DECEMBER 9 2007 UPDATE: Here it is. A searchable PDF of Hillary Clinton’s Wellesley Thesis.
Thanks to an intrepid reader who took the Original .PDF version of the Thesis we posted, converted it to .doc and then converted it back into a searchable .PDF. Alot of work was put into the conversion of this important document. Hillary’s true thoughts on socialism and one possible future for America is one click away. You can use the links at the bottom of this post to email this to your friends.
There are three formats avaiable to view, choose your reading format:
paginated jpegs (hosted at GOPublius)
PDF (about 1.72 megs; searchable, hosted at GOPublius)
Original scan PDF(not searchable, originally posted at GOPublius, now hosted at Freedom Underground)
ORIGINAL POST:
GOPublius has obtained a copy of Hillary Rodham’s senior thesis at Wellesley College. Click here to read it.
“There is only one fight …” an analysis of the Alinsky Model
Although I have no ‘loving wife’ to thank for keeping the children away while I wrote, I do have many friends and teachers who have contributed to the process of thesis-writing.
Senator Clinton is running for President and, like all candidates, it is important to be familiar with her beliefs. This document was hidden from public view during her husband’s presidency - an apparent favor to the Clintons from contacts at Wellesley College - and interest in the thesis fell when Bill Clinton left office. Now with Hillary a top Democratic candidate for President, this document is once again generating considerable interest.
Many will argue it is the rantings of a young 20 year old in the late sixties, but others will regard it as exposing the true ideological roots of one of the most powerful people in Washington. Mr. Alinsky, the subject of the paper, was a radical leftist bent on a popular revolution. Why was Senator Clinton’s thesis suppressed? Does Senator Clinton stand by this thesis? Does this document contain political philosophy offensive to traditional notions of American liberty? You be the judge.
Click here to download and read her thesis (right click: “save as …”)
Reference to the story. This is an important document about a candidate for President. below are other links to this Thesis and commentary.
Sphere: Related ContentAmerican Thinker: Hillary, Soros, Alinsky and Rush
WELCOME Tammy Bruce readers, we appreciate your interest!WELCOME Daily Kos readers! This is the Rosetta Stone of Hillary studies. Read it here.IF YOU WOULD LIKE THE .PDF VERSION,
PLEASE EMAIL US AT INFO (AT) GOPUBLIUS.COM ORVISIT FREEDOM UNDERGROUNDUPDATE AUGUST 21, 2007: Andrew Walden wrote a piece which made it to frontpagemag.com; Tammy Bruce has analysis and links.
LINKED with ANALYSIS: The Hawaii Reporter
LINKED: Arkansas Conservative Acton Network.
UPDATE AUGUST 10, 2007: ANALYSIS BY Nuke.
UPDATE AUGUST 9, 2007: “ANALYSIS” BY The People’s Cube ; Link to this story at The Hillary Project
UPDATE AUGUST 8, 2007: ANALYSIS BY Edward Clinevia Maverick News Network. It is a lengthy analysis which compares Hillary Clinton’s relationship with Alinsky to that of Ellsworth Toohey and Catherine Halsey from Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead”. Well played and worth the read.
No matter how slickly “human” she presents her made-over self to the public in debates or during interviews, one can still detect in her the desire to kill in every American his integrity, self-respect, sense of values, the heroic, and happiness. When she left Wellesley, she decided to become the “star,” someone whom uncounted others would come to depend on and thank for that dependence.
UPDATE AUGUST 7, 2007: ANALYSIS BY Snooper.
Page 97 is interesting. Paraphrasing: “Government will bring about the changes required”.
Where have we heard this before?
UPDATE: ANALYSIS BY JEREMAYAKOVKA.
The nearly 100-page inquiry into the thought and activism of radical leftwing organizer Saul Alinsky can be considered, until proven otherwise, young Ms. Rodham’s first complete set of intellectual fingerprints — or rather her first carbon (her first carbon copy, that is) intellectual footprint.
UPDATE AUGUST 2, 2007: FREEDOM UNDERGROUND HAS THE PDF HERE - BEE KIND, DO NOT HOTLINK
August 1st, 2007 - 2:00 pmQuote
Thank you for posting this. Hillary has been carrying out the plan in this thesis for 38 years. The public has a right to know about her plan for “social revolution.”
