The ramifications of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act were just becoming visible by the early 1980s out here in “flyover” country, and not just the large urban coastal (including Chicago and Dallas) area. Reagan accelerated this process by allowing the farm lobby to get him to amnesty a couple of million farm workers.

What we have now in America is European-type birthrates in blue coastal states amongst liberal, snobby “whiter-people” of about 1.5 children per female, and slightly above-replacement fertility of over 2 children per female in the Jesus-loving-heartland.

Liberals, who hate regular whites, are all for shutting down factories and letting them go overseas to make life as hard on the heartland Americans as possible, to keep their birthrates as low as possible, because that is the one group of people on the face of the planet that they truly despise…….their own fellow Americans.

Reagan started running defecits to win the cold war, because he didn’t want to risk alienating a Democratic congress during these years in fears that they would block him from his main goal: bringing down the Soviet Union. The amnesty, and allowing the beginnings of outsourcing and HI-B visa immigration, and not focusing on energy alternatives, were his big mistakes.

His mistakes were repeated by George Bush the elder from 88-92, but even more so. Bush the elder was the one who intentionally allowed our southern border to become a simple gateway for Central Americans to colonize the United States — Clinton was all too happy to not interrupt the conservatives from making a mistake and continued this trend.

By W-Bush-the-idiots first term, the numbers in demography were very different than Reagan’s time, and this nation was beginning to morph into what it is now…………divided ethnically. America was 89% white in 1965, almost 90%. Now its only about 70% (actually about 65%) White and dropping. This was by far our biggest mistake, and its why we will not remain great.

We have not built the nuclear plants we needed to provide energy, we have not developed the high mileage cars we need to be more imprevious to rising oil prices, we have not dealt a death blow to the cultural marxists in our media and academia, and indeed have allowed them to flourish—-thereby poisioning our youth mentally and culturally.

We have lived in massive debt, that we are beginning to monetize, we have watched our industrial base shrink by at least one-third, we have not supported science and engineering, but have relied on importing it through cheap foreign students (so fat cat CEO’s and boards, and the uber-greedy shareholder class could reap huge profits while paying for innovation on the cheap), we have devalued the disciplines, math and sciences, that truly build wealth, and let our kids major in bullshit like critical theory, english, journalism, communications, law (we have way too many lawyers now), and business (everybody wants to run the companies and get the big checks, but nobody wants to be the worker bees down the ladder who really make the companies go).

Our economy is a finance based economy because nobody can afford to pay cash for things as they buy them. Our elite love this because they are lazy, and lending money is a lazy man’s way to make a living. They ceased being innovators long ago.

What do we have going for us though???

Thousands of nukes, the best nukes on earth, 16 carrier groups, the worlds biggest air force and navy, more satellites than anyone to spy on every other regime on earth, and a new generation of weapons (drones, etc) that will keep us militarily in Jupiter’s seat for at least the next 25 years.

We are kind of like Mongolia under Gehngis Khan, a great military, but a hollowing economy behind it. Its not completely hollow yet, but its rotting out. A fucking idiot like Obama, who has never been near a wealth-creating job (neither had Bush, Clinton, or Bush the Elder, or Reagan for that matter) dont really understand how wealth (stuff you can buy) gets made, they just think it magically appears in stores.

We have cheapening labor, but much more expensive land (another gift of diversity is that land and housing cost go through the roof as people outbid each other to escape “diversity”), less social cohesion, low birthrates, too many old people, increasing medical costs (processed foods, commuting, lack of excercise, obesity epidemic especially amongst minorites prone to fatness), a dumber browner young generation, and politically-correct platitudes that assure that the un-able have to be hired in positions beyond their competence, and can never be criticized.

The thing is, is that Europe is going to be experiencing much the same, but the minority there (muslims) are less-behaved than the little Aztecs we have here (bud admittedly behave about as well as our blacks—the most spoiled and pampered group on earth). Russia will eventually become Muslim majority without a big rebound in their birthrates, Australia is headed down that road.

My conclusion? The marxiscati knew what they were doing by betting on mulitulturalism throughout the west by betting on the greed of the shareholding class. They knew they could slowly dissolve the West and weaken it as they agitate for a one-state-government through the UN as the West degenerates. They also made sure the whole West multiculturalized so that fleeing whites could not go anywhere and start anew like Canada and Australia, who are slowly committing suicide too.

The marxist abetted the west in rotting itself from the inside out instead of conquering it outright. Replacing the population with third-worlders while undermining the birthrate of natives through no-fault divorce, alimony, child support laws, which make men afraid to father more than two children, while economically attacking the west with outsourcing (and insourcing of tech help) suppressed the total birthrate while the importation of third world masses was occuring……….thus assuring that the change would be very quick instead of slowly over 100 years by which the West could have recognized its path and quickly corrected it.

