Posted on 08/07/2015 5:28:55 PM PDT by Ray76
"There is a revolution coming. It will not be like the revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual and with culture, and will change the political structure only as its final act. It will not require violence to succeed, and it cannot be successfully resisted by violence. This is the revolution of the new generation."
– Charles Reich, The Greening of America, 1970.
Every generation bemoans the slippage of standards and the 'going to the dogs' of society, but history shows that civilisations and peoples really do collapse utterly. Some even become extinct. Great Britain, needless to say, is no longer as great as it once was, but has the degradation we see around us on a daily basis been caused by well-intentioned liberal stupidity, or by brilliantly-planned leftist malevolence?
Perhaps it is a mixture of both. It has long been known that the hard Left wished to transform the traditional Britain (and West) I was born into. Via a protracted campaign of brainwashing and propaganda they were able to recruit well intentioned liberals into an unknowing alliance. This was not particularly difficult, of course; liberals are easily duped by propagandised platitudes and fall very easily into Lenin's denouncement of them as useful idiots.
But first, let us deal with some facts. During and after World War II the Soviet Communists gobbled up as much of Europe as they could. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia disappeared behind the Iron Curtain, followed by Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and East Germany. In essence, any country within Moscow's military strike capability fell into its clutches and became part of the Soviet empire.
The Communists really did have global aspirations, so countries outside their military sphere were not simply ignored and written off, they were earmarked for destabilisation and subversion, to be taken over at a later date. The Kremlin office assigned this task was the Department of Agitation and Propaganda, which worked with Western Communist parties, including the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB).
Added to this subversive mix was what became known as the Frankfurt School, which wielded enormous social pressure – initially in America and subsequently in Britain – in the decades after the Second World War. It was established in Frankfurt in 1923 by the Hungarian Communist György Lukács, and was known in those days as the Institution for Marxism.
Lukács was an agent of The Communist International (Comintern) which had been established in Moscow in 1919 in order to "fight by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie for the creation of an international Soviet republic".
Karl Marx wrote of the anarchy necessary as a precursor to outright revolution, in which he would "stand astride the wreckage a colossus". Lukács, whose reputation in the revolutionary world was almost on a par with Marx himself, said: "I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution. A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries."
In the 1930s Lukács was joined by two other Marxists, Max Horkheimer and Theodore Adorno, but the rise of Hitler made it impossible for them to stay in Germany, so they moved to New York City, where the institute became known as the Frankfurt School. In the 1950s they were joined by a new recruit Herbert Marcuse, and between them they started to write the Marxist future of the democratic West.
The Frankfurt School was the birthplace of Critical Theory, which may be described as the destructive criticism of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, heredity, ethno-centrism and conservatism. Critical Theory repeats the basic tenets of Western evil over and over again: racism, sexism, colonialism, nationalism, homophobia, fascism, xenophobia and imperialism.
Herbert Marcuse is probably the most infamous person that most people today have never heard of. His book Eros and Civilization promoted free love and the pleasure principle. His counter-cultural ideologies gradually transformed American and Western society from that which built Western Civilisation into that which exists only to tear it down. The greying politicians who now run the West and the majority of its institutions are the same fresh-faced students of the 1970s who once sang the Marcuse-inspired, "Hey hey, ho ho, Western Civ [civilisation] has got to go."
A cult developed around Marcuse during the 1960s and 1970s, and the student-hippie generation was the Marcuse generation. He was held in such esteem that everything he penned was taken seriously, resulting in the students' absorption of not just Marcuse's most famous expression, "Make Love not War", but also the rest of the Frankfurt School's anti-Western, counter-cultural propaganda. Never had Lenin's useful idiots been more abundant.
But Marcuse was an evil man. He genuinely wanted to overthrow the traditional West. When asked who would play the part of the Russian proletariat in the Western revolution, he replied it would be all the marginalised groups, including black militants, feminists, homosexual militants, the asocial, the alienated and Third World revolutionaries represented by the mass murderer Che Guevara.
The destructive policies of the Frankfurt School were known collectively as Cultural Terrorism. Today, they are simply referred to as Political Correctness, an ideology people are aware of, although very few know of its anti-Western, destructive and revolutionary roots. Doubters should ask why the victims of the politically correct lobby are overwhelmingly white, Christian, capitalist, heterosexual and male, or DWEMs as they are crudely referred to in America, short for Dead White European Males.