August 1st, 2007 - 2:01 pmQuote
Well done. My advice to anyone who’s going to comment on it is:
Know the difference between a push broom and fine-toothed comb. Use both, but know the difference.
August 1st, 2007 - 3:11 pmQuote
Organization without education is manipulation.
Yes, I did read the whole thing
August 1st, 2007 - 3:49 pmQuote
Anyone wanna mirror this?
August 1st, 2007 - 3:56 pmQuote
theBuckWheat wrote:
Great idea. We are currently working on a mirror to host this to improve download times. We will let you know when we have that mirror setup!
August 1st, 2007 - 6:38 pmQuote
Thanks for posting this. I’ve been looking for it for *years*!
August 1st, 2007 - 6:44 pmQuote
Be sure to DIGG this story. (Upper right hand corner)
August 1st, 2007 - 11:26 pmQuote
Thank you for sharing this. I hope people remember that such goodwill benefits us all and will respect your request to download instead of hotlinking.
August 1st, 2007 - 11:47 pmQuote
[...] blogging: GOPublius, Free [...]
August 2nd, 2007 - 12:51 amQuote
I’m glad this material, although still unverified, is beginning to receive the attention it deserves.
ftr, this is the comment I just left at Maggie’s Farm post on the document:
“The points raised here and hopefully elsewhere will create an opportunity to reframe this issue: instead of the Clintons’ enemies and skeptics claiming sour grapes for lack of access to a basic document, the burden can at last shift to them, and to Wellesley, to verify (or refute) this copy of her original intellectual effort. For the moment that is the best success we can hope for.
What I am trying to do throughout is to maintain a posture of principled defiance: Let her entire record come to light, let us have the opportunity to weigh it - all of it - and make our best cases, for or against her candidacy, based on it.”
August 2nd, 2007 - 1:29 pmQuote
I don’t want to hotlink Senator Clinton’s thesis, but may I link your blog? I have some friends who would be VERY interested in reading this.
August 2nd, 2007 - 1:38 pmQuote
Anyone have a count on how many times she uses the word “negro”?
August 2nd, 2007 - 1:39 pmQuote
ladybug wrote:
Please! the permalink to the post is: http://gopublius.com/hillary-clintons-wellesley-thesis/
the page is: gopublius.com
You can also link directly to the paginated version: gopublius.com/HCT/HillaryClintonThesis.html
thanks!!!
August 3rd, 2007 - 7:09 amQuote
OUTSTANDING and thanks for posting it at The Hot Rodham Blog!
August 3rd, 2007 - 7:49 amQuote
[...] Go Publius posted a link at my The Rodham Blog that presents a copy of the long suppressed Alinsky Thesis. [...]
August 3rd, 2007 - 9:20 amQuote
Ayn_Rand wrote:
Not once, I believe. Then and now she’s savvier than that. But you’re on to something: note the attention, the place she cedes to race in her fascinated study of radicalism. Her young intellect’s fascination with radicalism required a surrender to what we now call multiculturalism. She was primed for it already back then. (Note the insertion of T.S. Eliot’s “East Coker” poem, from which she drew her title.)
August 3rd, 2007 - 9:42 amQuote
Jeremayakovka wrote:
twice b my count so far: bottom of page 28:
“The neighborhood’s problems were compunded by the threat of urban renweal. The Chicago Defender, a nego newspaper … “
August 3rd, 2007 - 9:55 amQuote
Jeremayakovka wrote:
Its a small point, but I think this futher illustrates her elitism and opportunism.
August 3rd, 2007 - 11:33 amQuote
Good catch. Negro was still in use, as was “colored.” Elitism perhaps. Also a reflection of an American culture very uncertain of itself and its values. Before politically correct “______-American” labels became current.
August 4th, 2007 - 9:45 pmQuote
[...] Us Against Hillary And she is hopping mad! Maybe if she hadn’t written about her true political underpinnings, she wouldn’t be the target that and her wanna-be First Man(?) [...]
August 28th, 2007 - 11:53 amQuote
Does anyone know what was censored on page 74 of Hillary’s thesis?
October 2nd, 2007 - 9:23 amQuote
Percy
I looked and can’t find a reference to anything that was edited - can you expand on what you are referring to and I will search a bit more.
