Obama and The Cloward-Piven Strategy

The subtitle for this post should be "How To Destroy A Capitalist Economy And Remain Under The Radar". I first became aware of the Cloward-Piven Strategy today. To say that its goals are disturbing would be an major understatement. The thrust of it is this - the strategy's goal is to bring about the fall of capitalism by overloading and undermining government bureaucracy.

Like most people, I had never heard of either Cloward or Piven, or their destructive strategy. Developed in the mid-1960s by Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, two Columbia University sociologists, much of their strategy was drawn from Saul Alinsky, Chicago's notorious revolutionary Marxist community organizer. Alinsky, who was also a mentor of Hillary Clinton, wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals: "Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one."

The mechanics of the strategy are a bit more complicated. The supporting tactics include flooding government with impossible demands until it slowly cranks to a stop; overloading electoral systems with successive tidal waves of new voters, many of them bogus; shaking down banks, politicians in Congress, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for affirmative-action borrowing; and, now, pulling down the national financial system by demanding exotic, subprime mortgages for low-income Americans with little hope of repaying their loans. These toxic mortgages are an important source of the foul smell engulfing the entire financial bailout.

The socialist test case for using society's poor and disadvantaged people as sacrificial "shock troops," in accordance with the Cloward-Piven strategy, was demonstrated in 1975, when new prospective welfare recipients flooded New York City with payment demands, bankrupting the city government. As a consequence, New York state also teetered on the edge of financial collapse when the federal government stepped in with a bailout rescue.

No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:

1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

Here's a diagram of the Cloward-Piven Strategy, including Barack Obama's involvement, that I borrowed from SharpRightTurn.com:

(The only addition I would have made to the above diagram, would have been to include, by name, the ACLU within the block labeled "Communist Party USA & Other Radical Socialist Groups". The ACLU had, as one of its co-founders, Roger Nash Baldwin (January 21, 1884 – August 26, 1981) who was a noted social activist who held Communist views in his youth, yet continued to promote a Socialist agenda. He was the ACLU's executive director until 1950.)

Once you have the name "Cloward-Piven Strategy", there is a plethora of information available on the Internet. How has this apparently intentional plot to destroy that which made the USA great, managed to avoid discovery by the mainstream media? Wellllll... it didn't exactly. The Washington Times had an article on C-P back in October of 2008, but if you didn't get the Washington Times that day - which is probably 90% of the country - I can't recall ever seeing it in print, or hearing about it on any of the broadcast media. Can you say "complicit coverup"

Blogs - including this one - are not a particularly reliable source of "news". They are, instead, a source of personal analysis (i.e. - opinion) of the news which has been reported. The purpose of my blog is not necessarily to educate people (although there are many who could use educating), but to prompt folks to think about what's going on around them, and then form their own conclusion.