Originally posted by Ozscot
Originally posted by Mr Tranny
Originally posted by Ozscot
I see you've taken the line that it was indeed a 'Political' camp and not a camp for the children of political people (There's a difference there
as wide as the Atlantic Ocean)..
And you have no understanding how indoctrination/brain washing works do you?
You want to use group think. You isolate people with a common view so that they reinforce their own world view. People want to fit in. So they mold
their thoughts to match how they think their friends want them to think. You isolate them from outside influences that can undermine the programming
process. They basically program each other. Most of them have the majority of the desired world view. But everyone will have a few doubts on this
subject or that subject. When you get them working as a group and show them a complete world view, group think does it’s thing, and all of their
minds fall in line.
It is to make sure all of the upcoming generation is of pure thought and loyal to the party’s world view.
You want to present to them a world of people that they can fit in with. The only thing the adults have to do is craft the activities to lend
themselves to the desired world view and touch upon all the core values.
Do you really think that boycott Israel sign was a fluke?
Additional benefit. When they become friends with people at the camp, they tend to congregate with those same people outside of camp. That isolates
them from outside influences that can come from having “outsider” friends. Allowing them to congregate with “outsiders” during daily life will
undercut the desired world view while they are still young, during the time when their world view hasn’t hardened enough to resist easy change.
Err no - That's called the education system and whomever happens to control it at any given time.
I repeat - These 'Kids' are old enough to vote - would you rather they did so on the basis of what they have read in the MSM or would you rather
they went somewhere to see for themselves what this 'Politics' is all about?
Which would you rather? Blind ignorance suggesting they place an X there? Or at least some political knowledge guiding their hand - more so when it's
YOUR future as well as their own they are voting on.
The left has embraced Cultural Marxism. It is indoctrination. They are even going so far as to
teach people to have Stockholm Syndrome, to identify with those who would destroy them.
Introduction to the compendium - “2083” -
The introductory chapter explains how “cultural” Marxism gradually infiltrated our post-WW2 societies. It is essential to understand how it
started in order to comprehend our current issues. The chapter was written for the US specifically but applies to Western Europe as well.
Introduction - What is “Political Correctness”?
One of conservatism’s most important insights is that all ideologies are wrong. Ideology takes an intellectual system, a product of one or more
philosophers, and says, “This system must be true.” Inevitably, reality ends up contradicting the system, usually on a growing number of points.
But the ideology, by its nature, cannot adjust to reality; to do so would be to abandon the system.
Therefore, reality must be suppressed. If the ideology has power, it uses its power to undertake this suppression. It forbids writing or speaking
certain facts. Its goal is to prevent not only expression of thoughts that contradict what “must be true,” but thinking such thoughts. In the end,
the result is inevitably the concentration camp, the gulag and the grave.
But what happens today to Europeans who suggest that there are differences among ethnic groups, or that the traditional social roles of men and women
reflect their different natures, or that homosexuality is morally wrong? If they are public figures, they must grovel in the dirt in endless, canting
apologies. If they are university students, they face star chamber courts and possible expulsion. If they are employees of private corporations, they
may face loss of their jobs. What was their crime? Contradicting the new EUSSR ideology of “Political Correctness.”
But what exactly is “Political Correctness?” Marxists have used the term for at least 80 years, as a broad synonym for “the General Line of the
Party.” It could be said that Political Correctness is the General Line of the Establishment in Western European countries today; certainly, no one
who dares contradict it can be a member of that Establishment. But that still does not tell us what it really is.
We must seek to answer that question. The only way any ideology can be understood, is by looking at its historical origins, its method of analysis and
several key components, including its place in higher education and its ties with the Feminist movement.
If we expect to prevail and restore our countries to full freedom of thought and expression, we need to know our enemy. We need to understand what
Political Correctness really is. As you will soon see, if we can expose the true origins and nature of Political Correctness, we will have taken a
giant step toward its overthrow.
How it all began - Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism
Most Europeans look back on the 1950s as a good time. Our homes were safe, to the point where many people did not bother to lock their doors. Public
schools were generally excellent, and their problems were things like talking in class and running in the halls. Most men treated women like ladies,
and most ladies devoted their time and effort to making good homes, rearing their children well and helping their communities through volunteer work.
Children grew up in two–parent households, and the mother was there to meet the child when he came home from school. Entertainment was something the
whole family could enjoy.
If a man of the 1950s were suddenly introduced into Western Europe in the 2000s, he would hardly recognise it as the same country. He would be in
immediate danger of getting mugged, carjacked or worse, because he would not have learned to live in constant fear. He would not know that he
shouldn’t go into certain parts of the city, that his car must not only be locked but equipped with an alarm, that he dare not go to sleep at night
without locking the windows and bolting the doors – and setting the electronic security system.
