“the President kept on reading from the two teleprompters, the camera crews panned from Martinez to the audience where they focused in on those with downcast, despondent peering faces. Mothers with children were singled out, as were women who could be seen with tears of joy in their eyes. The TV audience, however, was now scarcely paying any attention to the President, instead the viewing public’s eyes were being drawn increasingly upon the tragedy that had begun to play itself out in the inset…the WNN news set.”
Excerpt From: Frank B. Thompson III. “LIARS – the News Industry.” iBooks.
“The goal of socialism is communism.” Lenin
The following is by Richard Poe – 2005
First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, 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 an African American 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.
The eggheads and current leftist supporters:
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 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 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.
Cloward and Piven recruited a militant black organizer named George Wiley to lead their new movement. In the summer of 1967, Wiley founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). His tactics closely followed the recommendations set out in Cloward and Piven’s article. His followers invaded welfare offices across the United States — often violently — bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law “entitled” them. By 1969, NWRO claimed a dues-paying membership of 22,500 families, with 523 chapters across the nation.
Regarding Wiley’s tactics, The New York Times commented on September 27, 1970, “There have been sit-ins in legislative chambers, including a United States Senate committee hearing, mass demonstrations of several thousand welfare recipients, school boycotts, picket lines, mounted police, tear gas, arrests – and, on occasion, rock-throwing, smashed glass doors, overturned desks, scattered papers and ripped-out phones.”These methods proved effective. “The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley’s wildest dreams,” writes Sol Stern in the City Journal. “From 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite mostly flush economic times. By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city’s private economy.” As a direct result of its massive welfare spending, New York City was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975. The entire state of New York nearly went down with it. The Cloward-Piven strategy had proved its effectiveness.
The Cloward-Piven strategy depended on surprise. Once society recovered from the initial shock, the backlash began. New York’s welfare crisis horrified America, giving rise to a reform movement which culminated in “the end of welfare as we know it” — the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed time limits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements. Both Cloward and Piven attended the White House signing of the bill as guests of President Clinton.
Most Americans to this day have never heard of Cloward and Piven. But New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani attempted to expose them in the late 1990s. As his drive for welfare reform gained momentum, Giuliani accused the militant scholars by name, citing their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate economic sabotage. “This wasn’t an accident,” Giuliani charged in a 1997 speech. “It wasn’t an atmospheric thing, it wasn’t supernatural. This is the result of policies and programs designed to have the maximum number of people get on welfare.”
Cloward and Piven never again revealed their intentions as candidly as they had in their 1966 article. Even so, their activism in subsequent years continued to rely on the tactic of overloading the system. When the public caught on to their welfare scheme, Cloward and Piven simply moved on, applying pressure to other sectors of the bureaucracy, wherever they detected weakness.
In 1982, partisans of the Cloward-Piven strategy founded a new “voting rights movement,” which purported to take up the unfinished work of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Like ACORN, the organization that spear-headed this campaign, the new “voting rights” movement was led by veterans of George Wiley’s welfare rights crusade. Its flagship organizations were Project Vote and Human SERVE, both founded in 1982. Project Vote is an ACORN front group, launched by former NWRO organizer and ACORN co-founder Zach Polett. Human SERVE was founded by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, along with a former NWRO organizer named Hulbert James.
All three of these organizations — ACORN, Project Vote and Human SERVE — set to work lobbying energetically for the so-called Motor-Voter law, which Bill Clinton ultimately signed in 1993. The Motor-Voter bill is largely responsible for swamping the voter rolls with “dead wood” — invalid registrations signed in the name of deceased, ineligible or non-existent people — thus opening the door to the unprecedented levels of voter fraud and “voter disenfranchisement” claims that followed in subsequent elections.
The new “voting rights” coalition combines mass voter registration drives — typically featuring high levels of fraud — with systematic intimidation of election officials in the form of frivolous lawsuits, unfounded charges of “racism” and “disenfranchisement,” and “direct action” (street protests, violent or otherwise). Just as they swamped America’s welfare offices in the 1960s, Cloward-Piven devotees now seek to overwhelm the nation’s understaffed and poorly policed electoral system. Their tactics set the stage for the Florida recount crisis of 2000, and have introduced a level of fear, tension and foreboding to U.S. elections heretofore encountered mainly in Third World countries.
Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros’s Open Society Institute and his Shadow Party, through whose support the Cloward-Piven strategy continues to provide a blueprint for some of the Left’s most ambitious campaigns.
Why would anyone become a writer, fiction or otherwise?
For me, the answer was simple…I could waste time writing as a “stay-at-home” dad, while looking for a job, or I could waste time looking for a job…in this great economy of ours.
Why am I wasting my time?
When I did a little research on the occupation I was initially taken aback by the math…why would anyone pay for a degree that, for the majority, would max out around $60,000…in the best of years! Anyone jumping into this field with any expectation of making a reasonable income, say $100,000 a year, had to be delusional, the first clue that most might be liberals.
This field makes no sense unless a writer is: (1) a trust fund baby, (2) an idiot that does not have a real job and no trust fund, or (3) an idiot, moron who does not have a real job, no trust fund and a college loan they have to pay back. The only thing that could explain the irrational behavior…the majority of these nincompoops were, touchy-feely, do-gooders who wanted to change the world liberals!
Now, recognizing that most writers were probably liberals (#2 and #3 make up the majority), it only made sense that most publishers had to be liberals, too! If most writers and publishers were liberals, then the colleges that spawned them had to also be liberal institutions. Recognizing that liberalism and common sense “do not” go hand in hand, I decided that whatever path they (other writers) were taking should be avoided…at all costs.
Another thing, I am constantly baffled by is how success is defined in this industry, as if by landing an agent, or better yet, a publisher are going to somehow make them rich and famous. No one ever hears of these people once their fifteen-minutes of “media-proclaimed fame” come and go…the hype quickly fades, replaced by the next best thing (another writer).
So, I won’t be one of the ones looking to land an agreement with anyone who can fog up a mirror and carries the title “Agent.” Likewise, I won’t consider a contract with any publishing house that can also fog up a mirror to be a sign of success. No, my gauge for success will be the “KICK” readers get when they read one of my ebooks.
What’s the downside for my arrogance? There will be typos and grammatical mistakes (I proofread everything myself), so I am confident any liberal who happens to come across my “works of art” will find my shortcomings reassuring, especially if they’re still paying back their college loans.
Sure, I’ve tried using proof readers, but they always turn out to be…you guessed it, liberals, too! How many times have I heard…
“I just wanted to let you know I’ve gotten a job with the State, so I won’t be able to proofread your books (trash), any more.”
“I just wanted you to know I got a real job working at the university, so I won’t be able to proofread your novels (trash), any more.”
“I just wanted you to know I got a real job working for ACORN, so I won’t be able to proofread your rags (trash), any more.”
Anyway, that’s my tie-raid on the topic of writing. Hope you’re one of the ones who gets what WTF? is all about…. Ditto LIARS and TT.61 when I get it out.
…and has quite a few laughs along the way.
Oh, and I’m a former software guy turned fiction writer who also doubles as a chauffeuring service, family gofer whose remaining time is spent traveling, going to the gym, taking tennis lessons, or typing away on my Macbook Air. I’m a very typical ‘INTP’ who basically retired about the time Obama came to reign.