WASHINGTON - Libertarian Party (LP) Chairman William Redpath issued the following statement today in response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address:
"Tonight's speech was a reminder that, for decades, the policies of Republicans and Democrats alike have failed. Libertarians are asking people to take matters into their own hands. Instead of just complaining, we're encouraging ordinary Americans to step up and run for Congress on the Libertarian Party ballot line.
"I can say exactly the same thing about President Obama's speech tonight that I said about George W. Bush's State of the Union speech in January 2008: 'Tonight's State of the Union address went much as expected. Instead of calling for a more limited role of the federal government in American society, the President laid out plans that would only increase the government's intervention into the realm of economics, health care, education and foreign policy.'
"I am weary of the President's unspoken premise that only government--indeed, only the federal government--can accomplish good in our society.
"President Obama seems to be totally blind to the concept that government can cause problems rather than solve them. His speech was filled with 'More': more handouts, more spending, more programs, more bailouts, more regulations. We Libertarians want less government, not more.
"Not to be outmatched by the Democrats, the Republican Party conveyed its lack of seriousness in addressing this nation's government spending problems by having Bob McDonnell, Virginia Governor for eleven (11) days, deliver its rebuttal to the President. If they were really serious about addressing the dire fiscal circumstances of this nation, they would have had Paul Ryan, a six-term congressman from Wisconsin, who has proposed the most serious plan of anyone in the two older parties to keep us from going off a fiscal cliff.
"Last week, Alan Auerbach, Professor of Economics and Law at UC Berkeley and US government fiscal policy expert, said that the Democratic and Republican parties are in a 'death embrace' with their government spending. The only political party that is rationally and forthrightly addressing the need to cut government spending and end our culture of ever expanding entitlements is the Libertarian Party.
"As Americans lose hope in Obama, we Libertarians are warning voters against running back to the Republicans who got us into such big messes in the first place. Republicans started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans made the false intellectual case for bailing out banks and car companies. Republicans argued that deficits don't matter. Republicans gave us the giant Medicare expansion bill.
"The President's suggestion of a 'spending freeze' was especially ludicrous and insulting to the intelligence of Americans. The amounts involved are minuscule, and Congress won't accept them anyway. Will Obama sign the spending bills that ignore his 'freeze'? You bet he will. Instead, the President should demand across-the-board cuts in all areas, including entitlements.
"The President talked a lot about jobs. Unfortunately, the policies he supports are responsible for most of the unemployment we see today. High taxes, minimum wage laws, hiring regulations, firing regulations, mandatory unemployment benefits, and other government interference make it much more difficult for businesses to hire and keep employees. As expected, the President's prescription is to increase the dosage of this government poison.
"While our nation is declining dangerously right now, a turnaround could be straightforward and simple with steps like these: 1. Bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan; 2. Stop rewarding failed companies with bailouts; 3. Cut taxes and spending and let the free market work.
"Finally, on the matter of political rhetoric, I call upon the two older parties to stop spoon feeding politics to the American people as if we are a bunch of overgrown children. These are difficult times that call for more than rhetorical flourish or positioning a group of diverse people around a politician. Older party politicians need to be specific about their proposed policies, as Libertarians are.
"And, I know I'm probably just wasting electrons, but can't we go back to the days in which the President sent a copy of his speech to Congress and left it at that. The speech last night took 1/7000th of an entire year. I think the vast majority of the American people would agree that we have better ways to spend our time."
William Redpath has served as the Chairman of the Libertarian Party since 2006.
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.
The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?
About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East put together."
The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana ..... check THIS out:
The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5..3 trillion..
"When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.." says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.
"This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years," reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' It stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves..... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!
That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from 2006!
U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World
Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?
They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.. Here are the official estimates:
- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
-21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
- 500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it's all right here in the Western United States.
HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?
James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.
Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?
Got your attention yet? Now, while you're thinking about it, do this:
Pass this along. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices - by doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain.
Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book.
By the way...this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!
GOOGLE it, or follow this link. It will blow your mind.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana ..... check THIS out:
The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5..3 trillion..
"When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.." says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.
"This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years," reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' It stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves..... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!
That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from 2006!
U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World
Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?
They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.. Here are the official estimates:
- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
-21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
- 500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it's all right here in the Western United States.
HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?
James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.
Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?
Got your attention yet? Now, while you're thinking about it, do this:
Pass this along. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices - by doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain.
Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book.
By the way...this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!
GOOGLE it, or follow this link. It will blow your mind.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The New B+
Recently, our Comrade Leader graded his first year in office, giving himself a "Solid B+". One of the state run media outlets, CBS (the Choose Barack Station) held a poll, asking viewers to grade the 1st year. You can find the poll here.
===
After I took the quiz, I got to see the answers so far. Here's how CBS viewers grade the president:
The Economy
A:4.49%
B:7.25%
C:6.28%
D:17.12%
F:64.86%
Foreign Policy
A:9.50%
B:6.46%
C:10.02%
D:22.09%
F:51.93%
Health Care
A:5.07%
B:5.58%
C:5.04%
D:9.09%
F:75.23%
Afghanistan
A:5.86%
B:15.94%
C:27.07%
D:23.18%
F:27.94%
Iraq
A:7.26%
B:13.44%
C:27.07%
D:22.32%
F:29.91%
Threat of Terrorism
A:7.07%
B:7.41%
C:8.73%
D:18.92%
F:57.86%
Energy and the Environment
A:6.42%
B:7.97%
C:13.91%
D:18.98%
F:52.73%
Social Issues
A:7.52%
B:8.02%
C:15.07%
D:18.77%
F:50.62%
Bipartisanship
A:6.69%
B:5.09%
C:5.33%
D:6.65%
F:76.23%
Obama's Overall Job as President
A:6.20%
B:7.15%
C:5.29%
D:25.61%
F:55.76%
===
Predictably, CBS viewers were much more generous than I was. Still a FAR cry from a B+
===
After I took the quiz, I got to see the answers so far. Here's how CBS viewers grade the president:
The Economy
A:4.49%
B:7.25%
C:6.28%
D:17.12%
F:64.86%
Foreign Policy
A:9.50%
B:6.46%
C:10.02%
D:22.09%
F:51.93%
Health Care
A:5.07%
B:5.58%
C:5.04%
D:9.09%
F:75.23%
Afghanistan
A:5.86%
B:15.94%
C:27.07%
D:23.18%
F:27.94%
Iraq
A:7.26%
B:13.44%
C:27.07%
D:22.32%
F:29.91%
Threat of Terrorism
A:7.07%
B:7.41%
C:8.73%
D:18.92%
F:57.86%
Energy and the Environment
A:6.42%
B:7.97%
C:13.91%
D:18.98%
F:52.73%
Social Issues
A:7.52%
B:8.02%
C:15.07%
D:18.77%
F:50.62%
Bipartisanship
A:6.69%
B:5.09%
C:5.33%
D:6.65%
F:76.23%
Obama's Overall Job as President
A:6.20%
B:7.15%
C:5.29%
D:25.61%
F:55.76%
===
Predictably, CBS viewers were much more generous than I was. Still a FAR cry from a B+
Friday, January 22, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
This should be fun
Found this on the net.... Now I'm looking forward to filing this year :-)
During my short employment tour with the IRS in the mail room, i've
found several harmless ways to mess with them and receive no recourse.
Always put staples in the right hand corner. Go ahead and put a down
the whole right side. The extractors who remove the mail from the
envelopes have to take out any staples in the right side.
Never arrange paperwork in the right order, or even facing the right
way. Put a few upside down and backwards. That way they have to remove
all your staples rearrange your paperwork and re-staple it (on the
left side).
Line the bottom of your envelope with elmer's glue and let it dry
before you put in you forms, so that the automated opener doesn't open
it and the extractor has to open it by hand.
If your very unfortunate and have to pay taxes use a two or three
party check.
On top of paying with a three party check pay one of the dollars you
owe in cash. When an extractor receives cash, no matter how small an
amount, he has to take it to a special desk and fill out of few nasty
forms.
Write a little letter of appreciation. Any letter received has to read
and stamped regardless of what it is or what its on.
Write your letter on something misshapen and unconventional. Like on
the back of a Kroger sack.
When you mail it, mail it in a big envelope (even if its just a single
EZ form). Big envelopes have to be torn and sorted differently than
regular business size ones. An added bonus to the big envelope is that
they take priority over other mail, so the workers can hurry up and
deal with your mess =)
If you send 2 checks they'll have to staple your unsightly envelope to
your half destroyed form.
Always put extra paper clips on your forms. Any foreign fasteners or
the like have to be removed and put away.
Sign your name in ink on every page. Any signature has to verified and
then date stamped.
These are just a few of the fun and exciting things you can do with
the man. These methods are only recommended when you owe money
If George W. Bush had said/done the following - would you approve?
OK, To be clear, I do not worship at the Bush alter. However...
If George W. Bush had said/done the following - would you approve?
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a
teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would
you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his
own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to
take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of
GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have
approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special
Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive
and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful
and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W.. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod
containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this
embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would
you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the
non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor
slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers
with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you
have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to
"Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of
May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you
have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you
have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of
what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go
plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One
flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown
Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they
actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims
throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New
Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with
claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who
report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is
happening in America, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major
corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would
you have approved?
If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which
had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have
approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again
within 10 years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had said/done the following - would you approve?
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a
teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would
you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his
own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to
take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of
GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have
approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special
Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive
and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful
and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W.. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod
containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this
embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would
you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the
non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor
slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers
with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you
have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to
"Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of
May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you
have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you
have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of
what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go
plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One
flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown
Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they
actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims
throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New
Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with
claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who
report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is
happening in America, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major
corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would
you have approved?
If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which
had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have
approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again
within 10 years, would you have approved?
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Darkman Rant #1
My thoughts on that couple that "crashed" that white house party.
They were before congress today and plead the 5th.
CNN and the rest of the "news" networks are making a big deal
about it.
I say what the fuck? why are they sitting in front of the congress?
I don't blame them for taking the 5th. It wasn't like they went in
there with guns blazing, pushed their way in or anything like that.
Somebody dropped the ball, if your going to pull anyone in front
of the kings and queens of congress it should be the white house
team.
But more to the point, is there nothing more important that
congress can spend their fucking time on? This waste of time
pisses me off almost as much as when the Kings and Queens of
our government pull some sports figure in front of them to answer
questions about drug use.. WHAT THE FUCK???? I never understood
how congress had any interest in what went on in sports for christ sake!