The simple answer is that these men and the qualities they embodied laid the foundations, erected the props, and over many centuries built the various layers of intertwined ideology and structure that formed Western Civilisation. If our memory of them can be destroyed, if the ideology can be destroyed, and if the race of people who currently represent that ideology can be destroyed, then Western Civilisation can itself be destroyed.
Only when we understand this harsh reality does the modern world make any sense. Western society has not suddenly become insane. We do not live in a society of 'political correctness gone mad'. It is not that we are old and 'just don't get it'. The terrifying truth is that we are being set up for deliberately engineered control by a well-planned Socialist operation that has been decades in the making.
Partial proof of this fact is the typical white liberal Leftist who denounces the historical European colonisation of foreign lands as imperialistic and oppressive, yet celebrates the current foreign colonisation of Europe. This tells us it is not colonialism with which the liberal Left have a problem, but Western Civilisation itself.
The Marxist left liberals have now completed their long march through the institutions. They claim the varied lunatic policies they enacted were for the benefit of society, but can this really be the case? When viewed through the prism of reality, much of Socialism's ideology appears to have one aim and one aim only: the total destruction of society. This is not an overreaction by any means – if societal destruction was your bag, would you not carry out the following?
What is the difference between booming Germany and bankrupt Britain? Simple: Germany manufactures and Britain consumes – but this was not always the case. Britain once had a dominant engineering and ship-building industry, and was Europe's biggest manufacturer of cars and motor-cycles. It was therefore essential to sabotage our industrial base – our means of production – in order to destroy capitalist Britain. Many trades union leaders of the 1950s through to the 1980s were Communists or Communist sympathisers who organised strikes and 'downed tools' so successfully that Britain's industrial base went to the wall. Writing in The Spectator a few years ago, Douglas Eden outlined the infiltration of British Trades Unions, and how their pro-Soviet ideology was tolerated by Labour Prime Ministers up until the election in 1979 of Margaret Thatcher. Mrs Thatcher, incidentally, is hated so viscerally by the left liberals because her defeat of the unions was perceived to have ended the dream of International Communism.
Having defeated the Unions, Margaret Thatcher, inexplicably, never promoted British industry in the aftermath. She decided instead that Britain's economy should be based around service industry, which essentially meant paper-shuffling and number-crunching. As paper-shufflers and number-crunchers need to be educated to a reasonable standard, so the left liberals took their Marxist war against the economy into the classrooms. The British state school curriculum essentially revolves around the Frankfurt School ideology of anti-Western 'Critical Theory', with traditional education placed second best. An exposé of the overt Socialist propaganda in our schools may be read here, but the results of Britain's progressive educational policies are visible all around us. Semi-literate and semi-numerate university graduates sit atop a pile of the most badly educated young people in Europe, many of whom are completely unemployable, according to the heads of British business – just as was intended by the hard left, and implemented by their eager armies of liberal useful idiots.
Feminism has often been described as a war against men, but it is more than just that. Feminist ideology is really about war against the family, because families tend to be self-sufficient and therefore less reliant on the state. As Socialism is all about state control, then the family must be smashed.
Betty Friedan, Simone de Beauvoir and Germaine Greer, Communist supporters all, took their dysfunctional ideology from Friedrich Engels' statement in The Origin of the Family: "The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed slavery of the wife ... within the family he is the bourgeois and his wife represents the proletariat." Germaine Greer is in complete agreement with Engels, and her book The Female Eunuch is essentially a clarion call for destruction, anarchy and Communism, as we can see from the following quote: "Women's liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a necessary structure of the authoritarian state, and once that withers away Marx will have come true willy-nilly, so let's get on with it."
Greer goes on to say: "But man made one grave mistake ... he admitted women to politics and the professions. The conservatives who saw this as the undermining of our civilisation and the end of the state and marriage were right after all; it is time for the demolition to begin." Well, thanks, Germaine! The demolition not only began; it is now all but over. Surveys suggest children raised in conventional families are far less likely to go off the rails, but in the Socialist world the ends justify the means, so feminists ignore the broken lives and thwarted ambitions of fatherless, state supported children, particularly those of West Indian origin and the white working-class members of the abandoned proletariat. In addition, brainwashed British women have put abortion and careers before motherhood and give birth to a new generation 25% smaller than their own, which effectively destroys any hope of an equal or growing future taxpayer base to fund the welfare state.
