Raising American Taliban

Todays public schools in America are nothing but Government run institutions.....

....What has the government done in recent years....banned prayer from school...outlawed the name GOD from everything...discouraged the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance....outlawed discipline...forced children to practice being Muslim....allowed altered history books to be taught to the children...taught children to be expect the government to take care of them (socialized medicine is OK, welfare is OK, social security is OK)...taught the children that the US has been wrong to fight around the globe for freedom...taken down the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence from bulletin boards and removed them from classrooms....instilled a totally leftist classroom agenda.....prosecuted students for writing papers on freedom or for praising American soldiers...Allowed academic slugs such as Ward Churchill to teach our students...promoted leftist leaning students and failed students who have studied and idolized our founding fathers such as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin....

....America is struggling and the government run school system is much to blame.....

Our enemies have been using our tolerance and freedoms, especially our freedom of speech, against us.
At the same time, political correctness has been indoctrinated in us to stifle opposition to the Gramscian undermining of conservative values and institutions.

Communist Russia didn't die...it just transformed the struggle to a cultural war.
The Marxists have been busy, busy, busy in our schools.

The following, from a review of
The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization by Patrick J. Buchanan, at The Mises Review
http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=201&sortorder=issue

"According to the great Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, Communism must inevitably fail so long as people retained their faith in traditional Christian values. “ ‘The civilized world has been saturated with Christianity for 2000 years,’ Gramsci wrote; and a regime grounded in Judeo-Christian beliefs and values could not be overthrown until these roots were cut” (p. 76, quoting Gramsci).

The task for revolutionaries is then obvious: they must undermine traditional values. To do so—and here precisely lies Gramsci’s greatest originality—revolutionaries should not “seize power first and impose a cultural revolution from above” (p. 77). Rather, they must first change the culture. Through a “long march through the institutions,” Christian values would be undermined. “Then the people could be slowly educated to understand and even welcome the revolution” (p. 77, quoting Gramsci).".

All the beneficial traditional values/institutions have been attacked, including patriotism, the family, Christianity, nationalism, conservative moral values.
All that is noble in man’s nature has been vilified and all that is profane held up as worthy of emulation.

We lost the cold war in my opinion.
I look to the day all those traitors responsible for brainwashing our kids with Marxist propaganda are brought to account and dealt with in the harshest way.

John Walker Lindh, that is, Suleyman Al-Faris, grew up despising America and the West because that's what he was taught to do in American schools.

Funny, according to blinkered John Blackstone of CBS News, Lindh's parents,Marilyn Walker and Frank Lindh, just 'know' he loves America.

Watch this video posted at The Jawa Report and witness the preposterous contortions of moral equivalence John Walker Lindh's parents go through in their effort to seek a reduced sentence. Video also here:
http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=756022038

CBS News' John Blackstone provides his own preposterous spin with comments such as: (see marker 7:32)

"Even though Lindh never took part in terrorism or fought against America . . ."

WTF?????

This passes for professional journalism?

John Phillip Walker Lindh (born February 9, 1981) is an American citizen who was captured during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan while fighting there for the Taliban.

"Even though Lindh never took part in terrorism or fought against America . . ."
-- from a posting above, quoting CBS's journalist John Blackstone

This is nonsense. He was armed and eager to fight. He didn't have a chance to because he was captured. When captured, he was interviewed by Mike Spann, but gave Spann no hint or warning that an uprising by the Al Qaeda prisoners was in the works. Soon after interrogating John Walker Lindh, the Al Qaeda prisoners revolted. Mike Spann, the C.I.A. interrogator, was killed. John Walker Lindh was unscathed, and is right now is alive and well and hardly being ill-treated in an American prison, no doubt being handled with kid gloves by the authorities. And though both he and his awful parents apparently think he is a "victim" of something, he is not the victim of anything. But Mike Spann was.

""Even though Lindh never took part in terrorism or fought against America . . ."

...This is a LIE!.....He trained with the terrorists and was carrying ammunitions and explovises to the

.....once again the members of the MSM seek to deceive and to undermine the fine efforts of our gallant soldiers...

...or maybe this is just another member of the MSM who is totally ignorant of the facts....speaking from word of mouth or just to hear his own voice...just what we have come to expect from most MSM members.

"explovises to the "

...s/b esplosives to the terrorists attacking the American soldiers...