We have veterans living on the streets in our cities and they are worried
about how someone got into a white house party? or what sports figure
shoved into his / her fucking arm? Give me a frigging break.
I say vote them all out this year. Every incumbent that is up for re-election
this year should be handed their walking papers. Don't care who they are
or how much of my money they brought to your area. VOTE THAT SON
OF A BITCH OUT! Get a new face in there and if they start screwing around
make that son of a bitch a one term dick.
I'm just saying
They were before congress today and plead the 5th.
CNN and the rest of the "news" networks are making a big deal
about it.
I say what the fuck? why are they sitting in front of the congress?
I don't blame them for taking the 5th. It wasn't like they went in
there with guns blazing, pushed their way in or anything like that.
Somebody dropped the ball, if your going to pull anyone in front
of the kings and queens of congress it should be the white house
team.
But more to the point, is there nothing more important that
congress can spend their fucking time on? This waste of time
pisses me off almost as much as when the Kings and Queens of
our government pull some sports figure in front of them to answer
questions about drug use.. WHAT THE FUCK???? I never understood
how congress had any interest in what went on in sports for christ sake!
We have veterans living on the streets in our cities and they are worried
about how someone got into a white house party? or what sports figure
shoved into his / her fucking arm? Give me a frigging break.
I say vote them all out this year. Every incumbent that is up for re-election
this year should be handed their walking papers. Don't care who they are
or how much of my money they brought to your area. VOTE THAT SON
OF A BITCH OUT! Get a new face in there and if they start screwing around
make that son of a bitch a one term dick.
I'm just saying
Monday, January 18, 2010
Olbermann Reaches New Level of Ridiculous
from www.townhall.com Great Site!!! Monday, January 18, 2010 |
| Olbermann Reaches New Level of Ridiculous |
| Posted by: Meredith Jessup at 10:04 PM |
| According to Keith Olbermann, Scott Brown is just a homophobic racist and the voters of Massachusetts are all idiots. All this just a of couple days after his MSNBC colleague Ed Schultz called all Republicans "bastards" and spoke about how if he were a Massachusetts voter, he'd purposefully cheat just to keep them out of office. Nice, huh? In short in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible homophobic racist reactionary ex-nude-model tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States. |
| |
Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Not the University of Moscow, or even the comparable University of Chicago
As many of you know, I am 47 years old (in just a couple days now) and am enrolled in college. How I came to this point is a long story, probably better saved for another time. It may surprise you, however, that I place the blame for me going to college instead of going to work squarely at the feet of the politicians. I know, you're shocked.....
Anyway, living in semi-rural Southern Indiana, you might hope I would escape the horror stories of the Progressive, PC, Marxist garbage that we all hear so much about. No such luck.
I am studying for an Associates Degree in Information Technology, hoping to finish with a dual specialty of Networking and Network Security. Sounds pretty straight forward, eh? I little English and a little Math, just to round out the education, and loads of computer related classes.
At least, that's what I had hoped for.
For some reason, I also have to take a semester in Economics, a semester in Public Speaking, and a one-credit hour class called 1st Year Seminar.
Why require Economics? Couldn't tell you. The Public Speaking, I can sort of understand, along with the 1st Year Seminar. When it begins to come clear is when you examine the classes themselves, specifically the Economics and 1st Year Seminar.
Let's begin with the 1st Year Seminar. For starters, who ever heard of a 16 week seminar, worth one credit hour? But it is when we examine the syllabus that things immediately begin to get suspiciously similar to PC indoctrination. Right there on page one I see, under the heading of MAJOR COURSE LEARNING OBJECTIVES, that I am to demonstrate an understanding of the impact of human diversity. I am also to examine personal wellness and stress management. I am all for a diverse society, with all forms of excellence embraced. I am all for personal wellness and stress management. But to fully understand my point, we need to delve a little further, into the text book. There, we discover in-depth studies on "Self-Esteem", "Global Thinking", "Culture", "Discrimination" and other fascinating topics. It's fine enough if a person wants to study all this sort of gobble-de-goop, but let's not forget, this class is required for a degree in Information Technology.
Troubling as all this seems, it pales in comparison to my class in Economics. This being the second week into the class, I have few things to bitch about yet. But the few are saddening, bordering on maddening! As we delve into the textbook, it is a scant 4 pages into Chapter one before the Marxist Economic system is first introduced. By way of comparison, it is not until page 14 before "laissez faire" (free markets) is even mentioned. Along the way, and I'm shitting you not, on page 12 of Chapter 1, under the topic of Pig Farming, we wonder "Should live pigs be processed without any concern for their welfare?" Later in the same first chapter, we read (Without government)"...The market's answer to the HOW question would be based on narrow, profit-and-loss calculations, not on broader measures of societal well-being. To redress this market failure, the government regulates production behavior."
This is going to be a long semester.
Parents with college age kids, please pay heed! As I said, I am 47 years old. Although I suspect I will struggle with it, I'm pretty sure I can BS my way through. But I remember how gullible I was at age 18, hell, at age 25 for that matter. If a teacher, especially one with the impressive title of "Professor" said it, I bought it. Hook, line and sinker.
The social face of Marxism (P/C) has overtaken our colleges and universities. I am struggling to think of how they can be taken back.
Anyway, living in semi-rural Southern Indiana, you might hope I would escape the horror stories of the Progressive, PC, Marxist garbage that we all hear so much about. No such luck.
I am studying for an Associates Degree in Information Technology, hoping to finish with a dual specialty of Networking and Network Security. Sounds pretty straight forward, eh? I little English and a little Math, just to round out the education, and loads of computer related classes.
At least, that's what I had hoped for.
For some reason, I also have to take a semester in Economics, a semester in Public Speaking, and a one-credit hour class called 1st Year Seminar.
Why require Economics? Couldn't tell you. The Public Speaking, I can sort of understand, along with the 1st Year Seminar. When it begins to come clear is when you examine the classes themselves, specifically the Economics and 1st Year Seminar.
Let's begin with the 1st Year Seminar. For starters, who ever heard of a 16 week seminar, worth one credit hour? But it is when we examine the syllabus that things immediately begin to get suspiciously similar to PC indoctrination. Right there on page one I see, under the heading of MAJOR COURSE LEARNING OBJECTIVES, that I am to demonstrate an understanding of the impact of human diversity. I am also to examine personal wellness and stress management. I am all for a diverse society, with all forms of excellence embraced. I am all for personal wellness and stress management. But to fully understand my point, we need to delve a little further, into the text book. There, we discover in-depth studies on "Self-Esteem", "Global Thinking", "Culture", "Discrimination" and other fascinating topics. It's fine enough if a person wants to study all this sort of gobble-de-goop, but let's not forget, this class is required for a degree in Information Technology.
Troubling as all this seems, it pales in comparison to my class in Economics. This being the second week into the class, I have few things to bitch about yet. But the few are saddening, bordering on maddening! As we delve into the textbook, it is a scant 4 pages into Chapter one before the Marxist Economic system is first introduced. By way of comparison, it is not until page 14 before "laissez faire" (free markets) is even mentioned. Along the way, and I'm shitting you not, on page 12 of Chapter 1, under the topic of Pig Farming, we wonder "Should live pigs be processed without any concern for their welfare?" Later in the same first chapter, we read (Without government)"...The market's answer to the HOW question would be based on narrow, profit-and-loss calculations, not on broader measures of societal well-being. To redress this market failure, the government regulates production behavior."
This is going to be a long semester.
Parents with college age kids, please pay heed! As I said, I am 47 years old. Although I suspect I will struggle with it, I'm pretty sure I can BS my way through. But I remember how gullible I was at age 18, hell, at age 25 for that matter. If a teacher, especially one with the impressive title of "Professor" said it, I bought it. Hook, line and sinker.
The social face of Marxism (P/C) has overtaken our colleges and universities. I am struggling to think of how they can be taken back.
Friday, January 15, 2010
John Galt's Speach - mini version
John Galt's Speach - mini version
For twelve years you've been asking "Who is John Galt?" This is John Galt speaking. I'm the man who's taken away your victims and thus destroyed your world. You've heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis and that Man's sins are destroying the world. But your chief virtue has been sacrifice, and you've demanded more sacrifices at every disaster. You've sacrificed justice to mercy and happiness to duty. So why should you be afraid of the world around you?
Your world is only the product of your sacrifices. While you were dragging the men who made your happiness possible to your sacrificial altars, I beat you to it. I reached them first and told them about the game you were playing and where it would take them. I explained the consequences of your 'brother-love' morality, which they had been too innocently generous to understand. You won't find them now, when you need them more than ever.
We're on strike against your creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. If you want to know how I made them quit, I told them exactly what I'm telling you tonight. I taught them the morality of Reason -- that it was right to pursue one's own happiness as one's principal goal in life. I don't consider the pleasure of others my goal in life, nor do I consider my pleasure the goal of anyone else's life.
I am a trader. I earn what I get in trade for what I produce. I ask for nothing more or nothing less than what I earn. That is justice. I don't force anyone to trade with me; I only trade for mutual benefit. Force is the great evil that has no place in a rational world. One may never force another human to act against his/her judgment. If you deny a man's right to Reason, you must also deny your right to your own judgment. Yet you have allowed your world to be run by means of force, by men who claim that fear and joy are equal incentives, but that fear and force are more practical.
You've allowed such men to occupy positions of power in your world by preaching that all men are evil from the moment they're born. When men believe this, they see nothing wrong in acting in any way they please. The name of this absurdity is 'original sin'. That's inmpossible. That which is outside the possibility of choice is also outside the province of morality. To call sin that which is outside man's choice is a mockery of justice. To say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is ridiculous. If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn't come at birth. If it is not a tendency of choice, then man's will is not free.
And then there's your 'brother-love' morality. Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?
Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.
You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.
Then it began apologizing for its greatness and began giving away its wealth, feeling guilty for having produced more than its neighbors. Twelve years ago, I saw what was wrong with the world and where the battle for Life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality and that my acceptance of that morality was its only power. I was the first of the men who refused to give up the pursuit of his own happiness in order to serve others.
To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.
If you've understood what I've said, stop supporting your destroyers. Don't accept their philosophy. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, and your love. Don't exhaust yourself to help build the kind of world that you see around you now. In the name of the best within you, don't sacrifice the world to those who will take away your happiness for it.
The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.