All great civilisations have been built around great religions. Western Civilisation is built on the foundations of Judeo-Christianity, so if Western Civilisation is to be destroyed then its religious pillars must first be undermined. Again, this destructive ethos is derived from Communist ideology. Christianity and Communism are fundamentally incompatible – one is a spiritual creed, the other materialist. Christianity lays down that a man's responsibility to his neighbour is personal, a matter for his individual conscience, while Communism decrees that all duties are collective, to be enforced by the state. Karl Marx stated: "The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, self-contempt, abasement, submission, humility. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
Communists believed the Ten Commandments to be a form of "class morality" that served only the interests of the bourgeoisie. Anatole Lunarcharsky, a Russian Commissar of education declared: "We hate Christianity and Christians ... they preach love of one's neighbours and mercy, which is contrary to our principles. Christian love is an obstacle to the development of the Revolution! What we want is hate, only then can we conquer the world."
In Britain, Christianity is not outlawed, just sidelined, sneered at, and its practice sometimes criminalised. The persecution of British Christians has reached such a level that in 2010 Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and six prominent bishops, penned an open letter to the Labour government stating: "We are deeply concerned at the apparent discrimination shown against Christians and we call on the Government to remedy this serious development. In a number of cases, Christian beliefs on marriage, conscience and worship are simply not being upheld. There have been numerous dismissals of practising Christians from employment for reasons that are unacceptable in a civilised country."
Perhaps Lord Carey actually understands that the Marxist elites in Britain share the same hatred of Christianity, for precisely the same reasons as did the Communists. The BBC after all appointed a controversial Muslim, Aaqil Ahmed, to head up their religious affairs department.
In 2006 the BBC was shamed into rewriting an anti-Christian pro-Islamic text aimed at schoolchildren, which described Christianity as a religion of racism, sexism, colonialism, enslavement and murder, whilst Islam, with its arranged marriages, honour killings and second class status for women under Sharia law, was deemed a female-friendly religion. Britain's left liberal elites clearly consider Christianity to be an impediment to the ideology of the New Socialist Man they seem intent on building.
There is little point in eradicating religion without ensuring the concomitant destruction of morality, hence the invention of moral relativism which argues there is no such thing as right or wrong. Lenin invoked the same ideology, but did so in a more honest manner when he said, "Morality is that which furthers the revolution." The Marxists and liberal left who now control the education and media establishments in Britain know that massive social change cannot be brought about by outright revolution, so realise that anarchy must first prevail – just as espoused by György Lukács. A sure-fire way to create an anarchic situation is to remove the young from the codes of behaviour that religion and morality demand.
Like families, communities tend toward self-sufficiency and are the bedrock of nation states. The community is simply part of a chain – family, community, village, town, city, country, nation state. Communities are capable of acting together in defiance of the state – ergo, they too must be smashed. How to do so? Demolish streets of family houses and build impersonal blocks; close down local schools and hospitals and build mega-versions controlled by faceless bureaucrats rather than locally known people; close local post offices where the elderly meet and gossip once a week; outlaw smoking and make pubs (the nerve centres of individual resistance) prohibitively expensive. In short, fragment and isolate the population so they feel alone and powerless before the all-powerful state and its ever growing army of interfering bureaucrats.
Shortly after the jailed dissident turned president Vaclav Havel came to power in Czechoslovakia in 1989, he stated that the rebuilding of Socialism's shattered economic, moral, spiritual and environmental forty-year catastrophe could not take place until a new middle class had formed. This is exactly right. The middle classes are the backbone of any functioning democracy. They pay taxes; they participate in their children's education; they form committees and pressure groups; they raise money for local causes; they are self-sufficient and require little or nothing from the state. Such independent actions make them an acute threat to the state and must therefore be smashed. Disguised as the promotion of a 'classless society' Britain's middle-classes have been systematically traduced by the educational and media establishments, because they represent the bourgeoisie in ideology, if not in income.
