“Misunderstanding” the Ayers connection: the coverup of the coverup
I hear it almost constantly now: McCain is pushing on Obama’s Ayers connection. He’s taking off the gloves and striking hard yada yada yada.
And yet when I glance at cable TV and see a talking head on the subject (the latest was GOP’s Tom Ridge), I hear an “attack” so disconnected from the real issue that it makes me wonder what’s really going on here.
Of course, never underestimate the power of stupidity, ignorance, and shallow thinking. That’s true on both sides, by the way. So perhaps it’s just that the McCain campaign doesn’t really understand why Ayers matters (guess they haven’t been reading neo-neocon; who woulda thunk it?). Or perhaps they think the American people won’t get it if they try to tell them. Or perhaps they think it’s just too difficult to explain. Or perhaps they think the truth is too wild, too frightening, and too Manchurian-candidate-ish to be believed even if understood.
Whatever the reason, if Republicans persist in using the approach of saying the problem is that Obama was tight with a domestic terrorist from the 60’s and lied about the extent of his involvement, they’re not going to go far with this. Obama can point—as he has so many times before—to the fact that when Ayers committed his crimes Obama was indeed a small boy, halfway around the world, as well as the fact that Ayers is now a highly respected muckamuck in the education field.
All this is true, as far as it goes. The shocking thing is that Ayers has risen to this level, because:
Ayers is a school reformer in the same sense, as City Journal’s Sol Stern put it, as Joe Stalin was an agricultural reformer.
The unanswered question is how Ayers, with not only his “unrepentant” terrorist past but his far Leftist present agenda became an influential educator. Whatever the answer (and we have not gotten it yet), the evidence is clear that for many years Barack Obama was his confederate and supporter in that endeavor and has covered up that fact. The media is now assisting in that coverup, and the Republican Party is not hitting hard enough at the real issues that need to be uncovered.
Here’s the program, folks, in Ayers’s own words, spoken just two years ago in that oh-so-progressive country, Venezuela:
An idea of what Ayers has in mind for America’s schools was provided in his own words not 40 years ago when Obama was eight years old, but less than two years ago in November 2006 at the World Education Forum in Caracas hosted by dictator Hugo Chavez.
With Chavez at his side, Ayers voiced his support for “the political educational reforms under way here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution. . . . I look forward to seeing how . . . all of you continue to overcome the failures of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.”
Ayers told the great humanitarian Chavez: “Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions large and small. La educacion es revolucion.” It is that form of socialist revolution that Ayers, and Obama, have worked to bring to America.
We are seeing now the fruit of that program of transformation in an electorate that cannot—or will not—see what and who Obama is, or perhaps doesn’t much care. America’s educational system has already been heavily compromised by Ayers-like goals and methods. If you want to know what sort of education Ayers espouses—and has been advocating for many decades—read this excellent summary by Sol Stern.
Ayers’s philosophy can be encapsulated in the phrase “teaching for social justice.” One of his books, for example, is entitled Teaching for Social Justice. According to a review in Library Journal:
“Teaching for social justice” is teaching what one believes ought to be in terms of material arrangements for people in all spheres of society, i.e., reflective experiential responses leading to action.
It is edifying (in the strongest sense of the word) to take a look at the words of Maxine Greene in the book’s introduction:
Teaching for social justice is teaching what we believe ought to be. It is to teach so that the young may be awakened to the joy of working for transformation in the smallest places, so that they may become healers and change their worlds.
This was written back in 1998. I submit that it’s not a coincidence that it sounds like a campaign speech by none other than Barack Obama.
The truth about Ayers and Obama needs to get out, and we can’t rely on the media or even the McCain campaign to do it.
[NOTE: If you’re interested, you can take a look at Bill Ayers’s resume. Somehow the bombings have been left out, but I’ve highlighted the publications. This is a very successful movement in education that has been going on for decades, make no mistake about it.]
Did you read today’s WaPo article on Obama in Springfield. It’s a portrait of a man determined to reach his rightful position in life, come what may.
What kind of education reformer Obama is, you can see
in
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2ZkNWYwMTg5YmM0MGI3ZDQ3ZTY3NjRkMmIzMTEyOWQ=
Pingback:Roger L. Simon » Why the press hides Obama’s lies
I hear some interesting news from Kenya is on its way.
Although I concur with the McCain campaign highlighting the Ayres/Obama connection, I think that is the wrong issue to focus on.
It really is the economy.
McCain should be hammering away at how the Dems caused this mess and he and the GOP tried to stop it. Emphasis on Obama’s role in ACORN and how that was a critical role in the mess as well. He’s got to expose that, if the folks know that they’re voting the fox into the hen house, they might go for real change–McCain.
We are the hens after all…
Later
“Socialist” and “Socialism” are still effective bugaboos during a political campaign. Thrown about haphazardly, such accusations aren’t worth the time or effort. Aimed at worthy targets the accusations cease to be smears and become warnings. Ayers is a worthy target. Obama’s association with Ayers is a worthy target. Obama is a worthy target. See:
http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/10/web-archives-confirm-barack-obama-was.html
Pingback:Don’t let the psy-ops throw you - UPDATED | The Anchoress
McCain is starting just today to hammer the Fannie/Freddy connection hard.
Still, I think that Ayers, Wright, and the other radical connections are very important. It is this aspect of Obama that frightens me. They have been a big part of his life in the past; and there is certainly no assurance that the attitudes they represent are not part of his make-up now.
It is not just the cover up. It is not just poor judgement. It is that a man with an extensive history of radical associations and very little actual vetting is too big of a risk.
Pingback:Russian dolls
should Obama start talking about Liddy, who served four and a half years in prison as a result of his role in Watergate, plotted to murder journalist Jack Anderson and Howard Hunt and to firebomb the Brookings Institution, and who instructed radio audiences in the 1990s to shoot federal law enforcement agents and bragged that he named his own shooting targets after Bill and Hillary Clinton.
McCain and Liddy are buddies.
Or may be the association with the convict from Keating5?
How about anti-American party of Alaskan separatists.
Repub slime gets really desperate.
There is nothing left to talk about -economy, wars , etc….
Tater, yes the dems were in power all this years and caused it.
So who is to blame? There’s plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn’t fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn’t do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of “layered irresponsibility … with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role.” Here’s a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:
* The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
* Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
* Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
* Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
* The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
* Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
* Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
* Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
* The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
* An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
* Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
in other words-death of Reaganomics…
The cover up of the cover up? Get real. Or at the very least visit a fact checker.
Sashal,
Misdefining reagonomics is only a reflection on you not reagonomics.
Copy / pasting and adding an incorrect assessment is a reflection on you.
sashal: Liddy? Reaganomics?
Ahhh! For the good old days!
sergey
Recently a friend sent me an email called “questions,” asking things like: What if things were switched around, What if the Obamas had paraded five children across the stage, following the debate,including a three month-old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter?