"Alicia Colon discusses the likelihood that John Walker Lindh, that is, Suleyman Al-Faris, grew up despising America and the West because that's what he was taught to do in American schools."

YES, this is a BIG part of the problem. Many of our children are being filled with contempt for their heritage, their country, themselves. They are being taught that America was formed only through oppression (slavery) and genocide (the Indians), and continues to be strong only through the exploitation of the rest of the world. Not only that, but that America is almost singlehandedly killing the planet itself through global-warming, and on and on it goes. The unmistakable message is that America has been a cancer from the very start and continues to be so to this very day. Of course it's not always so direct and blunt, but this is the poison which is given to our children in diluted forms in public education. It softens them up for the hardcore lessons in self-hatred which often come in our colleges and universities where America-hating is a finely honed art.

"Many of our children are being filled with contempt for their heritage"

The process by which millions of Americans have become, at best, profoundly suspicious of their own America's motives and goodness, and, at worst, convinced of America's downright evil, has been a far more complex phenomenon than the mere "teaching" of our kids or "filling" them with ideas would suggest.

For one thing, it's not easy for authority figures, in a school or college setting, to persuade youths age 13-22 of anything: kids tend to rebel against authorities, not pliantly conform to them.

For another, kids are not merely empty vessels into which one can just pour ideas, opinions and feelings.

And further, the ones doing the "pouring", the teachers, have themselves been indoctrinated, so we have a chicken-and-egg process that points to a far subtler sociological complexity than simply one of some elite cadre of sinister brainwashers who themselves are lucidly and willfully evil setting out with a dastardly plot to convert each generation to anti-Americanism.

And finally, many of those who are anxious about this indoctrination don't seem to see the irony that they themselves view America just as suspiciously -- as a polity that has become commandeered by a sinister and dastardly "Elite" -- and seem to share in a similar pathos of paranoid alienation from this great nation.

But by all means don't let me spoil the fun of reducing a complex problem down to comfortably manageable and demonizable proportions.

the guy converted to islam

what more evidence do you need that he is simply a retard?

remote_control,

You correctly point out that the teachers themselves have been indoctrinated and go on to describe the problem as,

"far subtler sociological complexity than simply one of some elite cadre of sinister brainwashers who themselves are lucidly and willfully evil setting out with a dastardly plot to convert each generation to anti-Americanism.".

So apparently you agree that there is a problem with political indoctrination in our schools,
but you do not explain exactly how it is a far more complex phenomenon.
Adolescent rebelliousness doesn't quite cut it.
Chicken and egg? Come on, at some point in the process there was a big fat Marxist chicken :)

The genius of the Gramscian bottom-up approach to Marxist indoctrination, ie. first changing the culture through a “long march through the institutions,” is, to quote Gramsci, "the people could be slowly educated to understand and even welcome the revolution”,ie. the teachers are converted to Marxism and become willing collaborators in the process.

It is a self-perpetuating system with the students becoming the next generation of Marxist teachers.
Exactly the same thing has been happening in our media, btw.

To quote you again,

"And finally, many of those who are anxious about this indoctrination don't seem to see the irony that they themselves view America just as suspiciously -- as a polity that has become commandeered by a sinister and dastardly "Elite" -- and seem to share in a similar pathos of paranoid alienation from this great nation.".

Well, I for one do not view America in that way, but what we are discussing is not limited to America but is prevalent throughout Western Civilization.
Sadly, as a result of passing through our corrupted educational institutions, many, but by no means all, of our "elite" do seem to have been converted to Marxism.

I'd be interested to hear what another poster ex-commie has to say about this.
An apostate communist should know the score.

remote_control,

You are right to chide me for oversimplifications, but I stand by my main point that our children are being taught -- at the least -- to feel ashamed of being American, and -- at the worst -- to hate America/themselves/their past.

Of course it's not always, not even usually, by ill-meaning America-haters (they come later in college and university though I'm not saying that all or even most professors in higher education hate America or wish to indoctrinate students into hating America).

I did say it was often given in "diluted forms" by teachers and others, usually with no intent to be destructive such is the routine about it.

It's not a grand, diabolical plot but i do think it comes from leftist elites who have made their life work tearing America down in vain hopes of establishing a fantasy utopia on earth which has never existed and never will exist.

