Barack Obama’s Politically Correct Tyranny

The Unorganized

American Militia

King George didn’t listen to us either!

 

Do You Know the Origins of Political Correctness?

By

Charles Pitts


Does anyone know the origins of Political Correctness? Who originally developed it and what was its purpose? President Obama does, and he uses it to advance his socialist fascist agenda.


Political Correctness was developed at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, which was founded in 1923 and came to be known as the "Frankfurt School." It was a group of thinkers who pulled together to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia.


The problem? Why wasn't communism spreading?


Their answer? Because Western Civilization was in its way.


What was the problem with Western Civilization? Its belief in the individual, that an individual could develop valid ideas. At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas come from the effect of the social group of the masses. The individual is nothing.


And they believed that the only way for communism to advance was to help (or force, if necessary) Western Civilization to destroy itself. How to do that? Undermine its foundations by chipping away at the rights of those annoying individuals.


One way to do that? Change their speech and thought patterns by spreading the idea that vocalizing your beliefs is disrespectful to others and must be avoided to make up for past inequities and injustices.


And call it something that sounds positive: "Political Correctness."


Inspired by the brand new communist technique, Mao, in the 1930s, wrote an article on the "correct" handling of contradictions among the people. "Sensitive training" – sound familiar? – and speech codes were born.


In 1935, after Hitler came to power, the Frankfurt School moved to New York City, where they continued their work by translating Marxism from economic to cultural terms using Sigmund Freud's psychological conditioning mechanisms to get Americans to buy into Political Correctness. In 1941, they moved to California to spread their wings.


But Political Correctness remains just what it was intended to be: a sophisticated and dangerous form of censorship and oppression, imposed upon the citizenry with the ultimate goal of manipulating, brainwashing and destroying our society.


The main problem with political correctness is that the concept itself is both irrational and diametrically opposed to the Western notion of free speech. In order to understand why this is the case, we need to first think about how something is labeled “politically correct” as opposed to being called offensive. Since people do not share all of the same views, it is impossible to obtain a definitive answer as to what constitutes political correctness. Rather, the designation is a subjective one, governed by individual opinions (which in turn are determined by emotion), not solid fact. Given that political correctness is by definition a restrictive concept — it attempts to prevent us from voicing certain words or opinions — we need to consider whether it is wise to sacrifice our freedom of speech upon an altar of subjectivity.


Restricting our speech in order to placate the emotional sensitivities of others is not only foolish — it is downright dangerous. There are too many people in the world who lack the emotional maturity and/or the intellectual capacity to hear a differing political opinion without taking it as a personal insult. If we are to adhere to the tenets of political correctness — i.e. that communication can only occur as long as everyone is “comfortable” — then we risk stifling legitimate free speech.


Unfortunately, the insidious nature of political correctness goes far beyond stifling legitimate opinions in the interests of coddling certain groups of people—it can also be used as a means of furthering one political opinion at the expense of another. What is and isn’t deemed to be politically correct is a pure function of one’s opinions—and with many opinions, there are corresponding agendas. When used effectively, political correctness becomes a weapon to silence opposition in the interests of achieving intellectual and political orthodoxy. For example, we all remember when Harvard’s former president, Larry Summers, was proverbially crucified for hypothesizing that male and female populations may have different levels of variance in their IQ distributions. To many (including the majority of Harvard students) this seemed like a reasonably banal point, but to the left-wing Harvard faculty, Summers’ conjecture that gender disparity may be caused by something other than discrimination by the white male hetero-patriarchy amounted to nothing other than heresy. As a result, Summers was forced to resign, and the left succeeded in both removing someone they despised even before the controversy, as well as sending a chilling message to anyone else who dared to express an opinion contrary to their own beliefs and agendas.


Politically Correct Cuba


Since repression and violations of human rights came roaring in right behind Castro's sweep down from the mountains in 1959, objection or rejection of Fidel Castro's revolution would (and still will) land you in a lot of trouble. You could easily lose your life in those summary executions at La Cabaña prison under the direction of Che Guevara.


But don't worry about Che. Che was later transformed and cleansed by the masters of Political Correctness. His likeness became a revered icon of the far left, with T-shirts and posters still adorning the campuses of America.


The same techniques were used to cleanse one of today's "heroes," Mumia Abu-Jamal (even if he was convicted, by overwhelming evidence, of killing a cop).


And under the pervasive guidance of Political Correctness that took hold from elementary school to university, from the media to the arts, from the country fields to factories and offices, Cubans learned to say what it was safe to say. Always in line with the overpowering state. Always following the dictums of the only political party left: the Communist Party.


