Pat Boone Calls The President A Marxist

[jmm99]

My post was meant as an example of "effective" agitprop - seven factoids (the meetings and the logos, through Woodstock 1921), followed by a non-factual zinger.

In 1921, Pete Seeger was 2; and Pat Boone was a dozen years away from being conceived.

In 1936, when Boone was 2, Seeger was 17 and a member of the Young Communist League. Boone was a good ole Nashville boy from age 2; at 17, a member of the Church of Christ.

Seeger and Boone did have one thing in common; they both "covered" songs by African-American artists.

Since you are genuinely serious about this topic, you deserve today's bloodhound award:



Regards

Mike

[slapout9]

Since you are genuinely serious about this topic, you deserve today's bloodhound award:

A Bloodhound next to tidy cat?

[slapout9]

Mike, I am serious from the standpoint that Pat Boone is serious and I don't think it is without some factual basis on Pat's part. Whether the President is a Marxist or not I don't know, only he really knows and his close advisor's. Does/did he and or his advisor's use Marxist techniques for political manipulation.....I have no doubt about that. Marx understood how to motivate and manipulate Social Groups and use that to win/manipulate elections. The Conservative movement/Republican party had better learn to respect the man (Marx) and his methods or they are likely to face extinction in the near future He (Marx) is easy to beat which is why I am continually amazed at some of the right wing rhetoric that is put out, it is almost as if the left paid the right to screw things up.

[slapout9]

Short video which appears to be a preacher in some church on Saul Alinsky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBaQ7LIEiNM

[slapout9]

Listen to the man himself. Link to a StudsTerkel Interview of Saul Alinsky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQtwo8lp_E8

[bourbon]

Slap,

If you think there is a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, then you are not getting the joke.

[slapout9]

Slap,

If you think there is a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, then you are not getting the joke.

It wouldn't be the first time I missed something I do think that the Democrats are better at identifying, motivating, mobilizing and monetizing the various voting groups as compared to the Republicans.

[slapout9]

Here is a link to the actual Pat Boone interview.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tKf9a1pV-E

[jmm99]

Alinsky suggests in Rules that we have three basic groups: Haves, Have Nots and Have Some & Want Mores. While his tactics are not inherently left or right, they are inherently useful only to an "outsider" group - to Have Nots vs Haves and/or Have Some & Want Mores (e.g., his community activism in Chicago); or to Have Some & Want Mores vs Haves (e.g., his later advocacy of stockholder activism).

Should Alinsky's personal political ideology (as opposed to his tactics, which are not so classifiable) be classified as "markist", "socialist", "populist"; or as an individualistic blend belonging to no group ? He claimed the last.

As to President Obama, my belief is that he tends to be more "socialist-populist" on domestic issues than any thing else. He has certainly tied into the Haves and Have Nots dichotomy; and has used that issue very effectively against the Republicans in general, and against Mitt Romney in particular.

Using the Haves and Have Nots dichotomy may be as much pragmatism as ideology on the President's part. It ties into what a substantial segment of Americans perceive (and therefore, believe). That is: Let’s Make a Deal; Meals and Unequal Wealth Distribution (by Joyce Arnold on March 7, 2013), which includes a 6+ min video on Wealth Inequality in America.

The report which underlies the video can be read here: Norton, Building a Better America--One Wealth Quintile at a Time (2011). The bottom line of the report:

Wealth Inequality.jpg

Fig. 2. The actual United States wealth distribution plotted against the estimated and ideal distributions across all respondents. Because of their small percentage share of total wealth, both the ‘‘4th 20%’’ value (0.2%) and the ‘‘Bottom 20%’’ value (0.1%) are not visible in the ‘‘Actual’’ distribution.

This material could as well be used by conservative populists (e.g., William J. Bryan and Tom Watson) as by leftist "marxists-socialists" (e.g, Gene Debs and Bill Foster).

Regards

Mike

PS: the infiltration of canines into the feline Tidy Cat world began innocently enough:



but allowed the bloodhound to get his nose into the tent. After that, the rest was "his story". Really, a classic in infiltration and subversion.