They did their homework, I’ll give em’ that. I hope they burn in hell, but I give credit where its due”.  m in the US -Source-

They are easily intimidated by liberal name-calling and will bend over backward to protect their precious “respectability” by trying to dodge the accusation. And in doing so, they end up abandoning the high ground, tacitly granting the premise of the liberal argument.

This is why I so admire Kathy Shaidle. When the leftoids shout, “Racist!” she responds, “OK, fine, I’m a racist. Do you have an actual argument, or are you just here to call me names?” Real courage like that utterly confounds the Left, because they’re so used to getting their way by intimidating their opposition into surrender.” -Source-

One of the primary orchestrated and implanted scams that pulverized the American person, American nationalism, and the power of the American vote was and is abortion. This issue split the traditionally religious from the non-religious and turned citizens on both sides of the issue into haters. It also put all women into precarious political positions. No one likes or approves of abortion unless, or course, their daughter is raped and impregnated by a beast. Right suddenly, the legal right to abortion comes to the forefront of the soul and religious belief. Decisions to be made are painful, soul-searching decisions. But even barring all this, the fact that the abortion issue turned “the 2 sides” into opposing haters is factual. The “right” to abortion was a perfect divisibility ploy both religiously and politically.

What is disturbing to me is how people can rage against abortion, and at the same time totally ignore and refuse to read Agenda 21, The Earth Charter, etc.; to understand sustainable development, traitorous governance, the current and systematic biometric corralling of mankind; to hand their children to public school mental health and profiling pharmaceutical centers, and know that billions of animals have been (and continue to be) slaughtered by “humane” societies in every burg in the nation. I guess we call this selective morality.

Another orchestrated scam that pulverized our national sensibility was and is the issue of immigration. This is, by the way, a masterful scam. As America historically welcomed the poor and huddled masses, and was exemplified by its acceptance of all people from all nations, religions, and creeds, and as America the beautiful was built by people from different nations and religious backgrounds, the current immigration issue is extraordinary, indeed!

Are you conservative or liberal if you allow America to accept all foreigners and help them get started? This used to be America’s MO. Are you conservative or liberal if you want all borders closed and foreign immigration to cease and desist? Are you conservative or liberal if you want to secure the homeland from the “terrorism” you are told is rampant and bankrupted our nation, while our national borders are not only held open for all terrorists and criminals, but are also being discreetly dismantled? See the Inter-American Democratic Charter, adopted in Peru on September 11, 2001, for details (www.oas.org). The media somehow missed this story.

Or how about the orchestrated scam that is working furiously at crumbling our national solidarity called devious and elite-manufactured environmentalism? Are you conservative or liberal when it comes to the melding of the Biosphere Reserves in the U.S. – the ones that are surrounded with “conservation corridors,” and then re-surrounded with “buffer zones?” And as these Biosphere Reserves, their conservation corridors, and buffer zones begin to physically overlap, and as we the people are no longer allowed to buy these lands or occupy these Reserves, corridors, or zones, are you a conservative or a liberal when you discover that your physical nation is being bought up and taken from you and administered by global organizations, their global eco-partnerships, land trust organizations, regional commissions, and NGO facilitators?

And are you conservative or liberal when you discovered that your elected representatives treatied, chartered, compacted, executive ordered, and signed Memorandums of Understanding decades ago that gave birth to the system that allows foreign entities and global corporations to purchase the largest land tracts and watershed systems in our nation? And when you discovered that the United Nations has called for the global control of ALL planetary water AND has called for the permanent end of ALL private ownership of property – stating specifically that all land and water should be owned and controlled by global governmental entities, tell me…are you then a conservative or a liberally-minded person?

When you discovered that all global Biosphere Reserves, their conservation corridors, and buffer zones are ALL bubbling above AND beneath their surfaces with oil, natural gas, coal, copper, lead, molybdenum, platinum, palladium, phosphates, uranium, bauxite, gold, iron, mercury, nickel, potash, silver, tungsten, zinc, petroleum, fresh water, and/or forest timber – the most valuable natural resources on the planet – what affect did that knowledge have on your conservative or liberal values?

And then there are the public schools. Are you a conservative or a liberal as you shell out more and more money to fund the deliberate intellectual destruction of American children? Does forcing sexual curriculum and social/emotional questionnaires upon your elementary and secondary-aged children create and support your conservative or your liberal superiority? AND the Medicaid-school-big pharma partnerships that guarantee schools do everything in their power to get your child addicted to drugs in exchange for Medicaid school funding; do these facts support your conservative values or your liberal values?

As you might decide to realize, we the people have a very serious problem with our “opinions” and ourselves. We don’t know what has happened in our nation, while our conservative AND liberal “elected” are dismantling our nation and our form of government directly beneath our noses. And all the while, we proudly boast of our “conservative values” or our “liberal values.” This is the biggest joke of all, and we are not only the brunt of the joke, we are forced to PAY for our nation’s dismantling, PAY for Communitarian social systems to overtake our nation, and at the same time are the actual victims of our insane ignorance. No wonder our Red and Blue leadership and candidates are always smiling.

