The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]

The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

The LIGHT IN THE FOREST

The Lion's Den ... International & Political Debate

Interesting take, ... part 1.

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:

UserName:

Password:

Format Mode:

Format:

Videos:

Message Icon:

Message:

Smilies




		$computer woes {CW:_(}$

[quote][i]Originally posted by Monadnock Guide[/i]
[br]Political Correctness Must Die
by James Hudnall
.
In the early 20th century Marxism seemed like a good idea to many of the poor and downtrodden the world over. It hadnt yet resulted in the untimely deaths of more people than all the wars of the 20th century combined.
.
Even so, radicals then were as annoying and crazed as radicals now. So the people werent universally jumping on their bandwagon. The Marxists couldnt flip governments without the masses. So they worked on a system to undermine unity in society. The old adage United we stand, divided we fall was on their mind. They had to divide the people in order to tear society apart and remake it their way. Thus, political correctness was born.
.
This documentary does an excellent job of telling its story. PC is designed by German Marxists of the Frankfurt School to destroy Western culture.
.
It should come as no surprise the the destruction of the family is one of its goals. And as it gained in prominence, its goals have been realized. The polarization of racial groups, and even of
the sexes is another.
.
Thats plenty of reason to see it die a horrible death. Marxists have murdered many times more people than the Nazis. They have destroyed the livelihoods of people the world over and imprisoned many millions in gulags and work camps. The last thing we want to do is let them win here or anywhere else.
.
While it may seem communism is dead, communism, socialism, fascism are all part of a many headed hydra called statism. These are political systems which are all about empowering the state as much as possible. They name they go under now is progressive.
.
Many progressives on the ground think they are fighting for equal rights and social justice. The progressive elites know better. They want power and control over peoples lives. Political correctness is a tool to accomplish these goals.
.
It should come as no surprise that the oldest Marxist states threw off Marxism because it doesnt work, and went with their own version of capitalism. Almost every single former Soviet state went gleefully to capitalism. Russia even has a flat tax. Thats a pretty sad comment on where we are right now when their tax system is simple and ours is a bureaucratic nightmare.
.
Political Correctness is hated by just about anyone you meet. The only people driving it are leftists and government bureaucrats, who earn a living from it. Pardon my redundancy.
.
Here are five good reasons Political Correctness must die.
.
    1. Its censorship: Point blank, thats what it is. Its used mainly by people on the left to attack people on the right, but not the other way around. When Miss California, Carrie Prejean, politely said she thought marriage should be between a man and a woman, the PC thugs proceeded to try to destroy her life. But when Obama said it he was elected president. Its used to accuse people of racism even when there is no racism involved, Its not only a scare tactic, but also a career-destroying move. And its a thuggish weapon of intimidation.
.
    2. Its bigotry disguised as manners: You may think all those touchy-feely names they come up with for various special interest groups are more sensitive and empowering than the mean names of the past, but most of them are patronizing and they segregating. When you separate people into classes, its creating a kind of caste system. History has shown us that caste systems are used to suppress and marginalize people by putting them in special groups. The insidious thing about PC is it claims to treat people better when it really does the opposite. It implies that people in these groups are somehow lesser and weaker and must be protected, presumably by the government, and then implies that they are not being treated well by other groups (namely white males) which is an inherently racist argument.
.
    3. Its an attempt at mind control: The goal of PC always has been to segregate people into classes, destroy the family by marginalizing and polarizing people from traditional values and culture. It also tries to rebrand things to force people to think along a different path. You might think thats a good thing if it makes people more tolerant. While our culture is more tolerant than it was in the past there is no proof or evidence PC had anything to do with it. The fact is, lying to people (which PC does) and trying to destroy a culture by effectively brainwashing people is downright
.
    4. Evil: The textbook definition of evil is that which is willfully and maliciously harmful to others. What else do you call something that is used to commit so much harm against people and a society as a whole. It has become a rampant monster that destroys lives, careers, and society. Its used by creepy, selfish people to hurt others. Race-baiters we all know and despise have been using PC for years to try to extort money from business and government by making up racist claims. Thats nothing but a form of extortion.
.
    5. Why should we do what some faceless creeps tell us?: Most of the time we were told what the new term for something is. In the 60s we were told Negro is not acceptable anymore. We should say black even though Negro is merely the Spanish word for black. Then in the 70s we were told to use Afro-American then later African-American even though that term is not only a mouthful it makes no sense. A lot of black Americans are simply Americans, many others are from the Caribbean. Or they are mixed race like our president. Who makes up these lame terms and why should we start saying them? Because were supposed to isnt a reason, thats more of a threat. Who says we have to? Why shouldnt we say steward or stewardess instead of flight attendant? Because they say so? Why should we take directions from faceless entities who tell us what we can say? Why cant we say whatever we want? Most of the terms these people come up with are retarded mentally challenged. See, they hyphenate you to separate you from the rest of us, Were all part of the same country, but they want to make you feel aggrieved. Angry and unhappy people are easier to sway with propaganda.
.
So Ive listed a few reasons why PC must die. I could go on, but the real question is, how do we kill the hydra? Its not an easy monster to beat.
.
I have some ideas. I will share them in part 2.

