Shine a light on the commies

[IIFFOFRDB]

I can keep this thread going... y'all doubt me?

A few words about the ACLU


rogerbaldwinIn 1920, The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was founded. The founders of the ACLU read like a Who’s Who of American Communism. Roger Baldwin (pictured) was the primary founder, but he had numerous associates of his same ilk. Baldwin, who headed the ACLU for many years, was a pacifist who joined the International Workers of the World in the 1920s. He conveniently renounced his Communist affiliations about the time of the 1939 German/Russian Non-Aggression (except against Poland) Pact.

Elizabeth Gurley Flynn was another founder who was the first woman to head the American Communist Party. Radicalized at a young age, she was so notorious she was actually kicked out of the ACLU by Roger Baldwin. After a nine-month trial in 1952 she was convicted under the Smith Act of conspiring to teach and advocate the overthrow of the United States government. She died on 9/5/64 on a trip to the Soviet Union and was honored in the Soviet Union in 1964 with a state funeral in Red Square.

The list of founders with major collectivist tendencies include: Eugene V. Debs (founded the Socialist Party of America); John Dewey (radical philosopher and a liberal darling for his Socialist writings); Norman Thomas (six-time Socialist Party candidate for President); Upton Sinclair (author who advocated Socialist communes); Crystal Eastman; Clarence Darrow; Jane Addams; Walter Nelles; etc.

The ACLU was, always has been, and remains a front for the American Communist Party. Its charter is to use the First Amendment to break down the fabric of freedom and help destroy American values. That is why the ACLU is generally uninterested in any part of the Constitution other than the First Amendment. President Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be a Supreme Court justice. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a long-time attorney for the ACLU. Talk about a wolf in sheep’s clothing – and what does this tell you about the political philosophy of William Jefferson Clinton?

________________

On January 10, 1963 Congressman Albert S. Herlong, Jr., D-Fla, read a list of 45 Communist goals into the Congressional record. I will list below some of the 45 Communist goals read by Congressman Herlong. Test yourself and see how many of the Communist goals listed are being implemented by the ACLU today in order to destroy America (Note: there is only one correct answer to this test).

16) Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17) Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism, and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks. (USFA note: In 1944 Earl Browder, the head of the Communist Party in the United States, stated that the ACLU functioned as “a transmission belt” for the Communist Party).

23) Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”

24) Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and press.

25) Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.

26) Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as “normal, natural, and healthy.”

27) Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a religious crutch.

28) Eliminate prayer or any phrase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

32) Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc. (USFA note: Bold Print is ours).

40) Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

Test yourself again and see how many of the goals listed above are being utilized by Socialist members of Congress to destroy America’s culture and traditions and to push us gradually to a Socialist dictatorship. (Note: Once again, there is only one correct answer to this test and it is the same answer as the one above.)

http://www.usfreedomarmy.com/a-few-w...bout-the-aclu/

[dilbert firestorm]

actually there is more than 45. that's the short list.

there is a list of 100 items to check off. most of them have been accomplished.

There's one item that remains as a major sticking point - guns.

[IIFFOFRDB]

They are commies, one and all...

Woodrow Wilson: Our first Socialist President
woodrowwilsonThomas Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) was the 28th President of the United States serving from 1913 to 1921. 1913 was a bad year for freedom. In 1913 Amendment XVI (Income Tax) was ratified as well as Amendment XVII (Popular Election of Senators). The Federal Reserve Act was also passed in December 1913 but the worst event of 1913 was the inauguration of Woodrow Wilson on March 4, 1913. Were it not for the rift in the Republican Party and Theodore Roosevelt running on the Bull Moose Party ticket Wilson would have had no chance of winning and would have become a mere footnote in history. This nobody who had become a Democratic Prince was now crowned a King and no one ever elected President before or since did it with the same level of arrogance and smugness. Wilson, the former President of Princeton, had a PhD and he was going to use his superior knowledge to lead the poor ignorant masses to a new vision for America (sounds like Barack Obama, doesn’t it).