Anyone who continues to support Democrats or Republicans EVER AGAIN is not only a fool and an ignoramus, but also a fully brainwashed and manipulated tool for the globalists and their specific intentions to take down OUR nation. And mark my words – all you conservatives and liberals – you will live to see the day when you will never again be a conservative or a liberal-minded person. You will live to see the day when you are told what your opinions will be in exchange for food, housing, and water. You will be told that you are a Communitarian or you are an enemy of the “common good,” which is the ultimate goal of Communitarianism and its corporate profit. You will live to see the day when the Constitution is first suspended via Martial Law, and then kicked to the curb and replaced with the Communitarian Manifesto – aka the new and improved global Communist Manifesto.

Under both Bush’s and Clinton, the quintessential conservative and liberal manipulators, we have lost the most valuable landmasses in our nation. Nearing 90% of the Great Lakes region, 90% of Alaska, nearing 90% of the American West, the Appalachian Range rapidly following suit, and ALL coastal regions and major rivers and watershed systems in the United States, where, at best, only deed-restricted living is now permitted. We are literally losing our ENTIRE physical nation to FOREIGN controllers, who are bankers and corporations. AND these same people hold ALL of America’s debt – ALL of it. We are a purposefully bankrupted nation with no industry left to repay these globalist debtors. They are taking our physical and cultural nation in repayment, and this is a direct result and corporate deal of our Democratic and Republican Party leadership and their loyalty to global wealth, wheeling, scamming, and academic deception.

American people, we have to unite, in mass, against this machine. To hell with conservatism or liberalism! We have got to stop feeding our egos with these “manufactured” labels that were specifically created to divide us AND OUR POLITICAL POWER TO CONTROL OUR ELECTED! If we don’t tell them, together, and in one voice, to step down, then we are going to serve Communism in the United States. We are going to be Communists called “Communitarians,” which is the sugarcoated term for Communist slaves. If you can’t see the writing on the wall and the land masses now administered by the United Nations (World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves), then you are literally blind and out of your minds. If you can’t see the nightmares in the public school system – the one’s permanently destroying your children’s potential and their futures – then, again, you are literally out of your minds.

The next “catastrophe” will be the final catastrophe for the united States of America. WHEN Martial Law is declared in this nation, and all systems are “go” for that decision to be made, it’s over, folks. Remember that we are already in a DECLARED state of emergency. We will never again get back our nation, our constitutional freedoms, and civil/human rights. From that point on, the globalists WILL take over, and we will very soon become their biometric victims. Then see what your conservatism or liberalism will do for you. By then, your right to any opinions, whatsoever, will be permanently eliminated. If in doubt, read history or, better yet, read Beverly Eakman’s Chronicles, October, 2004, pp 28-29, which report:

“In Aug., 2003, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced the results of their $1.2 million tax-payer funded study. It stated, essentially, that traditionalists are mentally disturbed. Scholars from the Universities of Maryland, California at Berkeley, and Stanford had determined that social conservatives, in particular, suffer from ‘mental rigidity,’ ‘dogmatism,’ and ‘uncertainty avoidance,’ together with associated indicators for mental illness.”

Here’s the future of your opinion, your conservatism, and your liberalism. If you disagree with the machine, the machine will diagnose you, medicate you, and/or place you in a receptacle or center or cell or camp where you won’t influence anyone. If traditional opinions are now diagnosable via “scholars” whose “research” is funded by globalist philanthropic groups and their corporations, then we are all in very serious trouble – conservatives and liberals, alike. Anyone who disagrees with the world’s most wealthy and elite globalists is slated for physical and/or pharmaceutical “retention” in one way or another. You will also find this same “scholarly” system operating in every public school in the United States, thanks to Bush’s New Freedom Initiative on Mental Health.

Better wake up and smell the vast criminal enterprise. Your nation is being destroyed from within by your vote and your party loyalty. That 2-Party loyalty has rapidly, and very systematically, all but destroyed your Constitution and your Constitutional rights. The Republican Party AND the Democratic Party ARE the Globalists. They are UNITED in missions that mandate ending private property rights, voting power, free markets, small business, parenthood and reproductive rights, religion, career choice, higher education for the masses, individualism and creativity, pet ownership, gun ownership, opinion, mobility or, people, in translation: YOUR FREEDOM.

Author Unknown

ALSO READ:

“Freedom” You Say?

U.S. Empire In Decline

New World Order Plans For US

Blueprint For The New World Order

Mass Media: Smoke & Mirrors

Pawns In The Game

Understanding The System

She asked if I was planning to go, I informed her that I was not, as I hadn’t done anything to the Aborigines to apologise for and that I was a recent migrant from Britain and wished the Aborigines no harm.

