Read this magnificent essay, "Political Correctness --The Revenge of Marxism". It's not specifically about Puget Sound, but it provides an interesting framework for understanding our dysfunctional mainstream media and political institutions.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 15, 2006 10:58 AM | Email ThisNo doubt it'll be prohibited on pain of a re-education camp sentence from being made part of any curriculum in the State of Washington.
It will, however, make useful ammunition for use in rejoinders to our all-too-PC educators and media moguls.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on June 15, 2006 12:55 PMPow-er-ful. This has got to make the blood boil for the typical Marxist/ Progressive/ Seattle Liberals who fit the article's thesis all to well. Imagine one of these Marxist types reading that article and then recoiling in the horror of their own disgusting visage.
It's time to kill off Political Correctness and Multiculturalism before it kills us all.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 15, 2006 01:23 PMAs I stated in that tread, we are not fighitng with logic and reason, we are fighting a philosphy rooted in the belief that white society, Chrisitanity and capitalism are inherently evil. You cannot "Logic" your way out of that. They need a complte paradigm shift. That is why there are no meaningful debates when HA and SP cross over to each other's Blogs.
Some key quotes in the the article that shed light on the bigger picture of the conservative/liberal culture war:
Georg Lukacs, noted that “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.”
The eroding of American cultural values in the form of marriage and other institutions is part of this dismantling of western culture as a means to destroy the old values. It is not revolutionary in the traditional sense, but it is no less effective.
Another aspect that we can see in any of these cultural debates are things like what Ted Kennedy said regarding those who supported the marriage ammendment (Forget the question of whether it is an appropriate constitutinal issue) when he basically called all supporters bigots:
“Because the politically correct believe they are not just on the side of right, but of virtue, it follows that those they are opposed to are not just wrong, but malign. In the PC mind, the pursuit of virtue entitles them to curtail the malign views of those they disagree with.” “People who transgress politically correct beliefs are seen not just as wrong, to be debated with, but evil, to be condemned, silenced and spurned.”
That is the weapon of the liberal. They cannot conceive of a person who disagrees with them as being anything but evil, bigoted and racist/sexist/whateverist.
Now, most liberals would never consider themsleves marxist and do think of themselves as revolutionaries. They belive that they have the moral rightness of things and it is that firm belief in the moral rightness (which paradoxially has no objective standard to which it can cling to) that gives them the authority to pass judgement on anyone who does not believe as they do.
It is their fanatical belief that brooks no dissention along with the beleif in the evils of white culture (white, male, Christian, wealthy) that give them the justification for policial correctness.
They do not belive in democracy or free speach as much as they believe in justice and equality even if it means to forcefully silence those who disagree either by ridicule or judicial fiat. The ends justifies the means because the goal is paramount to a "just" society, though justice to them means the the oppression of the old regime as a payback for the sins of the patriarchs.
-Eyago
Posted by: Eyago on June 15, 2006 02:16 PMThe leftist desperation grows in America as they fight for the souls of every teenager, gnaw at marriage, families, hijack God’s truths and convert them to their own, tear at the manhood of boys and try and turn girls virtue against them. No compromise ever. Commando this evil at every turn; we have nothing to defend or explain ourselves for and darn it Robert Jamison, WEA, Maria Cantwell, Jesse Jackson, Your local School board and Joel Connelly, Aaron Reardon, John Landenburg, Gregfraud, Frank Chopp and Ron Sims, Planned Parenthood, Mike Vaska et. al. YOU ARE carrying the water for EVIL IN THIS LAND.
Posted by: Col. Hogan on June 15, 2006 02:37 PMExactly, but justice and equality as goal, not justice as a result of ones action, or equality of opportunity. But equality as an end result. There for it is injust and inequal that I have a house and 2 cars, and someone else lives on the street. The behaviors that result in those different outcomes are completely irrelevant.
“It is true that liberty is precious - so precious that it must be rationed”
Vladimir Lenin
Just a dream.
Posted by: Organization Man on June 15, 2006 08:05 PMYou are exactly correct. I meant to imply that although the lofty goals of justice and fairness are the laudable motivations for the liberals, they do not understand that only by removing all freedom and choice is that goal acheivable, and that every step along that path destroys freedom, destroys quality of life and ultimately leads to poverty, and injustice. The power to enforce equality means the unassailable power, and unassailable power eventually leads to corruption.
No one can start out equal, some are stronger, some are smarter, some are better at people skills. And yes, some are richer too. The best we can do is to allow people the freedom to choose their own path without harming others. How to do that is a legitimate debate and we should vigourly debate it.
Posted by: Eyago on June 15, 2006 08:24 PMWe need to expose political correctness for what it is; "Cultural marxism with a nose job". Agree with Eyago - expose this to the light of day. I clearly loathe political correctness - it is a LOSER !
Posted by: KS on June 15, 2006 09:23 PMhttp://www.freecongress.org/PC_Essays/
Posted by: Shaun on June 15, 2006 09:31 PMPsychiatrists should be versed in promoting a 12-step program to treat recovering liberals and advertise it widely...
