go out and expand their businesses, leading to more and better paid employees.  The current administration’s populist “eat the rich” attitude is something that’s setting back business development, and their fickle and flawed creation of a socialist health care system is causing businesses to respond to that uncertainty as well.

The tax rates of the 1950s, with a lot of analysis, could also be looked at as why the economy didn’t develop even faster.  Let’s keep in mind that there were still bureaucrats from the FDR era in government, and the government was still busy being huge, still impacted in size by WWII and going off to Korea to fight another war as well.  Also, ask what amount of those rates were actually paid versus what the rates were.

Nor were high taxes the only burden wealthy businessmen had to bear. They also faced a labor force with a degree of bargaining power hard to imagine today. In 1955 roughly a third of American workers were union members. In the biggest companies, management and labor bargained as equals, so much so that it was common to talk about corporations serving an array of “stakeholders” as opposed to merely serving stockholders.

Squeezed between high taxes and empowered workers, executives were relatively impoverished by the standards of either earlier or later generations. In 1955 Fortune magazine published an essay, “How top executives live,” which emphasized how modest their lifestyles had become compared with days of yore. The vast mansions, armies of servants, and huge yachts of the 1920s were no more; by 1955 the typical executive, Fortune claimed, lived in a smallish suburban house, relied on part-time help and skippered his own relatively small boat.

Putting burdens on businessmen ignores that that’s also putting burdens on the business.  Also keep in mind that the character of the nation was different then.  In 1955, unions hadn’t become as bad as they are today, with things like “job banks“:

One of the benefits negotiated by the United Auto Workers was the former jobs bank program, under which laid-off members once received 95 percent of their take-home pay and benefits. More than 12,000 UAW members were paid this benefit in 2005

Union sloth is legendary, but the character of the country also worked against it in those days.

Executives weren’t the only ones relatively impoverished.

The average American in 1955 wasn’t very well off, either.  The were better off than in the Depression (some of them), and they were better off than when they were conscripted, but they weren’t well off.  Consider this (pulled off the net in 2 seconds):

Average Yearly Wages $4.130.00 (around $2/hour, or alternately TheCostofLiving.com says average yearly wages were only $3301, and so does the Social Security Adminstration at $3301.44)
Minimum Hourly Rate $1.00
Average Cost of a new car $1,900.00
Black and White TV $99.95

Right now, I’m sitting typing at a computer that can instantly communicate with millions of people across the world, with processing power unimaginable in 1955.  If you’re reading this, it’s most likely also on an incredibly powerful computer that would still be deep in the realm of science fiction for 1955, or even reading it on a handheld tablet, phone, or some other device that could not exist in 1955.

Right now, the average American wage is around $43,000, hardly a trifiling amount.  A new car in 2011 can run you as low as $13,600… of course, that’s before taxes and government fees.  Let’s say you don’t want a Kia as a price point even, and would prefer something made by an American-owned company.  You can get a Ford Fiesta for around $14,200, before the government gets involved with tax, title, and license fees.  Now the average cost might be a little higher, but the substantive cost is very different.  The lowest-grade car you can find today has technological advances that did not exist in 1955.  The Fiesta gets 29 mpg on a bad day.  A car from 1955 would be running in the 10s for fuel efficiency.  And how about safety?

As for the cost of a B&W TV set… well, those are difficult to find anymore.  Consider that your phone can probably watch youtube videos with a lot more choices than CBS, ABC, NBC and maybe a local station or two.  But what kind of TV can we get today for $99.95?  How about a 19″ LED ($99.98 online)Compare the size and performance with back then.

Using the Bureau of Labor and Statistics Inflation Calculator, $99.95 in 1955 would get us $862.69 in today’s money.  Let’s see what we can get for a TV now.  With online purchasing, I can find an $828 TV that’s a color LCD TV with a 55″ screen.  Notice a quality of life difference yet?

Going back to the car really quickly, the $1900 for a car translates to $16,399.  So you can still afford an average car or light SUV that will last much, much longer than an old car, will require less maintenance, get better mileage, be safer with regards to crash ratings and brakes and belts and airbags, and provide features like power windows, AM/FM/CD/aux jack radio, AIR CONDITIONING, and other features that simply didn’t exist in 1955, or were prohibitively expensive.

Krugman’s desire to see the US reduced to the 1950s ignores a massive substantive increase in quality of life as he tries to reduce the rich to groveling at the temple of the state.

The data confirm Fortune’s impressions. Between the 1920s and the 1950s real incomes for the richest Americans fell sharply, not just compared with the middle class but in absolute terms. According to estimates by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, in 1955 the real incomes of the top 0.01 percent of Americans were less than half what they had been in the late 1920s, and their share of total income was down by three-quarters.

Why are lower incomes for anyone a good thing?  There was also a depression in the 1930s and there was that war thing in the 1940s, and the 1920s were a time of prosperity.  By the 1950s, there were still two decades worth of monetary policy damage and war costs being recovered from.

Today, of course, the mansions, armies of servants and yachts are back, bigger than ever — and any hint of policies that might crimp plutocrats’ style is met with cries of “socialism.” Indeed, the whole Romney campaign was based on the premise that President Obama’s threat to modestly raise taxes on top incomes, plus his temerity in suggesting that some bankers had behaved badly, were crippling the economy.

