27. Pictures of the Socialistic Future

Pictures of the Socialistic Future - Eugene Richter

The "predictions" made in this book, actually a dystopian novel, made me look further to see if it was really written in the early 1890s. It was. Written in 1891 and translated to English in 1893. Written by a man who was alive and politically active in Germany at the same time as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Richter wrote this book like it was a diary. A diary of a man who was living in Germany when the country had a revolution and became Socialist. The writer was pro-socialism. The book starts out with the hopes and dreams of the people...and the reality comes later.

Just as in history, Socialism sounds great, but then economics and human nature come into play. It just does not work. The way this author told this story BEFORE socialist states had started, let alone failed, and predicted so many of the faults of the socialist system, is quite uncanny.

To tell you the truth, I can not write a real blog post that does this book justice. This man has. Click here to read "Looking Hard at "Pictures of the Socialistic Future".

I am still amazed at this one...and you can download a PDF file of the book and read it for free. Click here.

It is time to read something a bit less "involved".

26. Living Water

Living Water - Chuck Smith

This book we have been using in our home fellowship group this year. I loved the book. I loved the teaching. I loved the fellowship with friends. It was all good.

The book is about the gifts of the Holy Spirit and how it all is a part of your life and relationship with God. I have never read anything like it before and it was, what is the word? I guess, "fulfilling" kind of describes how reading this made me feel. I don't know how to describe it.

If you are Christian, I recommend it.
If you are interested in understanding Christianity, read it.
If you have a desire to argue with me about my faith, save it.

Have a lovely day.  :-)

25. Rules For Radicals

Rules For Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals - Saul D. Alinsky

I am supposed to write a scathing anti-liberal, "I hate commies" review for this book, right? I don't think I will. Not entirely anyway. I did not read this for that reason. I read it to try and understand where "students" of Saul Alinsky, including President Obama, are coming from. I read it not to judge the intent or results of the proponents of Alinsky, but to understand the tactics and methods used by those same people.

This reminded me of Sun Tzu's Art of War...but for leftys.

What I read was some very useful information on how to get a group of people to unite for a common purpose and to help guide those people to success. What is in this book would work for exactly that. What was interesting is that Mr. Alinsky's actions focused mostly on the business-worker relationships, but the same ideas have been expanded into the political arena today using his suggestions.

I flagged a lot of things I found interesting in this book for one reason or another. I guess I will just list a few and then discuss my thoughts at the time. First of all, what I found interesting, was that Mr. Alinsky wrote a prologue to the book. That prologue was more enlightening about the purposes and motivations behind the actions described in the book that the book stated itself. The prologue covered the basics of the why. I liked that.

Before I get too far, I think the tactics Alinsky wrote about are usable by any group attempting to alter the behavior of another group. Therefore, though the book was written for pro-union activists and liberals in the Vietnam War era, it is usable by my own conservative self today to fight against the very changes that were made in the last 30 to 40 years. That is pretty cool.

"Let us in the name of radical pragmatism not forget that in our system with all its repressions we can still speak out and denounce the adminstration, attack its policies, work to build an opposition political base. True, there is government harassment, but there still is that relative freedom to fight. I can attack my government, try to organize to change it. Thats more than I can do in Moscow, Peking or Havana."

Absolutely! I will continue to point out every fault I feel like poking at and every issue I take exception to.


"Remember: once you organize people around something as commonly agreed upon as pollution, then an organized people is on the move. From there it's a short and natural step to political pollution, to Pentagon pollution."

That is how people get manipulated by these folks. Rally around one issue and then intertwine it with a bunch of other garbage they would never have organized to support in the first place.


"In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which man can have the chance to live by the values that give meaning to life."

Lots of beautiful words that can be used to describe exactly the same thing from any political perspective. Just because someone says that the way they describe will achieve these goals does not make it true.