Britain has been importing a low-skilled 'workforce' from less developed countries for decades, whilst simultaneously exporting low-skilled jobs abroad. Whilst it is pleasant for highly-paid BBC liberals to employ cheap nannies and cleaners, the working class find themselves in direct competition with immigrants, which is an area where they simply cannot compete. A Polish builder who works for half the rate of a British builder does not have to pay a mortgage or support a family, and is happy living fifteen to a house for a few years before moving back to Poland with a large pot of money. Big business has no problem with this, nor do the left liberal elites who are happy to create an unemployed British underclass which can be relied on to keep foolishly voting for them, simply because they offer the highest rewards for enforced unemployment.
This is more about the European Union than internal British politics, but it is very important. The unelected commissars who run the EU are fully aware they cannot control fully-functioning nation states, which is why the United Kingdom has been broken up into twelve regions. The pevious Labour government even went so far as to appoint Regional Ministers for each area. This destruction of our ancient counties and governance – with the word 'England' actually removed from EU maps – is otherwise known as 'Divide and Rule'.
In the course of a political argument, an ancient lady was told by her grandson that she came from a different generation, to which she replied: "No, I come from a different civilisation."
Quite so. There is little point in controlling the medium of Socialist education if the wisdom of the older 'reactionary' generations can still be passed down to the younger. In Africa, the tribal elders are respected and listened to, but in Britain those over a certain age are mocked at worst, or sidelined at best, because they come from a pre-revolutionary era. Those born after 1970 come from the post-revolutionary era, and never the twain shall meet. The educational and media establishments are run in the main by the young or the very young, all soaked in Marxist ideology, and their output is principally aimed only at the young. This is deliberately done in order to ensure the segregation of those who could present an alternative voice to their incessant and twisted Socialist propaganda.
Has there ever been such conformity amongst the youth of a democratic nation before? Most young people are politically correct. They have been reared to believe in themselves as individuals, and to hold their own self-esteem (their very high and often unearned self-esteem) as an intrinsic part of said individuality. But in reality they have been socially engineered into individuals who all believe the same thing. This is because the conformist herd is so much easier to control than the non-conformist individual, particularly so when the herd mentality just happens to be the ideology of the Socialist state. The heavily propagandised ideology shared by the vast majority of the young is not quite as compassionate as they think, however, because the stark reality of it guarantees their immediate cultural destruction, and their eventual racial destruction.
Remove the various traditions and taboos that bound previous societies together; deem discipline in schools to be an archaic bourgeois form of child abuse; promote the ideology of self before group and pleasure before duty; promote licentiousness through early-age sex education coupled with pornographic music videos à la MTV; downplay heterosexual marriage as one of many equally valid lifestyle choices; remove the taboo of illegitimacy and reward it through welfare payments; offer abortions to teenage girls without their parents' knowledge; promote an ideology of "Me, me, me! Now, now, now!" above outmoded ideas such as sacrifice, thrift, duty, honour, morality, truth, decency and patriotism.
This is dressed up with words like egalitarianism and equality, but what it really means is dragging everything down to the lowest common denominator, which is far easier than dragging people upwards. Grammar schools were 'elitist', and therefore had to be destroyed, even though the main beneficiaries were working class children. Competitive sport meant that for every winner there were several losers, so that too had to be sidelined in some state schools. But the rest of the world does not play by the same suicidal rules. China is already an economic superpower; how can we hope to compete when they worship elitism and strive for success, whilst we worship the lowest-common-denominator ideology of egalitarianism, and reward failure?
Building a dependent class is of great importance to left liberals. Firstly, the dependents will vote for the hand that feeds them the most, and secondly it enables the ruling elite to exercise control they could never dream of exercising over a non-dependent class. This explains why Britain's public sector is favoured above the private sector by left liberals, and why the deliberate formation of a permanent state-dependent underclass seems to worry them so little. In 2008-9 the welfare payment bill was actually higher than the total P.A.Y.E. tax-receipts, however. And, quite astonishingly, there are more people registered as disabled (and claiming benefits) than were registered disabled immediately after World War One! This is obviously unsustainable, and confirms Alexander Tytler's view that democracies collapse when the money provided by the rulers in return for their vote eventually runs out, after which dictatorship inevitably follows. Tytler's famous quote is as follows:
From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage.
