Cloward-Piven Strategy To Destroy America Resurgent Amid BLM/Antifa-Led Riots

Source: Zero Hedge
Published: Aug 30, 2020
Author: Tyler Durden
Post Date: 2020-08-30 17:40:06 by Bill D Berger
Views: 89

Richard Andrew Cloward and Francis Fox Piven are two names that are largely unfamiliar to the average American, but, as Jason Brown notes, their historical relevance is being seen all over the country today as we watch civil unrest in the form of riots ensue.

W3Schools.com

As Brandon Smith detailed previously, in the mid-sixties at the height of the “social revolution” the line between democratic benevolence and outright communism became rather blurry. The Democratic Party, which controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress, was used as the springboard by social engineers to introduce a new era of welfare initiatives enacted in the name of “defending the poor”, also known as the “Great Society Programs”. These initiatives, however, were driven by far more subversive and extreme motivations, and have been expanded on by every presidency since, Republican and Democrat alike.

At Columbia University, sociologist professors Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven introduced a political strategy in 1966 in an article entitled 'The Weight Of The Poor: A Strategy To End Poverty'.

This article outlined a plan that they believed would eventually lead to the total transmutation of America into a full-fledged centralized welfare state (in other words, a collectivist enclave). The spearpoint of the Cloward-Piven strategy involved nothing less than economic sabotage against the U.S.

Theoretically, according to the doctrine, a condition of overwhelming tension and strain could be engineered through the overloading of American welfare rolls, thereby smothering the entitlement program structure at the state and local level. The implosion of welfare benefits would facilitate a massive spike in poverty and desperation, creating a financial crisis that would lead to an even greater cycle of demand for a fully socialized system. This desperation would then “force” the federal government to concentrate all welfare programs under one roof, nationalize and enforce a socialist ideology, and ultimately, compact an immense level of power into the hands of a select few.

Cloward and Piven claimed that this could be accomplished at a grassroots level through community activism, and, that it would facilitate a more compassionate federal authority, however, there are numerous problems with these assertions.

***

But, as ominous as that all sounds, we need to back a little further since it was Saul Alinsky, an American community activist and political theorist in Chicago, that was the inspiration for Cloward and Piven.

Alinksy grew impatient with the new leftist activists in the 1960’s. In his book ‘Rules for Radicals,’ (which is dedicated to Lucifer), he states, “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules” (Alinsky, 1972).

When forced to do that, human agendas inevitably fall short. This gives the opportunity to replace the capitalist ‘rule book’ with a socialist one.

The strategy was to mobilize people in poverty en/mass to overwhelm the government agencies with a flood of demands beyond these agencies’ capacity.

This creates gridlock, and the aim was to bring the system down.

Alinsky had contact with Hillary Clinton. You can see her letter to him in 1971(freebeacon.com). Clinton wrote her college thesis on ‘Alinsky and His Organizing Plan.’ Also, Barack Obama taught Alinsky 101 at the University of Chicago. How much Allinsky’s concepts actually influenced Clinton and Obama is open to debate. See David Horowitz’s book ‘Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model’ for more information.

Other organizations rose up, such as Acorn, with the issue of “voting rights.” These organizations received support from people like George Soros (but that is another story).

Now, let’s look at the playbook that developed from Cloward and Piven’s ideas.

These steps have been incorrectly attributed by many to Saul Alinsky. While it is true that he didn’t write them, this much is true: the actual plan is real. It was inspired by Alinsky and enumerated by Cloward and Piven.

Some people will react to this list; others will say that some of the steps are desirable goals.

Nonetheless, you can quickly see how they fit into the socialistic goals of far-left politicians and others today.

The 8 Steps to Create a Socialist State.

  1. Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people. HAPPENING NOW

  2. Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live. HAPPENING NOW

  3. Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty. HAPPENING NOW

  4. Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state. HAPPENING NOW

  5. Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives. (Food, Housing, and Income) HAPPENING NOW

  6. Education – Take control of what people read and listen to us“ take control of what children learn in school. ALREADY DONE

  7. Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools. ALREADY DONE

  8. Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor. HAPPENING NOW

Right now, as Geoffrey Grider explains, steps 1-5 and 8 are being executed right now in how our government is reacting to the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak, with steps, 6 and 7 already having been implemented since 2008. The American economy is being split into pieces right now by the combination of a $2 trillion dollar bailout with more coming, Americans under stay-at-home orders, and with more people right now on unemployment in two weeks of the coronavirus crisis than in the second year of the Great Depression of 1929.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply