Me Too!

I have posted this piece before, but it must be re-posted again and again until my liberal friends and RINO’s get the message; Trump is not going away.  I won’t let him, and neither will brave people like ex-marine Dick Ivey who wrote this piece. So many times, I have done exactly what he did. The Republicans send me a phony questionnaire knowing full well they will get my juices flowing. At the end they always ask for money. Now, how dumb is that? They know full well that I will not send them a cent until they begin to act as my voice in Congress. My vote got this lame bunch into office and my vote will replace them. I hope it isn’t too late when we finally make it happen.



This sums it up for me!
Donald R. “Dick” Ivey, PhD, is a minister, educator, technology executive, entrepreneur,  Marine Corp Veteran, and straight shooting Republican Patriot from Celina, Texas, who is Fed up!  Here’s what he has to say today.
I am now in my 70’s.
Recently I received a questionnaire and request for money from the Republican Party and strongly agree with every question, as I have ever since Obama was elected.
Unfortunately the one question that was missing is: What have the  Republicans done for the American people?
We gave you a majority in the House and Senate, and you never  listened to us. Now you want our money, my money, more money.
You should be more concerned about our votes, not our money.
You are the establishment which means all you want is to save your jobs and line your pockets.
Well guess what? It’s not going to happen.
So far, TRUMP hasn’t asked for a dime.
You might think we are fools because you feel Trump is on a self-destruct course, but look beyond Washington and listen to the masses. Nobody has achieved what he has, especially in the state of New York.
Here’s why I wanted Trump. Yes, he’s a bit of an ass; yes, he’s an  egomaniac; but I don’t care.
      The country is a mess because politicians suck.
      The Republican Party is two-faced and gutless, and illegals are  everywhere. I want it all fixed!
      I don’t care that Trump is crude.
      I don’t care that he insults people.
      I don’t care that he has changed positions.
      I don’t care that he’s been married 3 times.
      I don’t care that he fights with Megan Kelly and Rosie O’Donnell.
      I don’t care that he doesn’t know the name of some Muslim terrorist.
Our country has become weak, and bankrupt. Our enemies are making fun of us. We are being invaded by illegals. We are becoming a nation of victims where every Tom, Ricardo and Hassid is a special group with special rights to a point where we don’t even recognize the country we were born and raised in, “AND I JUST WANT IT FIXED.”
And Trump is the only guy who seems to understand what We The People want and need.
I’m sick of politicians, sick of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and sick of illegals. I just want this thing fixed!
Trump may not be a saint, but he doesn’t have lobbyist money controlling him; he doesn’t have political correctness restraining him; all you know is that he has been very successful and a good negotiator; he has built a lot of things; and, he’s also not a politician.
And, he says he’ll fix it. And, I believe him because he is too much of an egotist to be proven wrong or looked at and called a liar.
I don’t care if the guy has bad hair.
Oh, and by the way, I don’t care if Sheriff Joe didn’t obey a zealot judge he upheld the law on illegal immigration. So I’m glad Trump pardoned him.
You are welcome to pass this on, or not.
Thought for the Day  “No country can sustain, in idleness, more than a small percentage of its numbers. The great majority must labor at something productive!”
Sincerely, Donald R. “Dick” Ivey, PhD, Celina, TX  (Google Donald R. “Dick” Ivey)
P.S.  No Borders, No Language, No Culture = No Country.
         I sure hopes this goes to everyone. Thanks, Dick

If you want to see more fun stuff go to this blog:

http://fredcoxcorner.blogspot.com/2017/

I’m Offended

The current run by Muslims to be offended by everything American, Christian, or cultural has me wondering why these people come to America. What bothers me even more is the way Americans are bending over backwards to accommodate them in these demands. Our schools teach Islam against our will, cities and states consider implementing sharia law, and our cultural identity is threatened by Muslims who are offended by girls in bikinis, or women who don’t wear the head scarves. They are offended that we don’t set aside special prayer rooms in all public places so they can pray where ever they are. One of the things I learned recently is that Obama had a prayer room set up in the Whitehouse for his Muslim visitors and staff. What ever happened to separation of church and state? I guess that only applies if the state is a republic, and the religion is Christian.

What does it matter to our liberal compatriots that I am offended by all of this back bending, and politically correct non-sense?

Is Islam a religion or a political ideology? If it is a pure religion then I agree it has First Amendment protection. If it is a political ideology it has no place within the boundaries of the United States because it is in direct competition with our own laws and political system. Having two systems presiding over the same population is madness.

The problem as I see it is that Islam is both a political and religious system at the same time. They sincerely believe that their religious laws prevail over civil laws. They argue that they cannot abide by civil laws because laws passed down from God prevail over all  man-made law.  There in lies the dilemma. When we pick on them they cry that they are protected by the First Amendment. At the same time it is no secret that Muslims want to spread Islam to the whole world. In my book that smacks of a religious coup d’état. If we pick on them for preaching revolution in their mosques they again hide behind the First Amendment.

If we in America want to tolerate Muslims in this country as a religion, we must make Muslims agree to separate their political stance from the religious one by revising the Koran. That means they would have to agree to live by the laws of the country over the doctrine of their Koran. Secondly, we must strictly limit the number of Muslims within the USA to less than ten percent of the population. That would be an impossible goal because they can double, triple, and quadruple their numbers by procreation and consider it a religious duty to do so.

muhammad-vs-jesus.jpg

No doubt Muslims will argue that they cannot revise the Koran since it is the word of God. I am troubled by that. Mohammed sold them a story that he was contacted by God in a vision and by a human messenger who gave him the rules. Yep! I buy that hook line and sinker.

Why didn’t Mohammed just buy into the New Testament bible of the Christians? Jesus who is the Son of God walked this earth and taught his disciples how to live. Four of them wrote the bible and told the same story giving it believability. So, here we have two religions both professing to adore one true God. Both have complete teachings handed to them by God. Except the Islamic version came six hundred years after the Christian version. The Christian version teaches the sanctity of Life, while the Islamic version has no regard for life.

Christ came as the Son of God born human. While Mohammed was a war lord who put together a pretty solid set of laws that came in a dream, and he convinced a desert filled with warring tribes to believe. I add that he made them believe by giving them a choice to believe, or to lose their heads. He was smart enough to incorporate all the cultural components of these tribes to allow them a buy in. In other words, Islam is a religion tailored to the barbaric, killing, nomadic tribes of the Mid East.

I am also offended by the Islamists forcibly passing off their God as the one true God, when Jesus Christ is the Son of the one true God. Since there is only one God we are fighting over a way to worship the same Deity. Christianity was birthed by man who was the SON of God, it spread to men of many cultures. It is my contention that Islam is a worship system that fits the culture and lifestyle of nomadic tribes of the Mid-Eastern deserts. Since Christianity is based on the sanctity of life, and Islam on the sanctity of death I propose Christians are white angels versus Islamic black angels. They are the opposite of each other. Eventually, one will prevail. Since Islam has no conscience relative to killing non believers they will have an advantage. Christianity must rely of the positive side of human nature, the good side if you will, and convert people who are loving, caring, compassionate to all,  even Muslims. I just add that Muslims also claim to be loving, caring, and compassionate every time they are accused of being Radical Islamist Terrorists. What they fail to include is that they only have all these traits when they deal with fellow Muslims. Anyone who is not Muslim is an infidel, and must be eliminated by any means.

I cannot believe that the same God condones both practices when they are polar opposites. My God is loving, and caring and promotes the sanctity of life, not senseless killing. Therefore, Christians and Muslims cannot claim that they believe in the one true God. The Islamic god is an invention of the devil and it appeals to the basic dark instincts of men, like killing, sex, torture, mutilation, and keeping slaves.

Jesus-vs-Mohammed-06-short.jpg

Getting back to my original premise for this essay, I am offended by Muslims and all Islamists because they see me as the infidel, and as their enemy. I will not support them under any circumstances, and will resist all attempts to install sharia, prayers rooms, teaching in schools, and conversion to their satanic religion.

I am offended by fellow citizens who condone and preach Progressivism, political correctness, and control. I will resist their attempts to transform us into an all-controlling  communist or Islamic state. To me they achieve the same end.

socialism-is-communism.jpg

 

 

My Feelings Exactly

flgbdec1000027381_-00_christmas-garden-flag-american-santa.jpg

From the American Thinker

The Angry Man Election

For all the interest group pandering that shapes modern American politics, the group that may well have decided the election has come down to the demographic of “The Angry Man.”
The Angry Man is difficult to stereotype. He comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America , from sophisticated urbanite to rural redneck, Deep South to Yankee North, Left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

No matter where he’s from, Angry Men share many common traits; they aren’t asking for anything from anyone other than the promise to be able to make their own way on a level playing field. In many cases, they are independent businessmen and employ several people. They pay more than their share of taxes and they work hard. Damn hard, for what they have and intend to keep.

He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the Christmas party for the employees at his company, three sets of braces, college educations or a beautiful wedding or two. Not because he was forced to, but because it’s the right thing to do.