In his first term as President, Wilson persuaded a Democratic Congress to pass major progressive reforms. Wilson pushed through in his first term a legislative agenda that few presidents have equaled including the Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Federal Farm Loan Act among many. If this was all he had done it would be exceptional, but he had bigger ideas in his theoretical head, ideas that would be used to destroy constitutional principles and give a theoretical basis for the descent into socialism.

Wilson, in his inaugural Address, used clever rhetoric to disguise the fact that he fundamentally disliked the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and wanted to see the Constitution altered to agree with socialist principles. Wilson ushered in the modern view that the Constitution is a “living document” which enabled activist judges to rewrite the Constitution according to the progressive notions of the day. Wilson cynically took the oath of office and agreed to “support and defend” the Constitution of the United States and then, once he had lowered his raised right hand, began the process of dismantling the very document he had sworn to uphold.

That Wilson would act in this way should have been no surprise to anyone who had read his writings carefully. Wilson challenged the relevance of the Declaration of Independence and claimed that the Declaration “is of no consequence to us unless we can translate its general terms into examples of the present day.” Instead of opposing the tyranny of intrusive government, Wilson wished to redirect the Declaration against the tyranny of corporations. The practical consequences would be increased government oversight of economic activities and peoples’ daily lives.

In Socialism and Democracy (1887), Wilson asserts that there is no essential difference in principle between socialism and democracy and that both rest on the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. In it he claims that both assert that “ … men as communities are supreme over men as individuals.” In it Wilson makes the astonishing claim that democracy, including American democracy, has no inherent regard for individual rights, whether natural or political, and therefore contains no principled limits on government power over individuals. He then assumes that “no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will” and proceeds to develop a progressive philosophy that takes from socialism “that all ideas of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view.” Wilson, believing that all political thought is controlled by the circumstances of the time in which it is developed, calls for a constitutional revolution to meet the “radically different” conditions of his time. Socialism and Democracy could easily be inserted into the Communist Manifesto – Karl Marx couldn’t have said it better!

Wilson, in his 1912 “New Freedom” speeches, defined progressivism as the belief that the laws need to keep up with changes in economic circumstances. He asserts that the progressive wants to adjust laws to the “facts of the case” since the law is ultimately an expression of the facts in legal relationships. Wilson views the future as the more glorious time and applauds the “modern idea” of leaving the past and pressing on to something new (USFA note: Socialists always look to the future since they are always convinced that the next time it will work – they hate to look to the past because they then must see the wreckage caused by their past social experiments). In his essay “Leaders of Men” Wilson says “(A true leader) must inflame their (the masses) passions with little heed for the facts. Men are as clay in the hands of a consummate leader.” (USFA note: Dictatorship 101).

In 1916 Wilson narrowly defeated Charles Evan Hughes in one of the closest elections in American history. It never occurred to Wilson that he did not have a mandate to govern even though as a sitting president he had barely won and in his first try it had required a third party candidacy to allow him to be elected. Wilson had campaigned for his second term under the slogan “He kept us out of war.” One month after being sworn in for his second term Wilson asked Congress to declare war. After the declaration of war, Wilson ushered in the most repressive regime in U.S. history. The internment of Japanese born U.S. citizens during World War II was minor compared to the actions against U.S. citizens by Wilson during World War I. During WWI Wilson passed the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 which allowed him to shut down newspapers at an astounding pace. Any criticism of the government could earn a prison sentence and it is estimated that over 150,000 Americans were arrested during his second term.

Wilson’s two primary allies during his presidency were Colonel Edward M. House and Walter Lippmann. In 1912 House had written Phillip Dru: Administrator in which he promotes “socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx”. Even more insidious was the long time New York Times writer Walter Lippmann. On January 8, 1918 Wilson made his famous speech articulating America’s war aims and delineating his Fourteen Points. This speech was authored by Walter Lippmann and included a framework for the beginnings of an international government (socialist, of course) under the League of Nations. Lippmann continued to assault freedom with his socialist columns from the New York Times until he finally retired in 1967 to much praise from his collectivist soul brothers.

In September and October 1919 Wilson suffered a series of debilitating strokes and was rarely seen in public. His second wife, Edith Galt, controlled his life and decided what he would and would not address. Fortunately in 1919 the Republicans controlled the Senate and did not ratify the League of Nations, primarily due to its notorious Article X, which would have allowed the League to send the U.S. into war without the approval of the U.S. government. In 1945, when the United Nations was approved, no such wisdom prevailed.