October 20th, 2007 - 3:52 amQuote
Percy asked: “Does anyone know what was censored on page 74 of Hillary’s thesis?”
Nothing has been censored on page 74 or on any other page.
And a look at page 74 leaves me wondering why anybody would think something had been “censored” on that page.
–AW
October 31st, 2007 - 5:39 pmQuote
Glads to finally get a copy of this. Trouble copying, left click on page when it comes up, bo to edit, enable all, then, copy. You can then pastes to whereever you want to store. You must pull up each page singly. That is the only way I have found to copy it.
For further supporting information on her true, ideology, look her up by name in discoverthenetwork.org http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=18. The main pages are loaded. Then go to the expanded profile and read [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/hillaryexpandedprofile3.htm]. It is quite an eye opener.
If you read the book., “The Shadow Party,” it to has a surprising amount of information on Hillary and George [Soros].
November 20th, 2007 - 12:07 amQuote
As much as I’d like to see a woman president, I don’t trust Hillary as far as I can throw her.
November 20th, 2007 - 2:07 pmQuote
@Percy,
Having just completed a thorough and painstakingly accurate OCR conversion of this thesis, I can state with assurance that nothing has been censored. However, several unreadable areas were found that were likely caused by the affected pages slipping during scanning:
In particular, page 23 line 7, and page 40 line 4 contained unreadable text. I was able to find a separate source of the quote in page 23 and fixed it in my OCR copy, I am still working on the second unreadable section. I have recently purchased a copy of the June 25, 1968 issue of Look magazine off of eBay to read the referenced article. The corrected thesis should be finished in about a week.
Tomboy
November 21st, 2007 - 10:25 amQuote
@Tomboy
email me when you have a completed OCR, I would like to add it to the page.
in Liberty,
Publius
November 24th, 2007 - 5:57 pmQuote
@Publius,
OK, I received the copy of Look magazine today and have corrected the two unreadable words (they turned out to be: “skilled industry”). Interestingly, the quote in Look reads “skill industry” but this is only a minor error and doesn’t change the meaning of the quote. I decided to leave the quote as Hillary wrote it.
I am ready to email it to you, but I need an address to send it to. Awaiting your response.
Sincerely,
Tomboy
November 25th, 2007 - 9:31 amQuote
@tomboy
Great, I look forward to it, please send it to info (at) gopublius.com
Thanks!
December 5th, 2007 - 6:33 pmQuote
It will be fun watching the process as Hillary moves forward to the crown she thinks she deserves. A few hard core communists will shout her, “she’s dirty from Mena”, but her train will progress.
December 14th, 2007 - 7:31 amQuote
I am not sure I would be happy to read what I was thinking when I was 20. Is it not all digging sh… ? Not that I like the actual women of today, mind you !
December 19th, 2007 - 2:28 pmQuote
I love her theories and she looked cute in the above picture!
January 9th, 2008 - 12:33 pmQuote
thank you for publishing this, I have received more confidence in her integrity etc. and will be much more likely to vote for her after reading the thesis
January 19th, 2008 - 10:19 amQuote
I haven’t looked at all the posts and linked material, but did anyone else notice the copyright symbol (”c” in a circle) on the first page of her thesis? That must have been added much later, as a normal typewriter from 1969 did not have that symbol on it. Generally you would type “(c) copyright reserved” or something like that. I would imagine her fellow Marxist travelers, supporters and apologists at the school put the circled-c in.
January 31st, 2008 - 2:18 amQuote
Now that I read this…she has 100% of my vote!
February 3rd, 2008 - 12:06 pmQuote
Michael,
I have the original 92 .JPG scans of the document. The circled c was a typed small c that hillary circled in pen.
As far as page 74 goes there are some light lines through the words.
Both of the problems will be translated by the OCR software or unreadable by it. If the OCR was looking at the same .jpg files I have then that is the problem. I took the .jpg files and pasted them as pictures on a word doc. while unsearchable and 13mb to boot. you can see all of her pen markings and the lines leftover on the paper. Along with the signature of Saul Alinsky on some of the pages.