[/quote]

Upload an Image File From Your PC For Insertion in Your Post

- HTML is OFF | Forum Code is ON

Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.

T O P I C R E V I E W
Monadnock Guide	Posted - May 14 2009 : 08:33:35 AM Political Correctness Must Die by James Hudnall . In the early 20th century Marxism seemed like a good idea to many of the poor and downtrodden the world over. It hadnt yet resulted in the untimely deaths of more people than all the wars of the 20th century combined. . Even so, radicals then were as annoying and crazed as radicals now. So the people werent universally jumping on their bandwagon. The Marxists couldnt flip governments without the masses. So they worked on a system to undermine unity in society. The old adage United we stand, divided we fall was on their mind. They had to divide the people in order to tear society apart and remake it their way. Thus, political correctness was born. . This documentary does an excellent job of telling its story. PC is designed by German Marxists of the Frankfurt School to destroy Western culture. . It should come as no surprise the the destruction of the family is one of its goals. And as it gained in prominence, its goals have been realized. The polarization of racial groups, and even of the sexes is another. . Thats plenty of reason to see it die a horrible death. Marxists have murdered many times more people than the Nazis. They have destroyed the livelihoods of people the world over and imprisoned many millions in gulags and work camps. The last thing we want to do is let them win here or anywhere else. . While it may seem communism is dead, communism, socialism, fascism are all part of a many headed hydra called statism. These are political systems which are all about empowering the state as much as possible. They name they go under now is progressive. . Many progressives on the ground think they are fighting for equal rights and social justice. The progressive elites know better. They want power and control over peoples lives. Political correctness is a tool to accomplish these goals. . It should come as no surprise that the oldest Marxist states threw off Marxism because it doesnt work, and went with their own version of capitalism. Almost every single former Soviet state went gleefully to capitalism. Russia even has a flat tax. Thats a pretty sad comment on where we are right now when their tax system is simple and ours is a bureaucratic nightmare. . Political Correctness is hated by just about anyone you meet. The only people driving it are leftists and government bureaucrats, who earn a living from it. Pardon my redundancy. . Here are five good reasons Political Correctness must die. . 1. Its censorship: Point blank, thats what it is. Its used mainly by people on the left to attack people on the right, but not the other way around. When Miss California, Carrie Prejean, politely said she thought marriage should be between a man and a woman, the PC thugs proceeded to try to destroy her life. But when Obama said it he was elected president. Its used to accuse people of racism even when there is no racism involved, Its not only a scare tactic, but also a career-destroying move. And its a thuggish weapon of intimidation. . 2. Its bigotry disguised as manners: You may think all those touchy-feely names they come up with for various special interest groups are more sensitive and empowering than the mean names of the past, but most of them are patronizing and they segregating. When you separate people into classes, its creating a kind of caste system. History has shown us that caste systems are used to suppress and marginalize people by putting them in special groups. The insidious thing about PC is it claims to treat people better when it really does the opposite. It implies that people in these groups are somehow lesser and weaker and must be protected, presumably by the government, and then implies that they are not being treated well by other groups (namely white males) which is an inherently racist argument. . 3. Its an attempt at mind control: The goal of PC always has been to segregate people into classes, destroy the family by marginalizing and polarizing people from traditional values and culture. It also tries to rebrand things to force people to think along a different path. You might think thats a good thing if it makes people more tolerant. While our culture is more tolerant than it was in the past there is no proof or evidence PC had anything to do with it. The fact is, lying to people (which PC does) and trying to destroy a culture by effectively brainwashing people is downright . 4. Evil: The textbook definition of evil is that which is willfully and maliciously harmful to others. What else do you call something that is used to commit so much harm against people and a society as a whole. It has become a rampant monster that destroys lives, careers, and society. Its used by creepy, selfish people to hurt others. Race-baiters we all know and despise have been using PC for years to try to extort money from business and government by making up racist claims. Thats nothing but a form of extortion. . 