Britain is no longer a truly democratic country. 80% of our new legislation is now enacted in Brussels at the behest of twenty-eight Commissioners whom we never elected and can never democratically remove from office. The British government is essentially just a puppet council, allowed to remain in place to reassure the gullible public that we still run our own affairs – which we don't. In addition, the flooding of Britain by Third World immigrants was an undemocratic act. The electorate was never asked if we wished to transform Britain into a multi-ethnic, multicultural country. If we had been asked, we would have said "No!" And, just to rub salt into the wound, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for left liberal politicians – which, of course, is partially why they were imported in the first place.
The Labour Party's introduction of postal voting also means our elections are now influenced by fraudulently obtained ballot papers not only in Britain's large Muslim enclaves, but also – and this is completely surreal – via proxy votes in Pakistan and Bangladesh! In the 2010 British elections the Conservatives failed to win a majority by a very slim margin, leading Lady Warsi, a Conservative Muslim, to lay the blame squarely on Muslim electoral fraud. When British elections (such as they are, now the EU is the real power) are illegally influenced by Pakistanis in Mirpur, I think we can safely say our democracy is dead.
The white working class betrayed the hard Left when they failed to rise up in the much longed-for proletarian revolution, and they failed to rise up because they had become too affluent. The Marxist solution was to introduce a new, foreign-born 'oppressed proletariat' as a means to Socialism's ongoing march toward total power. The number of Third World immigrants runs into the millions. This deliberate dilution of an indigenous people has never before happened on such a scale. If UN guidelines on genocide are taken quite literally, it amounts to the ethnic cleansing of the English.
White children are now a minority in London schools and in many schools within other British cities. Demographers predict the indigenous population will become a minority by around 2060, with the young suffering that fate even earlier. Feminist ideology has dramatically decreased the indigenous demographic whilst the Islamic population is doubling every decade through continued immigration and high birth rates. Islam is already a huge problem in Britain, yet, as their numbers grow, so will their demands on traditional Britain, which lives its life in a manner markedly different to life under sharia law – which surveys suggest some 40% of British Muslims wish to see enacted.
Why do left liberals act as apologists for Islam? Hugh Fitzgerald puts it thus:
Nothing shows better the extreme hatred liberals have for Western Civilisation than their unashamed alliance with a movement (Islam) which is mortally opposed to liberalism's sacred calves – women's rights, gay rights, abortion and multiple cultures. Yet Islam and the liberal/ left are in harmony on the major issues. They are anti-Christian and anti-Jew, they are anti-democracy and anti-individual rights, they are anti-capitalist and they regard the individual as existing merely to serve the collective. Consequently, they have the same common enemy – Western Civilisation.
The successful integration of happy foreigners with a happy indigenous population is hardly going to foment revolution, hence the ideology of multiculturalism which intentionally divides races and cultures. Multiculturalism was designed to destroy any sense of national pride and patriotism amongst the indigenous population, whilst actively encouraging the same amongst the incoming races and cultures. It also encourages ethnic minorities to believe their lack of success is due to (or if they are successful, in spite of) historical white imperialist oppression and current white Western institutional racism. This makes them united, vengeful, angry and strong. Multiculturalism actively instils guilt in the indigenous white population for our past oppression and current racism, which makes us apologetic, disunited and weak. We can only, it seems, be forgiven our historical racial sins once the ethnic minorities have matched or surpassed the demographic and political power of the indigenous people.
New laws have been passed to criminalise those who dare to speak out against their territorial, racial and cultural dispossession. Children are brainwashed into 'celebrating' their dispossession with such Orwellian intent that thousands as young as three have been officially noted as possessing 'racist' tendencies –a situation we can only expect to worsen as the demographic gap between white and non-white inexorably narrows. Race is the biggest weapon the left liberals use in their war against traditional Britain, so resistance to that weapon is both criminalised and subsequently labelled the evil of all evils – RACISM – in order to strip us of our only peaceful defence mechanism. Of course there are some racist whites, but they are a statistical minority compared to the ethnic minorities who physically attack whites at a far greater ratio than vice-versa. The only true racists in Britain are the treasonous anti-white politicians, policemen and journalists who seek to cover up the real statistics about racial crime and racial hate.