Yes, for many reasons.  Eating the rich is foolish.  They’re the most prosperous in society, often for good reason. They produce things – often capital for others’ ideas, but often the ideas themselves.  Consider this guy:

He makes some music that lots of folks really, really like.  His music talents and his ability to spot others with musical talent has led him to becoming a very, very rich man.  He’s worth $460,000,000.  Half a billion dollars.

The comical hypocrisy of Obama visiting a self-made man worth nearly half a billion dollars to beg for money so he can screw the rich and hiding a $280,000 tower of champagne so no one can see how rich he is… is, well… rich.  Jay-Z isn’t going to get hit with 91% taxes anyway (if you hang out with the pres, you get favors), and his success wouldn’t have been possible in the 1950s, either.  If he wants servants and yachts, good for him.  He earned them (and his employment of them helps them as well).

If Jay-Z were taxed at a 91% rate, however, what would his music empire be worth?  If every year, rather than be able to reinvest in new promotions, reinvest in new shows, put money down to back new artists, or even to just lavishly spend stuff on himself, which improves those who provide luxury goods, how much poorer would we as a nation be?  Maybe that last phrase is a bit over the top for somebody who’s a rapper, but consider that his money is spent somewhere, it goes somewhere, it’s reinvested somewhere, and there are a lot of people whose lives do depend or are at least influenced by, whether directly or indirectly, how much he makes and spends.  And not just the champagne producers.  Every small venue that hosts somebody he promotes is making money, the sound and lighting guys at those venues are getting paid because the venue’s full, everybody who’s making merchandising and t-shirts and everybody who’s providing concessions to the shows – that’s a lot of income and improvements in life that come from one man’s large amount of wealth being directed back into his own business.

Krugman’s statement about Obama’s connection with bankers is equally stupid.  Obama was elected in no small part by bankers donating to him in 2008.  And he’s put those big banks in charge of everything.  And even though they elected him in 2008 and has spent four years demonizing his old friends, he still has friends in those big banks.  The bankers who “behaved badly” are those who are in collusion with him.

Surely, then, the far less plutocrat-friendly environment of the 1950s must have been an economic disaster, right?

Actually, some people thought so at the time. Paul Ryan and many other modern conservatives are devotees of Ayn Rand. Well, the collapsing, moocher-infested nation she portrayed in “Atlas Shrugged,” published in 1957, was basically Dwight Eisenhower’s America.

Yes, Eisenhower’s America, where individual wealth was confiscated and ideas were confiscated and man was forced to serve man under the cruel collectivist boot of the state.  /sarc  Krugman, you’re an idiot, and have clearly never read the book (then again, Paul Krugman doesn’t read his own books, so who knows).  Krugman, please watch:

Strange to say, however, the oppressed executives Fortune portrayed in 1955 didn’t go Galt and deprive the nation of their talents. On the contrary, if Fortune is to be believed, they were working harder than ever. And the high-tax, strong-union decades after World War II were in fact marked by spectacular, widely shared economic growth: nothing before or since has matched the doubling of median family income between 1947 and 1973.

“Strange to say?”  Krugman’s worldview is so warped he doesn’t understand, and perhaps can’t understand.

The decades after World War II were because war-footing ended.  The decades after World War II were because World War II ended the idiotic New Deal.  The New Deal is what caused the Great Depression – governmental policies that established uncertainty in markets, governmental policies that picked winners and losers, governmental policies that sucked up the labor force into the CCC and other make work programs while simultaneously draining the rest of society and screwing up monetary policy.

The 1950s were a recovery from FDR years.  They were a recovery from a decade of the New Deal and the war years.  There was much to be improved on yet, but rest assured, 91% tax rates do not spur people to work harder.

Which brings us back to the nostalgia thing.

There are, let’s face it, some people in our political life who pine for the days when minorities and women knew their place, gays stayed firmly in the closet and congressmen asked, “Are you now or have you ever been?” The rest of us, however, are very glad those days are gone. We are, morally, a much better nation than we were. Oh, and the food has improved a lot, too.

Let’s see… people in political life who want minorities to know their place…

Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops of the KKK

And women to know their place…

Democrat Ted Kennedy’s car that he drowned Mary Jo Kopechne in… as he left her and went back to a party… and called his lawyer to figure out how best to proceed since he’d left her to die…

Krugman is just trolling here.  The only people who agree with it, already agree with it.  Those who look at it critically suddenly find his statements there, which are typical leftist slop, to be nonsense.

A couple paragraphs before he’s citing Ayn Rand, a female Russian Jew as an exemplar of right thought, and then suddenly women and minorities are supposed to “know their place?”  I guess if their place is at the head of the table with ideas about equality based on character, then sure, absolutely.

Krugman is as ignorant of history as he is of basic economic laws.  Let’s look at the civil rights act from the 1960s and who voted for it, just to torpedo this idiocy, just the very first stat here:

  • Democratic Party: 152–96   (61–39%)
  • Republican Party: 138–34   (80–20%)

In the 1950s even moreso, who was it that integrated schools?  Let’s look at the Little Rock Nine from 1957.  Segregation was pushed and integration resisted by DEMOCRAT Governor Orval Faubus.  Integration was forced by Republican President Eisenhower.

As for the gay issue, there’s a difference between asking for special priviledges, special laws (hate crime laws are idiocy in many ways), and special treatment rather than asking for equal treatment (exercising equal rights prevents so-called “hate” crimes, too).  Removing fedgov from marriage entirely, and leaving it up to religious organizations, would solve the issue entirely.  And I’ve covered the issue with regards to the military before, which comes with a seperate set of problems that aren’t the same in regular society, and would make this long post even longer.