Mr. Alinsky states "Today revolution has become synonomous with communism while capitalism in synonomous with status quo." Soon afterward he says "This is a major reason for my attempt to provide a revolutionary handbook not cast in the communist or capitalist mold, but as a manual for the Have-Nots of the world regadless of the color of their skins or their politics."

So, even if Alinsky is trying to separate radical revolution from communism, it is still the basis for what he believes to be better than capitalism. After reading the book it becomes obvious.


"Another example is today's high rise public housing projects. Originally conceived and carried through as major advances in ridding cities of slums, they involved the tearing down of rotting, rat-infested tenements, and the erection of modern apartment buildings. They were acclaimed as America's refusal to permit its people to live in the dirty shambles of the slums. It is common knowledge that they have turned into juungles of horror and now confront us with the problem of how we can either convert or get rid of them. They have become compounds of double segregation- on the basis of economy and race- and a danger for anyone compelled to live in these projets. A beautiful positive dream has grown into a negative nightmare."

Do-gooders failed to see all the consequences of their "help", as usual.


The "grasp of the duality of all phenomena is vital in our understanding of politics. It frees one from the myth that one approach is positive and another negative. There is no such thing in life. One man's positive is another man's negative."

Agreed...but there is such a thing as unconstitutional and anti-american. So, even if something is considered positive by some it does not mean it is American.


"The essence of Lenin's speeches during this period was "They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet."

Alinsky uses this to justify changing tactics or flip-flopping on whatever decisions were made in the past. It is all about what is needed to accomplish the goal at the moment. He goes on to say....

"Means and ends are so qualitatively interrelated that the true question has never been the proverbial one, "Does the End justify the Means?" but always has been "Does this particular end justify this particular means?"

So, every situation is measured on it's own merits. There are no absolutes. Everything is flexible. Everything changes. I find that to be very very sad. To truly believe this you can have no grounding. There is nothing except that very moment to respond to and then change again in the next moment.


"If you start with nothing, demand 100 percent, then compromise for 30 percent, you're 30 percent ahead."

That make sense all on it's own. The next paragraph states why he mentioned that in the first place...

"A free and open society is an on-going conflict, interuppted periodically by compromises- which then become the start for the continuation of conflict, compromise, and on ad infinitum. Control of power is based on compromise in our Congress and among executive, legislative, and judicial branches. A society devoid of compromise is totalitarian. If I had to define a free and open society in one word, the word would be "compromise.""

That is the entire basis for the way the liberals have whittled away at America. Ask for 100 percent on any issue, settle for a fraction of that in the name of compromise, and then use that settlement for the basis of asking for further advances...ignoring that there was a compromise already to reach the point they were at. As time goes by the advances are tremendous and anyone who says they have a problem with it is labeled as uncompromising, intolerant, and totalitarian. I dare anyone to deny that this has been the tactics used to advance America further and further left during my lifetime.



"All definitions of words, like everything else, are relative. Defintion is to a major degree dependent upon your partisan position."

That depends what your definition of sex is. Exactly!



"There can be no such thing as a "non-controversial" issue. When there is agreement there is no issue; issues only arise when there is disagreement or controversy. An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent; provide a channel into which the people can angrily pour their frustrations."

Why the sky is always falling, the other side is always trying to "kill grandma" or "hates the poor" etc. That is also why there are so many "agitators" out there stirring shit up every day.



The fifth rule of power tactics..."Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."

I have seen this tactic used repeatedly in the last three years. The lies have been insane.


And then there was this little tidbit when discussin "ordinary people" using thier proxy votes to force companies to do the bidding of the organizations. "There will even be "fringe benefits." Trips to stock-holders meetings will bring drama and adventure into otherwise colorless and sedentary suburban lives."

What? Suburban lives are colorless and sedentary? Alinsky is going to bring them some adventure? Get out of here with the flowery "we do no wrong" garbage. Sell that junk to someone looking to buy it. That was ridiculous. He even goes on with that scenario to alter the way the Pentagon deals with businesses and makes some HUGE leaps with how businesses and the Generals relate with each other. Ugh.


