The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty.
The Strategy for the Destruction of Capitalism in America.
Cloward-Piven Strategy or the "crisis strategy" or the "Orchestrated - Manufactured Crisis".
http://www.infowars.com/obama-the-clowar...rld-order/
On March 9, 2009 Brannon Howse of Worldview Radio interviewed author James Simpson. Entitled “Barack Obama is Destroying Our Economy on Purpose,” Howse’s interview of Simpson concentrated on Columbia University professors Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven who wrote an article in 1966 for The Nation magazine. “The article was published on May 2, 1966 and laid out what is now known as the ‘Cloward-Piven Strategy’. The plan calls for the destruction of capitalism in America by swelling the welfare rolls to the point of collapsing our economy and then implementing socialism by nationalizing many private institutions,” explains a synopsis on the Worldview Radio website. “Cloward and Piven studied Saul Alinsky just like Hillary Clinton and President Obama.”
Alinsky is considered to be the founder of modern community organizing in America. Alinsky’s teachings influenced Obama early in his career as a community organizer on the far South Side of Chicago. Obama worked for Gerald Kellman’s Developing Communities Project where he learned and taught Alinsky’s methods for community organizing. Obama would later work for ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
According to Sol Stern of the Manhattan Institute, ACORN is a modern successor of the radical 1960’s “New Left” and holds a “1960’s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism” to be implemented through “undisguised authoritarian socialism.”
“This new and complete Revolution we contemplate can be defined in a very few words. It is … outright world-socialism, scientifically planned and directed,” H.G. Wells wrote in The New World Order.
It is a brand of “undisguised authoritarian socialism” supported by the establishment. As the Union News reported last October, ACORN receives funding from the Robin Hood Foundation, a charity supported — to the tune $9,859,453 — by the globalist George Soros and his Soros Fund Charitable Foundation.
“Soros is the visible side of a vast and nasty secret network of private financial interests, controlled by the leading aristocratic and royal families of Europe, centered in the British House of Windsor,” writes William Engdahl. According to Engdahl, Soros “is part of a tightly knit financial mafia — ‘mafia,’ in the sense of a closed masonic-like fraternity of families pursuing common aims.”
As Antony Sutton documented ( Wall Street & the Bolshevik Revolution), the very fount of “authoritarian socialism” was created and lavishly funded by the bankers. “The involvement of the Rockefellers with their supposed blood enemies, the Communists, dates back to the Bolshevik Revolution,” notes Gary Allen (None Dare Call it Conspiracy, chapter 6). “The Federal Reserve-CFR insiders began pushing to open up Communist Russia to U.S. traders soon after the revolution.”
In addition, the bankers have supported “communism” in the United States. Considering this, it should come as no surprise the anti-capitalist “Cloward-Piven Strategy” was published by The Nation, a magazine with a well-documented connection to the CIA. As researcher Bob Feldman notes, The Nation is connected to the National Endowment for Democracy, a CIA front group involved in overthrowing countries around the world by way of “color revolution.” The CIA has a history of collaboration with the Ford Foundation (see James Petras: “The Ford Foundation and the CIA: A documented case of philanthropic collaboration with the Secret Police”).
In 1954, Rowan Gaither of the Ford Foundation told Reese Commission investigator Norman Dodd that “the directives under which we operate is that we shall use our grant making power to alter life in the United States so that we can comfortably be merged with the Soviet Union.”
This merging with the Soviet Union (or more accurately, “authoritarian socialism”) has nothing to do with the sort of communism taught in school textbooks — a dictatorship of the proletariat and the workers — but rather it is an authoritarian control system engineered by the bankers and the global elite. “This new and complete Revolution we contemplate can be defined in a very few words. It is … outright world-socialism, scientifically planned and directed,” H.G. Wells wrote in The New World Order.
It is a mistake to believe the Cloward-Piven Strategy is scheme cooked up by academic Marxists of “New Left” bent dedicated to the destruction of capitalism in the name of some sort of vaguely defined humanitarianism. In fact, “the destruction of capitalism in America by swelling the welfare rolls to the point of collapsing our economy and then implementing socialism by nationalizing many private institutions” is a meticulous plan on the part of the global elite to consolidate power and destroy all opposition.
It has nothing to do with liberating the proletariat but rather subjecting them to banker engineered “world-socialism, scientifically planned and directed” and devised to transform the planet into a banker dominated high-tech prison gulag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward-Piven_Strategy
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/t..._of_e.html
The Cloward-Piven strategy refers to a political strategy outlined by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, then both sociologists and political activists at the Columbia University School of Social Work, in a 1966 article in The Nation. The two argued that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would create a political crisis that would force U.S. politicians, particularly the Democratic Party, to enact legislation "establishing a guaranteed national income."[1] The 1966 article is titled - "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty."
The Strategy
Cloward and Piven’s article is focused on forcing the Democratic party, which in 1966 controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress, to take federal action to help the poor. They argued that full enrollment of those eligible for welfare “would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments” that would “deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas.”[2] They wrote “the ultimate objective of this strategy (is) to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income... (via)the outright redistribution of income.”
Focus on Democrats
The authors pinned their hopes on creating disruption within the Democratic Party. "Conservative Republicans are always ready to declaim the evils of public welfare, and they would probably be the first to raise a hue and cry. But deeper and politically more telling conflicts would take place within the Democratic coalition," they wrote. "Whites - both working class ethnic groups and many in the middle class - would be aroused against the ghetto poor, while liberal groups, which until recently have been comforted by the notion that the poor are few... would probably support the movement. Group conflict, spelling political crisis for the local party apparatus, would thus become acute as welfare rolls mounted and the strains on local budgets became more severe.”[3]
Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews wrote that Cloward and Piven "proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system -- by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice -- that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy."[4]