Posted on 11/09/2005 12:14:58 PM PST by antisocial
Unmasking Political Correctness by William S. Lind
In this edition, Paul Weyrich refers to "cultural Marxism." He asked me, as Free Congress Foundation's resident historian, to write this column explaining what cultural Marxism is and where it came from. In order to understand what something is and what to do about it, you have to know its history.
Cultural Marxism is a branch of western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as "multiculturalism" or, less formally, Political Correctness. From its beginning, the promoters of cultural Marxism have known they could be more effective if they concealed the Marxist nature of their work, hence the use of terms such as "multiculturalism."
Cultural Marxism began not in the 1960s but in 1919, immediately after World War I. Marxist theory had predicted that in the event of a big European war, the working class all over Europe would rise up to overthrow capitalism and create communism. But when war came in 1914, that did not happen. When it finally did happen in Russia in 1917, workers in other European countries did not support it. What had gone wrong?
Not to mention the constant barrage of negative reporting on all things conservative, even from some of our own.
Unfortunately, what starts in California has a way of metastasizing across the country.To a point. They just passed a law against gay marriage in Texas.
Socialism is nothing but a systematic form of egalitarian barbarism which institutionalizes pillage and looting' (read, taxation)I subscribe to the theory that says socialism is an adaptation of feudalism to the modern world. It's a way of maintaining a royal upper class, by basing it on ideology, rather than family.
It has absolutely nothing to do with equality (of opportunity, for example), and we all know that egalitarianism is a myth.
The goal of socialism is the elevation of the public trough class to the status of masters over we the people, we the slaves.
As long as the public skoolz keep churning out the idiots, there will be plenty of slaves.
Bump
Best article I've seen on the subject. Thanks.
Best article I've seen on the subject. Thanks.
You're welcome glad you enjoyed it.
This is a very important Read....so much more on the actual URL....Please people read the whole thing....
Semper Fi
"Oh Lind, what won't you blame on the Jews."
Please sir point out to me the anti-semitic comments here...I must be blind????
Tonalities are important. The problem with railing about "public trough workers" is that government does a lot of good and needful things. It also does a lot of superfluous things that We The Peeps demand come election time (or that some congressional subcommittee chairman thinks should be done), which is not the employees' fault. Simply denouncing government leads us into one political dead end after another. I have learned this lesson the hard way. I have given up thinking we should lose elections over it.
That said, I do agree that federal and, in many places, state and local government pay and benefits are excessive. That's largely because the whole government sector operates on automatic COLAs and never faces a readjustment; 3%-plus creep year after year, decade after decade takes a toll. The federal comparability formula is a joke, and the union bargaining process at the state and local level has slipped the leash.
My magic bullet solution would be an across-the-board rule that government pay and benefits, on average, could not exceed the average for full-time employed persons in the private sector, with an automatic freeze until that level is reached. I could stand up in any town hall meeting in America and defend that, while I couldn't defend a generic attack on "government."
The other thing we need to do is make it possible to fire people. The issue here is not so much incompetence or misbehavior -- I'll grant the occasional exceptions -- as it is the need to delayer, downsize, and streamline. My limited exposure to federal agencies suggests that most folks are working hard enough, but they're working in antiquated structures. A clerk from the 1930's could walk into most agencies today and, once he learned the rudiments of Word and Excel, would feel right at home.
Don't misunderstand me: if you and I got down to specifics, we would probably be in substantial agreement. I personally would have no trouble getting rid of three-quarters or more of the federal non-defense budget. That's after shifting Medicare and Medicaid to a means tested voucher approach, a 40 year transition to put Social Security on a fully funded investment account basis, and the devolution of many other functions to state and local governments (which means, of course that "government" would still be in the picture). At the local level, voucher the public schools and we're almost done.
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.