Wilson seemed to regard himself as a school headmaster whose pupils (the populace) were to be controlled, educated and punished if they misbehaved (disagreed with him). He never grasped the fact that there were millions of Americans just as smart as he and they did not want to be controlled and educated nor did they much agree with his view of the world. The massive changes wrought by Wilson could have qualified him to be considered as the father of modern socialism except for one fact – during the next administration (1921-1929) many of his changes were reduced in scope and a few overturned or severely modified.

Wilson had many massive contributions to the descent into socialism but the major one was the notion that the Constitution is a living document. This myth has been promoted and institutionalized by socialist writers for the past 100 years and is considered standard fare for any liberal interpretation of the Constitution. It seems that Wilson had a Constitutional Convention in his own brain and decided that the correct version of the Constitution was the one he had concocted in his own imagination, not the one adopted in 1788. It was therefore easy for him to swear to “support and defend” the Constitution since he was referring to the Constitution that existed in his mind, not that other “obsolete” one that existed on paper. There were many presidents to come after Wilson that agreed to “support and defend” the Constitution that existed somewhere in Woodrow Wilson’s mind and that was established by Wilson’s imaginary Constitutional Convention.

http://www.usfreedomarmy.com/woodrow...ist-president/

[IIFFOFRDB]

Keynes vs. Hayek

“Economics is not an exact science.” Ronald Reagan

Economics is not only inexact, but economic theories depend upon assumptions about what people will do under certain sets of conditions. When people do not “behave” as assumed, economic theories break down. One thing you can say with reasonable certainty, however, is that when the government interferes in the pricing mechanisms of the free marketplace, problems are bound to follow.

John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) is indisputably the most influential economist of the 20th century. He is one of the principal founders of modern macroeconomics and a proponent of massive government spending to cure economic ills. If John Dewey is the favorite philosopher of Socialists, Keynes is by far their favorite economist. Keynes is idolized by the left because he intellectualized and gave theoretical support for the Socialist takeover of government. Since the Socialists were unable for practical reasons to follow Karl Marx and convert capitalist countries into socialist states, Keynes was the next best thing. In his magnum opus, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money” (1936), Keynes laid the foundation for macroeconomics.

If the federal government followed Keynes exactly perhaps their meddling in the private sector would be manageable. Socialists are interested in economic theory only insofar as it gives them what they want – centralized political power. Keynes legitimatized the federal government’s takeover of the States and helped foster the notion that whenever someone has a problem, the federal government is supposed to step in with a solution. This notion created a culture of dependency that has led to the development of a class of people depending on the government either for their work or their survival. This class of people is called the Socialist ”critical mass” and now helps control elections for them.

For those of you unwilling to read Keynes’ magnum opus, we will summarize it for you in Washington D.C. terms. This is not what Keynes said, but what Washington does. There is a “magic button” somewhere in Washington that, if pushed, will correct all the economic problems of the country. Just keep trying things and pushing buttons and eventually you will push the “magic button” and all your problems will go away. If you have to spend two or three trillion dollars trying buttons it is fine because eventually you will push the “magic button.” The “magic button” causes people to want to work harder, makes corporations more profitable, encourages hiring, and eliminates high interest rates and inflation. Of course no one knows which button is the magic one, so we just go ahead and push every button we see.

Keynes wrote in The Economic Consequences of the Peace: “Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

Winston Churchill was quoted as saying: “If you put two economists in a room you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three.”

————————————————–

In the 1980s the Nobel Prize committee was captured by Socialists and since that time it is no longer politically correct to award a Nobel Prize in certain categories (Peace and Economics in particular) to anyone who is not a committed Socialist. Prior to that time, however, Conservatives did win a few times including Milton Friedman in 1976 for Economics.

In 1974 the Austrian economist Friedrich August Von Hayek (1899-1992) won the Nobel Prize for Economics. He and Keynes had been battling for over 40 years and finally Hayek received his due recognition.