So, overall I didn't hate the book. Yes, I do completely disagree with the left on numerous issues. I definately despise the tactics they use, especially during the ObamaCare fiasco in Congress...but now I understand where those tactics are coming from. I understand why they are being used and what the goal is in some instances. I also see how I can use them on a smaller scale. Oh yeah!  :-)

24. Red America

Red America - Doomsday Warrior Book 2 - Ryder Stacy

Defiantely not as good as book one, but I enjoy these books. What a ride.

See also Doomsday Warrior.

23. A Field Guide To Left-Wing Wackos

A Field Guide To Left-Wing Wackos And What To Do About Them - Kfir Alfia and Alan Lipton (Founders of ProtestWarrior)

Kind of like a field guide for bird watchers, but it is for identifying different kinds of left-wing people. Frickin' funny actually.

Each group is discussed in typical field guide format with sections covering the following: identified with a name and description, identifying charachteristics, photos or drawings, the origin of the species, behavior, habitat. call or slogan, the party line, between the lines, in their own words, required reading, best of breed, and handling tips.
Which "wackos" are covered? Anarchists, Communists, Intellectuals, College Students, Hollywood Activists, Blacktivists, Hacktivists, Proud Marys, Granolas, Peace Moms, Self-Hating Vets, Acid freaks, Dylan Wannabees, Performance Artists, Islamothugs, Closet Nazis, Security Goons and Employed White Males.
Anarchist: Someone who advocates the abolition of the state, private property, and anything else that prevents him from feeling good about himself. Like a political two-year old, he will throw a fit if he doesn't get what he wants - or throw bombs instead.

Communist: Anyone who likes the things you have, wants them for his own, and doesn't mind if a totalitarian state is what it takes to make that happen.

Intellectual: The spiritual leaders of the left, Intellectuals give lectures and write arcane tracts on political analysis with the sole purpose of providing protesters with the assurance that the hatred of America is thoroughly justified.

College Students: A product of higher learning eager to emulate superficially the political unrest of the sixties and to express a newfound concern for stolen elections, America's failed capitalist system, and America's history or facist aggression.

Hollywood Activists: A member of the Hollywood community elite who uses the capitalists fruits of wealth and fame to promote a socialist agenda.

etc etc etc...it is funny making fun of stuff sometimes.

22. American Gods

American Gods - Neil Gaiman

This is another of those books that I added to the list because it got tremendous reviews. Many of those reviews said things such as "the greatest book ever" or "my all-time favorite". As far as my own experience with American Gods...it fell well short of the expectations.

Maybe I just don't get Neil Gaiman? That could be. I enjoyed Good Omens (a collaboration with Terry Pratchett). I have heard that Neverwhere was outstanding. Maybe I will try it out some day.

I did find something interesting early on in the story. When Shadow met a bunch of folks with what sounded like Slavic names. I know some Russian and recognized that the names meant more than just being a name. Well, I thought Mr. Gaiman had a little fun when naming the characters. I did a quick search on the names and found that he did not make it up. They were actual names of "gods" from old Slavic beliefs. So, I didn't find out that Neil Gaiman was a multi-lingual practical joker, but I did find out that the names and what I thought were actual Russian words was dead on. I understand Russian better than I thought. Woohoooo!

Examples:
Russian word for for black: cherny
Russian for god: bog
Man's name: Czernobog (guy just happens to be a bad fellow) (found this Czernobog)

Czernobog has a brother Bielebog
Russian word for white: biele
Bielebog happens to be a good guy (found this Bielebog)

These guys had sisters they called Utrennyaya, Vechernyaya and Polunochnaya. Shadow had some "thoughts" about Zorya Utrennyaya. She just happened to be the youngest and prettiest. Explanation to follow.
Russian words:
Morning: Utra (the youngest sister)
Evening: Vecher (the older sister)
Polunoch: Midnight (the oldest sister)

And then I looked up Zorya, which I thought had something to do with stars. I found this: Zorya. It explains the Slavic mythology associated with the morning star, evening star and midnight star.