Text courtesy of Daryl J. Sroufe
Written by Roger Bouwman
Read the original at
For twelve years you've been asking "Who is John Galt?" This is John Galt speaking. I'm the man who's taken away your victims and thus destroyed your world. You've heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis and that Man's sins are destroying the world. But your chief virtue has been sacrifice, and you've demanded more sacrifices at every disaster. You've sacrificed justice to mercy and happiness to duty. So why should you be afraid of the world around you?
Your world is only the product of your sacrifices. While you were dragging the men who made your happiness possible to your sacrificial altars, I beat you to it. I reached them first and told them about the game you were playing and where it would take them. I explained the consequences of your 'brother-love' morality, which they had been too innocently generous to understand. You won't find them now, when you need them more than ever.
We're on strike against your creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. If you want to know how I made them quit, I told them exactly what I'm telling you tonight. I taught them the morality of Reason -- that it was right to pursue one's own happiness as one's principal goal in life. I don't consider the pleasure of others my goal in life, nor do I consider my pleasure the goal of anyone else's life.
I am a trader. I earn what I get in trade for what I produce. I ask for nothing more or nothing less than what I earn. That is justice. I don't force anyone to trade with me; I only trade for mutual benefit. Force is the great evil that has no place in a rational world. One may never force another human to act against his/her judgment. If you deny a man's right to Reason, you must also deny your right to your own judgment. Yet you have allowed your world to be run by means of force, by men who claim that fear and joy are equal incentives, but that fear and force are more practical.
You've allowed such men to occupy positions of power in your world by preaching that all men are evil from the moment they're born. When men believe this, they see nothing wrong in acting in any way they please. The name of this absurdity is 'original sin'. That's inmpossible. That which is outside the possibility of choice is also outside the province of morality. To call sin that which is outside man's choice is a mockery of justice. To say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is ridiculous. If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn't come at birth. If it is not a tendency of choice, then man's will is not free.
And then there's your 'brother-love' morality. Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?
Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.
You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.
Then it began apologizing for its greatness and began giving away its wealth, feeling guilty for having produced more than its neighbors. Twelve years ago, I saw what was wrong with the world and where the battle for Life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality and that my acceptance of that morality was its only power. I was the first of the men who refused to give up the pursuit of his own happiness in order to serve others.
To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.
If you've understood what I've said, stop supporting your destroyers. Don't accept their philosophy. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, and your love. Don't exhaust yourself to help build the kind of world that you see around you now. In the name of the best within you, don't sacrifice the world to those who will take away your happiness for it.
The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.
Text courtesy of Daryl J. Sroufe
Written by Roger Bouwman
Read the original at
WhosJohnGalt.net
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
History and the unarmed victim
After reading the following historical facts, read the part
about Switzerland twice.
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
about Switzerland twice.
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1..5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1..5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up an exterminated
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up an exterminated
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens.'
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens.'
Without them, we are 'subjects'..
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control messageto all of your friends.
The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in
defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control messageto all of your friends.
The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in
defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Your Negro, My MacacaMona
Welcome to America's longest running hit show -- the race farce, in which feigned shock and outrage lead to fawning apologies and bumbling explanations to all the wrong people. Taking offense has been reduced to low comedy in America -- as hypocrites play out their assigned parts.
S. Harry Reid was quoted in a new book as enthusing in 2008 about Obama's candidacy because he is "light-skinned" and speaks without a "Negro dialect, unless he wants one." Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post called it "beyond stupid" to use the word Negro in 2008. Liz Cheney labeled Reid's words "fairly racist." And Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele opened up to full throttle, calling on Reid to step down as majority leader.
Reid understood his part in the drama. He apologized to the president and to "any and all Americans, especially African-Americans, for my improper comments." The majority leader then made personal calls to a number of African-Americans who could, he hoped, offer remission of sins. Among these were reportedly Eleanor Holmes Norton, Donna Brazile, and ... Al Sharpton.
Actually, if you read between the lines, it doesn't look as though Reid phoned Sharpton but the other way around. The figure who became an American celebrity by attempting to frame innocent men for an invented racial attack, Sharpton issued a statement of forgiveness after noting that he and the leader had spoken. No Democrat in Harry Reid's position would dare to refuse a call from Sharpton under these circumstances. Thus does Sharpton burnish his reputation as the "go to" guy for racial absolution. Deft.
Some Reid defenders have been at pains to point out that Reid was supporting Obama's candidacy and that his words should be understood in that context. This is the part in the play when Democrats' sins are washed clean because they favor the minimum wage, health care reform, and card check. As Norton put it, Reid gets a pass because he "has earned it with long support of civil rights and … issues that matter most to African-Americans." President Obama applied the same standard, accepting Reid's apology because he has shown "passionate leadership … on matters of social justice" and because the president "know(s) what's in Harry's heart."
With due respect to the Republicans who simply could not help themselves in the face of this big fat opportunity to play turnabout, this is not seemly. It's true and glaringly obvious that the Democrats have honed this hair-trigger race sensitivity into a political tool that shoots only right not left. It's so true that no one gave Trent Lott the benefit of the doubt about what was in his heart when he said something boneheaded in praise of the 100-year-old Strom Thurmond. It's true that one word, "macaca," that no one had ever heard of before (and may or may not have had racial connotations), was enough to sink Republican Sen. George Allen. And it's true that countless honorable conservatives have been unjustly smeared as racists because they disapprove of affirmative action or oppose the teachers' unions.
But let's not get into this smarmy business.
Reid used the word "Negro." It's out of date, but is it now offensive? Is it the new "N" word? Just a blink of an eye ago, "black" was the preferred locution. Jesse Jackson decided it should be "African-American" and the country went along. But the slower adopters (even your humble columnist, who prefers less orotund expressions) sometimes still say "black." How long until that becomes a sin?
As for Obama being light-skinned, it's certainly possible that his complexion made him more acceptable to some vestigial racists. For Reid to notice that is not to endorse it. And finally, the president's lack of a "Negro dialect, unless he wants one," was clearly an important asset. Most Americans expect their president to speak standard English. Black (there I go again) speech in America ranges from James Earl Jones to gangsta rap, and it was clearly an advantage that Obama was articulate. When he chooses to adopt a black style, he does it a whole lot more authentically than Hillary Clinton managed in her embarrassing South Carolina appearance at a black (did it again) church. Remember "I ain't noways tired"?
Republicans are right, so right, that if Mitch McConnell had said what Reid said, there would be a prolonged scandal. And they are right that political differences should not be turned radioactive by the malicious charge of racism. But it's enough to point this out.
Don't join in. Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
S. Harry Reid was quoted in a new book as enthusing in 2008 about Obama's candidacy because he is "light-skinned" and speaks without a "Negro dialect, unless he wants one." Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post called it "beyond stupid" to use the word Negro in 2008. Liz Cheney labeled Reid's words "fairly racist." And Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele opened up to full throttle, calling on Reid to step down as majority leader.
Reid understood his part in the drama. He apologized to the president and to "any and all Americans, especially African-Americans, for my improper comments." The majority leader then made personal calls to a number of African-Americans who could, he hoped, offer remission of sins. Among these were reportedly Eleanor Holmes Norton, Donna Brazile, and ... Al Sharpton.
Actually, if you read between the lines, it doesn't look as though Reid phoned Sharpton but the other way around. The figure who became an American celebrity by attempting to frame innocent men for an invented racial attack, Sharpton issued a statement of forgiveness after noting that he and the leader had spoken. No Democrat in Harry Reid's position would dare to refuse a call from Sharpton under these circumstances. Thus does Sharpton burnish his reputation as the "go to" guy for racial absolution. Deft.
Some Reid defenders have been at pains to point out that Reid was supporting Obama's candidacy and that his words should be understood in that context. This is the part in the play when Democrats' sins are washed clean because they favor the minimum wage, health care reform, and card check. As Norton put it, Reid gets a pass because he "has earned it with long support of civil rights and … issues that matter most to African-Americans." President Obama applied the same standard, accepting Reid's apology because he has shown "passionate leadership … on matters of social justice" and because the president "know(s) what's in Harry's heart."
With due respect to the Republicans who simply could not help themselves in the face of this big fat opportunity to play turnabout, this is not seemly. It's true and glaringly obvious that the Democrats have honed this hair-trigger race sensitivity into a political tool that shoots only right not left. It's so true that no one gave Trent Lott the benefit of the doubt about what was in his heart when he said something boneheaded in praise of the 100-year-old Strom Thurmond. It's true that one word, "macaca," that no one had ever heard of before (and may or may not have had racial connotations), was enough to sink Republican Sen. George Allen. And it's true that countless honorable conservatives have been unjustly smeared as racists because they disapprove of affirmative action or oppose the teachers' unions.
But let's not get into this smarmy business.
Reid used the word "Negro." It's out of date, but is it now offensive? Is it the new "N" word? Just a blink of an eye ago, "black" was the preferred locution. Jesse Jackson decided it should be "African-American" and the country went along. But the slower adopters (even your humble columnist, who prefers less orotund expressions) sometimes still say "black." How long until that becomes a sin?
As for Obama being light-skinned, it's certainly possible that his complexion made him more acceptable to some vestigial racists. For Reid to notice that is not to endorse it. And finally, the president's lack of a "Negro dialect, unless he wants one," was clearly an important asset. Most Americans expect their president to speak standard English. Black (there I go again) speech in America ranges from James Earl Jones to gangsta rap, and it was clearly an advantage that Obama was articulate. When he chooses to adopt a black style, he does it a whole lot more authentically than Hillary Clinton managed in her embarrassing South Carolina appearance at a black (did it again) church. Remember "I ain't noways tired"?
Republicans are right, so right, that if Mitch McConnell had said what Reid said, there would be a prolonged scandal. And they are right that political differences should not be turned radioactive by the malicious charge of racism. But it's enough to point this out.
Don't join in. Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Why Obama's socialism will not work!!!
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes (Every thing,including the right to pray in school and at sports events and "In God We Trust" from our currency) all the rewards away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on) Remember, there is a mid-term election in 2010! WE!! Need to make a change...
A Fairy Tale? Perhaps Not.
And it came to pass in the Age of Insanity that the people of the land called America , having lost their morals, their initiative, and their will to defend their liberties, chose as their Supreme Leader that person known as "The One."
