Okay, I haven’t paid much attention to the BO Organizing for America machine. I’ve not read anything about it on conservative blogs except about the “flag the fishy” campaign and then, during the Scott Brown campaign, a link was tweeted and retweeted to OFA so that Coakley supporters could go there, read a message from BO about how she’s such a great progressive (BO calls her, “progressive champion Martha Coakley“). Yeah, yeah, whatever, right? Wrong. I think wrong, very very wrong.
We were elated last night and rightly so, but as I was watching Coakley’s concession speech last night, for the second time, my ears perked up at the conclusion. Not the part about her quoting Teddy Kennedy’s “the dream lives on” mantra. The part right before that: Coakley concludes by saying that there is “plenty of work to do here in Massachusetts and as we continue to organize for America” (my emphasis).
Not being a radical, I didn’t know about Alinsky until the BO ascendancy and everyone began talking about it in the conservative blogosphere, so it’s no surprise that not being a marxist I wouldn’t know much about “organizing” for social change, for “fundamentally transformative change.” That statement by Coakley gave me pause (that’s an understatement: by blood ran cold), so I did a quick search for “organizing for” in Google. The drop down gave me “organizing for America” and down further “organizing for social change.” Gasp.
Wikipedia’s entry on Organizing contains the following:
Nature of organization
The following are the important characteristics of organisation.
Division of work or specialization
The entire philosophy of organisation depends on the concept of specialization. In specialization, various activities are assigned to different people who are specialists in that area. Specialization improves efficiency. Thus, organisation helps in division of work and assigning duties to different people.
Orientation towards goals
Every organisation has its own purposes and objectives. Organizing is the function employed to achieve the overall goals of the organisation. Organisation harmonies the individual goals of the employees with overall objectives of the firm.
Composition of individuals and groups
Individuals form a group and the groups form an organisation. Thus, organisation is the composition of individual and groups. Individuals are grouped into departments and their work is coordinated and directed towards organizational goals.
The organisation divides the entire work and assigns the tasks to individual in-order to achieve the organizational objectives each one has to perform a different task and tasks of one individuals must be coordinated with the tasks of others.
An organization is a group of people with defined relationship to each other that allows them to work together achieve the goals of the organisation. This relationship do not come to end after completing a task. Organisation is a never ending process.
Purpose or importance of organization
Helps to achieve organizational goal
Organization is employed to achieve the overall objectives of business firms. Organization focuses attention of individuals objectives towards overall objectives.
Optimum use of resources
To make optimum use of resources such as men, material, money, machine and method, it is necessary to design an organization properly. Work should be divided and right people should be given right jobs to reduce the wastage of resources in an organization.
To perform managerial function
Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Directing and Controlling cannot be implemented without proper organization.
Facilitates growth and diversification
A good organization structure is essential for expanding business activity. Organization structure determines the input resources needed for expansion of a business activity similarly organization is essential for product diversification such as establishing a new product line.
Human treatment of employees
Organization has to operate for the betterment of employees an must not encourage monotony of work due to higher degree of specialization. Now, organization has adapted the modern concept of systems approach based on human relations and it discards the traditional productivity and specialization approach.
Now, it’s been a long time since I read Marx, but . . . well, let’s just say that this does not bode well for America. This is not “community organizing” writ large, this is a plan. A plan to “organize for America” a new social, economic, and political order. And he’s said it, he may even think that we “get it,” but we don’t. We so don’t get it. We do not fully grasp the horrors that BO has in store for us.
Think I’m over-reacting or that this is some sort of Glenn Beck conspiracy theory freak-out? I wish it were, but I don’t think so. Take a look at the first few texts of the Georgetown University Library “reading list” for its “Organizing for Social Change: Anti-Subordination Theory and Practice” course:
- Saul David Alinsky, Revielle for Radicals (1989). [HN90 .R3 A657 1989]
- Saul David Alinsky, Rules for Radicals (1989). [HN65 .A675 1989]
- K. Bobo et al., Organizing for Social Change (2001). [JC328.3 .B632 2001]
- Stephen Burghardt, Organizing for Community Action (1982). [HV65 .B82 1982]
One of BO’s favorite words is “pragmatic,” and there is nothing more pragmatic than treating human beings like tools of the state, things, working and propagating bio-machines. It’s not nice, but do keep in mind that progressives are not democrats, they do not believe in “democracy” at all. They believe in fascist control and micromanagement of everything. It’s not a coincidence that BO’s shadow cabinet contains people who believe that forced abortion is a good way to control population (well, pragmatically it is, right?) and people who have no qualms about silencing dissent/opposition. We are witnessing the first step, the isolation, ridicule, and demonization of conservatives. Once this is accomplished, the next step will be easy: the left’s incredible hatred for conservatives, the way we’ve been dehumanized, plays right into the progressive agenda to weed “undesirables” from society. We’ve already heard the far left argue for limiting free speech (for conservatives), for “separate but equal” NYT best-seller lists, for shutting down conservative talk radio, for shutting out Fox News. This is not an accident. It is also not an accident that progressives in this administration, from Pelosi to the TSA nominee Southers to the fringe media, are planting seeds of fear and mistrust, painting us as “extremists.” It’s no accident that when BO talks about terrorists he refers to them as “extremists,” not Muslim extremists. The stage is being set. We sense this, but we don’t yet know for what.
This slow, deliberate process of inflaming hatred against one group in order to then control that group has historically been used to justify everything from the WWII Japanese interment camps here in America to the Holocaust. And let’s not forget that it was progressives who promoted eugenics in America . . . eugenics is a pragmatic approach to weeding from the population the weak, the poor, the mentally ill, the socially unacceptable–anyone who is “unfit” for or cannot contribute “equally” to society. Here’s a fun article about how America’s progressives’ dabbling with eugenics manifested in Nazi Germany. Do you think that the “fundamental transformation” of America–the “organized” and structured social, economic, and political order–will have a place for people like us? Where do we “fit” into this new America that is being organized behind the scenes and on the DL? How pragmatic is it to allow people who oppose their every move and who believe in and support our constitutional republic to speak freely, to live freely, to be?
I am not a conspiracy theorist–heck, I mock them . . . usually. But there is something going on here, something that doesn’t add up in the normal way. Something we need to figure out, and soon.