Posted by: KS on June 16, 2006 03:10 PMWe didn't even realize that Cultural Marxism existed, but it did.
http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html
Below is a speech that gives an overview of what this is all about. It is one of the best ones ever given.
http://www.academia.org/audio/b_lind.html
Posted by: Marxism Won on June 16, 2006 04:33 PMPlease listen.
http://www.academia.org/audio/b_lind.html
Posted by: CulturalMarxism Won on June 16, 2006 04:36 PMhttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1532458/posts
Posted by: Jim on June 16, 2006 04:41 PMThe Marxists won the Cold War. Just not the Marxist Leninist and Marxist Stalinists, etc. who we were focused on.
But instead a bunch of Marxists who most of us have never heard of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism
Posted by: Jim on June 16, 2006 04:45 PMhttp://www.authorityresearch.com/IAR%20Dean%20Gotcher%20paper.htm
Posted by: Kirk on June 16, 2006 04:48 PMhttp://www.vcyamerica.org/crosstalk/event_popup.cfm?programid=1331
While this interview focuses upon the dialectic process of communication in churches, you can find this so called "Delphi Technique" can be seen in practically any organization today, especially government. Any organization where group dynamics tactics are being played out.
See also:
Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus
http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1998/nov98/focus.html
In the not too distant past the hiring of a consultant by the City of Spokane to the tune of $47,000 to facilitate the direction of city government brought a hue and cry from the populace at large. Eerily, this scenario held great similarity to what has been happening in education reform. The final link came in the form of an editorial comment made by Chris Peck regarding the "Pizza papers". The editorial talks about how groups of disenfranchised citizens were brought together to enter into a discussion of what they felt (as opposed to know) needed to be changed at the local level. The outcome of the compilation of those discussions influenced the writing of the city/county charter.
Sounds innocuous enough. But lets examine this a little closer. Let's walk through the scenario that occurs in these facilitated meetings. First, about the facilitator. The facilitator is hired to facilitate the meeting. While his/her job is supposedly non-directive, neutral, non-judgmental, the opposite is actually true. The facilitator is there to move the meeting to a preset conclusion. This is done through a process known as the Delphi Technique, developed by the RAND Corporation for the US. Department of Defense as a psychological warfare weapon in the 50s and 60s. Comforting, no doubt. With this established, lets move on to the semantics of the meeting.
It is imperative to the success of the agenda that the participants like the facilitator. Therefore, the facilitator first works the crowd to cause dis-equilibrium-establishing a bad guy good guy scenario. Anyone who might not agree with the facilitator must be seen by the participants as the bad guy, the facilitator the good guy. This is done by seeking out those who might not agree with the facilitator and making them look foolish, inept, or aggressive, sending a clear message to the audience that if they don't want the same treatment to keep quiet. The facilitator is well trained in how to recognize and exploit many different psychological truisms to do this. At the point the opposition has been identified and alienated, the facilitator becomes the good guy - a friend - and the agenda and direction of the meeting is established without the audience ever being aware of it.
Next, the attendees are broken up into smaller groups - usually of seven or eight people - each group with a facilitator. Discussion ensues wherein the participants are encouraged to discuss preset issues, the group facilitator employing the same tactics as the lead facilitator. Usually participants are encouraged to put on paper their ideas and disagreements, these to be later complied by others. Herein lies a very large problem. Who complies what is written on the sheets of paper, note cards, etc.? When you ask the participants, you usually get, "Well, they compiled the results." Who is "they?" "Well, those running the meeting." Oh-h! The next question - How do you know that what you wrote on your sheet of paper was incorporated into the final outcome? The answer you usually get is, "Well, you know, I've wondered about that, because what I wrote doesn't seem to be reflected here. I guess my viewpoint was in the minority."
And there you have the crux of the situation If you have fifty people in a room, each writes his/her ideas and dislikes on a sheet of paper, to be complied later into a final outcome, each individual having no idea of what any other individual wrote. How do you know that the final outcome reflects anyone's input? The answer is - you don't.
The same scenario holds when there is a facilitator recording your comments on paper. But the participants usually don't question this, figuring instead that their viewpoint was in the minority and thus not reflected.
So why have the meetings at all if the outcome is already established? Because it is imperative to the continued well being of the agenda that the people be facilitated into ownership of the preset outcome. If people believe the idea is theirs, they support it: If the people believe the idea is being foisted on them, they will resist. Likewise, it is imperative to the continued well being of the agenda that the people perceive that their input counts.
This scenario is being used very effectively to move meetings to preset conclusion, effectively changing our form of government from a representative form of government in which individuals are elected to represent the people to a "participatory democracy" in which citizens, selected at large, are facilitated into ownership of preset outcomes, perceiving that their input resulted therein. The reality is the outcome was already established by others, but this is not apparent to the citizen participants.
Posted by: Alex Maxwell on June 16, 2006 05:13 PM