She explained to me that it was not the point whether I had personally done any wrong. The fact was that I was white and white people were to blame for all past injustices.

“Ah”, I said, “you believe in collective guilt and retrospective guilt at that.” “Ok”, I said “that’s fine, will you be having a march through Bondi demanding that the local Jewish community say sorry for killing Jesus?” (the idea was ridiculous, but it certainly fitted in with her illogical notion of collective guilt), at which point she gave me a look of total contempt, mumbled something inaudible, and they left for their family guilt trip.

I must give some background information before we continue. My neighbours were not bad people, we got on well with them, despite the fact that the lady had been a card-carrying member of the Communist Party, was now a card-carrying member of the Labor Party, and she knew my politics.

Now a year or so had passed and we decided to sell the house and move, I thought I would tell the neighbours of our plans and at the same time have a bit of an integrity test.

So I told them of our plans and then added casually that we wouldn’t be advertising the sale, having signs and advertisements in the paper etc., because we had found a buyer already.

I was purposely vague about it being “Some kind of government department or other” that buys houses for deprived families from the bush with the idea of giving them a fresh start in the city. I added “I think they’re from Dubbo or somewhere”.

Now I had her full attention, I mean I could have said “Look up in the sky, an engine just fell off that jumbo jet, it’s going down”, and she still would have continued staring at me with her brain racing with horrible scenarios. I smiled and said “I’m sure you will get on with the new neighbours because of your tolerance, etc”.

She was so horrified she broke her silence, suddenly speaking faster than usual, “What people, who are they, I mean, do you mean, are they, um, um, well you know?”

I acted dumb and said “Sorry I don’t follow”. “What government department”, she said, “who are they, what trouble have they been in, I mean are they…?” (she couldn’t even bring herself to say the word).

I said “Aboriginal? Yes, an Aboriginal family, a mum, dad, a few kids, something about a fresh start, a new environment, you know how these government department people speak. I remember now, Aboriginal housing, that’s it, that’s what they’re called.”

Now she couldn’t keep it in any longer, “No no, have you signed anything? What have you signed? No, no…”

Now she was running the fingers from both her hands through her hair, looking down at the ground and breathing heavily through her nose.

I said, “What’s wrong, are you ok? You look quite upset”.

She looks up at me “Have they been in trouble, been to jail, trouble with the police, what have they done, what do you mean new start, new start from what? I’ve got kids here, we’ve got to live here, I’ve got kids…”

“So have they,” I said “and I’m surprised at your negative stereotyping” (I never said to her that these Aborigines had been in any trouble), now she starts walking in circles in her front garden, hands on hips, shaking her head, mumbling something about her daughters bedroom being out the back of the house.

At this point I actually felt sorry for her. I mean, I had really put this poor women through an ordeal; she was in a real state of shock. I decided to come clean to put her out of her misery.

I said “I’m only joking, there is no Aboriginal family. I made it up to see if you were fair dinkum, you know about the bridge walk and all the believing in multiracialism stuff’.

There was a visible moment of relief, swiftly followed by anger, “You f***ing bastard (etc. etc.)”, and she ran in the house and slammed the door.

To her credit, I saw her the next day, she was polite and said “Good day”. The incident was never mentioned again and relations were cordial.

The moral to the story is that even the most vocal card-holding members of pro-multiracial parties know deep down that their ideology is all lies, it’s “Do as I say, not do as I do” with them, and that when multiracialism comes too close for comfort, they will reject it.

http://www.nickmaine.info/

By Raymond V. Raehn

America is today dominated by an alien system of beliefs, attitudes and values
that we have come to know as “Political Correctness.” Political Correctness seeks to
impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans and is therefore
totalitarian in nature. Its roots lie in a version of Marxism which seeks a radical inversion
of the traditional culture in order to create a social revolution.

Social revolution has a long history, conceivably going as far back as Plato’s
Republic. But it was the French Revolution of 1789 that inspired Karl Marx to develop
his theories in the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, the success of the
Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia set off a wave of optimistic expectation among
the Marxist forces in Europe and America that the new proletarian world of equality was
finally coming into being. Russia, as the first communist nation in the world, would lead
the revolutionary forces to victory.

The Marxist revolutionary forces in Europe leaped at this opportunity. Following
the end of World War I, there was a Communist “Spartacist uprising in Berlin, Germany
lead by Rosa Luxemburg; the creation of a “Soviet” in Bavaria led by Kurt Eisner; and a
Hungarian communist republic established by Bela Kun in 1919. At the time, there was
great concern that all of Europe might fall under the banner of Bolshevism. This sense of
impeding doom was given vivid life by Trotsky’s Red Army invasion of Poland in 1919.
However, the Red Army was defeated by Polish forces at the battle of the Vistula
in 1920. The Spartacist, Bavarian Soviet and Bela Kun governments all failed to gain
widespread support from the workers and after a brief time they were all overthrown.