The self-censorship resulting from Political Correctness easily trampled freedom of speech. Political Correctness has succeeded in Cuba by creating a uniform political discourse that has lasted for 43 years.


Political Correctness has given the state (Castro) complete control of speech. That is the main reason why the U.S. media cannot extract the truth of what Cubans really feel when they interview regular citizens and deceptively present their comments as valid to the American public.


The same was true in the former Soviet Union and the former satellite countries. The same continues in the remaining communist world.


It's nothing new. The U.S. media must know that, so why don't they openly report that fact instead of misleading the public? Perhaps that is the reason why the American people are so uneducated about the Cuban tragedy and acted regrettably during the Elian Gonzalez affair.


The Politically Correct United States


With profound dismay the scourge of Political Correctness has taken hold in the U.S. It is very well entrenched in our educational system, at scientific, religious and community levels, the media, the workplace and even our government.


It is changing the American society from within, and the citizens of this nation are increasingly censoring themselves and losing their freedom of speech out of fear of Political Correctness repression.


It is the nature of Western Civilization to be civilized – respectful of others and concerned with correcting injustices. We don't need Political Correctness to make us think we are not civilized on our own and must have our thoughts and words restricted.


In December 2001, in Kensington, Md., an annual firefighters Santa Claus festivity to light the Christmas tree was objected to by two families. The city council, in the name of Political Correctness, voted to ban Santa from the parade. Fortunately, due to citizen outcry, the decision was reversed in the end and many people protested by dressing up as Santa.


Logically and respectfully, how can one person's benign icon be objectionable to the point of banishment? Offer to add other people's icons. Make it a broader celebration. That's the Perfectly Correct American way.


The rulers of Political Correctness reach absurd levels when they refer to the betrayal of America by the spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg – executed in 1953 – as "non-traditional patriotism"!


We see shameful situations created in our schools and universities in America that have fallen prey to Political Correctness. Some professors, students and publications are being attacked for expressing a point of view that differs from that imposed by a fanatical far left, under the guise of Political Correctness.


In schools and workplaces we see that "diversity" has degenerated into reverse discrimination, where often the less qualified are admitted and the incompetent cannot be fired. We have seen characters like Rev. Jesse Jackson shamelessly blackmailing and threatening to boycott entire corporations if they don't hire those selected by him or simply make "donations" to his organizations.


The Double Standard Emerges


Our Constitution requires the separation of church and state, which has always discouraged our public education system from teaching religion. However, in December 2001, while Christmas cards, symbols and decorations were being objected to for the first time in American public schools in Georgia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Oregon, in an elementary school in Texas, a girl was allowed to give to her classmates an overview and show a video about her Muslim religion.


And in January 2002, a public middle school in San Luis Obispo, Calif., had its students pretend to be warriors fighting for Islam. Another school near Oakland, Calif., also encouraged 125 seventh-grade students to dress up in Muslim robes for a three-week course on Islam.


This arbitrary double standard was applied in the name of Political Correctness following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.


According to Ellen Sorokin's "No Founding Fathers?" published by the Washington Times on its front page on Jan. 28, 2002, even our Founding Fathers have fallen victim to the travesty. The article says of the New Jersey Department of Education's history standards, "The latest revisions to the state standards have disappointed educators across the country, who said the board's exclusion of the Founding Fathers' names is 'Political Correctness to the nth degree.' "


Sorokin points out that "the standards specifically note that students should identify slavery, the Holocaust and modern Iraq as examples in which 'people have behaved in cruel and inhumane ways.' " Conveniently, communism is absent from that short list.


In another article by Sorokin, published by the Washington Times on March 10, "Report Blames Anti-Americanism on College Teachers," she presents two examples of upcoming courses for next spring and fall. They are " 'The Sexuality of Terrorism' at University of California at Hayward; and 'Terrorism and the Politics of Knowledge' at UCLA, a class that, according to its course description, examines 'America's record of imperialistic adventurism.' "


Recently, a historic photograph of the New York firefighters raising the American flag over the ruins of the World Trade Center was going to be made into a sculpture as a memorial.


But history's revisionists used Political Correctness to dictate that other minority faces replace some of the faces in the historical photograph! Fortunately, in the end that didn't fly either, due to the outcry of firefighters and the public.


The Goal of the Politically Correct Dictators


For people with the background and firsthand experience of living inside a totalitarian communist society, the tilt and goal of the dictators of Political Correctness in America are obvious.


The beneficiaries in the end will be the fanatic believers in the totalitarian state, who, in spite of the dismal failure of communism and the 100 million people exterminated pursuing that criminal system, have not given up.


