No One is This Inept
Posted by jsg on Aug 29, 2021 in My Rants, Ramblings & Daily Updates
This was originally written for posting on Facebook during the Afghan crises. I was and am of the opinion that this level of malfeasance cannot be ineptitude, that it has to be intentional.This was just after reports of thirteen service members being killed. By the time I posted here, the number was up to fourteen. I was looking for reasons that we would do something so harmful. Some things are becoming clear and I will make another post that just touches on what I'm seeing.
I am convinced that what we are seeing is the ultimate manifestation of the Cloward - Piven Strategy. I was aware of the welfare and spending aspect of the strategy, but I was not aware that they had worked in the election arena as well. As it turns out Cloward and Piven are a the base of many of those issues. In fact I think they are the base of all the issues we are looking at.
I am convinced that what we are seeing is the ultimate manifestation of the Cloward - Piven Strategy. I was aware of the welfare and spending aspect of the strategy, but I was not aware that they had worked in the election arena as well. As it turns out Cloward and Piven are a the base of many of those issues. In fact I think they are the base of all the issues we are looking at.
The article I'll link to was written in 2018 and had this as a subtitle: "Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis."
See anything that looks like an orchestrated crises? Like in any direction you look?"
I went looking for this because there had to be something that was behind what we are seeing. I've stated repeatedly that this cannot simply be ineptitude. Nobody is this dumb. I found pay dirt pretty quickly.
From the article:
"...the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse."
We are watching the intentional breaking of society. I see no other explanation.
I believe the socialists/communists think they are going to break the system and rebuild it in their favor and the globalist think they are going to break the system using the "downtrodden" to do it, but think they can maintain control.
There's a lot out there to read on this. The bad guys always tell you what they are going to do. The article I'm quoting is from the Oathkeepers website. That's not a part of my normal reading, but I chose the article from many I saw because it was concise. When I posted this at Facebook, I was pretty sure the Oathkeepers link would bring me heat so I copied and pasted the article instead of linking to it. In this forum I'll provide the link to the original. There is much written on these people and this subject. Much more than I was aware of:
https://oathkeepers.org/2018/11/cloward-piven-strategy-explained/
"Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis
First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and his wife Frances Fox Piven (both longtime members of the Democratic Socialists of America, where Piven today is an honorary chair), the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called “crisis strategy” or “Cloward-Piven Strategy,” as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.
In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.
The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1971 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-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 authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare — about 8 million, at the time — probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a “massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls.” Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be “a profound financial and political crisis” that would unleash “powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level.”
Their article called for “cadres of aggressive organizers” to use “demonstrations to create a climate of militancy.” Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of “a federal program of income redistribution,” in the form of a guaranteed living income for all — working and non-working people alike. Local officials would clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act.
This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements — mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown — providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That was the theory.