These events created a quandary for the Marxist revolutionaries in Europe. Under
Marxist economic theory, the oppressed workers were supposed to be the beneficiaries of
a social revolution that would place them on top of the power structure. When these
revolutionary opportunities presented themselves, however, the workers did not respond.
The Marxist revolutionaries did not blame their theory for these failures. They blamed the
workers.

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

Antonio Gramsci worked for the Communist International during 1923-24 in
Moscow and Vienna. He was later imprisoned in one of Mussolini’s jails where he wrote
his famous “Prison Notebooks.” Among Marxists, Gramsci is noted for his theory of
cultural hegemony as the means to class dominance. In his view, a new “Communist
man” had to be created before any political revolution was possible. This led to a focus
on the efforts of intellectuals in the fields of education and culture. Gramsci envisioned a
long march through the society’s institutions, including the government, the judiciary, the
military, the schools and the media. He also concluded that so long as the workers had a
Christian soul, they would not respond to revolutionary appeals.

Georg Lukacs was the son a wealthy Hungarian banker. Lukacs began his
political life as an agent of the Communist International. His book History and Class
Consciousness gained him recognition as the leading Marxist theorist since Karl Marx.
Lukacs believed that for a new Marxist culture to emerge, the existing culture must be
destroyed. He said, “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only
solution to the cultural contradictions of the epoch,” and, “Such a worldwide overturning
of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of
new ones by the revolutionaries.”

When he became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Bela Kun
regime in Hungary in 1919, Lukacs launched what became known as “Cultural
Terrorism.” As part of this terrorism he instituted a radical sex education program in
Hungarian schools. Hungarian children were instructed in free love, sexual intercourse,
the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the out-datedness of monogamy, and the
irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasures. Women, too, were called to
rebel against the sexual mores of the time. Lukacs’s campaign of “Cultural Terrorism”
was a precursor to what Political Correctness would later bring to American schools.

In 1923, Lukacs and other Marxist intellectuals associated with the Communist
Party of Germany founded the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University in
Frankfurt, Germany. The Institute, which became known as the Frankfurt School, was
modeled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. In 1933, when Nazis came to power
in Germany, the members of the Frankfurt School fled. Most came to the United States.

The members of the Frankfurt School conducted numerous studies on the beliefs,
attitudes and values they believed lay behind the rise of National Socialism in Germany.
The Frankfurt School’s studies combined Marxist analysis with Freudian psychoanalysis
to form the basis of what became known as “Critical Theory.” Critical Theory was
essentially destructive criticism of the main elements of Western culture, including
Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition,
sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and
conservatism. These criticisms were reflected in such works of the Frankfurt School as
Erich Fromm’s Escape from Freedom and The Dogma of Christ, Wilhelm’s Reich’s The
Mass Psychology of Fascism and Theodor Adorno’s The Authoritarian Personality.

The Authoritarian Personality, published in 1950, substantially influenced
American psychologists and social scientists. The book was premised on one basic idea,
that the presence in a society of Christianity, capitalism and the patriarchal-authoritarian
family created a character prone to racial prejudice and German fascism. The
Authoritarian Personality became a handbook for a national campaign against any kind
of prejudice or discrimination on the theory that if these evils were not eradicated,
another Holocaust might occur on the American continent. This campaign, in turn,
provided a basis for Political Correctness.

Critical Theory incorporated sub-theories which themselves were intended to chip
away at specific elements of the existing culture, including “matriarchal theory,”
“androgyny theory,” “personality theory,” “authority theory,” “family theory,” “sexuality
theory,” “racial theory,” “legal theory” and “literary theory.” Put into practice, these
theories were to be used to overthrow the prevailing social order and usher in social
revolution based on cultural Marxism.

To achieve this, the Critical Theorists of the Frankfurt School recognized that
traditional beliefs and the existing social structure would have to be destroyed and then
replaced. The patriarchal social structure would be replaced with matriarchy; the belief
that men and women are different and properly have different roles would be replaced
with androgyny; and the belief that heterosexuality is normal would be replaced with the
belief that homosexuality is “normal.”

As a grand scheme intended to deny the intrinsic worth of white, heterosexual
males, the Critical Theorists of the Frankfurt School opened the door to the racial and
sexual antagonisms of the Trotskyites. Leon Trotsky believed that oppressed blacks
could be the vanguard of a communist revolution in North America. He denounced white
workers who were prejudiced against blacks and instructed them to unite with the blacks
in revolution. Trotsky’s ideas were adopted by many of the student leaders of the 1960s
counterculture movement, who attempted to elevate the black revolutionaries to positions
of leadership in their movement.

