a film maker comments on leftist activists

It's a manual for inciting anarchy and revolution, a book on leftist political activist strategy that makes Machiavelli read like a bedtime story.

It was widely disseminated by the Carter administration, to schools and leftivists.

Hillary apprenticed herself to its author, and Obama taught a class on the book itself as an adjunct professor, then applied its teachings as a community organizer.

The book's phrases (e.g. "hope" and "change") permeate Obama's speech and today's "Democrats'" talking-points.

So, it's rather relevant.

I don't think Democrats are devil-worshippers, but the dedication wasn't a joke. I'm looking at it.

Cheers, James Arthur

:

l conception of good and evil, and the ethos of socialism.

ly interesting and equally worth of attention.

nd I can understand people having different religious views. But "devil wo rship at the heart of socialism - this is a fact" ? The guy in the article is completely off his head - it's paranoia and conspiracy theory combined with a hatred of humanity, religious fanaticism, and delusions of grandeur.

t

He hasn't used his for years, and doesn't understand what they are good fo r.

smiley means, but I'm assuming that Jim was not being serious about the guillotine.

view Attila the Hun was a leftist weenie. :-)

By "socialist" he means "communist". The American media has worked for year s to equate the two, and the communists kept on claiming to be socialists, despite having been slung out of the socialist movement in 1870 for being u ndemocratic.

For what? The Mongol Empire (while it lasted)?

out... weenies beware.

Actually the mess the US is in is well-documented to be due to an inegalita rian income and wealth distribution.

ost_Always_Do_Better

The cure would be to make the place more congenial for weenies - higher tax es on the rich and lower salaries for chief executives. The way the US is b eing run at the moment, that either means that the rich have to work out th at it's in their long term interest to be slightly less greedy, or that the less-than-rich will have to rise up and impose a somewhat more equitable d ivision of the goodies. One of the several reasons that the rich might chos e to concentrate on their long term interests is that if they don't they mi ght not even have a medium term interest left to look out for.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Tell that to the Germans, who practice modern socialism to great effect, and out-export the US despite having only a quarter of the population.

The also export about two-thirds as much as the Chinese, despite having only a sixteenth of the population and paying their workers a lot better.

The antithesis here is between John Larkin's ideas and the real world - they aren't closely related. One assumes he hasn't tried to export any of his gear to Germany.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Bill, I don't know why you think German socialism was so successful. National socialism killed maybe 40 million people and created untold suffering for many. Other socialist societies did in another 100 million.

But wait, you cry, "That was communism or fascism."

And I answer, "So how am I to distinguish the evil in these efforts from the "good" socialism? Am I to come to you? What makes you an expert? And why is it that these evil societies all claimed to be beneficial, all talked as you do?

I don't have your faith that big government is going to solve your problems and the world's problems. The record is too horrific.

My belief is that big government should stay out of peoples' business, should leave people alone.

Historically speaking, I don't think it's actually fair to class Attila as "right-wing" - it's just a popular phrase. In reality, since he collected a wide range of tribes and people together in a common cause, he could probably be better classified as "socialist". He just has a bad reputation because he hated the Romans, and the Romans wrote the history.

He was well educated (by the Romans), spoke several languages fluently, was a master at military tactics and strategy, built a massive spy network, and was an expert at political diplomacy. He was a fascinating historical figure - much more interesting than most of the Roman leaders.

Those particular "National socialists" were "socialists" in the same way that the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is "democratic" or the "people's". Giving your party a particular name does not make it a fitting description.

And Bill does not think "German socialism /was/ so successful" - he thinks "German socialism /is/ so successful". He is talking about /today/, not past sins.

"socialism" does not really mean anything more than an emphasis on working together for a common good, rather than an emphasis on one's self. Often - but not always - the "common good" is organised by a government or government appointed bodies.

So how do you distinguish "good socialism" from "bad socialism" ? You distinguish between "good" and "bad" - the socialism aspect is just one part of the whole.

Time to throw another ISM into the mix...

Libertarianism

Mark

Utter bullshit. It's not "emphasis on working together", rather "compelled compliance".

That's easy. There is no such thing as "good socialism".

That would be your personal definition of "socialism", rather than the real-world one.

Much of Europe, especially the rich, successful, peaceful, safe, healthy, happy northern countries, work on what we call "social democracy". There is a lot of "working together", but it is based on what people vote for - what we /choose/, because it works well.

Based on your twisted definition of "socialism", then I would be ready to agree - but what you refer to is more like "communism" than "socialism".

@@@ But who arr we supposed to believe? Are you going to tell us when we have bad vs. good 'socialism?' Your whole argument rests on the premise that in a state-powered system of socialism, the people in power are going to behave themselves, going to be good boys and girls. And why should we believe you? Do you have some divine knowledge we don't?

Frankly, many have fallen for this line in the past, and the results were not good. And as far as europe being a utopian state these days, I suspect they are kept afloat by the US Fed. When the free money runs out, you will see their real colors. Recently, Merkel of Germany objected to bailing out Greece. Then, when the Fed slipped her 200b under the table, she suddenly changed her tune. As Thatcher of England famously said, "Socialism is the best system, until you run out of other peoples' money." That's happening in a massive way in the U.S. with deficit spending, and we are the "Socialist Santa Claus" of the world.