If he brought his family with him, he and his wife would probably cheerfully pack their children off to the nearest public school. When the children
came home in the afternoon and told them they had to go through a metal detector to get in the building, had been given some funny white powder by
another kid and learned that homosexuality is normal and good, the parents would be uncomprehending.
In the office, the man might light up a cigarette, drop a reference to the “little lady,” and say he was happy to see the firm employing some
coloured folks in important positions. Any of those acts would earn a swift reprimand, and together they might get him fired.
When she went into the city to shop, the wife would put on a nice suit, hat, and possibly gloves. She would not understand why people stared, and
And when the whole family sat down after dinner and turned on the television, they would not understand how pornography from some sleazy,
blank-fronted “Adults Only” kiosk had gotten on their set.
Were they able, our 1950s family would head back to the 1950s as fast as they could, with a gripping horror story to tell. Their story would be of a
nation that had decayed and degenerated at a fantastic pace, moving in less than a half a century from the greatest countries on earth to Third World
nations, overrun by crime, noise, drugs and dirt. The fall of Rome was graceful by comparison.
Why did it happen?
Over the last fifty years, Western Europe has been conquered by the same force that earlier took over Russia, China, Germany and Italy. That force is
ideology. Here, as elsewhere, ideology has inflicted enormous damage on the traditional culture it came to dominate, fracturing it everywhere and
sweeping much of it away. In its place came fear, and ruin. Russia will take a generation or more to recover from Communism, if it ever can.
The ideology that has taken over Western Europe goes most commonly by the name of “Political Correctness.” Some people see it as a joke. It is
not. It is deadly serious. It seeks to alter virtually all the rules, formal and informal, that govern relations among people and institutions. It
wants to change behaviour, thought, even the words we use. To a significant extent, it already has. Whoever or whatever controls language also
controls thought. Who dares to speak of “ladies” now?
Just what is “Political Correctness?” Political Correctness is in fact cultural Marxism (Cultural Communism) – Marxism translated from economic
into cultural terms. The effort to translate Marxism from economics into culture did not begin with the student rebellion of the 1960s. It goes back
at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. In 1923, in Germany, a group of Marxists founded an institute devoted
to making the transition, the Institute of Social Research (later known as the Frankfurt School). One of its founders, George Lukacs, stated its
purpose as answering the question, “Who shall save us from Western Civilisation?” The Frankfurt School gained profound influence in European and
American universities after many of its leading lights fled and spread all over Europe and even to the United States in the 1930s to escape National
Socialism in Germany. In Western Europe it gained influence in universities from 1945.
The Frankfurt School blended Marx with Freud, and later influences (some Fascist as well as Marxist) added linguistics to create “Critical Theory”
and “deconstruction.” These in turn greatly influenced education theory, and through institutions of higher education gave birth to what we now
call “Political Correctness.” The lineage is clear, and it is traceable right back to Karl Marx.
The parallels between the old, economic Marxism and cultural Marxism are evident. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, shares with classical
Marxism the vision of a “classless society,” i.e., a society not merely of equal opportunity, but equal condition. Since that vision contradicts
human nature – because people are different, they end up unequal, regardless of the starting point – society will not accord with it unless
forced. So, under both variants of Marxism, it is forced. This is the first major parallel between classical and cultural Marxism: both are
totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness can be seen on campuses where “PC” has taken over the college: freedom
of speech, of the press, and even of thought are all eliminated.
The second major parallel is that both classical, economic Marxism and cultural Marxism have single-factor explanations of history. Classical Marxism
argues that all of history was determined by ownership of the means of production. Cultural Marxism says that history is wholly explained by which
groups – defined by sex, race, religion and sexual normality or abnormality – have power over which other groups.
The third parallel is that both varieties of Marxism declare certain groups virtuous and others evil a priori, that is, without regard for the actual
behaviour of individuals. Classical Marxism defines workers and peasants as virtuous and the bourgeoisie (the middle class) and other owners of
capital as evil. Cultural Marxism defines all minorities, what they see as the victims; Muslims, Feminist women, homosexuals and some additional
minority groups as virtuous and they view ethnic Christian European men as evil. (Cultural Marxism does not recognise the existence of non-Feminist
women, and defines Muslims, Asians and Africans who reject Political Correctness as evil, just like native Christian or even atheist Europeans.).
