Glenn Beck likens murdered kids to 'Hitler Youth'

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.

Oz

Originally posted by lifeform11
how is it indoctrination? i suppose if they were not interested but forced to listen then i would agree, how do we know they did not want to be there? how do we know it was not of interest to those taking part? regardless, we could claim anything is indoctrination.

Everything a person experiences in their life will affect their world view to some degree. The process of indoctrination is the intentional controlling of that experience to achieve a pre-desired world view in the person being indoctrinated.

Controlling what they don’t see is more important than controlling what they do see. Visual realities are harder to dismiss than stuff you hear by proxy. One personal experience can destroy someone's world view. A person seeing one thing they wasn’t suppose to see will destroy that person’s indoctrination.

That is why the communist would kill a person that seen something they wasn’t suppose to see. That is because there was no way to make them a “good citizen” again.

Hm……… Something just dawned on me……..

That could have been the primary motive behind the shooting. To break their “programming” by exposing them to something that could not be integrated into their existing world view. A feeling of total helplessness. A feeling that they have been isolated from. A person that has had a traumatic experience like that becomes more reserved and defensive in their world view, thought, and action. People that I know that have been through life threatening experiences are usually less full of themselves. More accepting of other’s thoughts, and more understanding of people that want to defend themselves. They also are more likely to go defensive if they feel their way of life is threatened again.

I get it now…… He wasn’t wanting to kill everyone. He was just wanting to kill enough so that everyone there would be affected. The people that survived would be beyond reindoctrination.

It was the same effect 9/11 had on the united states.

He was liberating them from their mental bonds.

Even if he is killed. Even if he is locked up for the rest of his life never to utter a word to the outside of the world. He has still unequivocally reframed the way the next generation of political leaders think. The change will be in his favor.

He has already won.


...edit....
This song comes to mind right now......

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.

Oz

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.

What happened?

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 mocked.

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 Marxism.

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 social revolution.

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.”

does it matter if they were forced to be there or not? They were there some want to be there some don't. Just like our public indoctrination system in the states.

RRokky - It would have been good to read your own thoughts and not half a book scribbled by someone who clearly does not understand history nor the evolution of philosophy and economic thought - (or could he be writing for an agenda I wonder?) - Anyway, his description of cultural Marxism is shallower than a Las Vegas grave.

I consider myself pretty Marxist in many areas of political activity, I consider myself pretty conservative in many others and I am what anyone with their half baked ideas of what Marxism represents an 'impossibility' - I'm a Nationalist. This does not however point to a flaw in me - only in how shallow people's understanding of Marxism is. Yes, I've read Das Kapital, Yes I've read the Eighteenth Brumaire and so on and so forth - and guess what? I did so before I had reached 16 years old. Was I indoctrinated? No - I was informed. There are large tracts of Marx which even he himself felt were 'debatable', open to opinion, possibly wrong - but of course everything he ever uttered is presented as 'Marxist belief' in our Corporate world.

I only need to get out of the left side of my bed in the morning and I'm branded a socialist by those who think a political spectrum is something created by sunlight hitting the White House windows.

I note that all of those who who believe these 'murdered without mercy' kids were being indoctrinated - have failed even now to address the one simple question I posed. I'll ask again...

These kids were old enough to vote - should they be embraced by politics? Or would you rather they voted in ignorance?

It's a simple enough question.

Oz

Indoctrination?

The public school system is indoctrintion as it is government controlled. The mass media is indoctrination as they try all the time to mould opinion based on what they print or push through their television or radio channels. Remember too they are under no obligation to tell the truth!
I have learnt more about world history over the years than anything I was taught in school, much of which now appears to have been edited, distorted, omitted or simply swept under the rug if it doesn't fit the agenda.

This is of course the aim of globalization, to mould everyones opinions and get us all on the same page, through coersion, "education" or, in this case, simple terrorism and outright murder.
These young people were taking an interest in politics and world events and trying to help make a difference. Unfortunately they have discovered the harsh reality of speaking out about what they believe in, and that there are people or forces out there who will murder anyone who doesn't fall into line with their own beliefs.

reply to post by RRokkyy


Seriously disturbed.

And the person that gave him the star, kro32 the racist?

Seriously disturbing, these posters should be banned.

Originally posted by Ozscot
I note that all of those who who believe these 'murdered without mercy' kids were being indoctrinated - have failed even now to address the one simple question I posed. I'll ask again...

These kids were old enough to vote - should they be embraced by politics? Or would you rather they voted in ignorance?

It's a simple enough question.

You set a false premise that the only way to educate children about the political system is the way they currently do it. That is a false premise. That leads you to a predetermined answer, which is wrong..