What if John McCain was a former president of the Harvard Law Review? What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his college graduating class? What if McCain had only married once, and Obama was divorced? What if Obama had met his second wife in a bar and had a long affair while he was still married? What if Michelle Obama was the wife who not only became addicted to pain
killers but also acquired them illegally through her charitable organization?
The email goes on to ascribe the narrow gap between the two candidates to racism. But this is not just about racism, this is and has for a long time been a class war deliberately incited by the Republicans since the days of Reagan. , Joe Patterson, the founder of the NY Daily News, once wrote that “class feeling is always antagonistic to the interest of the whole people.” You would think that was a principle on which the United States was founded. We like to believe there are not such differences here, we’re all supposed to be equal.
But what we see, and what is clear from the last 3 elections, if not the last 30 years of politics, is certain Republicans deliberately and strategically manipulating public opinion against the educated, against the “elites” who have been successful in life while holding liberal values.
It’s not something you see in real conservatives. This is the strategy of a certain type of Republican. That strategy has won elections, but has caused a rift in this country that we can’t shake, that’s tearing us apart, weakening our military, and killing our economy.
Pitting race against race among the lower classes is an old story, a convenient way for the upper classes in the South to keep both groups divided and conquered after the Civil War. Pitting North against South has ruled national politics very long too. Pitting the working class against the “elites” and (I love this term) “limousine liberals” and all the other epithets they use to distance their opponents from “real” Americans has worked very well for these particular Republicans, and we are paying the price for it every day. Unfortunately, it’s exactly those working class folks who buy into this divisive mentality who are paying the most for it. And how many Democrats buy into this themselves, disparaging the working class and the South for “not getting it,” then seeming surprised when that plays right into the hands of those Republicans machinating a deeper, wider gap among the people they seek to rule. Many learned and wise conservatives have distanced themselves from the Republican political machine for this reason: they see what it’s doing to America, and they don’t like it either.
I don’t have a solution for it, except to call it what it is, to speak up against it, and to stop letting the post-Reagan Republicans frame these arguments, like the tactic of accusing Democrats of inciting a class war just because Obama wants to roll back taxes for the very rich, back to Reagan-era levels. That’s not class war. But Sarah Palin’s smear strategy is. Hearing people call out “kill him” and “terrorist” and “treason” during her speeches, bragging about her ignorance and lack of education; putting down those who have attended good schools (on a scholarship for godsakes), painting Obama as an elite, and now a Mystery Man, glorifying her isolationism; it’s as if she has never thought out the consequences of what she says. Even if the shouters are Republican plants, this is blatant incitement to crime. It’s no wonder McCain won’t say these things to Obama’s face.
Wow Sashal. Your hatred, sexism and racism on naked display.
Keep speaking ! But stop misdefining conservatives and saying what YOU think others believe in.
That’s a strawman tactic.
Pingback:If Truth Matters, so does Integrity! « Get Clued
baklava, you are not conservative, you are brainwashed duped team player- partisan.
And I was talking to sergey, who has more brains in his little finger, then you in your whole body…
Sure. Go ahead. In fact, please do.
There’s being in power and then there’s having enough votes to do something about it.
The short course in the financial crisis: affirmative action in lending coupled with Wall Street greed.
Good point. But what if McCain had admitted he’d been a crackhead? Think he’d get a skip on that one? That’s a good point too.
I simply was commenting. 🙂
You display what you do…
Keep defining yourself !
I will keep pointing out that you are misdefining Reagonomics and making other points. If you don’t want to have those points made… don’t do it! 🙂
Hot Air has the video of Obama’s response to the Ayers conection. It’s yada, yada, yada. Neo is right: McCain has to show why it’s relevant today.
What if things were switched around? What if McCain was once on the ticked of a far right-wing party? What if McCain was buddies with a guy who blew up his girlfriend and was responsible for hundreds of terrorist bombings? What if McCain was allied with someone who advocates VIOLENCE and TERRORISM as acceptable means to political ends? What if McCain had personally tried to extort banks to give loans to credit-poor people, and all these loans blew up our whole financial system? What if McCain was astroturfing blogs, trying to shut down radio stations, and sending Truth Squads to intimidate people into silence? What if he said one thing to one audience, then derided the same audiance as poor, stupid and ignorent because of their socioeconomic class in front of rich people? WHY? HOPE, CHANGE!!! YAY!
BUT IS TRIG REALLY PALIN’S BABY?
shorter Sashal:
“I, for one, welcome my new limousine liberal overlords, why can’t you? You stupid redneck bolsheviks.”
(Hmmmm, maybe he has a point–your can’t spell redneck without “red”. Is that really how simple he is?)
OH NO!!!! Someone’s questioning the One!
Obamabots! To the BotMobile!
Form of…Comment Troll!
sachal’s conflation of Bolshevism with American “rednecks” tells me that we have another stupid Leftist who knows not where the ideas come from nor the psychological origins of the emotions invested in the conflation process.
neo, we have an out-of-control diarrhea mouth spamming our threads now with junk that is supposed to pass for thought. I suppose there is a certain value in letting it vent its own dysfunctional emotions.
All of us here know who the Bolsheviks were and what the historical trajectory was going forward from their defeat of the other groups in Russia. sashal is trying to fob on to the unsuspecting a certain view on the Left that the Bolsheviks were not true Communists, but traitors to the Revolution. The myth is that Marxism has not worked because the wrong people were trying to create socialist societies – that the new revisionist Marxists know how to do it better and that those who oppose Marxism in all its forms are morally equivalent to the Bolsheviks.
That is the logic.
As a former Marxist intellectual I reject that myth root and branch.
Well, we have accepted the chinese curse and now live in interesting times. Brookes news has a wonderful insight to the left up.
Olavo de Carvalho’s lecture: The structure of the revolutionary mind
brookesnews.com/082209revolutionarymind.html
Even the best of observers have trouble figuring out what the Left is, or what the difference between left and right is, or what these concepts even mean any more. This apparent malleability of the definitions assigned to these critical concepts has provided cover for the Left to creep insidiously into our political process, our churches and synagogues, and not least, into our hearts and minds. But help is on the way.
as i said, they speak in code that is open and easy to learn. by doing so they can cause a parallelism of conversation where they are talking about their ends and the ones that are listening hear what htey want to hear, and the ones in the know hear the opposite in code.
Thus, obviously, the old left and the new left are different ideologically and many ordinary people are confused (particularly since an astounding percentage of Republican politicians embrace the Left’s policies). Some are confused into thinking that the new Left is more benign. These are the ones who believe the myth that communism is dead. In fact, communism never died, it merely metamorphosed. How to explain that the Left can completely substitute its original ideology and still be the Left?
Carvalho has hit the nail on the head with his “inversions”. the reviewer isnt educated enough (not meaning he is dumb, but he hasnt read so much of this to know where inversion as an idea is from).
i am curious to read this text later to know whether carvalho points out that the idea of inversion was from nietzsche… (this whole thing is a mish mosh of freud, darwin, nietsche, hegel, marx, engels, and a few others on the top rank, and then you can detail next generations after).
it stems from his ideas of “moral inversion”, but in the combinations of thoughts above, combines and takes it farther with an analysis of such and what one can do with it.