He emerged from the vapors with a message that had no meaning; but He hypnotized the people telling them, "I am sent to save you." My lack of experience, my questionable ethics, my monstrous ego, and my association with evil doers are of no consequence. I shall save you with hope and Change. Go, therefore, and proclaim throughout the land that he who proceeded me is evil, that he has defiled the nation, and that all he has built must be destroyed. And the people rejoiced, for even though they knew not what "The One" would do, he had promised that it was good; and they believed. And "The One" said " We live in the greatest country in the world. Help me change everything about it!"
And the people said, "Hallelujah! Change is good!"
Then He said, "We are going to tax the rich fat-cats." And the people said "Sock it to them!" "And redistribute their wealth." And the people said, "Show us the money!" And the he said, " redistribution of wealth is good for everybody."
And Joe the plumber asked, " Are you kidding me? You're going to steal my money and give it to the deadbeats??" And "The One" ridiculed and taunted him, and Joe's personal records were hacked and publicized. One lone reporter asked, "Isn't that Marxist policy?" And she was
banished from the kingdom!
Then a citizen asked, "With no foreign relations experience and having zero military experience or knowledge, how will you deal with radical terrorists?" And "The One" said, "Simple. I shall sit with them and talk with them and show them how nice we really are; and they will forget that they ever wanted to kill us all!" And the people said, "Hallelujah!! We are safe at last, and we can beat our weapons into free cars for the people!"
Then "The One" said "I shall give 95% of you lower taxes." And one, lone voice said, "But 40% of us don't pay ANY taxes." So "The One" said, "Then I shall give you some of the taxes the fat-cats pay!" And the people said, "Hallelujah! Show us the money!"
Then "The One" said, "I shall tax your Capital Gains when you sell your homes!" And the people yawned and the slumping housing market collapsed. And He said. "I shall mandate employer-funded health care for every worker and raise the minimum wage. And I shall give every
person unlimited healthcare and medicine and transportation to the clinics." And the people said, "Give me some of that!"
Then he said, "I shall penalize employers who ship jobs overseas." And the people said, "Where's my rebate check?"
Then "The One" said, "I shall bankrupt the coal industry and electricity rates will skyrocket!" And the people said, "Coal is dirty, coal is evil, no more coal! But we don't care for that part about higher electric rates." So "The One" said, Not to worry. If your rebate isn't enough to cover your expenses, we shall bail you out. Just sign up with the ACORN and you troubles are over!"
Then He said, "Illegal immigrants feel scorned and slighted. Let's grant them amnesty, Social Security, free education, free lunches, free medical care, bi-lingual signs and guaranteed housing..." And the people said, "Hallelujah!" and they made him king!
And so it came to pass that employers, facing spiraling costs and ever-higher taxes, raised their prices and laid off workers. Others simply gave up and went out of business and the economy sank like unto a rock dropped from a cliff. The bank banking industry was destroyed. Manufacturing slowed to a crawl. And more of the people were without a means of support.
Then "The One" said, "I am the "the One"- The Messiah - and I'm here to save you! We shall just print more money so everyone will have enough!" But our foreign trading partners said unto Him. "Wait a minute. Your dollar is not worth a pile of camel dung! You will have to pay more... And "The One" said, "Wait a minute. That is unfair!!" And the world said, "Neither are these other idiotic programs you have embraced. Lo, you have become a Socialist state and a second-rate power. Now you shall play by our rules!"
And the people cried out, "Alas, alas!! What have we done?" But yea verily, it was too late. The people set upon The One and spat upon him and stoned him, and his name was dung. And the once mighty nation was no more; and the once proud people were without sustenance or shelter or hope. And the Change "The One" had given them was as like unto a poison that had destroyed them and like a whirlwind that consumed all that they had built.
And the people beat their chests in despair and cried out in anguish, "give us back our nation and our pride and our hope!!" But it was too late, and their homeland was no more.
You may think this a fairy tale, but it's not. It's happening RIGHT NOW
THIS really tells it like it is. After reading it -- and before you go into the bathroom to throw-up -- forward it to your friends and those you know who care about our country and what is happening to it under the rule of Commissar Obamanation. This was written by a pastor's wife in biblical prose as a commentary of current events. It is brilliant.
He emerged from the vapors with a message that had no meaning; but He hypnotized the people telling them, "I am sent to save you." My lack of experience, my questionable ethics, my monstrous ego, and my association with evil doers are of no consequence. I shall save you with hope and Change. Go, therefore, and proclaim throughout the land that he who proceeded me is evil, that he has defiled the nation, and that all he has built must be destroyed. And the people rejoiced, for even though they knew not what "The One" would do, he had promised that it was good; and they believed. And "The One" said " We live in the greatest country in the world. Help me change everything about it!"
And the people said, "Hallelujah! Change is good!"
Then He said, "We are going to tax the rich fat-cats." And the people said "Sock it to them!" "And redistribute their wealth." And the people said, "Show us the money!" And the he said, " redistribution of wealth is good for everybody."
And Joe the plumber asked, " Are you kidding me? You're going to steal my money and give it to the deadbeats??" And "The One" ridiculed and taunted him, and Joe's personal records were hacked and publicized. One lone reporter asked, "Isn't that Marxist policy?" And she was
banished from the kingdom!
Then a citizen asked, "With no foreign relations experience and having zero military experience or knowledge, how will you deal with radical terrorists?" And "The One" said, "Simple. I shall sit with them and talk with them and show them how nice we really are; and they will forget that they ever wanted to kill us all!" And the people said, "Hallelujah!! We are safe at last, and we can beat our weapons into free cars for the people!"
Then "The One" said "I shall give 95% of you lower taxes." And one, lone voice said, "But 40% of us don't pay ANY taxes." So "The One" said, "Then I shall give you some of the taxes the fat-cats pay!" And the people said, "Hallelujah! Show us the money!"
Then "The One" said, "I shall tax your Capital Gains when you sell your homes!" And the people yawned and the slumping housing market collapsed. And He said. "I shall mandate employer-funded health care for every worker and raise the minimum wage. And I shall give every
person unlimited healthcare and medicine and transportation to the clinics." And the people said, "Give me some of that!"
Then he said, "I shall penalize employers who ship jobs overseas." And the people said, "Where's my rebate check?"
Then "The One" said, "I shall bankrupt the coal industry and electricity rates will skyrocket!" And the people said, "Coal is dirty, coal is evil, no more coal! But we don't care for that part about higher electric rates." So "The One" said, Not to worry. If your rebate isn't enough to cover your expenses, we shall bail you out. Just sign up with the ACORN and you troubles are over!"
Then He said, "Illegal immigrants feel scorned and slighted. Let's grant them amnesty, Social Security, free education, free lunches, free medical care, bi-lingual signs and guaranteed housing..." And the people said, "Hallelujah!" and they made him king!
And so it came to pass that employers, facing spiraling costs and ever-higher taxes, raised their prices and laid off workers. Others simply gave up and went out of business and the economy sank like unto a rock dropped from a cliff. The bank banking industry was destroyed. Manufacturing slowed to a crawl. And more of the people were without a means of support.
Then "The One" said, "I am the "the One"- The Messiah - and I'm here to save you! We shall just print more money so everyone will have enough!" But our foreign trading partners said unto Him. "Wait a minute. Your dollar is not worth a pile of camel dung! You will have to pay more... And "The One" said, "Wait a minute. That is unfair!!" And the world said, "Neither are these other idiotic programs you have embraced. Lo, you have become a Socialist state and a second-rate power. Now you shall play by our rules!"
And the people cried out, "Alas, alas!! What have we done?" But yea verily, it was too late. The people set upon The One and spat upon him and stoned him, and his name was dung. And the once mighty nation was no more; and the once proud people were without sustenance or shelter or hope. And the Change "The One" had given them was as like unto a poison that had destroyed them and like a whirlwind that consumed all that they had built.
And the people beat their chests in despair and cried out in anguish, "give us back our nation and our pride and our hope!!" But it was too late, and their homeland was no more.
You may think this a fairy tale, but it's not. It's happening RIGHT NOW
THIS really tells it like it is. After reading it -- and before you go into the bathroom to throw-up -- forward it to your friends and those you know who care about our country and what is happening to it under the rule of Commissar Obamanation. This was written by a pastor's wife in biblical prose as a commentary of current events. It is brilliant.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Little Johnny Meets the President
Barack Obama was visiting a primary school and he visited one of the classes. They were in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asked the president if he would like to lead the discussion on the word 'tragedy'.
So our illustrious president asked the class for an example of a 'tragedy'. One little boy stood up and offered:
"If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him, that would be a tragedy."
"No,' said Obama, 'that would be an accident."
A little girl raised her hand: "If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy."
"I'm afraid not," explained Obama. "That's what we would call great loss."
The room went silent. No other children volunteered.
Obama searched the room. "Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?"
Finally, at the back of the room, Little Johnny raised his hand. In a quiet voice he said: "If the plane carrying you and Mrs. Obama was struck by a 'friendly fire' missile and blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy."
"Fantastic!' exclaimed Obama. 'That's right. And can you tell me why that would be tragedy?"
"Well,' says Johnny, 'It has to be a tragedy, because it sure as hell wouldn't be a great loss... and you can bet your ass it's probably not an accident either."
So our illustrious president asked the class for an example of a 'tragedy'. One little boy stood up and offered:
"If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him, that would be a tragedy."
"No,' said Obama, 'that would be an accident."
A little girl raised her hand: "If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy."
"I'm afraid not," explained Obama. "That's what we would call great loss."
The room went silent. No other children volunteered.
Obama searched the room. "Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?"
Finally, at the back of the room, Little Johnny raised his hand. In a quiet voice he said: "If the plane carrying you and Mrs. Obama was struck by a 'friendly fire' missile and blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy."
"Fantastic!' exclaimed Obama. 'That's right. And can you tell me why that would be tragedy?"
"Well,' says Johnny, 'It has to be a tragedy, because it sure as hell wouldn't be a great loss... and you can bet your ass it's probably not an accident either."
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Found on the net
The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but shorter tempers; wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less; we buy more, but enjoy less. We have bigger houses and smaller families; more conveniences, but less time. We have more degrees but less sense; more knowledge, but less judgment; more experts, yet more problems; more medicine, but less wellness.
We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom. We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often.
We\'ve learned how to make a living, but not a life. We\'ve added years to life not life to years. We\'ve been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbor. We conquered outer space but not inner space. We\'ve done larger things, but not better things.
We\'ve cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul. We\'ve conquered the atom, but not our prejudice. We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less. We\'ve learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information, to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less and less.