So, Gaiman has written a book about "gods" that exist because people believe in them. When immigrants came to America they brought the gods with them. Over time the belief in these gods faded and the gods were no longer gods in the way they were in the past.

There is a buildup to a battle between the new gods and the old gods for supremacy in America. Shadow thwarts the war by explaining to them all that America is not a good place for gods and they should all return to the old countries. Blah blah blah.

It is very interesting in concept. The capabilities of such stories are endless. But, the book seemed to drag on and on and on. It was slow. It took so much time to build in the old mythology into a current American world that it lost excitement and, well, fun.

I didn't hate it. I didn't "like" it either. Fun at times. Boring as all heck at others. I read it because it helps me with two challenge goals this year. This book counts towards the Chunkster Challenge because it is 588 pages. it also counts for the Orbis Terrarum Challenge because Neil Gaiman is from England (not American).

21. America (The Book)

America (The Book: A Citizen's Guide To Democracy Inaction - Jon Stewart etal

I like Jon Stewart and The Daily Show. I don't agree with him much, but he is a funny fellow and he makes me laugh. I expected this book to be the same kind of humor as displayed on his show. It was. It cracked me up.

The book is set up as a text book. It is a spoof or parody of a high school government or civics class text. It has a zillion little charts, side-bars, graphs, explanations, expository notes, etc etc...just like all the text books have today. Many of them are just down right hilarious.

For instance, there is a full page portrait of George Washington. On the page is printed a quote. It says "Jefferson, you're on the two. Hamilton? You get the ten. I'm calling dibs on the one. That's all me, baby. What's that, Adams? You wanted the one? All right, that's it: You don't get to be on anything. That's right, I'm taking back the quarter. Anyone else want to complain? I didn't think so." George Washington, 1789 

There is a history lesson at the beginning. One part I found funny that really made me laugh out loud for quite some time and still makes me chuckle is:

"1492- In fourteen hundred ninety two Columbus sailed the ocean blue......and discovered America. Now, some have argued that Columbus actually discovered the West indies, or that Norsemen had discovered America centuries earlier, or that you really can't get credit for discovering a land already populated by indigenous people with a developed civilization. Those people are communists. Columbus discovered America."

HA HA HA! THAT is some funny stuff...if you like Jon Stewart humor anyway.

Now we get to the part where the colonists have declared independence and the Revolutionary War is under way. They write The Articles of Confederation. It is ratified in 1781. There is a quote in this area that is funny. It says "The Revolution is over. America has triumphed. Let us continue to solve and and all disputes by using violence." - American General Anthony Wayne at the Battle of Yorktown (1781)." That made me giggle a little until I realized that we do tend to just use violence. Argh...I hate it when I laugh at truth.

I will just type stuff I found funny or interesting now....

"Before the invention of the moral compass in 1907, Presidents had to rely on the crude and unreliable "moral sextant."

"The Oval Office. Because it has no corners, there is nowhere to make the president sit when he has shamed the nation."

"Quoting the President...On The Economy..."The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin D. Roosevelt, March 4, 1933    "Oh, and starvation. We might all starve." - Franklin D. Roosevelt, March 4, 1933"

"Presidential Nicknames: Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon - Richard Nixon was regarded as an agile and "tricky" political opponent. Also, he was a dick."

In the section describing the American Court System, at the very bottom is Mom and Dad. "Arbiter of all curfew, allowance, and homework-completion related matters. Frequently Draconian; often arbitrary, citing legally questionable precedent of "because I said so." Jurisdiction confined to "under their roof." God, you hate them. Hate them, hate them, hate them."