In the big debate (which continues to this day) over the impossibility of socialist calculation and “market socialism” in the 1930s, with Mises and Hayek on one side and Keynes, Lange, and H.D. Dickinson on the other, Hayek contributed a number of essays which refuted the socialist approach to economic planning. They are collected in his Individualism and Economic Order (1948). Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom (1944) made him world famous overnight and aroused heated discussions. In this best seller of the immediate post-war years, since translated into numerous languages, he showed that Socialism carries with it no adequate provision for the preservation of freedom.

Hayek took the elitist Socialists to task in his Nobel Prize lecture on December 11, 1974 “The pretence of knowledge.” This may be why no Conservatives win this prize anymore; the Socialists on the Committee don’t want to hear anything like this again. It almost sounded like Socrates in “The Apology”, letting them have it. A few excerpts follow.

“We have good reason to believe that unemployment indicates that the structure of relative prices and wages has been distorted (usually by monopolistic or governmental price fixing) and that to restore equality between the demand and supply of labour in all sectors changes of relative prices and some transfers of labour will be necessary.”

USFA translation: Government meddling in the pricing structure causes unemployment.

“This is particularly true of our theories accounting for the determination of the systems of relative prices and wages that will form themselves on a well functioning market. Into the determination of these prices and wages there will enter the effects of particular information possessed by every one of the participants in the market process – a sum of facts which in their totality cannot be known to the scientific observer, or to any other single brain. It is indeed the source of the superiority of the market order, and the reason why, when it is not suppressed by government, it regularly displaces other types of order … ”

USFA translation: The free market works best when left alone.

“ … the very measures which the dominant “macro-economic” theory has recommended as a remedy for unemployment, namely the increase of aggregate demand, have become a cause of a very extensive misallocation of resources which is likely to make large-scale unemployment inevitable. The continuous injection of additional amounts of money at points of the economic system where it creates a temporary demand which must cease when the increase of the quantity of money stops or slows down, together with the expectation of a continuing rise of prices, draws labour and other resources into employments which can last only so long as the increase of the quantity of money continues at the same rate – or perhaps even only so long as it continues to accelerate at a given rate. What this policy has produced is not so much a level of employment that could not have been brought about in other ways, as a distribution of employment which cannot be indefinitely maintained and which after some time can be maintained only by a rate of inflation which would rapidly lead to a disorganisation of all economic activity. The fact is that by a mistaken theoretical view we have been led into a precarious position in which we cannot prevent substantial unemployment from re-appearing … ”

USFA translation: Macroeconomics does not work and causes unemployment and large scale inflation. There is no “magic button”.

http://www.usfreedomarmy.com/keynes-vs-hayek/

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

They are commies, one and all...
http://www.usfreedomarmy.com/woodrow...ist-president/

didn't know Wilson was a socialist sympathizer and also didn't know he was the one who came up with the "living document" idea.

this is actually curious, he had Eugene Debs jailed, a fellow socialists for opposing the war effort.

the only good thing that came out of that administration was that Wilson suffered a crippling stroke.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Billtary Stalinton Scam (lazy socialists)...

The Charity Scam


are many well-run and well-meaning charities in America but there are also many that exist only to enrich the people who are operating the charity and it is often difficult to tell the wheat from the chaff. Nothing that any of these charities are doing is illegal so the problems occur because of governmental rules that are ridiculous and because of a lack of oversight into the financial dealings of the charity. We do not mean to disparage anyone or their motives but only offer some examples below to show how the charity laws can be legally manipulated.

——————————–

Professional golfer ABC sets up charity XYZ which he controls and operates and calls it the XYZ Foundation. ABC wins a golf tournament and donates all the winnings to the XYZ Foundation. What has just happened? Since the entire amount was donated to charity there are no Federal, State or Local tax withholdings, no Social Security or other deductions of any sort and the entire amount is now in the charity golfer ABC controls. Since golfer ABC lives somewhere in Florida (or Texas) which has no State income tax he has avoided entirely paying any State and local taxes. Here is the worst part of all: Most charities are only required by law to spend five (5) percent of the money they take in on actual charity (Note: some charities are required to pay 15% and some pay 0%) and that charity can be another charity. The net result is that instead of having the top federal tax rate of 39.6% taken out of their winnings immediately they are now only required to pay out 5% of the total amount to charity, an amount they would probably have paid out to charity in any case. Now when golfer ABC takes an income for running the charity he must pay taxes on that amount but he can control how much he takes and he can also have other family members “employed” by him that take salaries for doing virtually nothing. He may also “donate” his 5% to another golfer DEF’s charity to satisfy his requirement in the hope that next year DEF will “donate” back to him. Golfer ABC invests the rest and hopes the day will come when the top tax rate drops down to say 10% and he may then choose to close the charity, pay the 10%, and achieve a massive tax savings.