These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion; big men and small character; steep profits and shallow relationships. These are the days of two incomes but more divorce; fancier houses but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throwaway morality, one night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer, to quiet, to kill. It is a time when there is much in the showroom window and nothing in the stockroom. A time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just hit delete.
Remember, spend some time with your loved ones, because they are not going to be around forever.
Remember to say a kind word to someone who looks up to you in awe, because that little person soon will grow up and leave your side.
Remember to give a warm hug to the one next to you, because that is the only treasure you can give with your heart and it doesn\'t cost a cent.
Remember to say \"I love you\" to your partner and your loved ones, but most of all mean it. A kiss and an embrace will mend hurt when it comes from deep inside of you.
Remember to hold hands and cherish the moment for someday that person will not be there again.
Give time to love, give time to speak, and give time to share the precious thoughts in your mind.
AND ALWAYS REMEMBER:
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.
We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom. We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often.
We\'ve learned how to make a living, but not a life. We\'ve added years to life not life to years. We\'ve been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbor. We conquered outer space but not inner space. We\'ve done larger things, but not better things.
We\'ve cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul. We\'ve conquered the atom, but not our prejudice. We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less. We\'ve learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information, to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less and less.
These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion; big men and small character; steep profits and shallow relationships. These are the days of two incomes but more divorce; fancier houses but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throwaway morality, one night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer, to quiet, to kill. It is a time when there is much in the showroom window and nothing in the stockroom. A time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just hit delete.
Remember, spend some time with your loved ones, because they are not going to be around forever.
Remember to say a kind word to someone who looks up to you in awe, because that little person soon will grow up and leave your side.
Remember to give a warm hug to the one next to you, because that is the only treasure you can give with your heart and it doesn\'t cost a cent.
Remember to say \"I love you\" to your partner and your loved ones, but most of all mean it. A kiss and an embrace will mend hurt when it comes from deep inside of you.
Remember to hold hands and cherish the moment for someday that person will not be there again.
Give time to love, give time to speak, and give time to share the precious thoughts in your mind.
AND ALWAYS REMEMBER:
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.
Very Nice Artilce
Chapter 1
What is “Political Correctness”?
William S. Lind
Most Americans look back on the 1950s as a good time. Our homes were safe, to the point where many people did not bother to lock their doors. Public schools were generally excellent, and their problems were things like talking in class and running in the halls. Most men treated women like ladies, and most ladies devoted their time and effort to making good homes, rearing their children well and helping their communities through volunteer work. Children grew up in two–parent households, and the mother was there to meet the child when he came home from school. Entertainment was something the whole family could enjoy.
What happened?
If a man from America of the 1950s were suddenly introduced into America in the 2000s, he would hardly recognize it as the same country. He would be in immediate danger of getting mugged, carjacked or worse, because he would not have learned to live in constant fear. He would not know that he shouldn’t go into certain parts of the city, that his car must not only be locked but equipped with an alarm, that he dare not go to sleep at night without locking the windows and bolting the doors – and setting the electronic security system.
If he brought his family with him, he and his wife would probably cheerfully pack their children off to the nearest public school. When the children came home in the afternoon and told them they had to go through a metal detector to get in the building, had been given some funny white powder by another kid and learned that homosexuality is normal and good, the parents would be uncomprehending.
In the office, the man might light up a cigarette, drop a reference to the “little lady,” and say he was happy to see the firm employing some Negroes in important positions. Any of those acts would earn a swift reprimand, and together they might get him fired.
When she went into the city to shop, the wife would put on a nice suit, hat, and possibly gloves. She would not understand why people stared, and mocked.
And when the whole family sat down after dinner and turned on the television, they would not understand how pornography from some sleazy, blank-fronted “Adults Only” kiosk had gotten on their set.
Were they able, our 1950s family would head back to the 1950s as fast as they could, with a gripping horror story to tell. Their story would be of a nation that had decayed and degenerated at a fantastic pace, moving in less than a half a century from the greatest country on earth to a Third World nation, overrun by crime, noise, drugs and dirt. The fall of Rome was graceful by comparison.
Why did it happen?
Over the last forty years, America has been conquered by the same force that earlier took over Russia, China, Germany and Italy. That force is ideology. Here, as elsewhere, ideology has inflicted enormous damage on the traditional culture it came to dominate, fracturing it everywhere and sweeping much of it away. In its place came fear, and ruin. Russia will take a generation or more to recover from Communism, if it ever can.
The ideology that has taken over America goes most commonly by the name of “Political Correctness.” Some people see it as a joke. It is not. It is deadly serious. It seeks to alter virtually all the rules, formal and informal, that govern relations among people and institutions. It wants to change behavior, thought, even the words we use. To a significant extent, it already has. Whoever or whatever controls language also controls thought. Who dares to speak of “ladies” now?
Just what is “Political Correctness?” Political Correctness is in fact cultural Marxism – Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. The effort to translate Marxism from economics into culture did not begin with the student rebellion of the 1960s. It goes back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. In 1923, in Germany, a group of Marxists founded an institute devoted to making the transition, the Institute of Social Research (later known as the Frankfurt School). One of its founders, George Lukacs, stated its purpose as answering the question, “Who shall save us from Western Civilization?” The Frankfurt School gained profound influence in American universities after many of its leading lights fled to the United States in the 1930s to escape National Socialism in Germany.
The Frankfurt School blended Marx with Freud, and later influences (some Fascist as well as Marxist) added linguistics to create “Critical Theory” and “deconstruction.” These in turn greatly influenced education theory, and through institutions of higher education gave birth to what we now call “Political Correctness.” The lineage is clear, and it is traceable right back to Karl Marx.
The parallels between the old, economic Marxism and cultural Marxism are evident. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, shares with classical Marxism the vision of a “classless society,” i.e., a society not merely of equal opportunity, but equal condition. Since that vision contradicts human nature – because people are different, they end up unequal, regardless of the starting point – society will not accord with it unless forced. So, under both variants of Marxism, it is forced. This is the first major parallel between classical and cultural Marxism: both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness can be seen on campuses where “PC” has taken over the college: freedom of speech, of the press, and even of thought are all eliminated.
The second major parallel is that both classical, economic Marxism and cultural Marxism have single-factor explanations of history. Classical Marxism argues that all of history was determined by ownership of the means of production. Cultural Marxism says that history is wholly explained by which groups – defined by sex, race, and sexual normality or abnormality – have power over which other groups.
The third parallel is that both varieties of Marxism declare certain groups virtuous and others evil a priori, that is, without regard for the actual behavior of individuals. Classical Marxism defines workers and peasants as virtuous and the bourgeoisie (the middle class) and other owners of capital as evil. Cultural Marxism defines blacks, Hispanics, Feminist women, homosexuals and some additional minority groups as virtuous and white men as evil. (Cultural Marxism does not recognize the existence of non-Feminist women, and defines blacks who reject Political Correctness as whites).
The fourth parallel is in means: expropriation. Economic Marxists, where they obtained power, expropriated the property of the bourgeoisie and handed it to the state, as the “representative” of the workers and the peasants. Cultural Marxists, when they gain power (including through our own government), lay penalties on white men and others who disagree with them and give privileges to the groups they favor. Affirmative action is an example.
Finally, both varieties of Marxists employ a method of analysis designed to show the correctness of their ideology in every situation. For classical Marxists, the analysis is economic. For cultural Marxists, the analysis is linguistic: deconstruction. Deconstruction “proves” that any “text,” past or present, illustrates the oppression of blacks, women, homosexuals, etc. by reading that meaning into words of the text (regardless of their actual meaning). Both methods are, of course, phony analyses that twist the evidence to fit preordained conclusions, but they lend a ‘scientific” air to the ideology.
These parallels are neither remarkable nor coincidental. They exist because Political Correctness is directly derived from classical Marxism, and is in fact a variant of Marxism. Through most of the history of Marxism, cultural Marxists were “read out” of the movement by classical, economic Marxists. Today, with economic Marxism dead, cultural Marxism has filled its shoes. The medium has changed, but the message is the same: a society of radical egalitarianism enforced by the power of the state.
Political Correctness now looms over American society like a colossus. It has taken over both political parties – recent Republican conventions were choreographed according to its dictates, while cultural conservatives were shown the door – and is enforced by many laws and government regulations. It controls the most powerful element in our culture, the entertainment industry. It dominates both public and higher education: many a college campus is a small, ivy-covered North Korea. It has even captured the higher clergy in many Christian churches. Anyone in the Establishment who departs from its dictates swiftly ceases to be a member of the Establishment.
The remainder of this short book will explore the subject of Political Correctness further: its history, its method of analysis (deconstruction), and the means by which it has attained its influence, especially through education.
But one more question must be addressed at the outset, the most vital question: how can Americans combat Political Correctness and retake their society from the cultural Marxists?
It is not sufficient just to criticize Political Correctness. It tolerates a certain amount of criticism., even gentle mocking. It does so through no genuine tolerance for other points of view, but in order to disarm its opponents, to let itself seem less menacing than it is. The cultural Marxists do not yet have total power, and they are too wise to appear totalitarian until their victory is assured.
Rather, those who would defeat cultural Marxism must defy it. They must use words it forbids, and refuse to use the words it mandates; remember, sex is better than gender. They must shout from the housetops the realities it seeks to suppress, such as the facts that violent crime is disproportionately committed by blacks and that most cases of AIDS are voluntary, i.e., acquired from immoral sexual acts. They must refuse to turn their children over to public schools.
Above all, those who would defy Political Correctness must behave according to the old rules of our culture, not the new rules the cultural Marxists lay down. Ladies should be wives and homemakers, not cops or soldiers, and men should still hold doors open for ladies. Children should not be born out of wedlock. Open homosexuality should be shunned. Jurors should not accept race as an excuse for murder.
Defiance spreads. When other Americans see one person defy Political Correctness and survive – and you still can, for now – they are emboldened. They are tempted to defy it, too, and some do. The ripples from a single act of defiance, of one instance of walking up to the clay idol and breaking off its nose, can range far. There is nothing the Politically Correct fear more than open defiance, and for good reason; it is their chief vulnerability. That should lead cultural conservatives to defy cultural Marxism at every turn.
While the hour is late, the battle is not decided. Very few Americans realize that Political Correctness is in fact Marxism in a different set of clothes. As that realization spreads, defiance will spread with it. At present, Political Correctness prospers by disguising itself. Through defiance, and through education on our own part (which should be part of every act of defiance), we can strip away its camouflage and reveal the Marxism beneath the window-dressing of “sensitivity,” “tolerance,” and “multi-culturalism.”