"Landmark Supreme Court Cases: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954): The Court overturned the Plessy ruling, declaring the establishment of separate public schools for black and white students inherently unequal. This landmark verdict paved the way for integration, the Civil Rights Movement and the Beastie Boys." Think about it...it really did...That was funny.

"Election Day is always the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. This is because having it on the first Thursday after the second Saturday in November would be silly."

There is so much more, and a ton of it is visual. I could never explain it.

If you are a Jon Stewart fan or like the Daily Show...you will enjoy this book.

20. Running With Scissors

Running With Scissors - Augusten Burroughs

HATED IT!

OK, maybe that is a little strong. It had a few humorous moments, but for the most part I felt like I was recounting the whinnings of a bratty little boy.

Go sit on Mommy's lap and suck your thumb you cry-baby.

Didn't get it. Didn't enjoy reading it. Don't understand what the good reviews are about. Don't care what I am missing.

OK, Yes... I hated it! Whatever.

19. Shepherding A Child's Heart

Shepherding A Child's Heart - Tedd Tripp

A good guide to raising young children biblically.

I think the books ideas were great. I also think the author rambled a bit and made some assumptions concerning the dialog between parents a children, but overall he has good ideas.

At times I felt like I was reading parts of Steven Covey's Seven habits of Highly Effective People.  :-)

I wish there was a book like this for raising teenagers adopted from Eastern European institutions or for teenagers with Aspergers.

I'll give it a shot.

18. The Abstinence Teacher

The Abstinence Teacher - Tom Perrotta

I liked this book very much. It was a very interesting story with some outstanding interaction between the characters. I am also surprised that I liked it considering it was full of stereotypes and flagrant bias.

This is a story about a high school health teacher (includes sex education) and her interactions with members of an evangelical Christian church. Imagine the stereotypical liberated woman facing off against the stereotypical "fundamentalist" Christians.

After writing this blog post I will go see what I can learn about the author on the internet. I will let you know if it is anything interesting. I am expecting a left wing guy who went to liberal schools and embraced the whole deal. I am sure this book is an atheistic political statement masquerading as a fiction novel.

I find that to be annoying, but must admit that it created a desire within me to read on and see how far it would go. I enjoyed predicting, or trying to predict what would happen, and then seeing if I was right. I was correct in general. Probably about 80% of what I thought would happen actually was written into the story in one form or another. What I learned was that there is a pretty good book within the bias writing.

The American "culture war" has been waged in these pages, and the lefties won.
Some of the things I saw that bugged me:

The main character is Ruth, the health teacher who believes "pleasure is good, shame is bad, and knowledge is power." Ruth never compromised her position. She wrangled with everyday issues much like every human being, but she always sided and acted in accordance with her beliefs. She lost her job, friends moved away, lost her own children to Jesus...and all the while she was true to the cause. She is the undaunting liberal warrior. Our hero!?

Her counterpart is Tim. He was a rock and roll band member and fan of the Grateful Dead. He is a recovered addict and alcoholic who, after hitting rock bottom, getting divorced and losing everything that ever meant anything to him, sought out something more in his life. He found Jesus and was saved. He is now a member of the Tabernacle. That is the evangelical church which Ruth has a problem with. Tim just so happens to be Ruth's daughters soccer coach. Uh ohhh!
     The problem with Tim's character? He is constantly wrestling with and at odds with his faith. He is fearful that his beliefs will cost him his job, his relationship with his daughter, his ability to coach the soccer team, his friends, his work relationships. His faith causes nothing but conflict in his life! That is not what real faith is like. That is what a person who has no faith thinks faith is like and wishes others to think also.
     Tim is also constantly wrestling with the past. He still loves his ex-wife. He misses the rock and roll lifestyle, hanging in bars and poker night. he even vandalizes Billy's truck by scratching the name "Jesus" into the paint after getting stoned and then crawls back to Ruth's house to "talk".
     This is what a Christian man does? This is how he thinks and acts? Sure, if you want the character to look like an imbecile who's faith is in something that is not real. If you want to portray him as weak and ungrounded so you can show how much of a loser he is compared to the wonderful Ruth.