5. Why should we do what some faceless creeps tell us?: Most of the time we were told what the new term for something is. In the 60s we were told Negro is not acceptable anymore. We should say black even though Negro is merely the Spanish word for black. Then in the 70s we were told to use Afro-American then later African-American even though that term is not only a mouthful it makes no sense. A lot of black Americans are simply Americans, many others are from the Caribbean. Or they are mixed race like our president. Who makes up these lame terms and why should we start saying them? Because were supposed to isnt a reason, thats more of a threat. Who says we have to? Why shouldnt we say steward or stewardess instead of flight attendant? Because they say so? Why should we take directions from faceless entities who tell us what we can say? Why cant we say whatever we want? Most of the terms these people come up with are retarded mentally challenged. See, they hyphenate you to separate you from the rest of us, Were all part of the same country, but they want to make you feel aggrieved. Angry and unhappy people are easier to sway with propaganda. . So Ive listed a few reasons why PC must die. I could go on, but the real question is, how do we kill the hydra? Its not an easy monster to beat. . I have some ideas. I will share them in part 2.
24 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
Monadnock Guide	Posted - May 24 2009 : 2:52:31 PM There seems to be a huge number of folks that have WAY too much free time on their hands. ... Locally here, the school system just banned peanut butter. Some folks have a serious allergic reaction to it. No question about it, - and those folks should be very careful to avoid it, - but stop everyone else from having it??? ... Since diabetics have to watch their diet closely, - perhaps we ALL should go on a diabetic diet. The "I feel your pain" approach, ... completely pointless, but apparently it makes some folks "feel good" to think they're actually doing something helpful.
Kaylynn44	Posted - May 24 2009 : 12:51:43 PM ...and on another note: with all the discussion here of all the pc name calling, does that mean I can no longer refer to myself as a "Geezer?" Obi, No matter how pc we get, you will always be our "Geezer" because Geezers Rawk!!! Where have I heard that before? I am in an epilepsy support group and a new person to the group made the simple statement that she has been an epileptic for 20 years. Well, another person responded to her post telling her that she shouldn't refer to herself as an epileptic, but as a person with epilepsy or either a person with seizure disorders. Okay, that really got to me. I have been an epileptic for almost 40 years and I told this other person that I will keep referring to myself as an epileptic instead of the pc term of "person with epilepsy." Yes, I am a person with epilepsy which makes me an epileptic!!! This other person never said another word. Below is another illustration about how silly we can get with certain words. Please know that "brainstorming" doesn't offend me in the least. I am more offended that people want to change the word to "thought showers." Tunbridge Wells Borough Council in Kent was accused of taking political correctness to extremes after instructing staff to make the change. The move came as council chiefs feared the word brainstorming might offend mentally ill people and those with epilepsy. The buzz term is often used by executives to generate ideas among their staff. But memos have been sent to staff asking them not to use it and some have been given training which encouraged them to use the alternative of thought showers. Even charities representing epileptics said the ban was taking political correctness too far. Margaret Thomas, of the National Society for Epilepsy, said: "Brainstorming is a clear and descriptive phrase. "Alternatives such as thought shower or blue-sky thinking are ambiguous to say the least. "Any implication that the word brainstorming is offensive to epileptics takes political correctness too far." Richard Colwill, of mental health charity SANE, said: "This ban goes too far. Few would be genuinely offended by the word brainstorming in the context of council meetings." A spokesman for Tunbridge Wells Borough Council in Kent said: "We take diversity awareness very seriously. "The majority of staff have taken part in training and been asked to use the term thought showers." Love, Kay
Kaylynn44	Posted - May 23 2009 : 10:28:10 PM Winglo, After a little research, I found out that women aren't as good of chess players as men, so the men really didn't change my mind. I really wasn't aware that a WGM wasn't in the same league as a GM, so after Obi mentioned that, I had to admit that they were right. I would have loved to prove the men wrong, but I couldn't. Yes, there are some wonderful women chess players, but they aren't considered in the same league as the men. I know that there are some things that males are better at and some things that females are better at. BUT..... that has nothing to do with women having lower intelligence as Sarge would like for everybody to believe. Intelligence is based on the individual and not the gender or race. That is my main point of this whole thing. I still have to concede to the guys about the chess though. If you can prove them wrong Winglo, I would love it!!! Love, Kay