As for asking “Are you now or have you ever been?”… well, normal nations do that sort of thing anyway.  Also, McCarthy, though overzealous, was often right.  Consider just a few of those with communist sympathies in US government right nowAllen West makes the point quite well:

Moderator: What percentage of the American legislature do you think are card-carrying Marxists or International Socialist?

West: It’s a good question. I believe there’s about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party. It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Congressman West’s office responded to questions from CBSMiami.com with the following statement:

“The Congressman was referring to the 76 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.  The Communist Party has publicly referred to the Progressive Caucus as its allies.   The Progressive Caucus speaks for itself.  These individuals certainly aren’t proponents of free markets or individual economic freedom.”

As for the food being better… being a leftist who wants to control people’s lives, Krugman probably believes the death of the Twinkie is a good thing, but even factoring that out, the reason food has improved has been due to the ideas and implementation of people in agribusiness and food industries.  Those who put their money behind new technology from the 1950s to now, even such things as microwaves, tv dinners, frozen pizzas, organic arugula and whatever else – these things have improved not because of labor or high taxes, but because of those who push the ideas forward.  (Yes, laborers contribute by doing the grunt work, but they don’t do the skull sweat as laborers… though some who do grunt work also do skull sweat.  The two aren’t exclusive by any means.)

And we finally get to the last part of this fisking of Krugman’s current Keynesian idiocy… except today he’s a lot more socialist.

Along the way, however, we’ve forgotten something important — namely, that economic justice and economic growth aren’t incompatible. America in the 1950s made the rich pay their fair share; it gave workers the power to bargain for decent wages and benefits; yet contrary to right-wing propaganda then and now, it prospered. And we can do that again.

Economic justice is socialism.  It’s the idea that everyone should be equal, and that the state should make them so.  That’s not equal justice under the law, that’s the demand for “justice” for the proletariat raging against the bourgeoisie; defining a caste system by economic income, pitting man against man, rather than acknowledging that everyone in their own capacity as an individual can earn and live as best they earn.

America in the 1950s was still influenced heavily by decades of powerful progressive politicians, and “their fair share” is quite subjective.  Fair in the use of “fair share” is typically taken as “marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism”.  Not as in “that’s a fairly stupid thing to say, Krugman”, which would be fair in this definition: “moderately numerous, large, or significant <takes a fair amount of time>.”

Krugman, who ends by saying “right-wing propaganda” immediatly preceeds it with the union fairy tale of “gave workers the power to bargain for decent wages and benefits”.  Workers always have the power to bargain.  Person A selling Person B his labor in exchange for a wage and/or benefits is exercising his freedom as an individual to sell his skills at the highest level.  Person B can take it or leave it, as can Person A, both free from interference.  When Person B wants to pay for Person A’s labor, and Persons J,K,L,M, and O all are threatening Person B, suddenly Person A and B don’t have good footing to work anymore.  Persons J,K,L,M, and O are busy telling Person B that they own Person B’s capital that Person B wants to pay for Person A’s labor with because they work at Person B’s shop.  Now Person B can’t even hire Person A because he’s busy fighting with Persons J,K,L,M, and O, who have formed a gang against Person B… and against Person A.

Or let’s assume Person B and J,K,L,M, and O get along fine.  Well when Person A shows up, he’s the junior guy.  J,K,L,M and O get favorable treatment, while Person A gets shafted, and has to pay J,K,L,M, and O in order to work.  Person A loses part of his salary just to be able to work at Person B’s business.  And Person A has to pay for Person O, who’s JKLM’s representative, to tell him not to work while they fight with Person B.

Now, let’s assume there’s Person C.  Person C is in a right-to-work state.  Person C can see that Person A wants to work in B’s field.  Person C offers a better rate to A than B can offer, and A doesn’t have to live under JKLMO anymore.

I’ve rambled a bit here (thanks for sticking with me, reader), but unions pit one group of workers against another.  We’ve seen this just this last week in how the Teamsters union got screwed over by the Baker’s union.  Normally it’s most easy to see in how the one man is isolated from the union, but here we have an even better example in how the Teamsters had reached a deal with Hostess, but te Bakers screwed them over and killed the company – and thus the Teamsters’ jobs are now gone.

Krugman’s entire piece is a vivid leftist fantasy about how eating the rich is great, how good unions are, and how big government is good.  He’s a firm believer in Keynesian top-down economics (as has been detailed many, many times).  His title of “The Twinkie Manifesto” is perhaps more appropriate than he thinks it is.   It’s saccharine fluff for those who are already inclined to it, and distasteful to those who don’t like it.

I’m partial to Zingers myself.

As a final note here, and something I may make it’s own post (as this has gotten a bit long… though by fisking a “manifesto” it’s to be expected), an anecdote.  My grandfather worked for a railroad for decades.  In the 1950s, he was still working for the railroad, and the railroads are rather famous for their own unions, as well as having their own retirement programs that pre-date Social Security.  Well, in this wonderful union world in which he worked, he would spend days after work at his house disassembling an old cistern in the backyard and breaking the bricks to make gravel for the driveway.  In this rich, wonderful world of “decent wages and benefits”, my grandpa would take bricks from a broken cistern in the backyard at his house and break the bricks – by hand with a hammer – to make gravel for the driveway.

I’m not averse to hard work, but the 1950s economically were a relative improvement over previous decades.  The Democrat economic issues Krugman brings up as good things to his mindset are just as abhorrent as bringing back Democrat racists and misogynists.  We don’t need any of those ideas.