If you honestly can’t tell the difference between someone that is getting indoctrinated into an ideology and someone that is getting educated about an ideology, then no one here can help you……..

How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

Ronald Reagan

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by Ozscot
I note that all of those who who believe these 'murdered without mercy' kids were being indoctrinated - have failed even now to address the one simple question I posed. I'll ask again...

These kids were old enough to vote - should they be embraced by politics? Or would you rather they voted in ignorance?

It's a simple enough question.

You set a false premise that the only way to educate children about the political system is the way they currently do it. That is a false premise. That leads you to a predetermined answer, which is wrong..

If you honestly can’t tell the difference between someone that is getting indoctrinated into an ideology and someone that is getting educated about an ideology, then no one here can help you……..

How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

Ronald Reagan

LOL - I wasn't actually going to dignify that with a response - but I've just had a terrific dinner, feeling good - so I will.

Let's start with the accusation of 'false premise' shall we? There is no premise in the question - you'd like to see one wouldn't you? But fact remains there is none and your cowardly attempt to sidestep the question by raising a straw man says more about your integrity (or lack of it) than even your response does. So please from the recesses of that febrile mind could you point out to me where the premise is?

I'll repeat the question so as to make it easier for you to digest -

These kids were old enough to vote - should they be embraced by politics? Or would you rather they voted in ignorance?

Now there is no premise there - and please show me where in any of my posts I stated this is the only means of introducing kids to politics as you claim? There are any number of ways and this is but one of them. You fail sir, and so doing you highlight the ignorance which pervades the argument.

Want to try answering the question again? Or do you want to continue with your bereft diatribe and false accusations?

Oz

The one thing Beck did not mention is those young people were willingly being indoctrinated to be good Liberal Socialists.

If you were a member of the Nazi Youth you basically had no choice in the matter.

All German children had to be in it.

One of the Hitler Youth even went on to become the present Pope.

Originally posted by IamJustanAmerican
The one thing Beck did not mention is those young people were willingly being indoctrinated to be good Liberal Socialists.

If you were a member of the Nazi Youth you basically had no choice in the matter.

All German children had to be in it.

One of the Hitler Youth even went on to become the present Pope.

So let's get this straight - You agree with Glenn Beck's comparison?

And is there something wrong about believing Liberal Socialism can be a good thing? Have you been indoctrinated into believing it's a 'bad thing'? Now let's see...Norway, the strongest economy in Scandinavia, one of the strongest in Europe, the highest standard of living in Scandinavia, the lowest unemployment rate in Europe, the lowest levels of crime in Europe and all overseen by an unarmed Police Force - that's all been achieved under Liberal Socialism - could you tell me what part of that is bad again please?

Oz

All I can say is consider the source...enough said.

Originally posted by Ozscot
Now let's see...Norway, the strongest economy in Scandinavia, one of the strongest in Europe, the highest standard of living in Scandinavia, the lowest unemployment rate in Europe, the lowest levels of crime in Europe and all overseen by an unarmed Police Force - that's all been achieved under Liberal Socialism - could you tell me what part of that is bad again please?

Oz

It’s called oil revenue. That is what Norway is running on. They basically had a free pot of gold to plunder.

Same as Saudi Arabia. Did productivity produce that kind of wealth? No It a result of the oil under their feet. And to give Saudi Arabia credit, they know that it’s going to run out sooner or later, so they are trying to use that money to build their economy so they will have something viable once the oil runs out. Do they brag about how the superiority of their social structure made the wealth possible? No, because they know it had nothing to do with it.

Socialism is basically based on taking form someone else’s pot of gold. That means you have no problem because you got a free pot to dip into.

The problem with the rest of the world is… We don’t have a free pot of gold to plunder, so we have to make it our selves. Considering that socialism is basically based on taking from someone else’s pot of gold, that means we don’t like it very much.

reply to post by Mr Tranny


In some cave some day there was a fire creator. But his socialist cave mates just wanted to leach off the warmth, and burn their meat in it, taking away from his private property fire!
You are right: this cooperation thing has never really worked, and nothing good has ever come from it.

I guess this wasn't the cave though:
www.rickross.com...

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by Ozscot
Now let's see...Norway, the strongest economy in Scandinavia, one of the strongest in Europe, the highest standard of living in Scandinavia, the lowest unemployment rate in Europe, the lowest levels of crime in Europe and all overseen by an unarmed Police Force - that's all been achieved under Liberal Socialism - could you tell me what part of that is bad again please?

Oz

It’s called oil revenue. That is what Norway is running on. They basically had a free pot of gold to plunder.