winglo	Posted - May 23 2009 : 9:53:07 PM quote: Originally posted by Kaylynn44 Alright guys, MEN ARE BETTER AT CHESS THAN WOMEN!!! I am only saying this because Obi convinced me. No, Kay, no. Don't let a man manipulate your thinking!
Obediah	Posted - May 23 2009 : 7:07:34 PM quote: Originally posted by Kaylynn44 .....Alright guys, MEN ARE BETTER AT CHESS THAN WOMEN!!!..... Now Kay, I'm only saying that men are better at chess right now! Women are certainly not intrinsically inferior in this greatest of games; it's just that they've always been told "girls can't play chess." ...and on another note: with all the discussion here of all the pc name calling, does that mean I can no longer refer to myself as a *"Geezer?"*
Kaylynn44	Posted - May 22 2009 : 8:46:03 PM That's right Kay, - now that you mention it, I did call you a fossil. Geez, what a freakin; memory you have - that wasn't yesterday. Like I said, we aren't all the same, - and your memory is a LOT better than mine. (Of course a bad memory can also provide a clear conscience) ;) MG, You don't have a bad memory..... you are memory challenged. Love, Kay
Kaylynn44	Posted - May 22 2009 : 8:36:01 PM As far as chess players go, it's more of an "affirmative action" type of thing. For years, young women/girls have been told (in so many words) "you can't play chess; you're a girl!" What a crock! If one hears it so often, one begins to believe it. Of course there are exception, the oldest and youngest Polgar sisters (Susan & Judit) coming to mind...they can beat anybody. Generally speaking, though, the level of play in women's chess is somewhat weaker that in men's chess, with a WGM (Women's Grandmaster) being the equivalent to a male IM (International Master), one competitive level down from a male GM (International Grandmaster). I wish everyone played in the same "division," that would be the 1st step in leveling the playing field--though it would take years. BTW, I get killed by 8-year-old kids at our local chess club, so I'm not exactly a threat to any international player, male or female.. Obi, Okay,I guess that I will have to admit defeat with this chess thing. I didn't realize that a WGM wasn't the equivalent to a GM. The only reason that I know just a tiny bit about chess is because I would hear my dad talking to my sisters who love the game. I can't play chess, so I just watch them. Alright guys, MEN ARE BETTER AT CHESS THAN WOMEN!!! I am only saying this because Obi convinced me. Love, Kay
Monadnock Guide	Posted - May 22 2009 : 8:32:35 PM That's right Kay, - now that you mention it, I did call you a fossil. Geez, what a freakin; memory you have - that wasn't yesterday. Like I said, we aren't all the same, - and your memory is a LOT better than mine. (Of course a bad memory can also provide a clear conscience) ;) . Kay, who's (supposedly)superior depends on the test - THAT'S what makes the difference. Don't for a second believe that chess is a big deal, - it really isn't.
Kaylynn44	Posted - May 22 2009 : 8:25:17 PM Kay, - unfortunately, in today's pc environment, who can say "what" depends on "who your are" and your politics. MG, I know what you are saying, and you are correct. I don't believe that it should be that way, but it is. (BTW, - while not impossible, it really is unlikely that women will beat men at chess, seriously. It's been tried. Tell that to Judit Polgar and other Women Grandmasters. "We/people" are NOT the same, and people need to understand that. BTW, that's a positive, not a negative. Balance is necessary for survival of the species) I agree with you MG, but one gender is not intellectually superior to the other. That is my point. Love, Kay
Obediah	Posted - May 22 2009 : 8:24:14 PM quote: Originally posted by SgtMunro ..... ..... Also, if men and women are intellectually equal, why in internationally-ranked chess tournaments are there separate mens and womens divisions for separate rankings? (the only physical activity in chess is the moving of the pieces on the game table, touching the timer, and getting up from your chair at the end of the game) Either we are all equal, or we are not. Just some other things to think about... ..... As far as chess players go, it's more of an "affirmative action" type of thing. For years, young women/girls have been told (in so many words) "you can't play chess; you're a girl!" What a crock! If one hears it so often, one begins to believe it. Of course there are exception, the oldest and youngest Polgar sisters (Susan & Judit) coming to mind...they can beat anybody. Generally speaking, though, the level of play in women's chess is somewhat weaker that in men's chess, with a WGM (Women's Grandmaster) being the equivalent to a male IM (International Master), one competitive level down from a male GM (International Grandmaster). I wish everyone played in the same "division," that would be the 1st step in leveling the playing field--though it would take years. BTW, I get killed by 8-year-old kids at our local chess club, so I'm not exactly a threat to any international player, male or female... ...and speaking of non-pc stuff, anyone remember what Randy Quaid's character in The Long Riders called the Swedish immigrants (just before he died) who had shot him to pieces in Northfield, MN? "Damned Squareheads"