JJJ starts a charity called Veterans with PTSD (we just made this name up, if there is one we apologize) which claims to help veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The charity takes in $3 million in donations per year. JJJ pays out 5% per year to these veterans but makes sure he gets plenty of statements and television spots from the ones he has helped about how great his charity works. It costs JJJ about $850,000 to pay his employees and manage his mail out campaigns and so that leaves JJJ with a profit of $2 million that JJJ takes as a salary. The Veterans with PTSD get $150,000 and JJJ gets $2 million. As long as JJJ donates $100,000 to his favorite political party he is usually left alone. This is a great charity – for JJJ and his favorite political party! JJJ can also call it a Non-Profit Organization since all salary goes against profit.

We’ll give you one more quickly as an example and this is a real one.

Beatrice Joyce Kean established the Joyce Foundation in 1948 after her family amassed hundreds of millions of dollars in the lumber industry. During her lifetime her gifts were apolitical (such as hospitals and health organizations) but after her death in 1972 a “professional staff” took control of the foundation and began to move it to the political left. A few years later, radical environmentalist and conservation groups entered the picture as did organizations dedicated to social justice. A notable member of the Joyce Foundation’s Board of Directors was Barack Obama. One of the six main thrusts of the philanthropy is the Environmental Program that funds organizations that oppose the use of land for such endeavors as logging, mining, construction and oil exploration (the irony of opposing the very thing that established the fund in the first place is not lost on the USFA). The other five main thrusts are just as kooky as the one we just mentioned. Some of the socialist organizations that contribute to the Joyce Foundation are the following: Tides Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, Brookings Institute, Nature Conservancy, ACLU, La Raza, Nature Conservancy, etc. etc., etc. numbering in excess of 100 such organizations. This is very typical of how these foundations are infiltrated and the money subverted to fund socialism. One could make a very strong argument that all these socialist organizations are involved in nothing more than funding their political agendas and that all these money transfers are a money laundering scheme designed to hide the true source of their funds.

We now come to The Clinton Foundation. With what I have told you so far you should be able to draw your own conclusions about what is taking place there.

————————————-

Charities should be required to give at least 39.6% (the highest tax rate) directly to the people they are purporting to help and not to another charity. Charities should be audited by the IRS to see if salaries of executives are excessive and in line with what would be considered charitable. Rules are in place for the IRS to audit these salaries but they are not stringent enough and are rarely enforced. Charities should be required to report any donations by a foreign government or any known foreign government surrogates.

Without intimate knowledge of the inner financial workings of a charity it is impossible to determine if the charity is well-meaning and worthy of your donation. The IRS should develop some meaningful criteria to determine if the charity is helping people and if it is not it should be shut down and its assets seized.

As a side note: We love the charity that purports to help dogs and shows images of dogs in horrible conditions. It may be a well-run charity but what a great idea. The dogs can’t talk so they can’t say “Hey, I’m not getting any money.”

http://www.usfreedomarmy.com/the-charity-scam/

[nevergaveitathought]

our founders tried to walk the line between community and individual freedom and liberty by giving us a republican form of government

the bill of rights and the reservation to the states of powers not expressly given the federal government have been under assault since due to man's corruption

the repository of that corruption in America is and has been the dimocrat party

theres no denying that

their leaders hate the constitution, and as obama says, "its negative rights"

they wish central government power

[I B Hankering]

.