The fourth parallel is in means: expropriation. Economic Marxists, where they obtained power, expropriated the property of the bourgeoisie and handed
it to the state, as the “representative” of the workers and the peasants. Cultural Marxists, when they gain power (including through our own
government), lay penalties on native European men and others who disagree with them and give privileges to the ”victim” groups they favour.
Affirmative action is an example.
Finally, both varieties of Marxists employ a method of analysis designed to show the correctness of their ideology in every situation. For classical
Marxists, the analysis is economic. For cultural Marxists, the analysis is linguistic: deconstruction. Deconstruction “proves” that any
“text,” past or present, illustrates the oppression of Muslims, women, homosexuals, etc. by reading that meaning into words of the text
(regardless of their actual meaning). Both methods are, of course, phony analyses that twist the evidence to fit preordained conclusions, but they
lend a ‘scientific” air to the ideology.
These parallels are neither remarkable nor coincidental. They exist because Political Correctness is directly derived from classical Marxism, and is
in fact a variant of Marxism. Through most of the history of Marxism, cultural Marxists were “read out” of the movement by classical, economic
Marxists. Today, with economic Marxism dead, cultural Marxism has filled its shoes. The medium has changed, but the message is the same: a society of
radical egalitarianism enforced by the power of the state.
Political Correctness now looms over Western European society like a colossus. It has taken over both political wings, left and right. Among so called
Western European ”conservative” parties the actual cultural conservatives are shown the door because being a cultural conservative opposes the
very essence of political correctness. It controls the most powerful element in our culture, the media and entertainment industry. It dominates both
public and higher education: many a college campus is a small, ivy-covered North Korea. It has even captured the higher clergy in many Christian
churches. Anyone in the Establishment who departs from its dictates swiftly ceases to be a member of the Establishment.
The most vital question is: how can Western Europeans combat Political Correctness and retake their society from the cultural Marxists?
It is not sufficient just to criticise Political Correctness. It tolerates a certain amount of criticism, even gentle mocking. It does so through no
genuine tolerance for other points of view, but in order to disarm its opponents, to let itself seem less menacing than it is. The cultural Marxists
do not yet have total power, and they are too wise to appear totalitarian until their victory is assured.
Rather, those who would defeat cultural Marxism must defy it. They must use words it forbids, and refuse to use the words it mandates; remember, sex
is better than gender. They must shout from the housetops the realities it seeks to suppress, such as our opposition to Sharia on a national and local
level, the Islamisation of our countries, the facts that violent crime is disproportionately committed by Muslims and that most cases of AIDS are
voluntary, i.e., acquired from immoral sexual acts. They must refuse to turn their children over to public schools.
Above all, those who would defy Political Correctness must behave according to the old rules of our culture, not the new rules the cultural Marxists
lay down. Ladies should be wives and homemakers, not cops or soldiers, and men should still hold doors open for ladies. Children should not be born
out of wedlock. Glorification of homosexuality should be shunned. Jurors should not accept Islam as an excuse for murder.
Defiance spreads. When other Western Europeans see one person defy Political Correctness and survive – and you still can, for now – they are
emboldened. They are tempted to defy it, too, and some do. The ripples from a single act of defiance, of one instance of walking up to the clay idol
and breaking off its nose, can range far. There is nothing the Politically Correct fear more than open defiance, and for good reason; it is their
chief vulnerability. That should lead cultural conservatives to defy cultural Marxism at every turn.
While the hour is late, the battle is not decided. Very few Western Europeans realise that Political Correctness is in fact Marxism in a different set
of clothes. As that realisation spreads, defiance will spread with it. At present, Political Correctness prospers by disguising itself. Through
defiance, and through education on our own part (which should be part of every act of defiance), we can strip away its camouflage and reveal the
Marxism beneath the window-dressing of “sensitivity,” “tolerance,” and “multiculturalism.”
Who dares, wins.
The Historical Roots of “Political Correctness”
Western Europe is today dominated by an alien system of beliefs, attitudes and values that we have come to know as “Political Correctness.”
Political Correctness seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behaviour on all Europeans and is therefore totalitarian in nature. Its roots lie in
a version of Marxism which seeks a radical inversion of the traditional culture in order to create a social revolution.
Social revolution has a long history, conceivably going as far back as Plato’s Republic. But it was the French Revolution of 1789 that inspired Karl
Marx to develop his theories in the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, the success of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia set off a
wave of optimistic expectation among the Marxist forces in Europe and America that the new proletarian world of equality was finally coming into
being. Russia, as the first communist nation in the world, would lead the revolutionary forces to victory.