The student revolutionaries were also strongly influenced by the ideas of Herbert
Marcuse, another member of the Frankfurt School. Marcuse preached the “Great
Refusal,” a rejection of all basic Western concepts, sexual liberation and the merits of
feminist and black revolutions. His primary thesis was that university students, ghetto
blacks, the alienated, the asocial, and the Third World could take the place of the
proletariat in the Communist revolution. In his book, An Essay on Liberation, Marcuse
proclaimed his goals of a radical transvaluation of values; the relaxation of taboos,
cultural subversion; Critical Theory; and a linguistic rebellion that would amount to a
methodical reversal of meaning. As for racial conflict, Marcuse wrote that white men are
guilty and that blacks are the most natural force of rebellion.

Marcuse may be the most important member of the Frankfurt School in terms of
the origins of Political Correctness, because he was the critical link to the counterculture
of the 1960s. His objective was clear: “One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution,
since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including morality
of existing society…” His means was liberating the powerful, primeval force of sex from
its civilized restraints, a message preached in his book, Eros and Civilization, published
in 1955. Marcuse became one of the main gurus of the 1960s adolescent sexual
rebellion; he himself coined the expression, “make love, not war.” With that role, the
chain of Marxist influence via the Frankfurt School was completed: from Lukacs’s
service as Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Hungarian government in
1919 to American students burning the flag and taking over college administration
buildings in the 1960s. Today, many of these same colleges are bastions of Political
Correctness, and the former student radicals have become the faculties.

One of the most important contributors to Political Correctness was Betty Friedan.
Through her book The Feminine Mystique, Friedan became the mother of the modern
feminist movement in America. Friedan was not a member of the Frankfurt School, but
she was strongly influenced by it. Her work offers a useful case study of the Marxist
roots of Political Correctness.

Friedan devoted almost a full chapter of The Feminine Mystique to Abraham
Maslow’s theory of self-actualization. Maslow was a social psychologist who in his early
years did research on female dominance and sexuality. Maslow was a friend of Herbert
Marcuse at Bandeis University and had met Erich Fromm in 1936. He was strongly
impressed by Fromm’s Frankfurt School ideology. He wrote an article, “The
Authoritarian Character Structure,” published in 1944, that reflected the personality
theory of Critical Theory. Maslow was also impressed with the work of Wilhelm Reich,
who was another Frankfurt School originator of personality theory.

The significance of the historical roots of Political Correctness cannot be fully
appreciated unless Betty Friedan’s revolution in sex roles is viewed for what it really was
– a manifestation of the social revolutionary process begun by Karl Marx. Friedan’s
reliance on Abraham Maslow’s reflection of Frankfurt School ideology is simply one
indicator. Other indicators include the correspondence of Friedan’s revolution in sex
roles with Georg Lukacs’ annihilation of old values and the creation of new ones, and
with Herbert Marcuse’s transvaluation of values. But the idea of transforming a
patriarchy into a matriarchy – which is what a sex-role inversion is designed to do – can
be connected directed to Friedrich Engels book The Origin of the Family, Private
Property, and the Sate. First published in 1884, this book popularized the now-accepted
feminist belief that deep-rooted discrimination against the oppressed female sex was a
function of patriarchy. The belief that matriarchy was the solution to patriarchy flows
from Marx’s comments in The German Ideology, published in 1845. In this work Marx
advanced the idea that wives and children were the first property of the patriarchal male.
The Frankfurt School’s matriarchal theory (and its near-relation, androgyny theory) both
originated from these sources.

When addressing the general public, advocates of Political Correctness – or
cultural Marxism, to give it its true name – present their beliefs attractively. It’s all just a
matter of being “sensitive” to other people, they say. They use words such as “tolerance”
and “diversity,” asking, “Why can’t we all just get along?” The reality is different. Political Correctness is not at all about”being nice,” unless one thinks gulags are nice places. Political Correctness is Marxism, with all that
implies: loss of freedom of expression, thought control, inversion of the traditional social
order and, ultimately, a totalitarian state. If anything, the cultural Marxism created by the
Frankfurt School is more horrifying than the old, economic Marxism that ruined Russia.

At least the economic Marxists did not exalt sexual perversion and attempt to create a
matriarchy, as the Frankfurt School and its descendants have done.
This short essay has sought to show one critical linkage, that between classical
Marxism and the ingredients of the “cultural revolution” that broke out in America in the
1960s. The appendices to this paper offer a “wiring diagram” which may make the trail
easier to follow, along with a more detailed look at some of the main actors. Of course,
the action does not stop in the ‘60s; the workings of Frankfurt School are yet very much
with us, especially in the field of education. That topic, and other present-day effects of
Frankfurt School thinking, will be the subjects of future chapters in this book.

ALSO READ:

Multiculturalism – A Dividing Force

Political-Correctness Unmasked

[In] November 2006 , Prof. David Divine of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, agreed to meet Jared Taylor in a debate on whether racial diversity is a strength or a weakness. Late in December, he backed out of his agreement, claiming he had been unaware of Mr. Taylor’s background, and was now unwilling to let him speak.