[CuteOldGuy]

That's why the government took control of education.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

our founders tried to walk the line between community and individual freedom and liberty by giving us a republican form of government

the bill of rights and the reservation to the states of powers not expressly given the federal government have been under assault since due to man's corruption

the repository of that corruption in America is and has been the dimocrat party

theres no denying that

their leaders hate the constitution, and as obama says, "its negative rights"

they wish central government power

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...hfMNJxch78gnOQ

[CuteOldGuy]

Your link bears no relevance to the post you quoted, LittleStupidEva.

[IIFFOFRDB]

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS / CULTURAL MARXISM... http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/v...ory.asp?id=552

America today is dominated by a system of beliefs, attitudes and values that we have come to know as “Political Correctness.” For many it is an annoyance and a self parodying joke. But Political Correctness is deadly serious in its aims, seeking to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans. It is therefore totalitarian in nature. Its roots lie in a version of Marxism which sees culture, rather than the economy, as the site of class struggle.

Under Marxist economic theory, the oppressed workers were supposed to be the beneficiaries of a social revolution that would place them on top of the power structure. When these revolutionary opportunities presented themselves, however, the workers did not respond. The Marxist revolutionaries did not blame their theory for these failures; instead they blamed the “ruling class,” which had bought off the workers by giving them “rights,” and had blinded them with a “false consciousness” that led them to support national governments and liberal democracy.

One group of Marxist intellectuals resolved this apparent contradiction of Marxist theory by an analysis that focused on society’s cultural “superstructure” rather than on the economic “base” as Marx did. The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci and Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs contributed the most to this new cultural Marxism.

Among Marxists, Gramsci is noted for his theory that cultural hegemony is the means to class dominance. In his view, a new “Communist man” had to be created through a changed culture before any political revolution was possible. This led to a focus on the efforts of intellectuals in the fields of education and media.

Georg Lukacs believed that for a new Marxist culture to emerge, the existing culture must be destroyed. He said, “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution to the cultural contradictions of the epoch.... Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”

In 1923, Lukacs and other Marxist intellectuals associated with the Communist Party of Germany founded the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University in Frankfurt, Germany. The Institute, which became known as the Frankfurt School, was modeled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. In 1933, when Nazis came to power in Germany, the members of the Frankfurt School fled. Most came to the United States and many became influential in American universities. The Frankfurt School’s studies combined Marxist analysis with Freudian psychoanalysis to form the basis of what became known as “Critical Theory.”

Critical Theory was essentially destructive criticism of the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism.

Critical Theorists recognized that traditional beliefs and the existing social structure would have to be destroyed and then replaced with a “new thinking” that would become as much a part of elementary consciousness as the old one had been. Their theories took hold in the tumultuous 1960s, when the Vietnam War opened a Pandora’s Box of reevaluaton and revolution. The student radicals of the era were strongly influenced by revolutionary ideas, among them those of Herbert Marcuse, a member of the Frankfurt School who preach the “Great Refusal,” a rejection of all basic Western concepts and an embrace of sexual liberation, and the merits of feminist and black revolutions. His primary thesis was that university students, ghetto blacks, the alienated, the asocial, and the Third World could take the place of the proletariat in the coming Communist revolution.

Marcuse may be the most important member of the Frankfurt School in terms of the origins of Political Correctness, because he was the critical link to the counterculture of the 1960s. His objective was clear: “One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including morality of existing society.”

When addressing the general public, contemporary advocates of Political Correctness – or Cultural Marxism, as it might just as easily be called – present their beliefs with appealing simplicity as merely a commitment to being “sensitive” to other people and embracing values such as “tolerance” and “diversity.”

The reality is different. Political Correctness is the use of culture as a sharp weapon to enforce new norms and to stigmatize those who dissent from the new dispensation; to stigmatize those who insist on values that will impede the new "PC" regime: free speech and free and objective intellectual inquiry.


Adapted from: "Political Correctness": A Short History of an Ideology," edited by William Lind (November 2004).

[cptjohnstone]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Your link bears no relevance to the post you quoted, LittleStupidEva.

it is the light air in the mountains of KanASS

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Your link bears no relevance to the post you quoted, LittleStupidEva.

Did you see what comment it was a reply to you worthless old turd? No didn't think so.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

it is the light air in the mountains of KanASS

Same ones that are in Oklahomo no stones.