[if you can teach ten percent of the population inversionly (?), you can teach them that red means go, and green means stop. their natural actions in the world would destabilize a nation that allows one to do this.
things are going to get messy. i see the votor fraud by acorn being planned. that is that they never intended not to get caught. when the election happens, this will create a similar situation to hanging chads in florida. except this will no longer be divided on candidats, but on race and who is presumed to have privelege. if you look at it all through the glass of history, you can see that they side with jim crow. they then create southern racism through subversion (they were arrested for this). this ‘fact’ becomes common knowlege. they then switch sides, and smear the other side with the broken window they created. now you have a situation where it may be bad enough the way its set up if he loses. but if he wins, and the courts take it away from him because of ACORN, there will be nuts in the streets. what is potentially being set up is a coupe. the stuff will get crazy, and nothing will halt it. obama then calms the masses with his words, everyone sides with him. classic coupe. funny thing about history though, the ability does not dictate its end. just because something is set up that way, doesnt mean that it will flow that way at all. to beleive so is to become paranoid, which i see people doing.
there was an incident in home depot the other nite a friend was telling me. they were standing there talking with an employee to get what they needed. when someone came in and yelled something like (i wasnt there, so take it with a grain of salt! i trust the person that told it, but still take it with a grain of salt), “just wait… just wait… in a few more weeks, we are going to throw all your asses out and take this place”. he then turned and left.
so at the very least on some level the fruitbat set is quite ready to not exactly play by the rules.
anyway… back to Carvalho.
so from inverting the virtues into sins, and the sins into virtues, the population becomes destabilized as those who accept one side as goodness square off against those who accept the other side as goodness.
carvalho assigns the youth thing to be a cover of a sort, but in truth it has to do with that AND the fact that disociated youth with no familes or raised just by mothers will accept an inverted definition of the virtues, as the situation is also born of such inversion. (the inversions go pretty far, not just good is now evil and evil is now good, but men are to be women and women are to be men, rich are to be poor the poor are to be rich, whites are to be the slaves while other races are to be lords, etc. note that the inversions are only for the usurption of power, the groups who accept the inversion and fight for it are faulty as far as the new regime believes. they never get to have the end inverted utopia. to the people using them they are dysgenic
According to de Carvalho, revolutionary thought as we know it did not exist before about the 13th century; nor is it a function of chronological age. The myth that the young tend to be revolutionaries arises from the Left itself and serves the purpose of making the Revolution appear to be a natural phenomenon. Instead, this revolutionary inversion has its origins in an early Christian heresy (arrogating to itself the role of Christ the avenger) and has at least three aspects:
1. Inversion of the perception of time.
2. The inversion of morality
3. Inversion of subject and object
there are paragraphs for each, though the last one is most interesting… after the text the reviewer notes that he points out other inversions. however if you know the texts going back, you would already know this stuff…
When revolutionaries like Che, and Hitler’s operatives, for example, killed innocent people, they would blame the people they killed for “making” them do it by refusing to go along with their revolutionary notions. This is one example the author gives of the inversion of subject and object.
so it will be no consequence what will happen… we are watching how a mass murdering regime is created out of normal happy people.
it took the schools, the unions, the colleges, the psychology profession, etc… each doing their part… while we sat learned it, and didnt question if those values were right, because these experts told us (like adorno). but they were abusing a normal society built on merit and trust. we couldnt protect ourselves unless we maintained our morals, and were paranoid as to the ends of the change. normal isnt paranoid… now we are quite paranoid compared to the past… i would say schizo, split mind… accepting contractictions as normal.
got to go.. i hope this wasnt too long…
The telos of socialism is completely defective and in error. By “telos” I mean the logical conclusion of the thoughts and ideas: the end game. The telos of socialist thought it Utopia. It is impossible and not compatible with human nature and with the very material basis of the universe itself. Even the spiritual basis of all that exists contains a cosmic struggle between the Creator and the Evil One. That cosmological/spiritual struggle and drama spills over into the material realm. Evil has an organic basis. There are flaws in our very nature and right down to the genetic code and its protein layers that will never be obviated by socialism. There are people who are literally born sociopaths and whose destructive influence spreads out like ripples on a lake after they violently strike the water with their weight.
The neurological and psychological adjustments which human beings would have to make in order to make socialism compatible with human nature are daunting, formidable, and impossible.
Arfldgr,
It all sounds like a new hybrid of deconstructionism and revisionist Marxism, where the correspondence theory of truth is completely trashed. They pretend that you make your own reality. Truth becomes a construct of power.
The destructiveness of such a degradation of thought is incalculable.
FredHjr,
Maybe your right. i dont know. all i know is what it is without a name. the fact that this all is a form of social darwinism they apply such ideas to the population, but also to the concept or idea of this thing they are creating. which is ultimately a totalitarian state, as they believe that that is what would be needed to acheive world socialism. the idea that good governance would come after they get the property to mold it as they wish.
if i was to abstract what you say, i guess it would match my speech on ‘personal versions’ of things. which is close to what your saying about the idea that one can construct ones reality. in the personal versions thing they do that, but they also belong because their personal version is a subset of the first order version.
feminism is the first order version, even women are subordinate to it. notice with palen and greer and others, she is not a woman. feminism now IS woman, more than women are. since gender allows for fluidity of sex, they can claim that palin is not a real woman, she is really a man in gender and unaware that she is a man in a womans body. hence, she is not a woman if she is outside the set of feminism.
the personal versions allow everyone that is outside the first order definition, to still be a part of that defintion (as palin has claimed she is a feminist), however their definition (the personal) does not include the noxious things of their feminism. however to everyone they are all a perceived group of the first order, to which the first order group gets to dictate that power. in this way, they speek for all women, they are all women. anyone that disagrees must be a gender male…
is it any wonder that in their desire to be included in the club that would not have them? they have not questioned whether they would actually want to be a member. Inclusion and Ostracisation plays on our survival instinct for humans are too weak to make it alone easily. but together they are a massive power.
the trick this system has figured is how to assemble people who are not together under one banner to fight in opposition of what they want under a false belief of some fantasy. (and blame them for the outcomes providing them with restful sleep in case they are not fully sociopathic).
The colors of a rainbow…..so pretty ..in the sky
Are also on the faces…..of people ..going by
I see friends shaking hands…..sayin.. how do you do
Theyre really sayin……i love you.
I hear babies cry…… I watch them grow
Theyll learn much more…..than Ill never know
And I think to myself …..what a wonderful world
Was he born in Kenya and came over as a tiny baby? Has he ever released his transcripts from Columbia?
Communism was never defeated on the battlefield like Nazism and Fascism were.
Leftists ask “what has war ever solved”. Well, war solved the question for all time of whether fascism and Nazism were evil. THere was no war to resolve that issue concerning communism, however.