British education ignores the crimes of Communism and concentrates only on the crimes of Hitler, portraying him principally as a racist. The evils of Nazism can then be used as an attack against indigenous peoples who protest their cultural and territorial dispossession, by simply labelling the protestors as Nazi racists and therefore no better than Hitler himself. In reality the left liberals are as obsessed with race – in its diverse form – as Hitler and the Nazis were with race in its pure form. And they are using race with the express intention of achieving what Hitler failed to do – the absolute conquest of Britain, Europe and the West, at the expense of its indigenous peoples.
This is a tried and tested principle dating back to the Roman times of bread and circuses. Just look at the output of the mainstream media, which deals in fantasy and trivia rather than reality and substance. This sadly works just as intended. The majority of Brits have been gradually sucked down into an infantile world of vapid celebrity worship, football, X Factor and gutter sensationalism, all promoted 24/7 by the media establishment. As a direct consequence, they have little interest in matters that really matter.
No doubt the left liberals will denounce this series of articles as the ranting of a right-wing conspiracy theorist. But facts are facts; the Communists did set out to subvert the capitalist West; the anti-Western 'Critical Theory' of the Frankfurt school is now the ideology of the educational and media establishments; the left liberal politicians did set out to transform Britain via mass Third World immigration; our industry was destroyed, as have been our educational establishments etc. etc., and the people behind this destruction were and are Marxists, leftists or useful idiot liberals.
Every single one of the deliberately destructive policies I have outlined above could destroy a country over a lengthy period of time, even without the Third World invasion. When they are combined, however, and mass immigration is added to the mix, our destruction is not only assured, it is assured over a relatively small time-span.
Consequently, the speed of Britain's destruction has been astonishingly fast. Anyone over the age of 40 or 50 will tell you that Britain today is not the Britain they were born into, and that Britain is simply not sustainable in its present condition. But the left liberals have made a terrible mistake. The future will not be one of Marxist revolution and permanent leftist control. Whilst mass Third World immigration may have been their main weapon of choice to destabilise the country, they simply did not reckon with such a rapidly expanding, cohesive and militant Islam.
The future of Britain can logically be one of only two options. A country dominated by Islam, or a country dominated by the right wing, which is rapidly growing as a wholly natural response to the combined threat of Islam and the Left. No one knows which side will emerge triumphant in the battle between Islam and the emerging right, but whichever it is, one thing is very strongly assured: they will hold no great regard for the left liberals – to put it very mildly indeed.
At the beginning of this series, I asked whether the appalling destruction carried out in the name of left-wing ideology was well-intentioned liberal stupidity, or brilliantly-planned leftist malevolence. Perhaps it really was done to realise György Lukács's dream: "I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution. A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries."
Or perhaps it wasn't. It is quite possible it was caused by liberal stupidity of criminal proportions, but all that really matters now is that the damage wreaked by the left liberals be redressed – and we have little time remaining in which to do so.
bttt
ping for later
Bookmark
In before the photo of Obama.
I was given Marcuse in 1968 in a grad class. I laughed when I read him. Little did I know.
Ping.
“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956
In retrospect, we should have killed them all back then. No, we all will pay the price for our lack of awareness and resolution. Winter is coming.
Destroy the Tyrant: save the country
No more problem
A few cancer cells, left to incubate for years, mean death.
And here we are.
One does not negotiate with cancer.
One does not appease cancer.
One does not give cancer a seat at the table.
I have watched a lot of this decline since 1950s high school and college days. It's all true, as well as agonizing.
McCarthy was right. His vilification has been so pervasive in our media and educational institutions that the rewrite of history is now complete. The reality of what took place has been completely lost.
Was his early demise apparently because of liver failure? That organ is, of course, where many stealth poisons are removed from the system, which would damage it.
One wonders whether or not the claim of "death due to alcoholism" was not in fact accelerated by a debilitating poison not easily detectable in those days before more discerning methods of analysis were devised.
Tellurium, anyone? or a touch of polonioum?
Did he offend Armand Hammer (Occidental Petroleum/Iowa Beef/Clinton Corn/Allied Chemical="Love Canal"), friend of the Soviets and of Al Gore, Sr.; or Thomas J. Watson and son (IBM), both globalists, dyed-in-the-wool socialist Democrats, friends of FDR and Russia and world government; or some other "liberal" power elite who also hated McCarthy to the death?
Hmmm. Big enemies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.