The Marxist revolutionary forces in Europe leaped at this opportunity. Following the end of World War I, there was a Communist “Spartacist”
uprising in Berlin, Germany led by Rosa Luxemburg; the creation of a “Soviet” in Bavaria led by Kurt Eisner; and a Hungarian communist republic
established by Bela Kun in 1919. At the time, there was great concern that all of Europe might fall under the banner of Bolshevism. This sense of
impending doom was given vivid life by Trotsky’s Red Army invasion of Poland in 1919.
However, the Red Army was defeated by Polish forces at the battle of the Vistula in 1920. The Spartacist, Bavarian Soviet and Bela Kun governments all
failed to gain widespread support from the workers and after a brief time they were all overthrown. These events created a quandary for the Marxist
revolutionaries in Europe. Under Marxist economic theory, the oppressed workers were supposed to be the beneficiaries of a social revolution that
would place them on top of the power structure. When these revolutionary opportunities presented themselves, however, the workers did not respond. The
Marxist revolutionaries did not blame their theory for these failures. They blamed the workers.
One group of Marxist intellectuals resolved their quandary by an analysis that focused on society’s cultural “superstructure” rather than on the
economic substructures as Marx did. The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci and Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs contributed the most to this new cultural
Antonio Gramsci worked for the Communist International during 1923-24 in Moscow and Vienna. He was later imprisoned in one of Mussolini’s jails
where he wrote his famous “Prison Notebooks.” Among Marxists, Gramsci is noted for his theory of cultural hegemony as the means to class
dominance. In his view, a new “Communist man” had to be created before any political revolution was possible. This led to a focus on the efforts
of intellectuals in the fields of education and culture. Gramsci envisioned a long march through the society’s institutions, including the
government, the judiciary, the military, the schools and the media. He also concluded that so long as the workers had a Christian soul, they would not
respond to revolutionary appeals.
Georg Lukacs was the son a wealthy Hungarian banker. Lukacs began his political life as an agent of the Communist International. His book History and
Class Consciousness gained him recognition as the leading Marxist theorist since Karl Marx. Lukacs believed that for a new Marxist culture to emerge,
the existing culture must be destroyed. He said, “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution to the cultural
contradictions of the epoch,” and, “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.”
When he became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary in 1919, Lukacs launched what became known as “Cultural
Terrorism.” As part of this terrorism he instituted a radical sex education program in Hungarian schools. Hungarian children were instructed in free
love, sexual intercourse, the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the out-datedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which
deprives man of all pleasures. Women, too, were called to rebel against the sexual mores of the time. Lukacs’s campaign of “Cultural Terrorism”
was a precursor to what Political Correctness would later bring to Western European schools.
In 1923, Lukacs and other Marxist intellectuals associated with the Communist Party of Germany founded the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt
University in Frankfurt, Germany. The Institute, which became known as the Frankfurt School, was modelled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow.
In 1933, when Nazis came to power in Germany, the members of the Frankfurt School fled. Most came to the United States.
The members of the Frankfurt School conducted numerous studies on the beliefs, attitudes and values they believed lay behind the rise of National
Socialism in Germany. The Frankfurt School’s studies combined Marxist analysis with Freudian psychoanalysis to criticise the bases of Western
culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism,
nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism. These criticisms, known collectively as Critical Theory, were reflected in such
works of the Frankfurt School as Erich Fromm’s Escape from Freedom and The Dogma of Christ, Wilhelm’s Reich’s The Mass Psychology of Fascism and
Theodor Adorno’s The Authoritarian Personality.
The Authoritarian Personality, published in 1950, substantially influenced Western European psychologists and social scientists. The book was premised
on one basic idea, that the presence in a society of Christianity, capitalism, and the patriarchal-authoritarian family created a character prone to
racial and religious prejudice and German fascism. The Authoritarian Personality became a handbook for a national campaign against any kind of
prejudice or discrimination on the theory that if these evils were not eradicated, another Holocaust might occur on the European continent. This
campaign, in turn, provided a basis for Political Correctness.
Critical Theory incorporated sub-theories which were intended to chip away at specific elements of the existing culture, including “matriarchal
theory,” “androgyny theory,” “personality theory,” “authority theory,” “family theory,” “sexuality theory,” “racial theory,”
“legal theory,” and “literary theory.” Put into practice, these theories were to be used to overthrow the prevailing social order and usher in
To achieve this, the Critical Theorists of the Frankfurt School recognised that traditional beliefs and the existing social structure would have to be
destroyed and then replaced. The patriarchal social structure would be replaced with matriarchy; the belief that men and women are different and
properly have different roles would be replaced with androgyny; and the belief that heterosexuality is normal would be replaced with the belief that
homosexuality is equally “normal.”