These are [some of] the remarks Mr. Taylor had planned to give.

[…]

And I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that an assertion — a belief — is all it is. How, exactly, is racial diversity a strength for Canada or any other country? Does it raise per capita GNP? Does it improve crop yields? Does it lower crime rates? Does it reduce green house gases? Does it lower taxes?

No, it doesn’t do any of those things. I’m not sure I have ever heard its boosters say specifically what it does. I will tell you what racial diversity does: It results in conflict, tension, and hostility. At its worst, racial diversity can lead to race riots, racially-motivated murder and assault. At its best, when communities of different races try to live together they simply leave each other alone. The result is relatively peaceful voluntary segregation. Except for a few bohemians, people of different races do not often mingle naturally and happily.

[…]

Now, you probably think that every major Canadian institution from the federal government on down takes the view that racial diversity is a great strength for Canada. In fact, they all agree with me. They all assert most emphatically that racial diversity is not a source of strength but a source of conflict. The only difference is that instead of the word “conflict,” they use the word “racism.” Whatever “racism” may be, they all agree that it is a very bad thing, and that Canadian society is riddled with it.

Now, if there were no racial diversity in Canada, there could be no racial discrimination, could there? So please remember this: Whenever people complain about racism, bigotry, hatred, racial profiling, discrimination, they are not talking about the joys and benefits of racial diversity. They are admitting that it is a source of tension and suffering.

[…]

How bad is the race problem? The Ontario Human Rights Commission says “Racial discrimination and racism” are “pervasive and continuing.” The Canadian Race Relations Foundation says “racism is serious and pervasive.” The Canadian Commission for UNESCO says racism “imperils democracy.” The federal Human Rights Commission says “hate and, in particular, its manifestation on the Internet pose a serious threat to the social fabric of Canadian society.”

How can racial diversity be a strength if it gives rise to something that “imperils democracy” that “poses a serious threat to the social fabric of Canadian society?” This question deserves an answer, ladies and gentlemen, but because Prof. Divine is afraid to debate me, I’m afraid it will not get one. In fact, I suspect Prof. Divine is afraid to debate me because he knows this question has no answer.

[…]

Racism within the health care system; Racism in the criminal justice system; The racism inherent in white civilization; Racism in Shakespeare’s The Tempest; Everyday racism in medical school; The systemic racism that is prevalent in Nova Scotia; Contemporary Representations of Racism in Children’s Books; Racism, Birth Control and Reproductive Rights; Racism and Science Fiction; Thinking More Creatively About Racism and How to Tackle It; Systemic racism affects every aspect of our daily lives; Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System. By golly, its everywhere! And this is just a tiny sample of the stuff that’s on the Dalhousie site.

[…]

So it appears that racism is a very considerable scourge in Canada, but it is reassuring to know that commissions and tribunals and study groups and associations and foundations are beavering away night and day fighting it. They’ll soon have it under control, right? Well, maybe not. A recent survey by Statistics Canada found that, nearly 50 percent of blacks say they have suffered from discrimination or unfair treatment, as have 33 percent of South Asians and Chinese. (No report by StatCan on whether any whites suffer from racism.) A 2003 report on immigrants living in West Central Toronto found that 68 percent had suffered just from housing discrimination, let alone any other kind of discrimination.

[…]

Let us accept, for a moment, the lefty view of all this, namely that racism — whatever that may be — is a moral failing that afflicts only whites. Non-whites — every man, woman and child — are noble, un-offending sufferers, whose sole aim is to be accepted as the loyal Canadians they are. Parenthetically, this seems to be the view of all your human rights commissions, too, but no matter. If this view is correct, it means whites are a uniquely defective people who break out in helpless spasms of racism whenever they encounter non-whites.

But if that is true, why must whites — and their non-white victims — be put through the ordeal of racial diversity? If, after decades of combating racism, whites are still hopelessly racist, what is gained by an immigration policy that brings in yet more non-whites only to make them suffer at the hands of whites, and that degrades whites by bringing out the worst in them? Toronto used to be virtually all-white. There couldn’t have been much racial discrimination. Now, all official sources agree that Toronto is a hive of racial discrimination. How has racial diversity therefore been a strength for Toronto or for Canada?

TORONTO – Canada’s largest city- Before mass 3rd world immigration began in the early 1970’s, Toronto had a HOMOGENEOUS WHITE population of about 98%.

[…]

Now, as we saw, Canada is too squeamish to collect crime statistics by race, but the United States is not. We know, for example, that blacks commit robbery and murder at approximately eight to ten times the white rate, that Hispanics commit these crimes at three to four times the white rate. Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be in youth gangs, and blacks are 18 times more likely. I would suspect there are equally striking racial differences in Canada, but no one knows because the government doesn’t want to know.