The Angry Man believes the Constitution should be interpreted as it was written. It is not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of appointed judges and political winds.

The Angry Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun and use it in defense of his home, his country and his family. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone if necessary to achieve those goals gives him only momentary pause.

The Angry Man is not, and never will be, a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina. He got his people together and got the hell out. Then, he went back in to rescue those who needed help or were too stupid to help themselves in the first place. He was selfless in this, just as often a civilian as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter. Victimhood syndrome buzzwords; “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” don’t resonate with The Angry Man. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him.

His last name, his race and his religion don’t matter. His ancestry might be Italian, English, African, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, Russian, Hispanic or any of a hundred others. What does matter is that he considers himself in every way to be an American. He is proud of this country and thinks that if you aren’t, you are whole-heartedly encouraged to find one that suits you and move there.

The Angry Man is usually a man’s man. The kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, go hunting, play golf, maintain his own vehicles and build things. He coaches kid’s baseball, soccer and football and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, design a factory or work the land. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant so that you can keep the lights on while never knowing everything it took to do that. The Angry Man is the backbone of this country.

He’s not racist, but is truly disappointed and annoyed, when people exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their ethnicity. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they’re willing to work hard and play by the rules. He expects other people to do the same. Above all, he has integrity in everything he does.

The Angry Man votes, and he loathes the dysfunction now rampant in government. It’s the victim groups being pandered to and the “poor me” attitude that they represent. The inability of politicians to give a straight answer to an honest question. The tax dollars that are given to people who simply don’t want to do anything for themselves. The fact that, because of very real consequences, he must stay within a budget but for some obscure reason the government he finances doesn’t. Mostly, it’s the blatantly arrogant attitude displayed implying that we are too stupid to run our own lives and only people in government are smart enough to do that.

The Angry Man has reached his limit. When a social justice agitator goes on TV, leading some rally for Black Lives Matter, safe spaces or other such nonsense, he may bite his tongue but, he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.
But when government officials are repeatedly caught red-handed breaking the law and getting off scot-free, The Angry Man balls-up his fists and readies himself for the coming fight. He knows that this fight, will be a live or die situation, so he prepares fully. Make no mistake, this is a fight in which he is not willing to lose and he will never give up.

Obama calls him a Clinger
Hillary Calls him Deplorable
Bill calls him Redneck
BLM calls him a Racist
Feminists calls him Sexist
ISIS calls him an Infidel
Donald Trump calls him an American

Finally, A Place I would Move to

Everyday I am upset by some piece of news about our political atmosphere that makes me want to leave this great country to some place that is sane. The problem is that I can never decide on a country or even a single city that is better, that is until now. The article below spells out the reason for my selection of Switzerland as my future new home.

7608600706_cb47a0e61c.jpg

Switzerland: What’s in a Handshake?

Sometimes it’s the little things that are most telling. In Switzerland it has long been customary for students to shake the hands of their teachers at the beginning and end of the school day. It’s a sign of solidarity and mutual respect between teacher and pupil, one that is thought to encourage the right classroom atmosphere. Justice Minister Simonetta Sommaruga recently felt compelled to further explain that shaking hands was part of Swiss culture and daily life.
And the reason she felt compelled to speak out about the handshake is that two Muslim brothers, aged 14 and 15, who have lived in Switzerland for several years (and thus are familiar with its mores), in the town of Therwil, near Basel, refused to shake the hands of their teacher, a woman, because, they claimed, this would violate Muslim teachings that contact with the opposite sex is allowed only with family members. At first the school authorities decided to avoid trouble, and initially granted the boys an exemption from having to shake the hand of any female teacher. But an uproar followed, as Mayor Reto Wolf explained to the BBC: “the community was unhappy with the decision taken by the school. In our culture and in our way of communication a handshake is normal and sends out respect for the other person, and this has to be brought [home] to the children in school.”
Therwil’s Educational Department reversed the school’s decision, explaining in a statement on May 25 that the school’s exemption was lifted because “the public interest with respect to equality between men and women and the integration of foreigners significantly outweighs the freedom of religion.” It added that a teacher has the right to demand a handshake. Furthermore, if the students refused to shake hands again “the sanctions called for by law will be applied,” which included a possible fine of up to 5,000 dollars.
This uproar in Switzerland, where many people were enraged at the original exemption granted to the Muslim boys, did not end after that exemption was itself overturned by the local Educational Department. The Swiss understood quite clearly that this was more than a little quarrel over handshakes; it was a fight over whether the Swiss would be masters in their own house, or whether they would be forced to yield, by the granting of special treatment, to the Islamic view of the proper relations between the sexes. It is one battle – small but to the Swiss significant – between o’erweening Muslim immigrants and the indigenous Swiss.