Monadnock Guide	Posted - May 22 2009 : 7:45:51 PM Kay, - unfortunately, in today's pc environment, who can say "what" depends on "who your are" and your politics. (BTW, - while not impossible, it really is unlikely that women will beat men at chess, seriously. It's been tried. "We/people" are NOT the same, and people need to understand that. BTW, that's a positive, not a negative. Balance is necessary for survival of the species)
Kaylynn44	Posted - May 22 2009 : 7:05:58 PM After reading MG's post, it looks like I have to retract what I said too. I guess that I can't say ANY name calling is childish because MG has called me a fossil and since I don't think of him as childish or intellectually bankrupt, then I guess that my statement wasn't quite accurate. In fact, it makes me smile whenever he reminds me how old I am!!! Sarge, I couldn't tell you why they have separate divisions for the men and the women, unless it's because the men don't want to be humiliated by a woman beating him at an intellectual game. I am sure that there are women that could beat men at chess and vice versa. It just depends on the individual. My father and my son are both very good at chess but then so are my two sisters. So, who is to say which gender is actually better at a game like chess when you have very good players on both sides. I would never say that men were more intellectual than women. Would you? Love, Kay
SgtMunro	Posted - May 22 2009 : 5:03:30 PM quote: Monadnock Guide added: Sarge, - as we (all of us actually) know, it ALL depends om who's doing the name calling, - what's ok, and what isn't. MG, your statement had me re-think my own answer, and I found that mine was a bit too wordy, and that your own reply actually said it the best. If I may, I would like to add to your own excellent response with the following: ...And some folks may just need thicker skins. *YMH&OS,* The Sarge
Monadnock Guide	Posted - May 22 2009 : 12:08:24 PM Sarge, - as we (all of us actually) know, it ALL depends om who's doing the name calling, - what's ok, and what isn't.
SgtMunro	Posted - May 22 2009 : 10:16:09 AM quote: Kaylynn44 said: You and I are pretty much in agreement with this statement too, except that I believe that ANY name calling is both childish and intellectually bankrupt!!! You are correct, but there is a difference between name-calling, titles and reference. For instance if someone calls me a 'Right-Wing Extremist', even though it would not be totally correct (Since such a person would believe in no government is good outside of self-governanace, and even I know that there is a need for some form of structure), I would feel that they were close enough to the mark to negate any form of correction, and it would be a title. However, if that person called me a 'Right-wing Nut-Job', then the floor would be open to rebutal, since I do have a clean bill of mental health, and that would be name-calling. Now if the same person said, "They said that Person-'A' was a Right-Wing Nut-Job", then that would be a reference. Speaking on a personal level, if a person said to me, "You are a square-head (derrogatory for people of German ancestry) honkey!" then that would be 'name calling'. And even though it would be true on all points, it is a vulgarism used to insult and annoy. But if the same person said to me, "Then they called him a square-head honkey", that would be a reference which included vulgarisms, and as a descriptive it would be fine. Going back to my last point in my previous posting, there is nothing correct about the 'grading' of derrogatives; and that an insult should carry the same legal weight, regardless of the actor or victim's demographics. Do not such things go against the words of spoken by real civil rights leaders throughout history, since it is contrary to the phrase, "Hey, we are all the same", correct? On that subject, no one in my ancestral family ever owned a slave, I was too young to have lived in a segregated society, and there was already universal adult sufferage before my birth (the voting age dropped from 21 to 18 afterwards), but I do remember the creation of racial/gender 'quotas' under Affirmative Action for public employment. And I have always wondered, "Since we are equal, why then are such things still needed?" Also, if men and women are intellectually equal, why in internationally-ranked chess tournaments are there separate mens and womens divisions for separate rankings? (the only physical activity in chess is the moving of the pieces on the game table, touching the timer, and getting up from your chair at the end of the game) Either we are all equal, or we are not. Just some other things to think about... *YMH&OS,* The Sarge
