Posted on 03/17/2019 9:13:44 PM PDT by Crucial
“When was the last time you read books like The Naked Communist or The Conscience of a Conservative, never mind the very Manifesto that is the left’s bible? “
I 100% agree with you. I just read the Naked Communist for the first time. Can’t believe that this excellent book has evaded this bookaholic for this many years. It is mandatory reading.
Quite so. Behind the rhetorical camoflauge of feigned compassion, the Left has a deep animosity toward normal life and normal people. They hate even the ideal of a well-ordered society and prefer upheaval and uncertainty — provided they are personally exempt from any ill effects.
All your answers are in the Bible my friend.
They did it slowly, over time by first latching on to genuine unfairness thus establishing moral cred. Then they simply applied the same exact arguments to ANYTHING they thought would erode traditional American morality. Doing THAT was what they intended from the start. They never gave one small damn about, say, Blacks.
The Naked Communist,
,
Bkmk
Who was that Commie that said;
“We will Hang You by Your Own Rope?”
Because they are relentless and tireless and we have been meekly compliant for decades - always finding it easier to comply than to become “part of a scene”....our cowardice is one of the reasons we needed a President Trump to come along and show us it’s OK to fight back.
Ask them to produce their “Offense by Proxy” certificate signed by a recognized leader of the protected group.
Ask them for a name of a person who actually agreed or otherwise asked them to be offended on behalf of the offended group. Ask for a phone number for you to verify.
krushev
Thank You.
The tipping point away from a constitutional nation to a free-for-all nation came with hippies and illegal drug use. Illegal drugs have done great damage to our nation.
Is it possible to clean up the drug menace and get our nation back on track?
That’s the book with the list of 45 goals the communists had for the USA. And of course, RINOs who assured us they were conservative (goal #15 was “Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States”) helped them get achieved—the recognition of Red China and their admission to the UN (goal #7) having been among them. I think the only one that hasn’t been achieved by now is the repeal of the Connally reservation, which means that 44 out of 45 were indeed achieved.
Many other warnings were in there, particularly the fact that communists were “out to create a race of human beings conditioned to think like criminals”, as well as “(f)rom a Marxist viewpoint, an atheistic mind is already three-fourths conquered”.
I've been meaning to find that film on several recommendations. Thanks.
First off, “liberals” ain’t liberal. It’s coming up on a hundred years since it happened, but socialists in America figured out that “socialism” was a bad brand in America. So - in America only - socialists rebranded themselves in the 1920s by gradually inverting the meaning of the word “liberal.”When you hear the word “liberal” today, you check your wallet because you know you’re dealing with a dishonest person. But a century ago, “liberal” was the word for my political attitude - and yours. The socialists stole our brand, and gave us a bad one - “conservative.” You and I are not conservative. In fact there are no conservatives in America - at least, none who will answer to the name.
It is true that we want to conserve liberty - but liberty means doing things different from the way our fathers did them. We believe in progress - progress of, by, and for the American people. “Liberals” believe in progress of, by, and for the government.
The answer to you question is that socialism is cynicism directed at society. Criticism is easy, any fool can criticize. Criticism of society implicitly promotes government “needed to fix the problem.” But government has bad side effects, so it is naive to assume that just because I might be able to vividly describe a “problem” that means that I am qualified to be able to fix it if you give me enough power.
And the reason socialists have such influence is simple - journalists are standing where you stand to be pushed into supporting socialism. Journalists absorb the idea that bad news is important with their mothers’ milk. And it’s all downhill from there.
Liberals are lawless. Reminds me of Satan. Bring them into any garden and watch it rot.
https://komonews.com/news/local/komo-news-special-seattle-is-dying
I had a look at what kind of writing was going on in the 1920s to criticize those on the left, and the phrase “pinko-liberal” pops up a lot.
Also, the Tories and Whigs in the UK were “conservative” and “liberal” respectively in the nineteenth century. The latter became part of the Liberal Party in the same century; this party advocated what they called “New Liberalism” (state intervention in private affairs, particularly unemployment) and created the British welfare state in the following century, and that helped Labour to rise and push them into the margins, ironically. The Liberals remained allied with the Social Democrats (as the SDP-Liberal Alliance) until their merger in 1988 as the Liberal Democrats. This is most likely how “liberal” became associated with socialistic policy in the English-speaking world.
I also found it odd how many of the communists changed their names. (I added a few other leaders to those listed in the Naked Communist)
Joseph Stalin was Iosif Dzhugashvilli
Vladimir Lenin was Vladimir Ulyanov
Leon Trotsky was Lev Davidovich Bronstein
Bill Clinton was William Jefferson Blythe III
Barack Obama was Barry Soetoro
Spiro Agnew was Spiro Anagnostopoulos
Ho Chi Minh was Nguyen Sinh Cung
Malcolm X was Malcolm Little
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was Isoroku Sadayoshi
Pancho Villa was Doroteo Arango
This is fascinating.... Beto caused me to think of this.
There is also “Bill de Blasio”, born Warren Wilhelm.
Changing names in the Orient preceded the advent of overt Marxian-type socialism, though. They’ve had and in some cases still have “courtesy names”, which they use outside their family and closest friends; not sure if this is related to the old pagan belief that knowledge of one’s true name can give an enemy power over them.
According to Safire’s New Political Dictionary, Thomas Dewey was complaining in the 1930s, that the meaning of “liberal” had been turned on its head.
It seems to me that if good men and women had put a stop to the lunacy being mainstreamed when it began ramping up in the 60’s and 70’s, bad men and women wouldn’t have the upper hand in every facet of society now.
I suspect they were complacent, or thought the lunatics couldn’t possibly be a threat to the country, that the “fads” would all go away. But that wasn’t the plan. It was a decades-long concerted effort to take traditional America apart. While normal people were working, raising kids, etc., the lunatics were invading the schools, the courts, the government, and the churches. And here we are.
The future of this country is very uncertain, to say the least.
Sad to say, the defenders of our culture (such as they were) were either A) Absent B) Trying to he 'hip' C) Moral and intellectual cowards.
So we find ourselves trapped in the insane asylum, trying to negotiate with the inmates.
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.