February 5th, 2008 - 2:37 amQuote
That young woman was to be congratulated for her hard work and intellectual strength. I am filled with admiration. She is insightful, tough minded, warm hearted and a thoroughly
clear-headed and gifted woman of her age when she wrote this, and she has just grown in value since.
February 16th, 2008 - 8:26 pmQuote
["What does the Radical want? He wants a world in which the worth of the individual is recognized...a world based on the morality of mankind...The Radical believes that all peoples have a high standard of food, housing, and health...The Radical places human rights far above property rights. He is for universal, free public education and recognizes this as fundamental to the democratic way of life... Democracy to him is working from the bottom up... The Radical believes completely in real equality of opportunity for all peoples regardless of race, color, or creed." 11
Much of what Alinsky professes does not sound "radical." His are the words used in our schools and churches, by our parents and their friends, by our peers. The differences is that Alinsky really believes in them and recognizes the necessity of changing the present structures of our lives in order to realize them.]
What exactly is wrong with that?
Someone replied back asking, “How many times does she use the word negro?” Well from an educated point-of-view, this paper was written in 1969, and the books she used in her college education most likely all used the word “negro” to describe African Americans or Blacks. In fact, history and social studies text books today still use that word. Given the time frame, the majority of individuals would have used the word “negro” in a research paper/thesis. You ca n not fairly judge her for using that word back then in that paper. If you want to put her down for using that word, then I highly recommend you write letters to McGraw Hill and other textbook publishing companies and advise them to stop using that word in text books our children use in grade school and high school.
Her analytical research skills are amazing in this paper, especially for just an undergraduate student. She’s an intelligent woman.
March 16th, 2008 - 1:01 amQuote
Is there something wrong with being a radical Leftist? Or a Marxist? I didn’t know. I guess I was out that day.
March 16th, 2008 - 2:43 pmQuote
Commentor wrote:
Yeah - it is completely contrary to the Constitution and the tenants of liberty.
March 16th, 2008 - 4:46 pmQuote
Liberty has tenants? They should be evicted immediately.
If supporting a particular economic system is contrary to the tenets of liberty then that liberty is a little short on liberty.
March 16th, 2008 - 5:50 pmQuote
Commentor wrote:
You question was whether there was something wrong with being a radical Leftist or a Marxist. Yes, in this country there is. In other countries, maybe not.
Economic systems which restrict the exercise of free will are contrary to the tenants of Liberty.
March 17th, 2008 - 3:38 pmQuote
There may be many reasons not to vote for Clinton, but the idea that a thesis on Alinsky is proof of a troubling problem her background is so weak that it appears to be either ignorance or malignancy.
I’m voting for the former here. There’s little sign most of the posters or commenters are genuinely familiar with either the content of Clinton’s thesis or Alinsky’s books.
March 17th, 2008 - 10:34 pmQuote
W wrote:
Then its a good thing they can read the thesis here.
March 22nd, 2008 - 2:35 amQuote
Yes, it is good we can all read her thesis. We all should know about her far left leanings, her connections to Marxist, Maoist, and Communist. Her need to be God-like in her pronunciations of how everyone should and must live in her utopian world. Power happy, power grubbing, greedy, excessively hypocritical, living off the fat of every handout she can get. What a disgrace to our country.
If she is so keen on everyone being equal, she lives in a multi-million dollar house? Why not sale it? And distribute the money thru Marxist-Communist outlets? After all, it was not their money to begin with. She is a complete hypocrite.
Non of us are perfect, but frankly I’m tired of the holier-than-thou critics on the left who live in a life of luxury preaching to the masses that they know what is right and we should all live equally by her socialist solutions. That we all should kneel to government enforced solutions form the leftist agenda. This nation was not formed in such a way. Our Founding Fathers new then that the model to follow was not France, nor Alinsky.
Who says we must live a certain way? What kind of lost idiot produces this utopian myth? Someone who is clueless and easily swayed, not by Christ or by God, but by a crush on Carl Oglesby, a Marxist/Maoist pig.
If there is one thing our Founding Fathers knew as a fact. You can never give the government free reign whether thru monarchy or thru socialist babble. That is why we remain a Republic of Federalism, of 50 unique states! Whereby the Federal govnernment has no authority at all to force upon individual states grand schemes of mandates not inherit in our Constitution. That is why we also have the Second Amendment so that fools like Billary or Obama cannot force their utopian BS down states throats, nor over individual rights.