Who is running the U of Chicago, inmates from the local mental institution?
Here’s a comment I posted somewhere else last night:
Forget William Ayers. The McCain campaign needs to make Acorn the central issue. It brings everything together:
1. Acorn is closely linked to the subprime mortgage fiasco. They would picket banks who they felt didn’t make enough subprime loans and intimidate them with charges of racism.
2. Obama has a long-standing relationship with Acorn. He used to be their attorney.
3. Acorn has a long history of involvement with phony registrations and voter fraud.
If we can familiarize the public with Acorn’s sordid history before the election, we may be able to short-circuit their inevitable charges of “stolen election” should McCain win by a narrow margin.
Acorn is making itself known very well lately… lots of voter fraud, etc… worst case is if he wins and they take it away because of acorns games… (as detailed above)
Great article – I made the exact same point on my blog yesterday.
here is an interesting video.
what i liked is rea gans speech.
tiny url dot com slash 4g4agj
here is an interesting piece where a person in his radio show went to upper manhattan and switched points of each candidate including who is running as vice president.
tiny url dot com slash 5yo3h7
The example of the US has shown that the move from self-regulating capitalism to financial socialism is only one step. – Medvedev
and iceland moves into russias sphere… there are no capitalist countries, all are a little socialist to a lot socialist…
did i mention the war with syria brewing? or is anyone noticing?
Where have you all been these past several years when the Republicans told us and our own children proved, along with the exchange students who don’t come to America as their first choice anymore, that American University Education has been taken over by the left.
Ayers philosophy is alive and well and being fed to students in the inner city.
Sashal, is the Palin family really that distasteful to you? What happened to all that lib tolerance? LOL. If you want to turn things upside down, try and imagine the left’s reaction if McCain had started his campaign in the living room of an admitted abortion clinic bomber.
Obama = The Red Wedgie
And I mean “Red” in its true sense.
There’s another inversion for ya: the Red states calling themselves Blue.
The smaller party calling itself the Bolsheviks and their opponents the Mensheviks.
On Broadway: The Wicked Witch of the West is now the “victim” of Glinda the Good– Broadway’s Wicked.
And on it rolls. We’re gonna need another American Revolution before we’re done.
Sashal, class differencies are real and legitimate weapon of political struggle. Culture war was not fabricated by republicans, it was launched by leftist in 6o-s with explicit aim to disrupt the society and abolish long-held traditions. Conservatives are those who understand that freedom and equality of outcome are incompatible and prefer freedom. This is the main divide, and it will exist, this choice need to be made, no reconsilation of socialism and liberty is possible.
Orwell wrote that he never feared dictatorship of proletariat because such thing is not possible. What he really feared was dictatorship of intelligentia, because exactly this class is most fallible for totalitarian temptation, it can subdue society trying to achieve utopian goals. This already happened in Europe, and now we must hope for popular and populist movement to rebel against this yoke.
Distaste for intellectualism among conservatives is not a political tactic, this is an integral part of conservative worldview. Society is too complex for intellectual understanding and prediction, or for tinkering with it by social engineering. So we must cling to tradition, common sense and moral principles and values as more reliable tools to guide our political behavior.
I love the inversions thoughts. They have been happening right in front of our eyes. Slowly, what is not now upside down, is inside out. The party of the high school educated (or less) union or service worker is now the party of the educated elite? Humor!
Wow, some of you geniuses have caught on to us! Yes, after the nationalization of the banks with the help of the current Republican administration no less — then Obama takes over and he will control the economy — oh, I think you may have heard the phrase, no one may buy or sell without prior approval. Probably a stamp of some sort to do so. Then, if you hadn’t noticed, Biden is about as old as McCain, so it won’t be so surprising when Biden has to step down, and Ayers becomes Vice President with a special education agenda just for the children. Then Obama will appoint a special office for the former Rev. Wright who will be the minister of Truth using the public airwaves to nightly sermonize and “go%dam& America” if you will. And rather than shut down Gitmo, “O” (or ThatOne) will free the terror suspects and prominent conservatives will be “detained” indefinitely under the supervision of commandant Michael Moore, who will torture them by playing his movies non-stop and eating 5 course meals in front of them while they starve. But they will at least have reading material: the Koran and the Communist Manifesto (sorry no English translations available). Ann Coulter will become the National Prostitute. The Ronald Reagan Library will become the Saddam Hussien Library. Obama will soon declare himself God, and then no one will be able to look upon him, although you will be able to listen to his melodious voice over loudspeakers placed every square mile.
But it’s not going to be all bad. Your first born won’t get the mandatory abortion, although you will have to give them a middle name of Obama. And you will all get to have at least one gay marriage to the same sex partner of your choice.
I would have told you all earlier, but why spoil the fun! Best wishes, and so long.
sergey, thank you for your reply
Daniel Larison, i really recommend.
And don’t forget his past works.
I am sure you will like the guy.
I am not sure you are correct about culture war started by the left, but even if that was so.
Anti-intellectualism is bad and dangerous.
We, the immigrants from the socialist east almost all went through this, when we arrived here we embraced seemingly completely opposite. And the more to the right of where we were the better.
That’s why the majority of Russians embrace GOP initially.
It did not take me long to see, that this is not the party of liberalism, the way you and me understand it-.
The republican party is gravely sick with the cancer on neoconservatism metastasized from the totalitarian/ authoritarian brain farts of Trotskyism.
No, anti-intellectualism and culture wars, smears and lies of the GOP is not an answer and dangerous to survival of our new Rodina.
btw, NRO, used to be great conservative magazine when Buckley was in charge, not when mamma’s boy idiot Goldberg turned it into neocon cesspool.
Conservatives, by definition, are against progress. And seeing as how the world keeps moving forward, opposing process is just a stupid position to take. Liberals are more modern and forward thinking, but that doesn’t mean every one of their ideas is perfect. So the only reasonable role for a conservative is as an opposition minority, a group to ask questions and sometimes apply the brakes to liberal policies.
When cons try to actually take over, it’s like using a screwdriver to hammer in nails. Wrong tool for the job, and that’s a simple explanation for how we got in this mess.
For me it does not matter, which party embraces liberalism, the real one or will be closer to it- republicans or democrats. I will be with them.
Right now, in my view, Obama will be pragmatic, centrist, may be slightly left of center ( I bet many on the far left will be dissappointed), but not the guy depicted in lies and smears of NRO.
Right now I think GOP is dangerously unhinged and invokes/incites all the feelings in anti-intellectual crowds of the Wiemar republic.
Dangerous times, sergey, and neocons are largely responsible for this..
talk to you later….
yes, Logern
This election really is a classic battle between fear and hope. All Palin and McCain are offering right now is more fear: fear of a black man, fear of terrorism, fear of the other, fear of Iran, fear of the future, fear of Islam, fear of the truth. And above all: fear of defeat. On that last one, they’re rational.
btw, sergey about Obama, again, the way I see it.
He’s taken plenty of liberal(real) positions. What he hasn’t done is taken any really leftist position. Big difference in my book.