Same as Saudi Arabia. Did productivity produce that kind of wealth? No It a result of the oil under their feet. And to give Saudi Arabia credit, they know that it’s going to run out sooner or later, so they are trying to use that money to build their economy so they will have something viable once the oil runs out. Do they brag about how the superiority of their social structure made the wealth possible? No, because they know it had nothing to do with it.

Socialism is basically based on taking form someone else’s pot of gold. That means you have no problem because you got a free pot to dip into.

The problem with the rest of the world is… We don’t have a free pot of gold to plunder, so we have to make it our selves. Considering that socialism is basically based on taking from someone else’s pot of gold, that means we don’t like it very much.

edit on 26-7-2011 by Mr Tranny because: (no reason given)

LOL Strike three - when are you gonna 'man up' and answer the question which caused you so much intellectual distress? Do we take your non response at the third time of asking to mean 'You don't know what you're talking about'?

As for the 'Oil' argument give me a second while I get back on my chair after laughing so hard I fell off. The wealthiest 'Oil' nation in Western Europe is Scotland - it does not have a Socialist Govt and finds itself with record numbers of unemployed, crime soaring, poverty and acute ill health as the profile of their nation - Now what was that you were saying about 'Oil'?

Oz

Originally posted by Ozscot
LOL Strike three - when are you gonna 'man up' and answer the question which caused you so much intellectual distress? Do we take your non response at the third time of asking to mean 'You don't know what you're talking about'?

As for the 'Oil' argument give me a second while I get back on my chair after laughing so hard I fell off. The wealthiest 'Oil' nation in Western Europe is Scotland - it does not have a Socialist Govt and finds itself with record numbers of unemployed, crime soaring, poverty and acute ill health as the profile of their nation - Now what was that you were saying about 'Oil'?

Oz

I am ignoring the question because if you can’t see that the premise is flawed, and you can’t tell the difference between indoctrination, and education. Then I am not going to waste my time with it.

On the oil situation…….

en.wikipedia.org...
www.newsinenglish.no...

Enough said.

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by Ozscot
LOL Strike three - when are you gonna 'man up' and answer the question which caused you so much intellectual distress? Do we take your non response at the third time of asking to mean 'You don't know what you're talking about'?

As for the 'Oil' argument give me a second while I get back on my chair after laughing so hard I fell off. The wealthiest 'Oil' nation in Western Europe is Scotland - it does not have a Socialist Govt and finds itself with record numbers of unemployed, crime soaring, poverty and acute ill health as the profile of their nation - Now what was that you were saying about 'Oil'?

Oz

I am ignoring the question because if you can’t see that the premise is flawed, and you can’t tell the difference between indoctrination, and education. Then I am not going to waste my time with it.

On the oil situation…….

en.wikipedia.org...
www.newsinenglish.no...

Enough said.

'Enough said?' LOL - I'm sorry but pre-school economics isn't going to quite cut it. What you have linked to (and are now evidently admitting yourself) is that Norway has used it's oil wealth wisely (How can that be for such a socialist nation!!!!???) - They don't have more oil than anyone else they simply used the revenue more wisely than anyone else to create wealth funds with benefits for ALL its citizenry (OMG That smacks of redistribution of wealth - how can this be???).

Scotland pulls in more barrels and holds more undeveloped licences than anyone in the area - but of course there's no redistribution going on there because a capitalist/corporate Westminster syphons the cash off at source in the form of taxation to go fight wars with its buddy the USA. And only shareholders get the leftovers.

But hey that's all good I guess - Scotland, Britain and the USA are all economically going down the pan right now but those guys in Scandinavia can't be getting it right can they? I mean - they're socialists!??

My earlier question obviously created some cognitive/cerebral dissonance. I would have had more respect for your opinion if you had just said 'You didn't know' rather than try to bluster your way out.

Oh well...


Oz

I think beck was being a bit hypocritical, and I think he is fully aware that he is, since the 9/12 project was founded by him!!!

but, well, in today's political atmosphere, you have to question the wisdom of gathering a group of children identifying them according to political leanings into a remote area for "camp"....
sounds like an open invitation for any wacko out there that wants to make a political statement....

and, well, the first thing I thought of when I heard that the camp was owned by a political party was nazi germany.
but I didn't know that we have them in american now either....till I read this article...
www.cnn.com...

to me, it's like making our kids targets, while probably brainwashing them...

Anything that does not look like or behave like America or American's is obviously considered related to Nazism.

They equate socilism to nazism, they equate unions to nazism.

Typical Americans.

I have yet to see an American that can last more than a few years in Europe.

I'm presuming Beck must equate the group to be found on the link below with the Nazi Wing of a very dangerous party then?

Youth Party

Zookey - unfortunately I couldn't agree more.

Oz