Cloward and Piven

How many people (beyond watchers of Glenn Beck) have heard of Cloward and Piven, or the the Cloward-Piven strategy? Better yet, why are the other major talk radio hosts not talking about it? This is not a conspiracy theory. Francis Fox Piven is not some sweet little old lady that Glenn Beck is just picking on. When he says that she's the most dangerous woman in America, he doesn't mean she's physically imposing. It's her policies that have the ear of Presidents.

In case you haven't heard of her policies, there's a web site that goes into detail on them. http://cloward-piven.com/ There's an even more extensive article (using the following same quote) here: http://www.canadaka.net/forums/us-politics-f18/the-cloward-piven-strategy-to-implement-socialist-revolution-t8516.html

Here's a quote grabbed from the site: Quote:

Cloward-Piven is a strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis.

The strategy was first proposed in 1966 by Columbia University political scientists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven as a plan to bankrupt the welfare system and produce radical change. Sometimes known as the "crisis strategy" or the the "flood-the-rolls, bankrupt-the-cities strategy," the Cloward-Piven approach called for swamping the welfare rolls with new applicants - more than the system could bear. It was hoped that the resulting economic collapse would lead to political turmoil and ultimately socialism.

The National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), founded by African-American militant George Alvin Wiley, put the Cloward-Piven strategy to work in the streets. Its activities led directly to the welfare crisis that bankrupted New York City in 1975.

Veterans of NWRO went on to found the Living Wage Movement and the Voting Rights Movement, both of which rely on the Cloward-Piven strategy and both of which are spear-headed by the radical cult ACORN.

Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros's Open Society Institute.


On August 11, 1965, the black district of Watts in Los Angeles exploded into violence, after police used batons to subdue a man suspected of drunk driving. Riots raged for six days, spilling over into other parts of the city, and leaving 34 dead. Two Columbia University sociologists, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were inspired by the riots to develop a new strategy for social change. In November 1965 - barely three months after the fires of Watts had subsided - Cloward and Piven began privately circulating copies of an article they had written called "Mobilizing the Poor: How it Could Be Done." Six months later (on May 2, 1966), it was published in The Nation, under the title, "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty."

Their whole premise was that if you collapsed the Welfare system, the poor would be angry that their entitlements were gone and rise up in protest, and take over the government. They knew that there weren't enough communists at the time to do this, they had to "use" the poor for their own needs. Isn't this the definition of slavery? They were using the poor (both black and white, anyone on welfare) as useful idiots.

Our nation went through a Great Depression in the late 20's early 30's. I tried to google Great Depression Riots, and only found that they demonstrated. I saw pictures of protests with signs, but there was no violence. The article said that there were some local riots, but the pictures were of people holding signs. That's a peaceful demonstration. If the people today (specifically in Wisconsin) walked around holding signs (can you say Tea Party?) I would have no argument. But they're trying to burn our country to the ground.

Have any of you seen Aliens 2? The Union bosses are like Burke....as Ripley said, "You sent those people in there without telling them what was there?" The Union bosses are telling them things to incite them, without telling 1) the truth or 2) what could happen should they get what they're asking for. Have you ever wondered what would happen if this form of government we have right now collapsed? What I can't figure out is why the anarchists are working with communists and Marxists. Anarchy is the lack of all government. Communism is "a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state." Marxism is "the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, especially the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society."

So, why would they all unite in America? Because, 1) they hate capitalism, but they are willing to use it to make themselves rich (kick the ladder out when they get to the top) and 2) the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Have you considered what will happen once this system of America does collapse? They will all start fighting to instill their form of government. There are subtle differences between Marxism and Communism, but they are not a Republic. Do you think the people will be happy with either of these? Do you think these Idealists who are currently pushing for these forms of governments are going to be exempt from the oppression? Doubt it.

And that's why Piven is so dangerous. She's doing the same thing. She just flat out hates America as it is currently. She wants socialism. But we tried socialism in America already, it's just not taught in our schools anymore. The Jamestown colony started out as a socialism project. They decided that 1/3 would farm, 1/3 would look for gold and 1/3 would defend the colony. Do you know what happened? Everyone slipped out to look for gold. No one worked on the crops and they almost starved. I have forgotten for right now what his name was, but a Captain came in, and saw the problem. He granted OWNERSHIP of land to everyone, only requiring that they put 1/10th of their crops into the public store for winter. If everyone can draw from the store what they need without working, they won't work. It's human nature to not work. That's why welfare is so dangerous. That's why disability is so dangerous. That's why unlimited unemployment is so dangerous. Do I think all of these should be cut out? No. But there should be time limits on Welfare and Unemployment. It should be harder to get disability. Do you even need to prove anything anymore? I've seen people that I was shocked they were on disability. They looked perfectly able to me to work. Makes me almost want to claim disability for epilepsy. I could probably get it. But, if you have unlimited Welfare, why look for a job? You probably get more on Welfare with food stamps than you could from a minimum wage job. I've seen people on government assistance with better stuff than me. I mean I-phones, high end shoes and clothes, fancy hair cuts/weaves. Then the socialists say that the problem is all of our stuff. Look at who has the stuff! If you look at the average working class (and I don't include color in that statement because I lived in a mostly black working class neighborhood in Missouri) and they live within their means, are proud that they bought a house and keep it up well, and they only have what they can afford. The Unions are trying to get these people to envy the "rich" when they should be looking at the Welfare state and wondering why they have so much more than the working class. They would actually be happier if the working class could become dependent on Welfare. And that brings us back to Piven. If all the working class lost their jobs, because the Unions win at getting a "living wage," they would have to go on welfare. Where is the pride in that? When I was growing up, it was a shameful thing to be on food stamps. But now they made it just like a debit card, who knows you're on food stamps? I think if I were a cashier, I would say in a loud voice every time, "OH, is this food stamps?" We need to work on shaming these people that they are 3rd generation welfare recipients and make work the ethic again.