The nostalgic looks that many people have on the right are about going back to a time of much more moral certainty, and equality under the law.  Communism was identified for what it was, a murderous statist ideology that killed millions.  America was recognized for its greatness in allowing people freedom – which is why the struggle for civil rights came about, and often primarily driven by people on the Republican side of the house.  Welfare was looked at derisively, hard work was a virtue (which also meant the character of unions, by their people, was different).  The law was still respected, and though flawed, people sought to work to change it – again, the struggles of the civil rights era were about people defending themselves within the law.  Civil disobedience works in a moral nation – not in an immoral one – and that’s why it did work in America, and improved the American condition.

No one wants to go back to cars with drum brakes and no seatbelts, no one wants to go back to black and white TV and no computers; no one wants to go back to segregation (though there are some places where it exists by choice of the residents, but that’s because of welfare and economic policies).  No one wants to go back to the days when Democrat sheriffs, governors, mayors, congressman, and senators oppressed minorities and women.  They do that enough today.  Nobody wants government in their bedroom, and only the left wants discriminatory laws for different people.

And only self-named progressives want to go back to regressive, destructive taxes and powerful government controls.

During the presidential debates, Romney took a stance against Obama’s Apology Tour.  Obama denied it, but as is expected of his administration, if it’s worth denying or covering up, it’s probably doubly true.  Consider this piece from Commentary Magazine complete with quotes from top Obama advisors Samantha Power and Anne-Marie Slaughter:

Power wrote that America’s record in world affairs had been so harmful to the freedoms of people around the world that the United States could remedy the problem only through profound self-criticism and the wholesale adoption of new policies. Acknowledging that President Bush was correct in saying that “some America-bashers” hate the American people’s freedoms, Ms. Power stated that much anti-Americanism derives from the role that U.S. power “has played in denying such freedoms to others” and concluded:

U.S. foreign policy has to be rethought. It needs not tweaking but overhauling….Instituting a doctrine of mea culpa would enhance our credibility by showing that American decision-makers do not endorse the sins of their predecessors. When [then German Chancellor] Willie [sic] Brandt went down on one knee in the Warsaw ghetto, his gesture was gratifying to World War II survivors, but it was also ennobling and cathartic for Germany. Would such an approach be futile for the United States?

Thus, even at the beginning of the Bush presidency, Power saw Brandt’s apology for the Nazis’ destruction of European Jewry as the model for an American leader to seek pardon for the sins of U.S. foreign policy.

These are the advisors who went and pushed the World Apology Tour.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, of Princeton University, whom President Obama would later appoint as the State Department’s head of policy planning, likewise exhorted whomever would succeed President Bush to apologize for America’s role in the world. In a February 2008 article in Commonweal entitled “Good Reasons to be Humble,” she wrote:

[I]t will be time for a new president to show humility rather than just talk about it. The president must ask Americans to acknowledge to ourselves and to the world that we have made serious, even tragic, mistakes in the aftermath of September 11—in invading Iraq, in condoning torture and flouting international law, and in denying the very existence of global warming until a hurricane destroyed one of our most beloved cities….

[W]e should make clear that our hubris, as in the old Greek myths, has diminished us and led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

All this helps explain the remorseful tone of the Cairo speech. It also sheds light on Obama’s determination to set precedents and create institutional and legal constraints on the ability of the United States to take international action assertively, independently, and in its own particular interests. Without reference to this severely jaundiced view of American history, one cannot make any sense of the hesitation and meekness, the extreme deference to the Security Council and shyness about encouraging opponents of hostile dictators that have characterized the Obama administration’s policy toward Libya—and, for that matter, toward the anti-Assad-regime upheaval in Syria and, in 2009, toward the Green Movement anti-regime demonstrations in Iran.

Short short version: “America’s bad, m’kay.”

The blame-America first crowd has been writing American foreign policy.  They soundly believe in their self-flagellating leftist egocentrism that not only does the world revolve around them, and the US, but that the US is the cause of all the world’s problems.

It’s worth it to read the whole piece: The Obama Doctrine Defined.

A few weeks ago and after much deliberation with myself concerning the following I have decided to let our readers in on a little conversation I had with a coworker on Facebook concerning Obamacare. I will also be providing some commentary (in bold italics) for the following comments in true Patriot Perspective style. In order to properly frame the following argument I will attempt to recreate  the conversation with some heavy editing because some of the conversation is slang or “shorthand” with little or no punctuation involved with I will correct as best I can. 

To begin I saw the following picture:

I couldn’t help myself so I made the following comment.

Me:

Healthcare isn’t a right gents….

Coworker:

 Well we as Americans feed the beast that is health care, so now we should just let it eat the poor? And your already providing healthcare for probably half the country in uninsured ER visits and Medicaid! I came from a blue-collar family and my parents always had a job with health insurance I was lucky, sounds like you must have come from a similar situation. Talk to someone who had to go hungry because they got sick and if you can look them in the eyes and tell them healthcare is for well off people your wired different then me (my emphasis).

 Notice the attempt to cause me to feel guilt? Also notice that this individual is propping themself up as a, “better than thou,” because my opinion is not his own.

Me:

I never said it’s for well off people. If someone wants the security of insurance they either need to find a better job that supplies it, or make some changes in their lifestyle such as getting rid of bills and stuff they don’t need and maybe buy some health insurance instead. It shouldnt be on me (and other hardworking folks) to provide someone else health care because they can’t or won’t work. I know it happens now, but when they take 50 or 60% of your paycheck how the hell are you supposed to live? And after they (the government) take money from all of us and give it folks who need it how long before there is no one else to produce the money so everyone who isn’t working gets their healthcare?

Coworker:

You are already paying for the people who don’t work. Wal-Mart has a human resource department to teach employees how to file for government assistance. These are working Americans, not lazy asses sitting around watching Jerry Springer, and a better job where at? Up and ups (I think he means people with money) and Halliburton can only hire so many people. Go to Bonham, Texas and look around go to Detroit and see how corporate America has left these people high and dry!

Another attempt to get me to “see” how he is right and I am wrong. Also the following picture is from Detroit, home of some of the most liberal (in a bad way) politicians in these United States.

Me:

Now I am paying for folks that don’t work. I also know that I don’t want to pay anymore. Where is the origin of debt? (Borrowed that from Andrew Wilkow, thanks Andrew!) Who decides that I owe somebody something? You? The government? If I came to your house every day and took half of the food out of your pantry for your kids to eat you wouldn’t be upset? What does Halliburton have to do with anything? Also Detroit has been run by liberals since the 1940’s that’s why it’s jacked up from entitlement programs. Because folks there sure don’t want to do anything to better their live. Why would they? They can just go get a handout. You tell me where the origin of debt is to pay for someone else’s healthcare, whether they work or not…. You show me the Constitutional authority for the government to order me to pay for anything that someone else can buy on their own.

I consider the above comments by myself to be rock solid. I provided this coworker the opportunity to completely shut my argument down here is the much-anticipated response.

Coworker:

That’s fine I got my house in order. If you can look in the mirror and shave knowing your just as greedy as the rest more power to you but I can’t (my emphasis).

Really? Did I ask about your house being order? I asked where the constitutional authority was for Obamacare. Once again notice the attempt at guilt and to position themself as better, more compassionate than myself. My response is as follows.

Me:

I’m not being greedy, I just want what I work for, and why not? It belongs to me doesn’t it? And you didn’t answer my question. Where is the origin of debt and where is the Constitutional Authority? If you can’t answer lets not resort to name calling or calling me greedy. After all, how can I be greedy if I just want more of the money I work for?

Pretty solid response to an illogical argument I think. But wait! There’s more.

Coworker:

And the people need help. Most of them work and pay taxes just like you … the working poor!

At this point I then decided to throw a link in with the cold, hard fact that close to 50% of people in the United States do not pay taxes.

Me:

‎50% of the population doesn’t pay in to the IRS, check this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105131/HALF-Americans-dont-pay-income-tax-despite-crippling-government-debt.html

Coworker:

 Poor key word. 100 percent of blind people don’t see well dude, come on!

I must admit the above comment confuses me still nearly two weeks later. I am not sure what my coworker means or which “key word” this individual is referring to.

Me:

Ok, not sure what you are saying to me there. It is fact 50+ percent (of people) do not pay taxes in this country, I think you need to reformulate your argument…. The point I am trying to make is most of those folks at Wal-Mart probably don’t pay into the IRS.

From here the conversation begins to end and seems to devolve especially on my coworkers side.

Coworker:

I don’t have time to argue this because I am going to work. The money I make today, I will pay taxes on don’t worry, I don’t need a tissue. I don’t mind paying taxes. I support a household of 5 with my income so 4 of the lazy no good tax dodgers in my house don’t have too (my emphasis)! Go back and look at your numbers, 50 percent! My spouse stays at home , they part of 50 percent along with my 7, 4, and 1-year-old kids. No it’s true they are the 50 percent!

Now the individual insult his own family members calling them tax dodgers? Three of them are children and a stay at home wife. Even saying they are part of that 50% isn’t correct. No they may not pay taxes, its true, however, they do have healthcare coverage courtesy of this individuals hard work. Also this person says that they don’t have a problem with paying taxes. Guess what fellow coworker, I don’t mind either, I just want to ensure that my money is used by the government Constitutionally and not to pay for a service that people should pay for themselves. This was pretty much the end of the conversation, I closed it out with the following statement, mainly because of the liberal tendency to hate people whose opinions to resemble their own.

Me:

 Look its nothing personal, and it is ok that you don’t agree with me. I am not mad at you or anyone else, I simply am proving my point of view and nothing else.

The above statement is the truth. I don’t have any issue with anyone that I get into discussions with. All I ask is that they prove to me that I am wrong. All this person above did was manufacture an epic fail in the logic department.

As a follow-up to yesterday’s sciency science groupthink piece, HotAir has this today:

Climate Change Skeptics Should Be “Treated” Says Enviro-sociologist

This just smacks of the same mentality that inspired climate change activists to say global warming deniers should be purged from meteorology. Kari Mari Norgaard, a professor of sociology and environmental studies at the University of Oregon, suggests that resistance to the threat of climate change at individual and societal levels must be “recognized and treated” before real action can be taken to effectively address the problem global warming poses.

Here we go again:

“Climate change poses a massive threat to our present social, economic and political order. From a sociological perspective, resistance to change is to be expected,” she said. “People are individually and collectively habituated to the ways we act and think. This habituation must be recognized and simultaneously addressed at the individual, cultural and societal level — how we think the world works and how we think it should work.” …

At the personal level, climate-change information raises fear about the future, a sense of helplessness and guilt. These emotions clash with individual — and often national — identity, sense of self-efficacy and the need for basic security and survival. In small groups, interactions often subvert political conversations and/or submerge the visibility of climate-change issues. At the macro level, or society at large, the co-authors point to an absence of serious discussion of climate change within U.S. Congressional hearings and in media coverage.