Who dares, wins.
Chapter II
The Historical Roots of “Political Correctness”
Raymond V. Raehn
America is today dominated by an alien system of beliefs, attitudes and values that we have come to know as “Political Correctness.” Political Correctness seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans and is therefore totalitarian in nature. Its roots lie in a version of Marxism which seeks a radical inversion of the traditional culture in order to create a social revolution.
Social revolution has a long history, conceivably going as far back as Plato’s Republic. But it was the French Revolution of 1789 that inspired Karl Marx to develop his theories in the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, the success of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia set off a wave of optimistic expectation among the Marxist forces in Europe and America that the new proletarian world of equality was finally coming into being. Russia, as the first communist nation in the world, would lead the revolutionary forces to victory.
The Marxist revolutionary forces in Europe leaped at this opportunity. Following the end of World War I, there was a Communist “Spartacist” uprising in Berlin, Germany led by Rosa Luxemburg; the creation of a “Soviet” in Bavaria led by Kurt Eisner; and a Hungarian communist republic established by Bela Kun in 1919. At the time, there was great concern that all of Europe might fall under the banner of Bolshevism. This sense of impeding doom was given vivid life by Trotsky’s Red Army invasion of Poland in 1919.
However, the Red Army was defeated by Polish forces at the battle of the Vistula in 1920. The Spartacist, Bavarian Soviet and Bela Kun governments all failed to gain widespread support from the workers and after a brief time they were all overthrown. These events created a quandary for the Marxist revolutionaries in Europe. 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. They blamed the workers.
One group of Marxist intellectuals resolved their quandary by an analysis that focused on society’s cultural “superstructure” rather than on the economic substructures as Marx did. The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci and Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs contributed the most to this new cultural Marxism.
Antonio Gramsci worked for the Communist International during 1923-24 in Moscow and Vienna. He was later imprisoned in one of Mussolini’s jails where he wrote his famous “Prison Notebooks.” Among Marxists, Gramsci is noted for his theory of cultural hegemony as the means to class dominance. In his view, a new “Communist man” had to be created before any political revolution was possible. This led to a focus on the efforts of intellectuals in the fields of education and culture. Gramsci envisioned a long march through the society’s institutions, including the government, the judiciary, the military, the schools and the media. He also concluded that so long as the workers had a Christian soul, they would not respond to revolutionary appeals.
Georg Lukacs was the son a wealthy Hungarian banker. Lukacs began his political life as an agent of the Communist International. His book History and Class Consciousness gained him recognition as the leading Marxist theorist since Karl Marx. 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,” and, “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.”
When he became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary in 1919, Lukacs launched what became known as “Cultural Terrorism.” As part of this terrorism he instituted a radical sex education program in Hungarian schools. Hungarian children were instructed in free love, sexual intercourse, the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the out-datedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasures. Women, too, were called to rebel against the sexual mores of the time. Lukacs’s campaign of “Cultural Terrorism” was a precursor to what Political Correctness would later bring to American schools.
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.
The members of the Frankfurt School conducted numerous studies on the beliefs, attitudes and values they believed lay behind the rise of National Socialism in Germany. The Frankfurt School’s studies combined Marxist analysis with Freudian psychoanalysis to criticize the bases of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism. These criticisms, known collectively as Critical Theory, were reflected in such works of the Frankfurt School as Erich Fromm’s Escape from Freedom and The Dogma of Christ, Wilhelm’s Reich’s The Mass Psychology of Fascism and Theodor Adorno’s The Authoritarian Personality.
The Authoritarian Personality, published in 1950, substantially influenced American psychologists and social scientists. The book was premised on one basic idea, that the presence in a society of Christianity, capitalism, and the patriarchal-authoritarian family created a character prone to racial prejudice and German fascism. The Authoritarian Personality became a handbook for a national campaign against any kind of prejudice or discrimination on the theory that if these evils were not eradicated, another Holocaust might occur on the American continent. This campaign, in turn, provided a basis for Political Correctness.
Critical Theory incorporated sub-theories which were intended to chip away at specific elements of the existing culture, including “matriarchal theory,” “androgyny theory,” “personality theory,” “authority theory,” “family theory,” “sexuality theory,” “racial theory,” “legal theory,” and “literary theory.” Put into practice, these theories were to be used to overthrow the prevailing social order and usher in social revolution.
To achieve this, the Critical Theorists of the Frankfurt School recognized that traditional beliefs and the existing social structure would have to be destroyed and then replaced. The patriarchal social structure would be replaced with matriarchy; the belief that men and women are different and properly have different roles would be replaced with androgyny; and the belief that heterosexuality is normal would be replaced with the belief that homosexuality is equally “normal.”
As a grand scheme intended to deny the intrinsic worth of white, heterosexual males, the Critical Theorists of the Frankfurt School opened the door to the racial and sexual antagonisms of the Trotskyites. Leon Trotsky believed that oppressed blacks could be the vanguard of a communist revolution in North America. He denounced white workers who were prejudiced against blacks and instructed them to unite with the blacks in revolution. Trotsky’s ideas were adopted by many of the student leaders of the 1960s counterculture movement, who attempted to elevate black revolutionaries to positions of leadership in their movement.
The student revolutionaries were also strongly influenced by the ideas of Herbert Marcuse, another member of the Frankfurt School. Marcuse preached the “Great Refusal,” a rejection of all basic Western concepts, sexual liberation and the merits of feminist and black revolution. 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 Communist revolution. In his book An Essay on Liberation, Marcuse proclaimed his goals of a radical transvaluation of values; the relaxation of taboos; cultural subversion; Critical Theory; and a linguistic rebellion that would amount to a methodical reversal of meaning. As for racial conflict, Marcuse wrote that white men are guilty and that blacks are the most natural force of rebellion.
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…” His means was liberating the powerful, primeval force of sex from its civilized restraints, a message preached in his book, Eros and Civilization, published in 1955. Marcuse became one of the main gurus of the 1960s adolescent sexual rebellion; he himself coined the expression, “make love, not war.” With that role, the chain of Marxist influence via the Frankfurt School was completed: from Lukacs’ service as Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Hungarian government in 1919 to American students burning the flag and taking over college administration buildings in the 1960s. Today, many of these same colleges are bastions of Political Correctness, and the former student radicals have become the faculties.
One of the most important contributors to Political Correctness was Betty Friedan. Through her book The Feminine Mystique, Friedantied Feminism to Abraham Maslow’s theory of self-actualization. Maslow was a social psychologist who in his early years did research on female dominance and sexuality. Maslow was a friend of Herbert Marcuse at Brandeis University and had met Erich Fromm in 1936. He was strongly impressed by Fromm’s Frankfurt School ideology. He wrote an article, “The Authoritarian Character Structure,” published in 1944, that reflected the personality theory of Critical Theory. Maslow was also impressed with the work of Wilhelm Reich, who was another Frankfurt School originator of personality theory.
The significance of the historical roots of Political Correctness cannot be fully appreciated unless Betty Friedan’s revolution in sex roles is viewed for what it really was – a manifestation of the social revolutionary process begun by Karl Marx. Friedan’s reliance on Abraham Maslow’s reflection of Frankfurt School ideology is only one indicator. Other indicators include the correspondence of Friedan’s revolution in sex roles with Georg Lukacs’ annihilation of old values and the creation of new ones, and with Herbert Marcuse’s transvaluation of values. But the idea of transforming a patriarchy into a matriarchy – which is what a sex-role inversion is designed to do – can be connected directly to Friedrich Engels book The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. First published in 1884, this book popularized the now-accepted feminist belief that deep-rooted discrimination against the oppressed female sex was a function of patriarchy. The belief that matriarchy was the solution to patriarchy flows from Marx’s comments in The German Ideology, published in 1845. In this work Marx advanced the idea that wives and children were the first property of the patriarchal male. The Frankfurt School’s matriarchal theory and its near-relation, androgyny theory, both originated from these sources.
When addressing the general public, advocates of Political Correctness – or cultural Marxism, to give it its true name – present their beliefs attractively. It’s all just a matter of being “sensitive” to other people, they say. They use words such as “tolerance” and “diversity,” asking, “Why can’t we all just get along?”
The reality is different. Political Correctness is not at all about “being nice,” unless one thinks gulags are nice places. Political Correctness is Marxism, with all that implies: loss of freedom of expression, thought control, inversion of the traditional social order, and, ultimately, a totalitarian state. If anything, the cultural Marxism created by the Frankfurt School is more horrifying than the old, economic Marxism that ruined Russia. At least the economic Marxists did not exalt sexual perversion and attempt to create a matriarchy, as the Frankfurt School and its descendants have done.
This short essay has sought to show one critical linkage, that between classical Marxism and the ingredients of the “cultural revolution” that broke out in America in the 1960s. The appendices to this paper offer a “wiring diagram” which may make the trail easier to follow, along with a more detailed look at some of the main actors. Of course, the action does not stop in the ‘60s; the workings of the Frankfurt School are yet very much with us, especially in the field of education. That topic, and other present-day effects of Frankfurt School thinking, will be the subjects of other chapters in this book.
Profiles
Georg Lukacs
• He began his political life as a Kremlin agent of the Communist International.
• His History and Class-Consciousness gained him recognition as the leading Marxist theorist since Karl Marx.
• In 1919 he became the Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Bela Kun Regime in Hungary. He instigated what become known as “Cultural Terrorism.”
• Cultural Terrorism was a precursor of what was to happen in American schools.
• He launched an “explosive” sex education program. Special lectures were organized in Hungarian schools and literature was printed and distributed to instruct children about free love, the nature of sexual intercourse, the archaic nature of the bourgeois family codes, the outdatedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasure. Children were urged to reject and deride paternal authority and the authority of the Church, and to ignore precepts of morality. They were easily and spontaneously turned into delinquents with whom only the police could cope. This call to rebellion addressed to Hungarian children was matched by a call to rebellion addressed to Hungarian women.
• In rejecting the idea that Bolshevism spelled the destruction of civilization and culture, Lukacs stated: “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.”
• Lukacs’ state of mind was expressed in his own words:
o “All the social forces I had hated since my youth, and which I aimed in spirit to annihilate, now came together to unleash the First Global War.”
o “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution to the cultural contradictions of the speech.”
o “The question is: Who will free us from the yoke of Western Civilization?”
o “Any political movement capable of bringing Bolshevism to the West would have to be ‘Demonic’.”
o “The abandonment of the soul’s uniqueness solves the problem of ‘unleashing’ the diabolic forces lurking in all the violence which is needed to create revolution.”