Kaylynn44	Posted - May 21 2009 : 6:31:09 PM My apologies to anyone here who might be 'offended' just because I didn't use the P.C. substitute, 'The N-Word'; but I find that particular euphemism both childish and intellectually bankrupt, and better suited for the kindergarden playground or the floor of congress. Sarge, You and I are pretty much in agreement with this statement too, except that I believe that ANY name calling is both childish and intellectually bankrupt!!! Love, Kay
SgtMunro	Posted - May 19 2009 : 2:20:52 PM Kay, you and I are pretty much in agreement to a certain degree, as to the vulgarity of certain words in polite company. But such words must be governed by the individual, and not some legislative or judicial body. I do believe that if you use certain words in the form of address or epithet toward another, that you may risk the physical consequences of such crass conduct, to wit: in Pennsylvania, the case law governing the statutes titled 'Disorderly Conduct' and 'Harassment' (both of which can be used against a person who verbally insults another) have precedent defending a physical response to what is commonly called 'Fighting Words'. For example, if a white male addresses a black male by the word 'nigger', with the intent to annoy, insult or harass said individual, then the black male could use that as a legal defense for physically 'knocking-out' the white male, and 9 times out of 10, it would succeed as a mitigating circumstance for the black male commiting what could be construed as 'Simple Assault' in response to the white male's 'Harrassment' or 'Disorderly Conduct'. As a matter of fact, and professional experience, the only time it has not worked as a legal defense is if both parties were engaged in what is known by Pennsylvania case law as 'Mutual Combat'; that being where both parties verbally, or otherwise provoked each other into a physical altercation. Now that was the way it used to be, and it did work, but that was not enough for the DNC's Thought-Police. That band of misguided or mischievious social-engineers (as all on the Left are) crafted a statute titled 'Ethnic Intimidation' (circa 1994, or thereabouts), which IMHO was a nonsensical solution to a non-existent problem. There were already laws on the books governing verbal insults ('Disorderly Conduct' and 'Harrassment'), but this law made special words a more henious offense, and that just reeks of 'Orwellianism'. But that is what happens when you have Leftist Democrats in charge of the PA. legislature (as they were in the early 1990's... riding the 'Clinton Wave'), and when said Cultural Marxists wanted to pander to certain core constituencies in order to purchase their votes. (The very essence of 'Group Politics') *YMH&OS,* The Sarge P.S.- My apologies to anyone here who might be 'offended' just because I didn't use the P.C. substitute, 'The N-Word'; but I find that particular euphemism both childish and intellectually bankrupt, and better suited for the kindergarden playground or the floor of congress.
Kaylynn44	Posted - May 16 2009 : 08:50:16 AM Wait a moment, I thought I was supposed to be found here only debating myself. Just kidding, I knew that is an impossibility, since there are a great number of intelligent adults on this board who also enjoy the exchange of ideas or an intellectual 'jousting contest', and in such a forum. Sarge, Doesn't there have to be opposing sides for it to actually be called a debate? While I might not believe in all of the Political Correctness stuff that is thrown at us, I do believe in being polite and not calling people names that we know are very offensive. I'm not going to go through the list of insulting names, because we all know what they are, but YES, some of this other PC stuff should phase on out. Love, Kay
Monadnock Guide	Posted - May 15 2009 : 6:27:18 PM "Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." . Is this true or what! . http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html
SgtMunro	Posted - May 15 2009 : 6:09:57 PM quote: Obediah said: Now, Sarge, whenever you use the tern "National Socialist", you always just seem to concentrate on the second word, implying, more or less, that NS leans to the left...not so. I do concentrate on the second word because it is what makes it to the political left. The only difference between communism, fascism, socialism (national, or otherwise) and modern liberalism, is the amount of individual liberty and private property rights that each will grant* their citizens. The fact that these forms of left-wing government may find themselves in conflict with one another should also be a warning sign, since historically free societies have never gone to war with one another. These left-wing forms of government all believe that political power can only originate from the government, and is given to the people. This is the opposite of right-wing political thought, where we believe that government can only exist with the consent of the citizens, also the power it wields can only originate from the citizens as well. Like it or not, National Socialism is on the political left. - I noted that it is modern liberalism that is to the political left, since the traditional liberalism has been renamed Libertarianism, and it is on the political right. YMH&OS,* The Sarge