The folks who insist that Obama is some kind “socialist” are hysterical.
All anyone needs to do to understand how ridiculous this is, is to talk to an actual socialist.
Obama will governs as a centrist, and that’s good.
Ayers?
fughedaboudit.
The cover up of the cover up over the cover up, literally, has to do with Obama’s tattoo.
Yes, Obama not only has a tattoo, but a big fat head and shoulders portrait of Mao Zedong.
And cover up of cover up of cover ups indeed, it’s RIGHT THERE ON HIS FOREHEAD.
The only reason the satanic mainstream media has not reported it is that, in order to see this tattoo, you have to attend Sarah Palin’s church on a Wednesday night when the hold the special revival meeting.
I pray for our nation!
sashal, the Weimar Republic? You are surprised that the people turned on the intellectual elite – the elite that impoverished an entire population through unimaginable hyperinflation. You are obviously difficult to rile up.
shashal wrote:
This isn’t true at all!
Conservatives believe in internally driven change and progress. That the intrinsic progress is made by each individual. It starts with each individual upbringing and experience. Thus progress is evolutionary.
Conservatives view liberals as those seeking to impose change from government and or social engineering. Thus conservatives reject the idea of revolutionary changes from those empowered
I never endorsed anti-intellectualism, only caution to arrogance of intellectuals, to their widespread and dangerous conviction that they can understand non-understandable things. Neo-conservatives never were so influential in GOP or government policy as widely believed, this is scarecrow; and only a few of those who are neo-conservatives ever were Trotskites. And I do belong to neo-cons either. My position is traditional to 19-century Russian culture, as described below:
“Liberalism in the name of autocracy was a specific Russian variant of European conservatism. Not exactly an ideology, it was more of attitude toward history and the state. Following nineteenth-century historian Nicolai Karamzin (and his precursor Edmund Burke), conservatives believed that tradition, the residue of historical epochs as revealed in national institutions, was a valubale force for stability. (Reactionaries, by contrast, held to tradition for its own sake.) When adherence to all traditions threatened the stability of society, conservatives embraced gradual reform to adapt to change from within the framework of historical tradition. The prerogative of selecting among different traditions was tremendously liberating to conservatives, who could reject even the most venerated of Russian social institutions, such as the nobility, in order to uphold autocracy. Autocracy itself was not negotiable: It was the most characteristic Russian national tradition, and it served as the instrument of gradual reform. Thus the functions, values, and structures the state had accumulated through historical acretion were the features that made those institutions worth preserving. This political position bears more than accidental relation to common understanding of scientific method.”
Pingback:The Obamafile « I Think ^(Link) Therefore I Err
“And seeing as how the world keeps moving forward”
Forward to what? In my view, it moves back to USSR, Europe at least, every year losing one freedom after another to centralized European bureaucracy and to Muslim menace, to Orwell’s 1984. Not every change is a progress, it can be a devolution or decadance.
I disagree with your thought that discussing Ayers’ history as a Weatherman is irrelevant. To whom and why? Who creates/determines the “irrelevancy”?
Obama’s association with Ayers is street cred in the eyes of the radicalized intelligentsia (including the media) and its neophytes. Not making an issue of it keeps the average citizen uninformed; in fact, it reinforces the street cred by telling the citizen associations with radicals are not important. We must break through the the left controlled media and undermine Obama’s street credentials and demonstrate the danger.
The media agenda determines the relevancy of an issue: Obama and Ayers is irrelevant; Palin and her pat association are relevant, as are McCain’s. C’mon, stop playing by the dominant ideology’s rules. You must be prepared to counter the media and promote the truth.
I think therein lies the problem: the internalized liberal/leftwing default position.
Pingback:Obama/Ayers, 4 | curtis schweitzer (dot) net
Suggestion for neoneocon: turn off Fox news and Limbaugh. It’s not really a news station and he is a blowhard. I know this is going to take time to sink in but EVERYTHING you thought was true is a lie. Sorry.
Now I see the light, troutsky, for you have spoken. I will replace my utter dependence on the word of the great Rush Limbaugh, to whom I virtually never listen, with dependence on the word of the great troutsky, repository of truth.
For all the moral equivalence arguments liberals love to make, conservatives dont have political connections with domestic terrorists. To start with, we dont give people like Timothy McVey and Eric Rudolf university tenureship, then pretend they’re doing great work for America. That liberals have no problem understanding that there’s a difference, or pretend it’s really not an issue says an awful lot about their sense of honesty and moral integrity.
Having said all that, highlighting the Obama/Ayres connection is a case of too little too late. McCain (and the RNC) should have highlighted Obama/Ayers connection earlier on. Now it is being looked on (and promoted in the press) as the act of desperation it is.
Of course, McCain is known to have fraternized with known communist agents of N. Vietnam when we were at war with them in the 1970s. True, he was a prisoner of war at the time, but still…
Sashal, Conservatives, by definition, are against progress.
Your blowing smoke out your pie hole. You didn’t learn anything from the inversions did you? Conservatives and capitalism are about progress; new left and socialism are about stagnation and maintaining a fixed social order.
We have to stop all energy from increasing… is that a progress policy, or is that a stagnation policy?
We have too many people, we have to have less… is that a progress policy, o is that a stagnation policy (note that it takes a certain amount of population in order to have economy of scale to progress further. If the us had only 10 million people, the space program wouldn’t be possible).
Global warming, from the left libertarian green party (nazi party, look it up), says that we should attempt to flatten the fluctuations of weather and must stop all progress to save the world… (even though its all a hoax, and the sun controls this. ergy the cooling for the past decade and the lack of sunspots for a new recent record. We may have a small ice age from it)
Conservation of endangeres species. If these people lived during the dinosaurs, would they have attempted to stagnate everything so that mammals couldn’t develop? Basically another stagnation plan. We cant develop or do anything because we have to preserve in perpetuity the conditions that then stagnate Darwinian development of species.
Is that a recipe for progress, or regress?
See, regression is now progress…. that inversion was done 40 years ago.
to tie back to when i first got here..
sashal is a brain dead leftist who cant think or examine whats in front of them.
we went from a conservative world that gave you the rennaisaance, the enlightenment, the reformation, classical music, uplifting modes of art, poetry and literature unmatched till today. the greatest rise in the personal power of the person and through that the withering of the control of the state (even that was more progress toward the end of the state, than socilism is, which pretends that that is the goal, a la marx).
conservativism, made the system that created the computer your using.. the job you have rather than picking rocks out of a field when plowing.. the fact that you will live longer than 30… (but if in russia your death expectancy is 30 years lower than ours).