• Lukacs’ state of mind was typical of those who represented the forces of Revolutionary Marxism.
• At a secret meeting in Germany in 1923, Lukacs proposed the concept of inducing “Cultural Pessimism” in order to increase the state of hopelessness and alienation in the people of the West as a necessary prerequisite for revolution.
• This meeting led to the founding of the Institute for Social Research at Frankfurt University in Germany in 1923 – an organization of Marxist and Communist-oriented psychologists, sociologists and other intellectuals that came to be known as the Frankfurt School, which devoted itself to implementing Georg Lukacs’s program.
Antonio Gramsci
• He was an Italian Marxist on an intellectual par with Georg Lukacs who arrived by analysis at the same conclusions as Lukacs and the Frankfurt School regarding the critical importance of intellectuals in fomenting revolution in the West.
• He had traveled to the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and made some accurate observations that caused him to conclude that a Bolshevik-style uprising could not be brought about by Western workers due to the nature of their Christian souls.
• Antonio Gramsci became the leader of the Italian Communist Party, which earned him a place in one of Mussolini’s jails in the 1930s, where he wrote Prison Notebooks and other documents.
• These works became available in English to Americans.
• His advice to the intellectuals was to begin a long march through the educational and cultural institutions of the nation in order to create a new Soviet man before there could be a successful political revolution.
• This reflected his observations in the Soviet Union that its leaders could not create such a new Soviet man after the Bolshevik Revolution.
• This blueprint for mind and character change made Gramsci a hero of Revolutionary Marxism in American education and paved the way for creation of the New American Child in the schools by the education cartel.
• The essential nature of Antonio Gramsci’s revolutionary strategy is reflected in Charles A. Reich’s The Greening of America: “There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions in the past. It will originate with the individual and the culture, and it will change the political structure as its final act. It will not require violence to succeed, and it cannot be successfully resisted by violence. This is revolution of the New Generation.”
Wilhelm Reich
• In his 1933 book entitled The Mass Psychology of Fascism, he explained that the Frankfurt School departed from the Marxist sociology that set “Bourgeois” against “Proletariat.” Instead, the battle would be between “reactionary” and “revolutionary” characters.
• He also wrote a book entitled The Sexual Revolution which was a precursor of what was to come in the 1960s.
• His “sex-economic” sociology was an effort to harmonize Freud’s psychology with Marx’s economic theory.
• Reich’s theory was expressed in his words: “The authoritarian family is the authoritarian state in miniature. Man’s authoritarian character structure is basically produced by the embedding of sexual inhibitions and fear in the living substance of sexual impulses. Familial imperialism is ideologically reproduced in national imperialism…the authoritarian family…is a factory where reactionary ideology and reactionary structures are produced.”
• Wilhelm Reich’s theory, when coupled with Georg Lukacs’ sex education in Hungary, can be seen as the source for the American education cartel’s insistence on sex education from kindergarten onwards and its complete negation of the paternal family, external authority, and the traditional character structure.
• Reich’s theory encompassed other assertions that seem to have permeated American education:
o The organized religious mysticism of Christianity was an element of the authoritarian family that led to Fascism.
o The patriarchal power in and outside of man was to be dethroned.
o Revolutionary sexual politics would mean the complete collapse of authoritarian ideology.
o Birth control was revolutionary ideology.
o Man was fundamentally a sexual animal.
• Reich’s The Mass Psychology of Fascism was in its ninth printing as of 1991 and is available in most college bookstores.
Erich Fromm
• Like Wilhelm Reich, Fromm was a social psychologist of the Frankfurt School who came to America in the 1930s.
• His book Escape from Freedom, published in 1941, is an ideological companion to Wilhelm Reich’s The Mass Psychology of Fascism.
• Fromm asserted that early capitalism created a social order that resulted in Calvin’s Theory of Predestination, which reflected the principle of the basic inequality of men which was revived in Nazi ideology.
• He asserted the authoritarian character experiences only domination or submission and “differences, whether sex or race, to him are necessarily of superiority or inferiority.”
• He asserted that “Positive Freedom” implies the principle that there is no higher power than the unique individual self; that man is the center and purpose of life; that the growth and realization of man’s individuality is an end that can be subordinated to purposes which are supposed to have a greater dignity.
• Fromm made the real meaning of this “Positive Freedom” clear in another of his many books – The Dogma of Christ - wherein he describes a revolutionary character such as himself as the man who has emancipated himself from the ties of blood and soil, from his mother and father, and from special loyalties to state, race, party or religion.
• Fromm makes his revolutionary intent very clear in The Dogma of Christ...”We might define revolution in a psychological sense, saying that a revolution is a political movement led by people with revolutionary characters, and attracting people with revolutionary characters.”
Herbert Marcuse
• Like Wilhelm Reich and Erich Fromm, Marcuse was an intellectual of the Frankfurt School who came to America in the 1930s.
• He has often been described as a Marxist philosopher, but he was in fact a full-blooded social revolutionary who contemplated the disintegration of American society just as Karl Marx and Georg Lukacs contemplated the disintegration of German society: “One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including the morality of existing society…there is one thing we can say with complete assurance: the traditional idea of revolution and the traditional strategy of revolution has ended. These ideas are old-fashioned…What we must undertake is a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system.”
• Marcuse published Eros and Civilization in 1955, which became the founding document of the 1960s counterculture and brought the Frankfurt School into the colleges and universities of America.
• He asserted that the only way to escape the one-dimensionality of modern industrial society was to liberate the erotic side of man, the sensuous instinct, in rebellion against “technological rationality.”
• This erotic liberation was to take the form of the “Great Refusal,” a total rejection of the capitalist monster and its entire works, including technological reason and ritual-authoritarian language.
• He provided the needed intellectual justifications for adolescent sexual rebellion and the slogan “Make Love, Not War.”
• His theory included the belief that the Women’s Liberation Movement was to be the most important component of the opposition, and potentially the most radical.
• His revolutionary efforts would blossom into a full-scale war by revolutionary Marxism against the European white male in the schools and colleges.
Theodor Adorno
• He was another Marxist revolutionary and a member of the Frankfurt School who came to America in the 1930s.
• Along with others, Adorno authored The Authoritarian Personality, which was published in 1950.
• Adorno’s book was inspired by the same kind of theoretical assertions revealed in the works of Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse based on analytical studies of German society that were begun in 1923.
• The basic theme was the same. There was such a thing as an authoritarian character that was the opposite of the desired revolutionary character. This authoritarian character was a product of capitalism, Christianity, conservatism, the patriarchal family and sexual repression. In Germany, this combination induced prejudice, anti-Semitism and fascism according to Frankfurt School theory.
• It so happened that most Americans were products of capitalism, Christianity, conservatism, the patriarchal family, and sexual repression in their youth. So Theodor Adorno and other members of the Frankfurt School had a golden opportunity to execute Georg Lukacs’ and Antonio Gramsci’s program for creating social revolution in America instead of Germany.
• They would posit the existence of authoritarian personalities among Americans with tendencies toward prejudice, and then exploit this to force the “scientifically planned re-education” of Americans with the excuse that it was being done in order to eradicate prejudice.
• This scientifically-planned re-education would become the master plan for the transformation of America’s system of fundamental values into their opposite revolutionary values in American education so that school children would become replicas of the Frankfurt School revolutionary characters and thus create the New American Child.
• This can be confirmed by noting that The Authoritarian Personality is the key source of the affective domain of Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives of 1964, which guided the education cartel thereafter.
Chapter III
Political Correctness in Higher Education
T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr.
On a growing number of university campuses the freedom to articulate and discuss ideas – a principle that has been the cornerstone of higher education since the time of Socrates – is eroding at an alarming rate. Consider just one increasing trend: hundreds (sometimes thousands) of copies of conservative student newspapers have been either stolen or publicly burned by student radicals. In many cases these acts have taken place with the tacit support of faculty and administrators. The perpetrators are rarely disciplined.
While it would be easy to dismiss such demonstrations of tolerance as student pranks, these incidents are the surface manifestations of a more pervasive and insidious trend – a trend that has as its goal the destruction of the liberal arts tradition that has helped create and sustain Western civilization.
Though some pundits have claimed that the prevalence of the ideological intolerance known as political correctness has been exaggerated, the opposite is closer to the truth. Political correctness has become so deeply ingrained in American higher education that many campuses are now dominated by an atmosphere of uncertainty and apprehension. An increasing number of dedicated students and faculty members now live in fear that their intellectual pursuit of truth will offend the Grand Inquisitors of political correctness.
The techniques of political correctness are now well known: attacks on the curriculum in the name of “multiculturalism,” the imposition of restrictive and vaguely-worded “speech codes,” and mandatory “sensitivity training” courses for freshman that are little more than systematic efforts at ideological indoctrination. But the influence of political correctness has spread in other disturbing ways. Consider a few recent incidents from the university battlefield.
• At Amherst College in Massachusetts, a homosexual student group covered the university’s sidewalks with graffiti, including the slogan “Queer by Divine Right,” which was scrawled in front of the campus chapel on Good Friday. When the Amherst Spectator, a conservative student newspaper, criticized these chalkings as promoting “hatred and division,” student protestors publicly burned copies of the paper.
• When the Cornell Review, another conservative student newspaper, published a parody of the course descriptions from Cornell’s heavily-politicized Africana Department, campus militants blocked traffic at the center of the campus for several hours and burned stolen copies of the Review in a metal trash can. The militants went on to demand that the university provide “racial sensitivity” classes for incoming freshman, a campus speech code, and more money for segregated minority programs such as a blacks-only dormitory.
• Students who participate in ROTC programs have told friends and family that they are afraid to show up for class wearing their uniform because their grades have been arbitrarily marked down by faculty members who are hostile to the military.
• In the wake of a rash of sexual harassment charges that have been filed by extreme feminists against their alleged enemies, some professors have begun to take out insurance policies to protect themselves from the crushing financial burden of malicious and frivolous lawsuits.
• A faculty questionnaire at the University of Massachusetts asks professors what “contribution to multi-culturalism” they have made. The questionnaire is then used in making decisions about tenure and promotion.
It is worth remembering that for every dramatic and well-publicized example of political correctness, there are innumerable instances where it is more subtle, but just as real.