Naturally, once the exemption was withdrawn, all hell broke loose among Muslims in Switzerland. The Islamic Central Council of Switzerland, instead of yielding quietly to the Swiss decision to uphold the handshaking custom, criticized the ruling in hysterical terms, claiming that the enforcement of the handshaking is “totalitarian” (!) because its intent is to “forbid religious people from meeting their obligations to God.” That, of course, was never the “intent” of the long-standing handshaking custom, which was a nearly-universal custom in Switzerland, and in schools had to do only with encouraging the right classroom atmosphere of mutual respect between instructor and pupil, of which the handshake was one aspect. The Swiss formulation of the problem – weighing competing claims – will be familiar to Americans versed in Constitutional adjudication. In this case “the public interest with respect to equality” of the sexes and the “integration of foreigners” (who are expected to adopt Swiss ways, not force the Swiss to exempt them from some of those ways) were weighed against the “religious obligations to God” of Muslims, and the former interests found to outweigh the latter.
What this case shows is that even at the smallest and seemingly inconsequential level, Muslims are challenging the laws and customs of the Infidels among whom they have been allowed to settle. Each little victory, or defeat, will determine whether Muslims will truly integrate into a Western society or, instead, refashion that society to meet Muslim requirements. The handshake has been upheld and, what’s more, a stiff fine now will be imposed on those who continue to refuse to shake hands with a female teacher. This is a heartening sign of non-surrender by the Swiss. But the challenges of the Muslims within Europe to the laws and customs of the indigenes have no logical end and will not stop. And the greater the number of Muslims allowed to settle in Europe, the stronger and more frequent their challenges will be. They are attempting not to integrate, but rather to create, for now, a second, parallel society, and eventually, through sheer force of numbers from both migration and by outbreeding the Infidels, to fashion not a parallel society but one society – now dominated by Muslims.
The Swiss handshaking dispute has received some, but not enough, press attention. Presumably, it’s deemed too inconsequential a matter to bother with. But the Swiss know better.

And so should we!
There’s an old Scottish saying that in one variant reads: “Many a little makes a mickle.” That is, the accumulation of many little things leads to one big thing. That’s what’s happening in Europe today. This was one victory for the side of sanity. There will need to be a great many more.

The Danger of Political Correctness

politicalcorrectness

I found an interesting article on dancingczars on the history of Political Correctness. It surprised me to learn that I know nothing about the origins of PC except that it is dumb and sometimes humorous. This article is somewhat long but well worth the read. It is so important that I added a button on the right- hand Sidebar which will take you to the article anytime you want to go there. That should make reading it easier if you are time constrained. In the meantime, I posted it here as well.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

The Origins of Political Correctness
February 5, 2000, Bill Lind, 18 Comments
An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind

Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American University

Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about this morning – the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it – where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.

We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come from? What is it?

We call it “Political Correctness.” The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.

Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole of the history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true,” the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.

Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.

Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation. White owned companies don’t get a contract because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.

And finally, both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender. All of these texts simply become grist for the mill, which proves that “all history is about which groups have power over which other groups.” So the parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that we’re familiar with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today as Political Correctness.

But the parallels are not accidents. The parallels did not come from nothing. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a small group of academics who have studied this. And the history goes back, as I said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.

Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their governments – the bourgeois governments – because the workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries than they had in common with the bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their own country. Well, 1914 came and it didn’t happen. Throughout Europe, workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to fight each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany and said there are no parties now, there are only Germans. And this happened in every country in Europe. So something was wrong.

Marxists knew by definition it couldn’t be the theory. In 1917, they finally got a Marxist coup in Russia and it looked like the theory was working, but it stalled again. It didn’t spread and when attempts were made to spread immediately after the war, with the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers didn’t support them.

So the Marxists’ had a problem. And two Marxist theorists went to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. Gramsci said the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian religion – that they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, “Who will save us from Western Civilization?” He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.

Lukacs gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government is established in Hungary in 1919, he becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did was introduce sex education into the Hungarian schools. This ensured that the workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian people looked at this aghast, workers as well as everyone else. But he had already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by, that we would consider the “latest thing.”

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.

And he says, “What we need is a think-tank.” Washington is full of think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it’s a form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.

Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, “I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to Marxism.” Well, he was successful. The first director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, “by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology.” Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the Institute, and that never changed.
The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists. They’re still very much Marxist in their thinking, but they’re effectively run out of the party. Moscow looks at what they are doing and says, “Hey, this isn’t us, and we’re not going to bless this.”

Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay writes, “If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic sub-structure,” – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here – “in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory.”

The stuff we’ve been hearing about this morning – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, “What is the theory?” The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s.

Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that’s the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls for a society of “polymorphous perversity,” that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.” Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.

Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism. “Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating attitude toward nature.” That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in Materialismus und Moral. “The theme of man’s domination of nature,” according to Jay, ” was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years.” “Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of labor, (here’s were they’re obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness.” In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer “discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture.” And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his “protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher morality.”

How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.

These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed theory of some sort. They couldn’t just get out there and say, “Hell no we won’t go,” they had to have some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student rebels come into Adorno’s classroom, he calls the police and has them arrested – Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United States.

One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person Freud describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of “polymorphous perversity,” in which you can “do you own thing.” And by the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They’re students, they’re baby-boomers, and they’ve grown up never having to worry about anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn’t require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, “Do your own thing,” “If it feels good do it,” and “You never have to go to work.” By the way, Marcuse is also the man who creates the phrase, “Make love, not war.” Coming back to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines “liberating tolerance” as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes back to the 1930s.

In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In “hate crimes” we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.

Terrorist Massacre

Call a spade a spade, and call a Muslim a Muslim. I am amazed at how afraid our government is about offending the Islamic religious belief. Maybe it is because our leaders know that by offending this particular sect, Muslims can bring serious harm to the country.

Why is this religion so intent on converting us to their way of thinking? Are we still suffering a backlash from Christian Crusades to the Mid-East in the early centuries of Christianity? I believe the Christians have strengthened and grown their beliefs to move away from the violent conversion of humanity toward Christ. Christ would never have condoned the Crusades. Yet, we see the scripture of the Koran loaded with teachings to convert everyone to Islam. Condoned within the Koran are methods for conversion that are barbaric and ruthless. How can an all-knowing and loving God condone such behaviour. An infinite, loving caring God cannot, therefore the religion of Islam is nothing but a hoax being sold as a form of religion.

When will the people of America wake up to the fact that Islam promotes terrorism, and all the  political correctness in the world will not make that go away. Better yet, when will the Muslims awaken to the fact that killing in the name of God is wrong.

Success Inspirers World

Land of opportunity

Attila Ovari

Loving Life and Inspiring Others

Remember The 14 Words

We Must Secure The Existence Of Our People And A Future For White Children

galesmind

Come take a journey through my mind

Nutsrok

The humor and humanity of storytelling.

Henry Game

The Next Testament

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

Grumpa Joe's Place

My Flag Flies Everyday

Gamintraveler

Love, Travel Lifestyle and Destinations

summershaffer

A topnotch WordPress.com site

I Know I Made You Smile

cartoons/humor/fiction/nonfiction

blogsense-by-barb

at the Re-Birth of America!

The Honking Goose

something to honk about

The Dangers of Allah

Confused about Islam, Muslims, Taqiyya, Kitman, The Islamic State, and Sharia? I've spent 14 years studying these confused beings.  They are not at all what they want us to believe, especially those who are ruled by al Qaeda , ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood as well as those who commit overt and covert Jihad while practicing Sharia tortures upon women

dancingczars.wordpress.com/

“ The limitation of riots, moral questions aside, is that they cannot win and their participants know it. Hence, rioting is not revolutionary but reactionary because it invites defeat. It involves an emotional catharsis, but it must be followed by a sense of futility. ” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

THE WAKING GIANT

United States Second Amendment Pitbull

Caustic Synergy

United and alone in the world

ELLIOT LAKE News

Road To Political INcorrect Constructs & Forbidden Knowledge -- Yours To Discover

tutorials4view

Watch free tutorials in Full HD (1080p) quality video tutorials, sorted by subjects, like: Photoshop, Gimp, Facebook, Torrents, Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 8.1, Viruses and malware removal ( like ask,com, vqo6, Babylon ) and more and more.. If you like our tutorials and guided, please SUBSCRIBE to out channel at: http://www.youtube.com/user/ShaiSoft - tutorials4view.

Aspiring Conservative

Conservative blog with articles about today's politics!

Conservative Kentucky

Reality From my Perspective

Creeping Sharia

Documenting the Islamization of America

Hearing Aid News

HEAR it HERE first! The latest on developments in hearing aids and the hearing industry.

Socialism is not the Answer

Limited Government Is

John SterVens' Tales

Thee Life, Thee Heart, Thee Tears