That would be wrong, of course, unless *your* definition is "socialism that hasn't been tried yet", or "my socialism". The fact is that socialism has always been a failure and always will be. It goes counter to humanity and can only be forced upon people.

Only temporarily and only because they live under a free (as in beer) umbrella.

Nope, based on history and observing the obvious human behavior. Only an idiot believes otherwise. Tyrants my talk otherwise but they know the truth about themselves.

in

It's worthwhile to actually quote what we're talk "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first ra dical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so eff ectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer."

I'll get on not a few people's shit lists right now by announcing that no t only am I not a Xtian, I happen to agree with what the dedication actuall y says.

A literal reading of the Old Testament documents YHVH as a bully at the l east if not an outright terrorist, certainly the ur-example of the top-down tyrant.

Anybody who values individual liberty should agree with the dedication. T hat's a long way from "devil worship" to anyone but stereotypical reactiona ry religious fanatics, but so few people are willing to actually think abou t how they were instilled with assumptions like that much less examine them for logical consistency.

It's sad that in many people's minds, America's ideal of liberty has beco me synonymous with being white-skinned and Xtian.

"Here comes the new boss

Same as the old boss"

Mark L. fergerson

Using your definition. Good socialism does not involve governments in any way, bad socialism is entangled with to operated by governments. Simple, see?

?-)

Socialists have been living off the fat of others for decades, and becoming fat/paunchy themselves. The guillotine blade might lose its sharpness after slicing through a number of socialist necks.

My grandfather had something he called a "strop" >:-} ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142     Skype: skypeanalog  |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 
              
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

I was listening to ol' Adolf describe his National Socialism the other day in his own words. It had a lot to do with all pulling together, working together, looking out for one another.

Working together on some level is what all governments are for.

Our left and Europeans don't understand a couple of big things about America and freedom.

Our system, as designed, makes cooperation possible in a far-flung geographically and culturally diverse people, where in Europe there has historically been war, for millennia.

1) We're a much larger country--your national governments are akin to our state governments. California has 2/3rds the U.K.'s population all by itself.

When you talk about how we ought have national socialized , it's rather like saying Switzerland, Greece, and France ought to have equal votes running your NHS, you'd have an equal vote over theirs, and everyone would be required to use the result all across Europe, no exceptions. (That means YOU, SWEDEN ;-)

2) Our design, by letting people bite off and optimize their chunk of society's problems in their own sphere, creates a distributed, fine-grained system in which 315 million people cooperate to solve society's needs, wants, and problems.

It's not selfish. Optimizing what works for you helps others. For example, increasing profits by cutting energy used making your product. Even if the person innovating does it to improve their own life and own position, the benefits accrue to all.

It's perfectly natural and laudable for people to want to improve their lots, their lives, and seek better futures for their children. That's what free people form governments to promote, not discourage.

Our approach harnesses human nature: individual freedom, used for a powerful collective good.

Simply dictating reductions in power usage doesn't have nearly the same result--that creates a group of passive people, waiting for instructions.

And that creates a bureaucratic Borg of "experts" deciding what they'll let you do, and how you ought to live. It's stultifying.

The American tradition is that individual peoples' collective wisdom-- and the discoveries they make even by sheer accident--is a lot better solving complex problems and improving individuals' lives.

It's the difference between FEA of, say, 1,000 voxels per country, against

315 million.

That's the other part: when you concentrate power in the hands of the few, within a century, things generally go terribly wrong.

People who oppose socialism oppose it because it sets people against each other, each competing for some of the others' money/goods; which makes for strife, not cooperation; and is a lot less productive than everyone trying to optimize their own outputs by out-innovating their neighbors.

Cheers, James Arthur

What, pray tell, is the alternative?

Any modern society (and even large ancient societies) requires a number of large organisations - you need military, police, fire brigades, hospitals, welfare systems, etc., that require a lot of money and a lot of organisation, and that provide no direct benefit to most people but a disproportionate benefit to a few.

These can either be run by the state - which is at least partially chosen by and answerable to the citizens of a democracy - or they can be run privately by corporations, whose motive is money.

With a "big government" state which is open and democratic (as opposed to communist-style big government), the main motivation is the good of the country and the people in it, judged by the people through media and elections. I certainly make no claims that such states will always do a good job - but the aim is right.

When you try to have as much as possible done privately, the motivation is money. You know that whatever service you are paying for, as much as possible of that payment will end up in the pockets of a rich few. All decisions about what services are offered, and to whom, are based on maximising profit for the owners.

So in the first case, if "the powers that be" are competent, you get decent services at a reasonable cost - and if they are incompetent, the services will inefficient and poor quality, but not disastrous (or the leaders will get voted out). In the second case, if "the powers that be" are competent then you will get limited services at an overrated price to maximise profits - and if they are incompetent, you will get even worse services and more inefficiencies (until they are replaced by competition who are better at making money).

There is a balance to be reached. Extreme socialism leads to disaster (whether it inevitably leads to communism or not, I don't know - but it certainly is bad) - but so does extreme capitalism. Fanatic belief in market forces is no better than fanatic belief in anything else.

Thatcher was one of the most hated prime ministers in modern UK history, and destroyed a lot of what was good in the country. (She also fought a lot of what was bad, of course.)

Liberty.

Get a kid to join, or sponsor a college kid to attend their conference in DC next February:

--sp