Minorities, Crime and Punishment

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm
http://www.nc-f.org/colorcrime1999.htm (PDF File)
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/race/

[…]

Back to Toronto….in 2005 a coalition of 22 black community groups — but let’s stop right there. A coalition of 22 black community groups? Twenty-two race based associations? What do they all do? Why are they needed? Why are they racially exclusive? How many more are there that are not part of this coalition? Are they all glorying in the strengths of racial diversity?

[…]

So what are we to conclude from all this? Ladies and gentlemen, let us face facts squarely. Racial diversity in Canada, just as it is in America, is an ordeal. Sometimes, a difficult, agonizing ordeal. It is a source of resentment, guilt-mongering, and endless charges of racism.

If it were a strength, non-white groups would not set up countless race-based organizations to protect and advance their interests. If it were a strength, no one would need diversity managers or sensitivity training. If it were a strength, Canadians would not naturally separate on racial lines.

[…]

Let’s return for a moment to the subject of speaking freely. Let’s talk abut white flight. There was a 2004 Toronto Star article about a new Statistics Canada report on the appearance of visible minority neighborhoods in Canada’s big cities. Whites used to live in these places but they have moved out. According to the Toronto Star, StatCan could not bring itself to use the term “white flight,” and (instead) wrote only about “rapid replacement.”

Well, someone apparently wasn’t told about how we are now supposed to talk. That same year, 2004, Toronto city councilman from Scarborough Mike Del Grande told his local paper that “a lot of white people are moving out” of his ward. Another councilman immediately jumped on Mr. Del Grande: “To hear someone say white people are leaving and Chinese are coming in can be nothing other than a racist comment,” said Joe Mihevc. Poor Mr. Del Grande had to apologize: “I should have said many older residents of the community (are moving out),” he said. “I didn’t say it in a politically correct way.”

Now, what is going on when a city councilman says something that is obviously true, is accused of racism, and is forced to say he should have spoken in code rather than speak clearly? You can’t even describe what is going on before your very eyes, much less talk about why whites are leaving and whether they might even be justified in leaving. This doesn’t sound like a strength to me.

The vice principal of Queens University unbosomed what strikes me as a significant truth about Canada. Recently he was quoted as saying, “Our Canadian culture has been squeamish about gathering race-based statistics because no one wants to see ethnic makeup reduced to numbers on a page. But unless you get this kind of information, you don’t really know if you have a problem.”

Well, yes. How do you even begin to assess whether racial diversity is a strength or a weakness unless you gather the information. Do different groups have different rates of illegitimacy? School failure? Poverty? If they do, does it make [any] sense to add to those groups through immigration? Take crime data. I understand Canada does not keep records of racial differences in crime rates. Too squeamish, I suppose. And yet everyone knows some groups commit more crime than others. Your newspapers talk about it indirectly. >MORE>>

[…]

ALSO READ:

Race Diversity – But WHY?

Frank Talk On Immigration

Happiest City In Canada

Immigration & Race

Non-Assimilating Immigrants

Multiculturalism – A Dividing Force

The RACISM Ploy

Racism – It’s Everywhere

The New Brunswick city was one of several Atlantic Canadian centres to score well in a satisfaction study conducted by the University of British Columbia.

Sponsored by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, the findings were based on survey data provided by Statistics Canada.

John Helliwell, an economics professor at UBC (University of British Columbia), examined close to 100,000 responses to Stats Canada’s ethnic diversity survey of 2002 and its general social survey of 2003.

“The magic is to find out, not only how happy people are with their lives, but to situate them in communities (and) explain why people who are happy… are happy,” Helliwell said.

Saint John led the pack with a life satisfaction score of 8.6 out of 10, which Helliwell said makes it among the happiest cities not only in Canada, but the world.

“That’s pretty high,” he said. “Denmark is the highest country and runs about 8.1 or 8.2.

Saint John, N.B. is operating in pretty rarified territory…so something’s going well.”

(Would Saint John’s 97% homogeneous White population lacking any real “racial diversity” be an important factor in this wellness?  Click underlined cities for demographic breakdown. -Editor-]

Quebec City placed 2nd.
Charlottetown (Province of Prince Edward Island) was third.

Moncton (Province of New Brunswick) & Kitchener (Province of Ontario) tied for fourth.
St. John’s (Province of Newfoundland) was sixth.

Rounding out the Top 10, in order, were Saskatoon, Regina, Winnipeg and Halifax.

Helliwell said it’s no coincidence that smaller communities scored higher than bigger ones. He said trusting others is important and those kind of connections are easier to make in smaller cities. >Source

ALSO READ:

Racial Diversity – The CON Game

Multiculturalism – A Dividing Force

Frank Talk On Immigration

Is Racial Diversity Good For Canada?

JAPAN Prefers Racial Homogeneity