Our Constitution only guarantees the right to “pursue” happiness. Nowhere is it guaranteed! The day you “guarantee happiness” is the day you guarantee lazy people, fat, unkempt, drug using, sex crazed idiots who do nothing in life but complain, whine and moan for more.
And anyone willing to follow Marxist, Socialist and Communist ideology is no friend of the poor. They simply make more people poor. They create a mass of poor people to all live miserably, dufuses all, blind believing moonbats that the government is supposed to save them. That is a huge lie. The government can never save people, nor can corrupt politicians whose only real goal is power and presitge.
One only need to look at socialism around the world. The failure of China, Russia, France. It is failing everywhere precisely because you cannot keep everyone equal under human corrupt hands. Leaders, once they have so much power, will not let go and the masses suffer thru terrible lives.
Meanwhile, the Clintonistas - Rich As They Are - accepting 10 million from Saudi Oil Kings for their library, reside in their paid-for mansions decide they and they alone know how to delegate to everyone else how we are all suppose to live.
What a crock. She would determine every single little detail of our lives. And she’d do it thru a godless, secularized government where she decides what is right and wrong and parents have no choice in life how to raise their children on social issues.
Move to Europe, Russia or China. That is where people like Hilary belong. Where the media is controlled and sheep follow blindly.
Leave us true Americans alone. We have created the wealthist nation on earth, the best healthcare, the greatest good of all nations giving to the world daily. And we did not do it by socialism and elites telling us how to live. We did it thru individual liberty and the right to “pursue happiness” all our lives without government interference and high taxes like those Hillary would put on every back in this nation.
Good riddance Marx, good riddance Billary, good riddance Obama!
March 22nd, 2008 - 2:45 amQuote
Honestly,
Anyone else sick of leftist politicians telling us how we should think, feel, live, give, eat, have sex, control our children, what to read, not read, what is science, what is not science?
I’m sick of it. The ACLU - supports NAMBLA - North American Man-Boy Love Association. That should be a wake up call for everyone. Billary and Obama will support them til they die.
The same organization that fought so that porn and filth is on every computer in the nation. Fought for partial-birth, sucking brains out of babies abortion.
Obama, would not vote for a bill in Illinois that stopped living babies outside the womb from dying. He said that he could not force his religion on anyone. Huh? Since when is a living baby not protected by law outside the womb? Who are these people? What do they stand for? How evil can one person be to not stand up for a living, breathing helpless baby?
Any of you smart commenters who love Hillary still standby Partial Birth? Where a Doctor kills a living baby by sucking its brains out? Any? Stand by these killers? Where Bill Clinton vetoed the bill twice to stop this Hitler like eugenics program against the poor?
They don’t want to help families - they want to destroy them!
How sickening that so many can be so lost.
April 2nd, 2008 - 4:26 pmQuote
I’m sick of anyone (leftist, rightest, ‘religionist,’ whateverist) telling me any of these things. But as a middle-aged person who has spent quite a bit of her non-working spare time thinking about and studying such things as you’ve discussed here (and more, human life is just such a small part of everthing that exists, but obviously important to those of us that are human!), sarcasm and fear don’t really help in trying to understand complicated issues, except in an easy, self-satisfied kind of way. Regarding 2 specific implications in your first sentence:
1) if the Clintons & Obama (leftist politicians) are “telling us how we should think, feel, live, give, eat, have sex…” then I think you’ll find others of other political leanings (yourself, perhaps?) doing the same. In fact, several on the ‘right’ actually say that some ways of doing some of the things you’ve referred to (especially how to “have sex”) are ‘wrong’ (e.g., having sex in the anus, sex w/ a member of the same gender, and, something I’d agree w/ for sure, sex with animals…yucky!). I find that the Clintons and Obama prefer to let people actually practice a wider range of lifestyles based on their own personal decisions, rather than demonize certain ways of doing things, which would in fact be socially coercive. Of course, some of these practices (sexual and otherwise) will make other people uncomfortable, or even pissed off, but such is the form of government we have been given: respect of the individual’s right, even in the face of majority disagreement, as long as those individuals do not physically impinge upon the right of others to do the same, i.e., follow their own paths of conscience.