In many discussions in the last 30 years, climate change has been seen as either a hoax or fixable with minimal political or economic intervention, said Norgaard, author of the book “Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions and Everyday Life” (2011, MIT Press). “This kind of cultural resistance to very significant social threat is something that we would expect in any society facing a massive threat,” she said. The discussion, she said, is comparable to what happened with challenges to racism or slavery in the U.S. South.

If you question the “researchers” who put ideology before data, you’re now a racist slaveowner, a mentally diseased, intellectually and emotionally deficient reactionary whose reasoning stops with the reptile brain.  Oh, and don’t forget you’re a racist slaveowner, too.

Obviously our benevolent enviro-sociologist overlords should just destroy us Mathusian masses and replace us with better humans, right?  Or overhaul us like a – oh, wait…

“Just as we cannot overhaul a car fleet overnight, we cannot change our ideological superstructure overnight,” Norgaard said. “We must first be aware that this resistance is happening at all levels of our society,” she said. “If you have to push a heavy weight, it doesn’t mean it can’t be moved, but in order to push it you had better know that you have something heavy and figure out how to move it — where to put the lever to shift the weight.”

Most discussion on climate change has focused on natural science. It is time, she said, to broaden that approach. “Social scientific responses have been limited in their primary focus on individuals. These explanations are important but partial and thus inadequate as explanations or guides for future action. Our cross-dimensional model links individuals, culture and society. We have to take all dimensions into account simultaneously.”

“Confronting climate change is daunting but it is not an insurmountable obstacle if we collectively put our minds together,” said Kimberly Andrews Espy, vice president for research and innovation at the University of Oregon. “Interdisciplinary collaboration among social scientists and those involved in technological advances can help to move us forward.”

I am reminded of this scene from Airplane!:

Oh Professor, I speak academic!

“Just like we can’t make people all drive electric cars, we can’t reprogram their little racist brains overnight.  They’re all stupid.  They’re so stupid you might not think we can program them, but we just have to figure out how to program them and put the lever to ‘nudge’ them into what we want.  … We keep trying ot figure out why they’re stupid alone, but we haven’t figured out how they’re stupid altogether, too.  We have to figure out how to make all of them do what we want, both the one and the masses. …  Pushing Manbearpig is tough because they’re so stupid, but if we all get in line and repeat the same thing over and over and over and run out any nonbelievers, we will soon have complete Manbearpig orthodoxy as the lie becomes truth and we will be able to control the masses into our perfect fantasy worldview.”

Looking up Norgaard’s background, this is a professional leftist academic we’re looking at:

Yes, she spelled it “climate chage” on her bio page.

She’s been referenced by the New York Times in an entire article of pots calling kettles black.

A new book by Kari Norgaard has done the best job yet of cutting to the core on our seeming inability to grasp and meaningfully respond to human-driven climate change. As the science of climate change has become stronger and more dire, media coverage, public opinion, and government actions regarding this issue has declined. At the same time, climate denial positions have become increasingly accepted, despite a lack of scientific evidence.

Except people who actually do science disagree with the Manbearpig disciples.  The gender and environmental sociology-justice people would-be-masters have one idea, folks who do science have another.

Update: Tina Korbe over at HotAir just posted another piece wherein there’s yet another call for purges of anti-Manbearpig heretics.  Well, quit Stalin’ and start purgin’!

As an aside, I subscribed to Science News for about a decade – I found it fascinating as a weekly newsmagazine of hard science.  For years and years, I found articles in various disciplines to be fun and informative, keeping me abreast of changes in different disciplines (even if some fields were either boring or required more subject matter familiarization to follow completely).  Then a few years back, Science News went from a weekly newsmagazine to a monthly, complete with a new layout.  And an editorial page.

The editorial page in one of the very first issues stated the need to push for global warming (this was a bit before the new name climate change had taken hold) data to be forced out there because of the “global threat”.  No longer was hard science a concern, but advocacy science that followed an agenda that was already set.  I called them up and cancelled my subscription and informed them that I would not subscribe to a magazine that was supposed to be about the scientific method – about data and observation – and that had become one of government policy advocacy and spreading only the data they already agreed with.

That’s not science.

No matter what the protestations the global warmers/global coolers/climate changers give, they can’t trump data and observation.  Every time they “hide the decline” and get caught in a lie, every time they make a bogus hockey stick that’s debunked, they grow stronger in their resolve to impose dictates on the people who do not subscribe to their orthodoxy.  If you disagree with them based on their flawed data and outright lies, their inconclusive arguments, their dogmatic adherence to something that isn’t proven, they expose their vehement hatred of people who question them to the point of likening skeptics to neo-Nazi holocaust deniers.  They use inflammatory rhetoric to make their points, and now they skulk in the halls of academia trying to figure out ways to brainwash those who demand actual science – data, observation, hypotheses and testing – into subjugation.

That’s not science.

Both names ring a bell.  Bill Moyers, author of this piece of garbage, sounded familiar.  Saul Alinsky we’ve written about before here at The Patriot Perspective.  Saul Alinsky has had somewhat of a resurgence in recent years as people began to take note of the institutions and movements he created in his lifetime and with his writing, specifically, “Rules for Radicals” – a primer on how to organize revolutionary movements and dedicated to Satan.