Political and religious fanatics, as demonstrated by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the subsequent war in Afghanistan, are extremely dangerous in today's world.


All citizens who cherish liberty must reject the scourge of Political Correctness. Freedom of speech must be preserved in America if we are to continue to be free.


Let's say it: Castro is not a 'president,' as the U.S. media's Political Correctness calls him. Castro has not been democratically elected to anything in Cuba. The correct word to define him is 'tyrant.' He is not just a 'leader,' as the U.S. media also calls him. He is more of a criminal Mafioso-type character.


Why criminal? Because he has caused the deaths of more than 100,000 Cubans. Thousands have died through his support of guerrillas in Central and South America. Thousands of blacks were killed by Castro's soldiers in Africa. Castro in the 1980s introduced the use of bacteriological weapons to kill blacks in Angola.


How many thousands have died in America as a result of his drug trafficking into the U.S.? How many thousands have died all over the world due to terrorists trained in Castro's Cuba?


Former Soviet colonel Ken Alibek, who defected to America, was once in charge of the Soviet Union's production of biological weapons. In Alibek's 1999 book, "Biohazard," he revealed that with the help of the Soviet Union, in the 1980s Cuba created laboratories to produce chemical and bacteriological weapons of mass destruction – just 90 miles from U.S. shores.


The information about Castro's involvement with bacteriological weapons also comes from various independent sources. We must not forget either that Cuba is on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist nations.


Why Mafioso? Well, Castro is like an untouchable godfather, surrounded by bodyguards and thugs and a private army of about 40,000 soldiers for his personal protection (roughly the size of the entire army of Cuba prior to 1959).


He stole foreign and national properties in Cuba. He has become one of the richest men in the world, according to Forbes magazine. He has created a despotic and corrupt elite to exploit the Cuban people and keep himself in power. He has made the Cuban people hostages and slaves of his corrupt regime.


The U.S. media do not call Al Capone "the former leader" of the Italian Mafia. Why the double standard with Fidel and other far-left regimes? The answer can be traced to where the sympathies lie – with the elite dictating Political Correctness in America.


It's one thing is to be educated, considerate, polite and have good manners, and another to be forced to self-censor and say things that are totally incorrect in order to comply with the arbitrary dictums of a deceiving and fanatical far-left agenda.


Let's preserve our freedom and say NO to the scourge of Obama’s Political Correctness.


 
How They Lie About Lincoln

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

There would be very stiff competition indeed for the literary award of "Most Absurd Lies and Myths About Lincoln." In the running would be almost all of Harry Jaffa’s writing, including the statement in his latest Lincoln book that "Lincoln opposed making voters or jurors of Negroes in the 1850s so that they could be voters and jurors today." Or Gabor Borit’s statement that Lincoln’s lifelong advocacy of "colonization," or deportation of black people from America, is an example of "how honest people lie."


But there is a new entry to the field: an article from the February 9, 2009 issue of Newsmax.com by Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen entitled "What Would He Say to Us Today?" It seems as though every time Newt Gingrich, who never served in the military himself, begins making the case for sending other peoples’ children off to die in another unnecessary war, he starts quoting Lincoln. A couple of years ago Gingrich wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal in which he advocated a military invasion and occupation of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea. The title of the article was "Lincoln and Bush." President Bush should "be like Lincoln," he said, and initiate five more wars simultaneously. More recently, Gingrich has been calling for the nuking of North Korea, so it is not surprising to me that he is once again waxing eloquently about Dishonest Abe.


It is well known that the founding fathers feared democracy. Indeed, in Federalist #10 James Madison explained that the sole purpose of the Constitution was to create a constitutional republic that would hopefully "restrain the violence of faction," by which he meant democracy. Gingrich and Forstchen unwittingly admit that their hero literally destroyed the constitution of the founding fathers by describing the Lincoln Memorial as "his [Lincoln’s] throne" that is "Modeled after Grecian temples" and is "our American temple to democracy . . ."


In reality, the Lincoln Memorial is a temple to the idea that government in America is not voluntary, and never will be as long as Lincoln is its primary symbol and as long as Lincoln mythology remains the state’s cornerstone ideology. Lincoln micromanaged the murder of some 350,000 fellow Americans, including more than 50,000 civilians, in order to "prove" his point that the central government is indeed not voluntary, the states were never sovereign (so he said), and that any group of citizens who contemplate leaving it will be killed en masse, their cities and towns burned to the ground, and their wealth and personal belongings confiscated by the U.S. Army. If we standardize for today’s population, Lincoln’s killing machine would lead to the death of more than 6 million Americans.