The Origins of Political Correctness in Higher Education
While the ideology of political correctness is hardly restricted to our campuses, there is no doubt it originated there. The intellectual roots of this phenomenon stretch back over centuries. Ultimately, the origins of PC can be traced to the rise of modern ideology and its quest for power. In contrast to the classical and Judeo-Christian traditions, which stressed man’s need to understand the moral order and conform himself to it, modern ideologies have sought to dominate and control the world. In the twentieth century these ideologies gained political power in Communist states.
But in the West, ideology has not been able to make such a direct assault on our traditions of ordered liberty. Rather, radical intellectuals have sought to undermine the foundations of knowledge itself, concentrating their efforts on the transformation of the university.
The turning point in the academy came in the 1960s, when militant students launched a guerilla attack on the traditions of Western culture and the liberal arts. Seeing that they could not gain lasting power through demonstrations alone, many of these militants opted to remain “in the system,” going on to become professors themselves. This generation of “tenured radicals” (to use Roger Kimball’s phrase) has now become the establishment in the vast majority of our institutions of higher learning. As university presidents, deans, and department chairmen, they have set about hiring other ideologues in their own image and have instigated the repressive policies we know as political correctness. These politicized academics will be extremely difficult to dislodge from their current positions of power.
Ideology vs. Liberal Education
The stakes in this war of ideas are high, for they include the very concept of freedom itself. Americans have always understood the intimate and vital connection between liberal education and political liberty. That is why political correctness is nothing less than a death blow aimed at the heart of our republic.
In his seminal book The Idea of a University, Cardinal John Henry Newman defined the “liberal arts” as a pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. By way of contrast, he defined the “servile arts” as those modes of study that serve only specific, immediate ends. The liberal arts are liberating, Newman argued, because they enable men to discover the underlying principles that guide us toward wisdom and virtue.
Were he alive today, Newman would view political correctness as “servile” because its purpose is to advance a political agenda to a position of national power. Militant professors in increasing numbers are shamelessly turning their podiums into pulpits, abandoning the search for objective truth and setting about the task of indoctrinating their students.
The Devastated Curriculum
The proponents of political correctness have concentrated their efforts on the core of a liberal education, the curriculum. Their efforts will radically alter what new generations of Americans will learn. In this battle the handmaiden of political correctness has been the “multicultural” movement. A number of critics have rightly pointed out that multiculturalism is more than an argument for courses that concentrate on groups that at one time were disadvantaged or oppressed. Rather, multiculturalism involves the systematic restructuring of the curriculum so as to hinder students from learning about the Western tradition. Since the ulterior motive behind political correctness is an attempt to restructure American society along egalitarian lines, it is imperative for its proponents to instill in the minds of students a thoroughgoing cultural relativism.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the politically correct assault on the curriculum is that it has occurred at many of America’s elite universities. Take, for example, the case of Stanford University, an institution that has long played a leadership role in American higher education. Stanford eliminated its long-standing Western civilization requirement in 1988 and replaced it with a multicultural program known as “Cultures, Ideas, and Values.” Under this new program freshmen at Stanford can just as easily study Marxist revolutionaries in Central America as they can Plato, Shakespeare, or Newton.
Stanford has also led the movement away from serious study of history. Students at Stanford, like students at all but one of the other top 50 universities in the United States, are not required to take a single course in history. Instead, they are offered a choice of courses under the heading of “American Cultures.” According to one recent graduate at Stanford, it is impossible to fulfill the “American Cultures” requirement by studying Protestantism, Irish Americans, or the American West, while courses that do fulfill the requirement include “Film and Literature: US-Mexico Border Representations” and “Contemporary Ethnic Drama.” Stanford students must also take courses in “World Cultures” and “Gender Studies” that include “Chicana Expressive Culture” and “Misogyny and Feminism in the Renaissance.”
Because elite institutions such as Stanford set an example for the rest of American higher education, other universities eagerly adopt these devastating assaults on the curriculum. This “trickle-down” effect will have a long-lasting impact on the way future generations of Americans will be educated.
Intolerance and the Assault on Freedom
The two pillars that have traditionally sustained the liberal arts are academic freedom and freedom of speech. Without the freedom to pursue the truth and to write and speak freely, authentic scholarship is impossible. But both of these fundamental freedoms have been routinely abrogated by the establishment of speech codes, “sensitivity” classes, and a general atmosphere of fear and intimidation on campus.
For example, younger professors who have not received tenure must not only be careful of what they say, but of what they publish. Ideological university administrators in the 1990s have created an environment dominated by suspicion that is far more intense than anything spawned by anti-Communist Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s.
The most tragic victims of this age of political correctness are the students. The traditional goal of a liberal arts education – acculturation, whereby students absorb the inherited wisdom of the past – has been set aside. Increasingly, a university education today seems to involve rote learning of political opinions. When all is said and done, political correctness substitutes smug feelings of righteousness for the traditional habits of critical thinking. One distinguished scholar recently lamented that “higher education is increasingly about acquiring attitudes and opinions that one puts on like a uniform.”
Because the academy is a relatively isolated world, it can allow politicized administrators to turn the campus into a laboratory for experiments in social transformation. When critics of political correctness have compared the atmosphere on campus to that of a totalitarian state, liberal pundits have been quick to denounce them as hysterical. Few of these pundits have any first-hand experience of daily life on campus.
The Movement for Academic Reform
Despite the institutional power of the campus radicals, forces are at work seeking to spur authentic academic reform. The academic reform movement relies on the principles of accountability, communication, and a commitment to authentic scholarship. One force of academic reform is a growing demand among parents for greater accountability from colleges and universities. At a time when studies show that students are paying more and learning less than ever before, parents in increasing numbers are becoming discriminating consumers.
Another force is independent student newspapers whose journalists publicize the antics of political correctness on campus. In the past, campus radicals thrived unchallenged in the enclosed world of the university, but their actions are no longer going undetected. The advent of conservative student newspapers on dozens of campuses has forced campus militants into the open where they are most vulnerable to the scrutiny of an exasperated public.
Two years ago, those who fund the Collegiate Network asked the Intercollegiate Studies Institute to take over the administration of their program to support and enhance responsible student journalism. The Collegiate Network contributes seed money, practical help, and intellectual guidance to the 60 conservative student newspapers which provide alternative forums of discussion at many of the nations most elite (and closed-minded) universities.
These alternative papers have identified abuses at all levels of academic life and engaged in investigative journalism that has been remarkably fair and accurate. Perhaps the most well-known “scoop” came from Yale University’s alternative paper, Light & Truth, a publication supported by the Collegiate Network. The editors of Light & Truth discovered that the $20 million gift of alumnus Lee Bass was not being used for its intended purpose of supporting an integrated course in Western civilization. Their report broke open the scandal, which ended when Yale returned Mr. Bass’s money. The subsequent furor cost Yale a great deal more than Mr. Bass’s $20 million – both in monetary terms and in the loss of confidence of many Yale donors that the current administration can be trusted.
Not all the scandals uncovered by alternative campus papers are of this magnitude, but there are innumerable abuses that can be exposed by investigative student journalism. The law school at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, banned representatives of the U.S. military from setting up recruiting tables there, despite receiving federal tax dollars from the Defense Department. An article about this outrageous assault on freedom that ran in both the student-run Carolina Review and in the national student newspaper published by ISI, CAMPUS, raised a hue and cry on and off campus. North Carolina legislators took immediate action and passed a bill prohibiting taxpayer-supported schools from discriminating against the military when prospective employers come to the university.
At the University of Wisconsin, Madison, the UWM Times, a conservative student newspaper, revealed that a university administrator had been soliciting signatures for local Democrat candidates for public office, in direct violation of a state law forbidding university employees from engaging in political campaigning. The university refused to reprimand the administrator in question – perhaps because the chancellor himself violated both the state law and his own directive by signing one of the petitions while at work. The story was picked up by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and the abuse was brought to an end.
Now that alternative newspapers and organizations dedicated to academic reform are spreading the word, the larger communities that surround our institutions of higher education are getting more involved in serious academic reform. For example, the National Association of Scholars is encouraging university trustees to take a more active and vocal role in opposing the excesses of political correctness. Efforts of this type must be expanded and intensified.
In the long run, the most direct method of defeating the inquisitors of political correctness is simply to stand up to them. Individual acts of defiance often entail serious risks: students can face star-chamber proceedings that are humiliating and demoralizing while faculty can lose their bids to receive tenure. But every act of resistance causes a ripple, encouraging others to stand up to ideological intimidation. With the support of a significant number of parents, donors, and alumni, these Davids may yet slay the Goliaths who tower over them.
The Fire of True-Learning
Perhaps the strongest force for true academic reform is that which seeks to defeat the ideological depredations of political correctness by winning the war of ideas. The best students have a questioning intelligence that cannot be satisfied with political slogans. When such students have access to serious scholarship they respond with enthusiasm. Even today acculturation still takes place under the mentorship of outstanding scholars at various institutions around the country. Moreover, some colleges and universities continue to swim against the ideological tides of our time.
The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), in conjunction with the Templeton Foundation, has identified the best professors, departments, colleges, and textbooks in American higher education today. This program, the Templeton Honor Rolls for Education in a Free Society, celebrates excellence and serves as a guide for parents and students contemplating the daunting choice of which college or university to attend. By singling out the best in higher education, the Templeton Honor Rolls also encourage donors to reward universities that preserve the traditions of the free society.
Prospective college students, their parents, and donors can also benefit from a comprehensive guide to 100 of the top institutions of higher learning in America published by the ISI. The guide contains substantial, essay-length treatments of all 100 institutions, including 80 elite schools that were selected on the basis of competitive admissions standards and 20 schools that ISI particularly recommends for their commitment to a liberal arts education. The ISI college guide warns students about the ideological dangers on the campuses and steers them in the direction of the best professors and departments. As best-selling author William J. Bennett wrote of this project, “All too often, Americans treat colleges and universities with a deference that prevents them from asking hard questions and demanding real results. But if there was ever to be a genuine, long-lasting education reform, parents and students will have to become shrewder and better-informed consumers of education. The ISI guide is a powerful tool in this effort.”
One of Edmund Burke’s most famous sayings is that “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” For generations, Americans have treated higher education with awe – a token of their faith in the liberating power of the liberal arts. But in the face of political correctness, it is time for the American public to temper its respect with a critical sensibility, and to undertake a more direct effort to call academia to account. It is time for good men and women to demand that American higher education live up to its best traditions and eschew the tyranny of political correctness.
 |
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)