Alinsky’s book has several bullet points, designed along the lines of Machiavelli’s The Prince (but Mac wrote his book for different reasons).  Unlike Mac, who may well have written the entirety of the Prince and the Discourses as satire or criticism of rulers of the time, Alinsky’s book is out-and-out revolutionary.  Taken without the context of his life and deeds as an organizer, what he wrote could also be parody; but sadly, it is not.

From Alinsky’s tactics section:

1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”

2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat…. [and] the collapse of communication.

3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time….”

8. “Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”

9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.”

11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside… every positive has its negative.”

12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…

“…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’

“One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.”

From his “purpose”:

“A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage — the political paradise of communism.” p.10

Now, Bill Moyers, whose name seemed familiar, I had to go look up.  That’s where I was reminded that Moyers used to work for PBS, and worked for LBJ as press secretary.

"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." -- Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler's Book, "Inside The White House"

Y’know, that racist guy who instituted social programs to make voters dependent on his party.

The Alinsky that those of us not on the left know is the one that ex-communist-revolutionary David Horowitz’s Discover the Networks outlines:

The ultimate goal, said Alinsky, is not to arrive at compromise or peaceful coexistence, but rather to “crush the opposition,” bit by bit.[57] “A People’s Organization is dedicated to eternal war,” said Alinsky. “… A war is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play.… When you have war, it means that neither side can agree on anything…. In our war against the social menaces of mankind there can be no compromise. It is life or death.”[58]

Alinsky is every bit the bad guy the right portrays him to be.  He was a community agitator pushing for destruction of the current system, replacement with a dictatorship which would be every bit as much “of the people” as Lenin and Stalin were, and ultimately, so he said, replacement with utopian communism.  Of course, that’s never worked in the history of mankind, but what’s to stop them from trying to transmute dog shit into gold by waving their copy of Das Kapital around?

Bill Moyer’s piece, titled “Saul Alinsky, Who?” is a vapid, useful idiot’s defense of Alinsky, combined with idiotic accusations against the right (and all those who oppose Alinsky – mostly critical of Gingrich, but Moyers mostly directs his insults at “the crowd”):

In the case of Saul Alinsky, most of the crowd knows nothing about the target except that they’re supposed to hate him. And why not? There’s the strange foreign name — obviously an alien. One of them. And a socialist at that. What’s a socialist? Don’t know — but Obama’s one, isn’t he? Barack Hussein Obama, Saul Alinsky — bingo! Two peas in a pod, and a sinister, subversive pod at that.

Moyers, if you weren’t the product of decades of mindless condescension to people smarter than you (that is to say… everyone), the whole post would’ve consisted of Boxxy:

But since he really means it, time to Fisk this motha out.

Much of the crowd knows plenty about Saul Alinsky.  Remember there was this guy with a TV show on CNN and then on FOX who talked about Alinsky quite a bit:

And there are folks who’ve done entire seminars on Alinsky’s book.  Alinsky’s quite well known.  We on the non-left know quite a bit about him.

There’s the strange foreign name — obviously an alien. One of them.

Really, Moyers?  It’s a different name.  So what?  So are Ayaan Hirsi, Wafa Sultan, Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, Dinesh D’Souza, and Ayn Rand.  Those are all somewhat peculiar sounding names.  Moyers’ accusation of xenophobia is a trite attempt to blast the right for xenophobia and racism – the right isn’t xenophobic or racist.  The left, however

The comments echo Moyers’ ignorance:

As one can at least assume from his name, Alinsky was Jewish, not Israeli, Jewish American, making him the perfect right wing boogeyman.

Yep… the “Jewish part” is what really makes them go bonkers

Moyers continues:

And a socialist at that. What’s a socialist? Don’t know -

Yes, do know, Moyers.  A socialist advocates state control or coercion of the means of capital, including increased control over the people.  They advocate expanded government.  We could get into different brands of socialism, how they ultimately reduce the individual to one of “the people” to be ruled by the socialist party leaders, etc., but I’ll let this guy summarize it in a sentence and then move on:

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

- Winston Churchill

but Obama’s one, isn’t he? Barack Hussein Obama, Saul Alinsky — bingo! Two peas in a pod, and a sinister, subversive pod at that.

Yes, Obama’s a socialist.  He favors socialist policies.  Newsweek even said we’re all socialists.  Obama could say he’s a Gummi Bear from Gummi Glen, but judging by his actions and the lack of bouncing and Gummiberry juice at the White House, he’s not a Gummi Bear.  His actions certainly support him being a socialist, though.

Not pictured: Barack Obama.

Two peas in a sinister subversive plot?  Uh… they kind of admit it.  Alinsky admitted outright what his goals were, he just dressed them up a bit.  And Obama was trained and then became a teacher of Alinsky method:

Obama was trained by the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) in Chicago and worked for an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, whose modus operandi for the creation of ‘a more just and democratic society’ is rooted firmly in the Alinsky method. As The Nation magazine puts it, ‘Obama worked in the organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky, who made Chicago the birthplace of modern community organizing…’  In fact, for several years Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method.

So, yes.  But not because they have names that aren’t simple, bland, WASPy American names.  Like Bill.

Y’know, the bomb planting terrorist type guy?  …In whose living room Obama started his campaign.

Moyers again:

Saul Alinsky was a proud, self-professed radical. Just look at the titles of two of his books – Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals. But a communist or socialist he was not.