ALL that through conservativism, free market, judeo christian thought, etc.
since socialism has been bleeding gas from the system for the type of greed that doesnt work for it (while hating the kind of greed that earns it), its productivity has gone down.
when conservatives were dominant, we went to the moon… now our hubble is coming down, we dont have a shuttle fleet… etc.
since the left has taken hold.. russian culture hasnt produced a damn thing of worth… remember dostoyevsky was anticommunist… but revisioned so that even he was inverted… but tell me who since before the revolution has written such great things?
in europe, the acceptance of socialism meant a regression… just before it arrived, brahms was a hit… by the time it got older, arbeit mach free was the thing
and in the US… you can look…
james fenimore cooper, mark twain, and tons others…
replaced by socialist realism…
dead and nihilistic… no more celebration of life, man, merit, and more… no we get amorphous blobs.. just as the soviets designed.
you should take some time and look at the photos of the old great buildings that stalin destroyed. and look at the ugly things that replaced them…
and while people were starving, how much did he put into a building that could never be compl;eted?
imagine if we didnt stop the space program for socialist communist programs? failure to go into space meant failure to green our technology, give disposal to nuclear material, and more…
stopping it was progress, right?
halting medicine, like lysenko is progress right?
deconstructing the 10k progress of culture so that people dont know how to even rear their kids anymore… thats progress…
indoctrinating children to have sex, so that STDs reduce population, thats progress?
disguising a racial eugenics program as a social good in abortion, that is progress..
hey… right now women in russia are having more abortions than babies…
they hate the progress so much they would rather not have children!!!!!!!
i guess that will leave the country to the socialist overlords… who are willing to stagnate everything in exchange for owning everyting and reasserting feudal rule.
got that? FEUDAL RULE…
or whta do you think you have in russia?
also the danger in ayers and the other associates is that the president can eleveate and create cabinet positions for them.
duh
sergey Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 3:38 am
“Distaste for intellectualism among conservatives is not a political tactic, this is an integral part of conservative worldview. Society is too complex for intellectual understanding and prediction, or for tinkering with it by social engineering. So we must cling to tradition, common sense and moral principles and values as more reliable tools to guide our political behavior.”
Or, you could say our intellectuals write that about the social and economic spheres. Too many variables exist for central planning to work better than systems created via countless individual decisions over hundreds of years (either resulting in ‘culture’ or economic systems). A few pin heads in a brain trust can’t out perform it. 🙂
So Ayers is an influential educator. If anyone has ever taken an education course, you now that these courses and departments are highly irrelevant, even to teachers. They snooze through them to get or retain “certification.” Yes, ex-radicals dominate the campuses because it was easy for them to take them over. Same thing with the MSM. If conservatives want this to stop, they need to start taking the low-paying jobs at newspapers and get into academia. Believe me, most newsroom editors/publishers treat conservatives like a minority. They want some in their newsrooms the same way they want blacks and asians and latinos. They really do. That won’t change the bulk of their coverage, but at the papers I worked out, the rare conservative was treated like an endangered species.
My problem with Ayers/Wright, etc al. is that Obama has addressed this in the same way he addressed Rev. Wright, etc. He lies and evades. The MSM goes along or makes excuses. Why? Because these were the professors they took in college. I know this because that’s what I did. I majored in “History” at Duke. I don’t know shit about history because studying history at Duke meant taking all the cool, left-wing professors who got drunk and high with you and slept with the girls you wanted to sleep with. Their classes were not about history, but about the Revolution!
First, I applaud this focus on Ayers. Continue to hone in this connection, encourage others to do the same, and Obama will surely capture the Presidency.
Second:
“Teaching for social justice is teaching what we believe ought to be. It is to teach so that the young may be awakened to the joy of working for transformation in the smallest places, so that they may become healers and change their worlds.”
I suppose this is considered a damning indictment of the book from its very pages, but the right should be willing to admit that they regard education in the same manner. That is why they prefer books that extol American exceptionalism, and downplay or ignore the struggle of lower classes. You don’t disagree with the concept education as propaganda; you disagree with the message.
…so that they may become healers and change their worlds.”
Well, you may call it propaganda or you may call it indoctrination – we used to call it Education. Everyone wants to mold children into good citizens. We simply disagree on what constitutes good citizenship. So yes, it is actually the message currently being fed to our children by leftist educators that we object to. .
What’s your point? Conservatives are such hypocrites? We were all fine with school when they taught kids to say the Pledge of Allegiance and hate commies? Now that the tables have turned, we suddenly have a problem with “indoctrination?” That’s really a flimsy argument. Only disillusioned teen-agers accuse people of hypocrisy and mean it; the rest simply employ it as a rhetorical weapon when they can’t come up with a real point.
Here’s the facts: You want Utopia; we prefer the real world. This makes us ideological enemies, and granting your enemy equal time to express his side of the story is simply bad tactics. People who really want to win don’t give a damn about freedom of speech. The important thing is to look like you value freedom of speech while convincing people that your opponent is a Constitution-burning fascist. I think everybody secretly understands this, but it’s bad form for Americans to to acknowledge it out loud. We’re supposed to play by the rules. Well, here’s some news: the rules are whatever the bastards can get away with.
Joel:
“Of course, McCain is known to have fraternized with known communist agents of N. Vietnam when we were at war with them in the 1970s.”
This would be funny if it werent for the fact that it wasnt actually used as a bizzare example of moral equivilence.
Xan:
“That is why they (conservatives) prefer books that extol American exceptionalism, and downplay or ignore the struggle of lower classes.”
Whats this? American exceptionalism is about oppressing the “lower classes”? American exceptionalism is about people being able to lift themselves and improve their own condition, not wait for the new aristocracy to determine who advances (if they do), when and how. American exceptionalism works and should be promoted. Not the Obama/Ayers blatant ideological agenda.
As for Bugs:
Who is it in the McCain/Palin that is demanding that the Pledge of Allegiance or “hatred of commies” become part of school curriculum? Who is it that demanded or even defined utopia?
What makes us ideological enemies is your refusal to make an honest argument. Try doing that for a change. That might be more rewarding.
Clarification:
Who is it in the McCain/Palin campaign
sheesh!
Whats this? American exceptionalism is about oppressing the “lower classes”?
You read that incorrectly. I’m talking about them separately.
What’s your point? Conservatives are such hypocrites? We were all fine with school when they taught kids to say the Pledge of Allegiance and hate commies? Now that the tables have turned, we suddenly have a problem with “indoctrination?” That’s really a flimsy argument. Only disillusioned teen-agers accuse people of hypocrisy and mean it; the rest simply employ it as a rhetorical weapon when they can’t come up with a real point.
Actually, I don’t give a rat’s ass about hypocrisy. If anything I’m making the same point that you are, that the only thing people on the right are mad about when they read about the horrors of “social justice” being taught in textbooks is that they might lose control of education, and thus control of history and doctrine. If anything making such a point is clarifying the argument, for those who perhaps don’t quite get that.
Here’s the facts: You want Utopia; we prefer the real world. This makes us ideological enemies, and granting your enemy equal time to express his side of the story is simply bad tactics.
At least your honest. If anything I wish conservatives would be more honest with Americans about the fact that they believe that education is and should serve to indoctrinate children. Whatever you think about the purpose of education, I’m not sure how many Americans feel the same way.