Where Ruth succeeds, Tim always fails. So predictable.

There is also a Pastor Dennis. This is the founder and leader of The tabernacle. This is supposedly the new church that is growing rapidly and has massive influence at town board meetings and within the high school. This Pastor is seriously over the top. His way of living would not create a church that grows. It would alienate people. His church would not grow. He is far to involved in his own flock's lives to be anything like the "mentor" and spiritual guide that he is supposed to be. People typically would not willfully flock to follow a theocratic dictator who meddles in the minutia of their private lives.
     Who would follow a man like this? Stupid weak sheep, of course, just like all Christians are accused of being by the atheistic secular-centered people today.

Want more? How about two characters that are not major to the story, but have strong statements about what atheists think about Christians.
    Tim's second and current wife for one. She is a mousy and submissive woman who has no desires of her own. When Tim asks what she wants her only answers are to try and please him and fulfill his needs. She has no life outside of that. I found that to be a ridiculous portrayal of what Christians mean when they say the man is the spiritual leader and that the woman should submit to her husband. This character is written from a point of view that only mocks and belittles someones faith.
    The other guy who is not that big a deal to the story, but really mattered to me, is Jay. Jay met Pastor Dennis at a wedding. Jay was a young loud rude womanizing drunk who punched the Pastor in the eye in the men's room when Dennis tried to stuff Jesus down his throat. Then Jay had a spiritual experience and came to accept Jesus with Pastor Dennis. A few weeks passed and Dennis declares that the Pastor LIED to him about that experience. It was not Jesus at all. Jay decided the experience was just Jay being in touch with his own inner spirit. There is no God...it is just whatever makes you feel good or what fulfills your needs at the moment. So, the Pastor is a liar who tricks people into believing, Jay is his own savior, it is all just stupid.

What causes the controversy between Ruth and Tim? Tim says a prayer after a soccer game where he thanks God. From there we go into all the junk spouted in society today about separation of church and state. Blah blah blah. The coach thanked God that his own daughter was OK after a bad collision on the field and then for the last minute victory against a tough opponent to get into the championship game. Big deal! Unless of course you have a chip on your shoulder and feel it is your duty to strike at Christians at the mere mention of anything related to faith.

Something that was very interesting was an opinion pointed out during a refresher training course Ruth was forced to attend. When health teachers had the curriculum altered to include abstinence in sex education, well, Ruth didn't do it so well. She had to go to a training class to learn how to teach abstinence.
     There were four folks in that class. One was a lesbian. What I found to be interesting was an opinion on why abstinence teaching will not always work. See, if you are gay and are taught to not have a sexual relationship until marriage...but marriage for gays is illegal...well, I understand why they lesson would not make much sense. Again, it worked in another liberal subject of contention by bringing in the whole gay marriage thing. But, if I look at it strictly from the high school curriculum of abstinence teaching then it made sense to me that there is a problem.

At the end of the book Tim is standing in his underwear in Ruth's bedroom staring out the window as his Pastor is outside making a fool of himself and his wife is at home pining away for her man. Tim is afraid to even speak to the pastor...but, of course, Ruth has no fear. She is the strong modern woman taking a stand against the oppressive religious types that are just haters.

So, you would think with all the blatant liberal bias and incessant jabs at Christians I would have hated the book. I didn't. I think Tom Perrotta is a talented writer who told a good story in an excellent manner. I may not like what happened, but what happened was portrayed in an outstanding way. It is good writing.

So now that I finished writing this blog post, I will go see what I can learn about Mr. Perrotta himself. What are his political and religious beliefs? I'll let you know if I find anything credible about that, but I am pretty sure I already know what I will find.

PS...I was right.