Alinsky himself stated that though he worked with Communists for years, he never officially joined; nor did he join any groups he founded.  So card-carrying Communist or Socialist, no.  But communist or socialist, out to destroy and redistribute the means of capital, to take from the Haves, mobilize the Have-a-Little Want-More middle class and the Have-Nots against them, absolutely.

While Alinsky endorsed ruthlessness in waging war against the enemy, he was nonetheless mindful that certain approaches were more likely to win the hearts and minds of the people whose support would be crucial to the organizers’ ultimate victory. Above all, he taught that in order to succeed, the organizer and his People’s Organization needed to target their message toward the middle class. “Mankind,” said Alinsky, “has been and is divided into three parts: the Haves, the Have-Nots, and the Have-a-Little, Want Mores.”[60] He explained that in America, the Have-a-Little, Want-Mores (i.e., members of the middle class) were the most numerous and therefore of the utmost importance.[61] Said Alinsky: “Torn between upholding the status quo to protect the little they have, yet wanting change so they can get more, they [the middle class] become split personalities… Thermopolitically they are tepid and rooted in inertia. Today in Western society and particularly in the United States they comprise the majority of our population.”[62]

Alinsky stressed that organizers and their followers needed to take care, when first unveiling their particular crusade for “change,” not to alienate the middle class with any type of crude language, defiant demeanor, or menacing appearance that suggested radicalism or a disrespect for middle class mores and traditions. For this very reason, he disliked the hippies and counterculture activists of the 1960s. As Richard Poe puts it: “Alinsky scolded the Sixties Left for scaring off potential converts in Middle America. True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within.”

In his book Radical in Chief, Stanley Kurtz describes Alinsky as “a cross between a democratic socialist and a communist fellow traveler.” But Alinsky carefully avoiding drawing any attention to that fact. Writes Kurtz:

“He was smart enough to avoid Marxist language in public…. Instead of calling for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, Alinsky and his followers talk about ‘confronting power.’ Instead of advocating socialist revolution, they demand ‘radical social change.’ Instead of demanding attacks on capitalists, they go after ‘targets’ or ‘enemies.'”

Furthermore:

To counter that materialism, Alinsky favored a socialist alternative. He characterized his noble radical (read: “revolutionary”) as a social reformer who “places human rights far above property rights”; who favors “universal, free public education”; who “insists on full employment for economic security” but stipulates also that people’s tasks should “be such as to satisfy the creative desires within all men”; who “will fight conservatives” everywhere; and who “will fight privilege and power, whether it be inherited or acquired,” and “whether it be political or financial or organized creed.”[7] Alinsky maintained that radicals, finding themselves “adrift in the stormy sea of capitalism,”[8] sought “to advance from the jungle of laissez-faire capitalism to a world worthy of the name of human civilization.”[9]  “They hope for a future,” he said, “where the means of production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful.”[10] In short, they wanted socialism.

Moyers concludes, directing much of his diatribe at Newt when he’s not busy insulting everyone not on the left:

Alinsky died, suddenly, in1972. At the time, he was planning to mount a campaign to organize white, middle class Americans into a national movement for progressive change, a movement he vowed to take into the halls of Congress and — his words — “the boardrooms of the mega-corporations.”

Maybe that’s why Newt Gingrich has been slandering Alinsky’s name. Maybe he’s afraid, afraid that the very white folks he’s been rousing to frenzy will discover who Saul Alinsky was — a patriot in a long line of patriots, who scorned the malignant narcissism of duplicitous politicians and taught everyday Americans to think for themselves and fight together for a better life. That’s the American way, and any good historian would know it.

Yeah, sure.  He’s a patriot.  A “patriot” who started organizing by organizing a scamming racket skipping out on checks and hanging out with gangsters.  A patriot who motivates those who want to improve their lives by directing them to rage against those with capital and those who’ve earned their wealth.  A patriot whose objectives were to tear down, not to build – and never to allow anyone to build:

Alinsky warned the organizer to be on guard against the possibility that the enemy might offer him “a constructive alternative” aimed at resolving the conflict. Said Alinsky, “You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying, ‘You’re right — we don’t know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us.’”[59]  Such capitulation by the enemy would have the effect of diffusing the righteous indignation of the People’s Organization, whose very identity is inextricably woven into the fight for long-denied justice; i.e., whose struggle and identity are synonymous. If the perceived oppressor surrenders or extends a hand of friendship in an effort to end the conflict, the crusade of the People’s Organization is jeopardized. This cannot be permitted. Eternal war, by definition, must never end.

This is where it fails, as every socialist leftist revolutionary movement does.  The problem is that there is no such thing as “the masses” or “the people”.  There are individual citizens.  There is no “big business” there are individual citizens.  There also is no “middle class”, “lower class” or “upper class”.

Individual citizens who do care about the future of their country, their fellow citizens, and ultimately the world, are often those who have bettered their lives.  Those who have done something for themselves and want to do for others.

As an example, Mr. Tod’s Pie Factory and his struggle to make his business successful is not the story of a “have not” taking from the “haves” or a “have-a-little” shoving “have-nots” down to make himself a “have”.  It’s a man with a business who wants to improve his life, improve his business, improve what he’s built.  Along the way, he hires other people on their way up (or catches them on their way down), and he helps out big evil megacorporations like Alinsky and Moyers would like to destroy… to help out his community by representing something they like.  He makes things better, and he does so by making a product people want to buy at a price they want, improving his own lot in life and enjoying his passion for baking and making people happy all the while simultaneously helping everyone around him by engaging in successful commerce.

Alinsky and Moyers would smash the windows of his bakery.