[carl]

Mike:

How do the superzips fit into that? They are obviously haves.

[jmm99]

The "superzips" (I infer from your prior links to Murray) refer to SuperZips and the rest of America's zip codes (by Charles Murray, American Enterprise Institute, February 13, 2012), with a large Excel file ranking 31720 zips (subtract 8 from the # in col. A to get the ranking).

Of which, 49931 (Houghton) is #4263 (41.70% w/BAs, $62,416.98 med. inc.); 49855 (Marquette) is #5633 (31.33% w/BAs, $66,834.05 med. fam. inc.); 49866 (Negaunee) is #9789 (21.40% w/BAs, $59,800.47 med. fam. inc.); 49825 (Eben Junction) is #10241 (20.45% w/BAs, $59.659.25 med. fam. inc.); my 49930 (Hancock) is #10674 (25.69% w/BAs, $49,035.00 med. fam. inc.). Those are the UP's "superzips". You know the towns. So, you also know I'm kidding about the "superzip" part.

Actually, I learned this factoid from a review of Murray's book (link):

To define such neighborhoods objectively, Murray created a scoring system that combined average income with percentage of college graduates. Then he ranked zip code areas nationwide. Those with scores in the top five centiles he designated “SuperZips.” There are 882 of them in America.

That takes us down to #890: 48167 (Northville, MI; 47.67% w/BAs, $128,597.20 med. fam. inc.).

All of this interests me; but you are going to have to lead me to what you want for an answer - cuz I don't get the question.

Regards

Mike

[slapout9]

Alinsky suggests in Rules that we have three basic groups: Haves, Have Nots and Have Some & Want Mores. While his tactics are not inherently left or right, they are inherently useful only to an "outsider" group - to Have Nots vs Haves and/or Have Some & Want Mores (e.g., his community activism in Chicago); or to Have Some & Want Mores vs Haves (e.g., his later advocacy of stockholder activism).

That is straight up Marxism. Marx called the proletariat (have nots) the Bourgeoisie (the haves) and the petite(Sometimes called petty) bourgeoisie(have some and want some more/middle class/small businesses)

Should Alinsky's personal political ideology (as opposed to his tactics, which are not so classifiable) be classified as "markist", "socialist", "populist"; or as an individualistic blend belonging to no group ? He claimed the last.

yes he does say that but his recomended actions dipute that...such as a rent strike again that is straight up Marxism

As to President Obama, my belief is that he tends to be more "socialist-populist" on domestic issues than any thing else. He has certainly tied into the Haves and Have Nots dichotomy; and has used that issue very effectively against the Republicans in general, and against Mitt Romney in particular.

Yes and that is almost straight out of Alinsky's book

Using the Haves and Have Nots dichotomy may be as much pragmatism as ideology on the President's part. It ties into what a substantial segment of Americans perceive (and therefore, believe).

Again that is almost Alinskyism (just invented that) word for word.

Regards

Mike

PS: the infiltration of canines into the feline Tidy Cat world began innocently enough:
but allowed the bloodhound to get his nose into the tent. After that, the rest was "his story". Really, a classic in infiltration and subversion.

Glad to hear that.... wouldn't want to be accused of having anything to do kitty napping or strange disappearances.

[Fuchs]

As an outsider who's not driven by partisan views I tell you that you are projecting.

The Haves and have-nots thing here mirrors the 47% discussion from the last presidential election and you guys demonstrate that it's now a if not THE framework for your thinking.

I cannot spot any confirmation for your suspicions from my informed outsider perspective.

Instead, the high profile Democratic policies look to me basically like the policies of a party that thinks the government is meant to work for the people, while Republican policies look to me a lot like they think the U.S. is a military with a government for Pentagon financing and enforcement of morals.


Whatever you seemed to imply here in regard to haves and have-nots and stuff can easily fit into the framework I just gave you. That may be projection on my part, but it should still show your view isn't the only possible one.


P.S.: Whoever says Obama is a Marxist only displays that he's either not serious or is clueless about Marxism, period.