Xan:
“If anything I wish conservatives would be more honest with Americans about the fact that they believe that education is and should serve to indoctrinate children.”
Maybe you can explain how. In all the mind ray transmissions I have received by Doktor Rove, the indoctrination of school children has yet to me mentioned.
Again with the strawmen and false arguments. And you wonder why the discourse is so poor.
You know, instead of liberals like yourself telling us what agenda we conservatives have for the public school system, why dont I take a crack at it?
Money going to the schools is a good thing. It should be judiciously spent and have relevant outcomes. Public money should be spent on relevant education. You know, the stuff they’re really going to need to succeed in society regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, social and economic background or what their parents political leanings are. Let us leave religion or political agenda out of it and relegate them to classes they can take when they have enough maturity to grasp those concepts, not having them force-fed them from kindergarten.
Make their schools safe. Make their lunches nutritious and affordable. These kind of things.
This is, at least, my agenda for the school system.
Now, what in the world is wrong with that?
they get angry at “social justice” because they understand what the LEADERS mean by it, not what the plebs below think it is.
go that?
xan, others, explain in a few sentences the outcome of the premise of social justice.
i will bet that you dont know what it is, but are guessing from the name, which is the SAME mistake made with critical theory.
the game that is played (among others) is a game in which the prols are too stupid to get, because the prols are too lazy. (if they werent lazy, they would never accept the argument of socialism, like our forefathers they would refuse charity!)
take this fun quote…
It is fundamental to Catholic social teaching, and is one of the Four Pillars of the Green Party upheld by the worldwide green parties.
actually, it no more fundemental to Catholic Social Teaching than Liberation Theology is.
however, note who upholds it.. do a google search on libertarian green party… you will see the libertarian national socialilst green party… green nazies… the nazis became the green party… the life rune inverted is the peace sign…
its not the premises that have the poison, its how the premises come to flower to a reasoning that is inane.
the UK has socialist medicine, that presumes the states pay for medical care, which then presumes that the state has a right to control and limit costs, which then leads to rationing, and denial of care… which ALSO now leads to the state forbidding homeowners from protecting themselves or their property because the criminals may get seriously hurt and that would be a large expense for the state.
the premise of social justice sounds great… but what does that lead to that leads to what that leads on?
well, you see, conservatives think like that. they dont just look at a pretty wrapper and say.. woah, shiny dude… i want that… but thats what emotion based reasoning of the left does (and i am refering to the prols not the sociopathic leaders who know this game the way many here do but choose to act on that knowlege and execute the game).
there is no way to emotionally get from the first order premise to the results… so everything is sold on the first order… or end part.. we are workign for utopia.. how? i dont know… we want social justice… what does it mean? i dont know… but both sound good, and that makes you feel great.
note i havent said what social justice is yet. i wan you to tell us.
i WILL tell you the main outcome.
ALL progress must halt. because all fruits of progress are not available to everyone at the same time equally.
in other words, the minute you invent a drug, the stae and society incures a HUGE social justice expense since that drug is not available to everyone equally, like air. (though in fact under social justice, even air is not avaliable equally).
so this means that in order to have equality in air, one must treat people unequally…
and in order not to incure huge social justice cost, no one will be allowed to market a new product till such a time that everhyone can equally have it.
make a cell phone, nope… everyone cant have it.
its the subprime thing writ large..
but hey… you guys would rather call us funny names than recognize that your only argument on anything is funny names, or blind assertions, or just plain agitprop….
if you were as smart as you think you are, or as they told you you were (for being on the left. ego stroking and love bombing is common), so smart… you think that you woud be smart enough to realize that a person with no knowlege, or smarts, doesnt argue that way… its basically pacifist thuggism… i wont beat you up with my fists, but i will beat you up with my mouth…
really smart people dont get that personal on that, and they form cogent arguments that are greater than the sum of jingles and what amounts to political product tag lines.
vote for obama, for change…
new improved change, gets clothes whiter…
so many on the left sound like the people in that movie where they say… drink gatorade, its got electrolytes… and waht are electrolytes? they are whats in gatorade… etc..
At least your honest. If anything I wish conservatives would be more honest with Americans about the fact that they believe that education is and should serve to indoctrinate children. Whatever you think about the purpose of education, I’m not sure how many Americans feel the same way.
actually, conservatives do not believe in centralized school system… and you need a centralized school system to endoctrinate… otherwise, all the tiny different ones that you can choose from, will all teach something different.
so your backwards.. you are ascribing to the conservatives, the target point of communism/socialism/the left for the past 80 or so years. it was the communist teachers UNION in the 40s that voted to indoctrinate rather than teach.. it was the communist spy dewey that constructed the centralized school system and modeled it after the german schools and communist schools (particularly hungary, lukacks, etc). it took democrats to get the national guard to force parents to have their kids attend the schools rather than the ones that they had.
but your INVERTED… you think that the things you dont like come from the right… the specific example you gave comes from the left… why do you think we now have KINDERGARTEN… kinder is german for child, and garten is german for garden… a child garden…
you have no idea where the thougts you hold come from.. you cant tell me how you know the indoctrinate children rap comes from…
by the way… the conservatives only wanted to teach mathematics, writing, reading… history as facts (not revisionist, which is indoctrination, and was invented by stalin, the left again), business principals, rhetoric, etc.
the principals that are warped and such that you like come from the right… and the left which doesnt have them, pretends to wear them like a t shirt…
the right as you put it does not hold the end justifies the means as a doctrine. there is no utopia to justify indoctrination… the right is about individual freedom… a government too small and weak to control the people (and so cant force indoctrination), a people who are free to think what they want, including thinking they dont like something…
this is why the left has gotten so far… if you were in a leftist communist state, you would have been killed for your protesting… like the students a week after tianeman… but in america, where at the time the right ruled, and followed the rules of that document the left says is waste paper, and so let everyone have freedome of speech. politically correct stuff, and hate speech laws and things are the left… thats indoctrination, that is totalitarian control…
controlling what you think with the threat of the force of the state at you. that makes you a slave of the state, and you gleefully think that thats not indoctrination and think that it comes from the right.
you have no idea… you havent read a damn thing about it… all you know is that you think that the things they did teach you is everything. and like tons of others they come a strutting like roosters to try their mettle. but what happens is that they are like tiny women told by some bad karate instructor, that they can take on a bunch of big guys… they step out, and they have these same altercations over and over…
and its always the same because they are collectiviests… they think with the group mind, and so cant be original. originality comes from the uniquness of the individual, and hte left is against the individual.
do you want quotes.
time to go hit the books and learn.
they keep coming to gun fights armed with the pea shooters their indoctrinators gave them.
by the way… ‘change agent’ is not a term from the right…
forgot to mention.. kindergarten was a way to facilitate breaking down of the family and the change of culture. normally kids didnt go to kindergarten, they stayed with their mothers, and their mothers insured that they got a good set of values and such as they REARED them before turning them over to the schools.
however, since communism wishes to indoctrinate to make the new sociualist man, dewey adopted this to facilitate kenins famous quote.