Obediah	Posted - May 15 2009 : 4:48:40 PM Just a few random observations here, MG: #4) I can't quite remember how my son phrased this (about 'political correctness'), but here goes: everyone knows that politics are completely evil, so why would anyone want to do anything that is only correct for evil? #5) One of my pet peeves comes from the news media, TV, radio, newsprint: have you ever noticed how different racial groups are referred to as (for example) "afro-american", "hispanic-american", "asian-american", and "white"??? Man, that just makes me grind my teeth. Now, Sarge, whenever you use the tern "National Socialist", you always just seem to concentrate on the second word, implying, more or less, that NS leans to the left...not so. In my research, I've found a number of definitions of "national socialist" which all pretty much agree with each other, as follows, "National Socialism is a political term that is both vague and ambiguous. As the name suggests, features of nationalism and socialism are combined and interrelated to form an overall National Socialist ideology, although the combination process is neither obvious nor straightforward...As a generic concept, National Socialism opposes capitalism, communism, international socialism and liberalism."
SgtMunro	Posted - May 15 2009 : 09:46:25 AM quote: Monadnock Guide: In the end, - it's ALL about power, political power over everything/everyone. "Individuals" are frowned upon, to put it mildly and "it takes a village" (crap) is the templet to be used. MG, you are right on-target, for it is all about central-control, dependency on government, and the fostering of a 'hive mindset'; and rugged individualists need not apply, or exist... ...And remember my opinion about the trendy phrase, 'it takes a village to raise a child', is only true when said child is sired/bred by the village idiot. *YMH&OS,* The Sarge
Monadnock Guide	Posted - May 15 2009 : 07:13:14 AM In the end, - it's ALL about power, political power over everything/everyone. "Individuals" are frowned upon, to put it mildly and "it takes a village" (crap) is the templet to be used. One cookie cutter for all, ... I'm looking forward to Part II very much.
SgtMunro	Posted - May 14 2009 : 4:38:32 PM That is an excellent article MG, and I do look forward to Part-2 as well. There are a few pieces of Mr. Hudnall's article which I would love to add to, and they are as follows: quote: Quote #1: While it may seem communism is dead, communism, socialism, fascism are all part of a many headed hydra called statism. Note: I have been saying this for over twenty years, and at times it felt like I was the one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind! The phrase 'Right-Wing Nazi/Fascist' is an oxymoron, just like 'Jumbo Shrimp', that being they are two words which cancel each other out. The concept of Nazism being on the political 'right' was a myth perpetrated by Time Magazine (no suprise there, huh?) in the 1950's, by that publication's own Communist-sympathizing editorial board. Nazism (National Socialism) is on the Left side of western political thought; and it is joined their by it's bedfellows, Communism, Fascism, Socialism and Modern Liberalism. The underlying theme of all these versions of the modern 'Left' is the central-control of all aspects of your life, with the threat of government force to assert said control. While those of us on the Right are in favor of less government control/interference, and place a greater value on individual liberty/responsibility. quote: Quote #2: Many progressives on the ground think they are fighting for equal rights and social justice. The progressive elites know better. They want power and control over peoples lives. Political correctness is a tool to accomplish these goals. Note: This is an interesting pair of allies, to say the least. Since the Cultural Marxists on the 'ground' are busy lighting candles around their 'Che' and 'Obama' posters, stuffing ballot boxes for ACORN, and waiting for their next government check, all while thinking of the 'Limousine Liberals' as nothing more than a modern version of 'useful idiots' (ala Marx's view of bougousie who wanted to finance/support any communist movement). Meanwhile, the 'Progressive Elites' (Cultural Marxists with money) look at the street-level Marxists as "quaint idealists", and who only exist to serve the elite's goal of social re-design. IMHO, these two groups of meddling poltroons deserve each other!!! quote: Quote #3:...the only people driving it are leftists and government bureaucrats, who earn a living from it. And those are the folks who deserve to be 'put against the wall' first, when the freedom-loving people have had enough! *YMH&OS,* The Sarge *P.S.-* Wait a moment, I thought I was supposed to be found here only debating myself. Just kidding, I knew that is an impossibility, since there are a great number of intelligent adults on this board who also enjoy the exchange of ideas or an intellectual 'jousting contest', and in such a forum.

DISCLAIMER
Tune, 40, used by permission - composed by Ron Clarke

Custom Search

The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]

Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.24 seconds