2) I think there is a consensus as to what is and is not science…refined over the past 350-400 years…and including two critical elements: falsifiability of theories and repeatability of predicted empirical phenomena. In a more practical or intuitive sense, you know you’ve come across the influence of science when something is created which can do something effectively that couldn’t have been done before…innovative results born of the scientific method of empirical investigation…i.e., science allows us to understand the world ‘outside’ of ourselves and socially created concepts, often using mathematics, a language that has proved incredibly successful for interacting w/ the non-human (as well as human, in the medical sciences) world. Now, for political or religious reasons there are those who would like to use the word ’science’ to give a greater legitimacy to some non-scientific concepts (a testament to the respect afforded “science” in our culture). This is fine, just another example of where the rights of the individual should be respected by those who believe differently. But just calling something “science” don’t make it so…science is what’s going to get your rocket to orbit a distant planet…or cure illnesses of a genetic nature.
A final note: I don’t think we should worry too much about what any candidate wrote (or thought) almost 40 years ago, when he or she, democrat, republican, independent, communist, nazi, homosexual, or whatever, was 20 or so years old…at least as some of us know, a lot changes along one’s path of inquiry, a lot changes throughout one’s life, and I’d say most of us who have had at least 20 years more to live past our 20th year know how incredibly stupid we really were back then…lacking so much life experience that allowed us to think in more ‘idealistic’ terms, i.e., in terms not as informed by experience as they should be.
So I wouldn’t worry to much about that thesis (though at first glance it sure seems like a substantial work from a young mind…not the content or ideas so much as just the shear work that went into that, and the clarity of voice), just as I don’t to worry to much about any of the crap I might have written in college 25 years ago (I think I’ve turned out OK in spite of childish notions expressed long ago). And I wouldn’t worry too much about any of the three viable candidates being Nazis, or some such. True, the democrats support the “prochoice” and the republican supports the “prolife” bundle of issues (both in quotes just to use the shorthand here), but ‘thems the breaks, pardner’ in this country, as established in our founding and organizational documents…gotta respect the difference of opinion of the people. And this issue isn’t even so much one of minority-majority, as, at least as far as I can tell, the country is split almost 50-50 on this issue. So your half is ’sickend that so many can be so lost’ and the lost half probably thinks something equally pejorative and disrespectful about your sickened half. The arguments on both sides are out there and half of the country comes to one conclusion, the other half to the opposite conclusion and BOTH should be afforded the respect of their own opinions AND their intelligence.
So look on the bright side, John McCain seems like a viable option for you! Lose no more sleep in fear of the Clintons and Obama taking your rights away…or that Hilary’s senior thesis written 40 years ago spells out some master plan finally being fiendishly implemented…just get out there and be an American! Campaign for your man (hopefully in some other way than just campaigning AGAINST these nasty liberals…so easy to be destructive, so difficult to be constructive…ask those ‘working’ in Iraq)…vote for your man…all is not lost for the right to lifers! The Democrats aren’t a shoe in…and McCain will stock that court w/ people who agree with you.
So let’s all get a little more positive…McCain’s not as bad as democrats make him out to be, nor is he as good as his people make him out to be…and the same goes for the Clintons and Obama…to think otherwise is, dare I say, a tad paranoid. We’ll be fine…we’re the USA!
Cheers, Britney
April 3rd, 2008 - 10:45 amQuote
Thank your for your message
This should be place on all news paper publication of the USA
This young generation are ignoren of the facts of this country
April 7th, 2008 - 2:18 amQuote
[...] Clinton’s college senior thesis was written about the methods of radical organizer Saul Alinsky, who said: “Pick the target, [...]
May 1st, 2008 - 11:00 amQuote
[...] sit around weaving as she implied in the PA campaign. And take a look at Hillary’s Wellesley thesis. Next to her early radical rants, the Reverend sounds like a moderate and Barack like George Will. [...]
May 12th, 2008 - 12:44 pmQuote
[...] a young high school student named Hillary Rodham. She met Alinsky through a radical church group. Hillary wrote an analysis of Alinsky’s methods for her senior thesis at Wellesley College. They remained friends until Alinsky’s death in 1972. [...]