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted. – lenin
it also helped facilitate free love, no fault divorce, and the destruction of the family through creating a false hegelian division between the sexes, and then having them fight a battle that was perpetual. for if either side ever did win, the race would end. lenin started this stuff off in 1918… and their state is where we are headed soon (except for we have immigration), because we took on the same plan 40 years later… (and its about the same amount of time too).
with the new kindergarten (and later first start), mom would be able to leave the house faster. this facilitates lots of other things too…
but remember, we dont care about end results, and we will invent incredible means to say why it wont happen, which is why we have to take this horrible trip… (in russia there are now more abortions than births, population is plummeting at a rate that there will be very few of them by 2050. their life expectancy is now down to 56)
anyway.. once the mothers were given the itch by feminist women that started womens magazines to be able to feed their view as the only view to them. (they even got in bed with big tobacco, and big alchohol because fashion a power base didnt like unisex. eventually fashion was a compromise because it gave them more power, which is why there is that contradiction)
this was a leftist view… and one that as the leaders who own the magazine have said, was for the purpose of a communist state to free all women.
but back to kindergarten… that was done and sex education intruduced to copy the hungary schools. by doing so, morals were no longer something that a parent could teach. the earlier the education, the more it fould the morals earler, and leads to the inversion of sex under love to sex as perversion.
all this kind of stuff is under the form of cultural marxism. and the subject is way too big for me to go on more about… in deference to our blog owner.
Cultural Marxism
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/cultural_marxism.html
Both communism and the New Left are alive and thriving here in America. They favor code words: tolerance, social justice, economic justice, peace, reproductive rights, sex education and safe sex, safe schools, inclusion, diversity, and sensitivity. All together, this is Cultural Marxism disguised as multiculturalism.
and is it the right indoctrinating kids with those things having nothing to do with learning how to read, write, etc?
In anticipation of the revolutionary storm that would baptize the world in an inferno of red terror, leading to its rebirth as the promised land of social justice and proletarian equality-Frederich Engels wrote,
“All the…large and small nationalities are destined to perish…in the revolutionary world storm… (A general war will) wipe out all…nations, down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only reactionary classes…but…reactionary peoples.” (“The Magyar Struggle,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Jan. 13, 1849)
we are now entering that war… but we dont see it yet… what got us out of the last depression? who has been gearing up their military?
if socialism writ big in america is communism, as the left denies, then what you will have is someone like stalin or hitler with the power of the US military.
are you ready for the fight that will ensue?
In 1919, Georg Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary. He immediately set plans in motion to de-Christianize Hungary. Reasoning that if Christian sexual ethics could be undermined among children, then both the hated patriarchal family and the Church would be dealt a crippling blow. Lukacs launched a radical sex education program in the schools. Sex lectures were organized and literature handed out which graphically instructed youth in free love (promiscuity) and sexual intercourse while simultaneously encouraging them to deride and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority. All of this was accompanied by a reign of cultural terror perpetrated against parents, priests, and dissenters.
Hungary’s youth, having been fed a steady diet of values-neutral (atheism) and radical sex education while simultaneously encouraged to rebel against all authority, easily turned into delinquents ranging from bullies and petty thieves to sex predators, murderers, and sociopaths.
Gramsci’s prescription and Lukacs’ plans were the precursor to what Cultural Marxism in the guise of SIECUS, GSLEN, and the ACLU–acting as judicially-powered enforcers–later brought into American schools.
so its not the right that is indoctrinating… is it?
Xan: My goals for education have been the same whether I was slightly to the left or slightly to the right: to give children the tools to make their own informed decisions when they grow up. That means to teach them facts (history, science, etc.—coming as close to the truth as humanly possible), skills (reading, math, grammar, etc.) logic, and critical thinking (especially how to evaluate the worth of arguments and evidence). Values to impart are the universal ones of truth, justice, doing good to others while taking care of yourself. As far as government goes, teach them the Constitution and the way it works.
That’s a far cry from the goals of “social justice” teaching. But neither is it indoctrination in the political beliefs of conservatives—unless you think logic and critical thinking, and math and grammar, are the province of the Right.
“–unless you think logic and critical thinking, and math and grammar, are the province of the Right.”
Well, now that you mention it…and the more you look at what’s going on, I’d say that was generally true.
But of course, I do have my biases.
Alright. I admit that I have an education agenda as far grammar is concerned, and that agenda is to abandon the friggin comma rule and put the god-damnned things where ever I god-damned please.
Sue me.
Pretty benign agenda though, as far as those things go.
Still waiting on Karl to issue me instructions though.
Fetishism of rationalism, science and critical thinking is the province of mediocre intellectuals; truly brilliant minds can see inherent limitations of logic, scientific method and critical ability in moral and religious universe.
This is among the very best analysis I’ve read and the discussion here is also a higher level of discourse than what usually passes for shared ideas on the InterNUT. Thanks. I just found your site and rather than add to your thesis I just wanted to tell you how informative it is and I will be cross-posting some of it with a link to some other forums. I’m glad I found your site. I am also a reformed leftist who now considers myself a neoconservative – very much out of step with the liberal Democrats and paleoconservative Republicans – though I will be voting for McCain this cycle..
Hank Roth
http://pnews.org/
“truly brilliant minds can see inherent limitations of logic, scientific method and critical ability in moral and religious universe.”
Do you have any particular god in mind Sergey?
# neo-neocon Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Now I see the light, troutsky, for you have spoken. I will replace my utter dependence on the word of the great Rush Limbaugh, to whom I virtually never listen, with dependence on the word of the great troutsky, repository of truth.
Solid, Neo. Also a lot of Fox News is a “her” not a “him”.
Oh, maybe my previous post was a little disorganized. I’m barely coherent at best, but that gay little quotation Xan provided sent the brain into full reactionary mode. I don’t think he quite got what I was trying to say.
Considering my own response, I have to wonder why I feel that the person who composed that soft, fuzzy little paragraph does not have our best interests in mind. How could I not want social justice? How could I not want my child (if I had one) to be a “healer?” These are beautiful goals. Achieving them would allow us to live in a beautiful world. And even if they were never fully realized, the mere attempt to realize them would make the world a better place than it is today.
So…what’s wrong with working for a better world?
To harry: “particular” is not applicable to God, except in paganism, to which I do not belong; and, irrespective of any religious affiliation, the constraints arise in reason and science themselves. See Kant, “Critique of Pure Reason”, Ludwig Wittgenstein (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus), Karl Popper (Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, 1972), Douglas Hofstadter (Gé¶del, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid). Religion is not a restriction, it only fill the voids in our worldview which logic and science incapable to fill.
Well maybe my perspective could use some broadening. Thanks for the recommendations Sergey. I’ll try to add them to my reading list.
Generally I do not learn article on blogs, but I wish to say that
this write-up very forced me to check out and do it!
Your writing taste has been amazed me. Thanks, very nice article.