To Gingrich and Fortschen, this is how America became "united." To me, it sounds more like how Soviet Russia was "united" in its own "glorious union." Do these men really believe that Southerners in 1866 felt "united" with their fellow citizens in the North?


The two people who were closest to Lincoln were his longtime law partner, William Herndon (who he affectionately called "Billy") and his wife, Mary Todd. In a biography of Lincoln Herndon wrote of how Lincoln was either an atheist or an agnostic. As a young man, said Herndon, Lincoln even wrote a book that argued that the Bible was not the word of God and that Jesus was not the son of God. When he decided to get into politics, the book was burned.


When Herndon was preparing his biography he asked Mrs. Lincoln to comment on Abe’s "religious" views, and she told him that he never became a Christian. "Mr. Lincoln," she said, "had no faith . . . . He never joined a church . . . he was never a technical Christian." (See Edgar Lee Masters, Lincoln the Man, p. 150).


That Lincoln "had no faith" is no secret to the "Lincoln scholars." In her book Team of Rivals, the high priestess of the Lincoln Cult, Doris Kearns-Goodwin, acknowledges this fact but adds the usual spin: We should all feel even more sorry for poor, poor Abe, she says, since he suffered from not believing in an afterlife.


Gingrich and Fortschen mislead us about this by writing that Lincoln "was a man of deep and abiding faith." They apparently write this on the basis of the fact that Lincoln, like Bill Clinton, was fond of quoting Scripture in political speeches. (Recall how Clinton used to clutch that fifty-pound Bible in front of the television cameras every Sunday?) Indeed he was. In his second inaugural address he blamed the whole bloody mess of the war on God, absolving himself of all responsibility by saying the war just "came," as though he had nothing to do with it. He also claimed to be able to read the mind of God by asserting that the war was God’s punishment of all Americans, North and South, for slavery. He did not attempt to explain why God would not also punish the British, Spanish, French, Dutch, Swedes, and others who were responsible for 96% of all the slaves that were kidnapped and brought to the Western Hemisphere. Unlike the Lincoln regime, these countries all ended slavery peacefully, as Jim Powell documents in his excellent book, Greatest Emancipations.


Lincoln is praised by "Lincoln scholars" for having been an obsessive micromanager of the war. He knew everything. He knew that Southern civilians were murdered and plundered from the very beginning, even before the Battle of First Manassas commenced. He authorized the bombing of Southern cities and he was also apparently obsessed with experimenting with larger and larger weapons of mass destruction – to be used on fellow Americans. He profusely thanked and rewarded officers like Sherman and Sheridan for waging war on civilians, as they did during Sherman’s March, the burning of Atlanta and Columbia, South Carolina, and the burning of the Shenandoah Valley. General Sherman wrote that Lincoln "especially enjoyed" his stories of how Southern women, children and old men were terrorized by Sherman’s "bummers," as his looting, pillaging, plundering, and raping "soldiers" were called.


But to Gingrich and Forstchen Lincoln had a "deep sense of love and compassion" for everyone. He even knelt and prayed with a wounded Confederate soldier in a hospital, they claim; his "eyes filled with pain over the suffering of others"; and "was known for extreme gentleness to an injured animal." They list no sources or references when they write this, only saying that they come from "stories." Such stories are completely contradicted by Lincoln’s actual sociopathological behavior.


Perhaps the most outrageous piece of propaganda in the Gingrich/Forstchen article is their statement that "Lincoln was the first president to invite and socially greet a delegation of African-Americans into the White House." They say this to give their readers the impression that Lincoln was enlightened on the issue of race. He was not. He was as much a white supremacist as any man alive. Moreover, the purpose of the White House meeting with the delegation of African-Americans was not to meet and greet, but to urge these men to lead by example and self-deport themselves to Liberia in West Africa. It is all explained in Lincoln’s Selected Writings and Speeches, in the entry for August 14, 1862.


At this meeting Lincoln told the delegation of free black men that "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races . . . . This physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both . . . and affords a reason at least why we should be separated . . . . It is better for us both, therefore, to be separate." He then made his sales pitch for the men to deport themselves to Liberia, an offer that they wisely declined. One would never know about this by reading the Gingrich/Forstchen article. (Besides, Professor Henry Louis Gates of Harvard has told me that this was not even the first time a black person had entered the White House).


Neocons will apparently never stop lying about Lincoln, but we can all stop believing their lies.

 
PC Tyranny
Tyranny In USAHow_Tyranny_Came_to_America.html
Patriots BlogThe_Patriots_Blog/The_Patriots_Blog.html
PC MilitaryObamas_PC_Military.html
States RightsStates_Rights_Issues.html





Dear Father, give us victory over tyranny and deliver us from oppression. Amen!