It's the disease of focusing exclusively on faults and flaws. Yes America does have some episodes in its past (as do all nations) which are worthy of shame and condemnation, including slavery and the treatment of natives. It's the fixation on these episodes which is so destructive, and the absence of teaching -- to use Dinesh D'Souza's phrase -- "what's so great about America".

There should be a balance to teaching what is great and what is not so great about America. I believe that this balance has been maliciously and methodically destroyed over the past 40 years by leftist elites who want to tear America down in its present form. And not limited to America as Mike points out.

These same leftist elites (yes they do exist) have discovered and exploited a most effective method for accomplishing this destruction of the present form by spreading shame, guilt, contempt, etc about America's past and present. And who are most vulnerable to this kind of campaign? Children.

Are all leftists marching in lock-step coordination of such a grand strategy, of course not. But enough are acting in concert to create a broad impact. It's more a conspiracy of the desired goal (again, destruction of America in its present form) than it is of specific tactics, but the direction and intention is definitely there in my opinion.

"But by all means don't let me spoil the fun of reducing a complex problem down to comfortably manageable and demonizable proportions."

Actually, that's a completely false characterization of what I was trying to do. I had no fun at all writing that post. Nor did I have time to do any justice at all to what I was arguing. Nor was I comfortable with what I tossed out. I was, however, angry thinking about this guy John Walker Lindh / Suleyman Al-Faris, and how he turned out the way he did. So in lieu of having time or energy to flesh out this or that nuance, I just vented. You called me on it and in most respects you are correct. But to insinuate that I was having 'fun' is a gross, false mischaracterization.

First let me say that alexon was absolutely right in his first post. Yes he reduced it and only hit the bare bones, but as a retired history teacher I can tell you he is absolutely right. Luckily I got my education in the 70s before the lefties of my generation got control of the colleges and universities as they have now. I had an excellent education in history; European, American and Middle East. I majored in British and Middle East history but had plenty of US because of requirements. So when I went out and taught, I was able to tell the unvarnished truth of US history. Sure we have warts, what country doesn't, but putting those things into historical perspective is the challenge of teaching. I believe that I did a good job.

Then along came the Union and we all had to join to have the "right" to teach. Gee, five years of university and countless years of my own research and reading and I had to be "allowed" to teach by a union. From that point things started down the long road to perdition in education. And then we had the federal government stick it's little hands in and that mucked it up even further. Reams of paperwork and red tape took so much time away from teaching. Not to mention the fact that we have a school year based on 19th century agricultural needs. We spend less time in the classroom than the majority of nations today. By the time the 80s rolled around, education in this country was well on the way to the bottom of the heap in the world.

It was really bad in the late 80-early 90s when all the America is evil, America is the problem teaching started to take effect. I had quit teaching by then. I could no longer stand the lies that were being taught to the kids. And they expected every teacher to teach that way. I refused and just could not do it. I love history and could no more lie about it then join the communist party (had a Russian communist great-uncle who taught me to hate them but that is another story).

It has made me almost weep to see how badly the kids are being taught today. But I have seen glimmers of hope. There seems to be a resurgence among the young toward religion again. And more are speaking out on college campuses about the denial of free speech rights to those on the right or of Christian religious persuasion. I am hopeful that these young people will pull us from the abyss because I do not see our leaders doing anything of the kind. The federal government is now close to implementing or trying to, a national curriculum which every state will have to follow. Just one more unconstitutional piece of legislation that the Americans need to wake up to before it is too late.

Mike W,

"So apparently you agree that there is a problem with political indoctrination in our schools,
but you do not explain exactly how it is a far more complex phenomenon."

I haven't studied it enough, but it seems to me it must involve an overall process of sociopolitical change throughout the West, with many successive waves of change, going back as far as the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, each wave having of course different contours and forces, and the later waves building on the previous ones.

"Adolescent rebelliousness doesn't quite cut it.
Chicken and egg? Come on, at some point in the process there was a big fat Marxist chicken :)"

The Marxist "chicken" of course has been a big part of this process, but it can't explain why the majority of conservatives continue to buy into the PC paradigm by which Islam is whitewashed.

"The genius of the Gramscian bottom-up approach to Marxist indoctrination..."

I suspect that Gramsci has become a useful person to use in order to simplify the process. I'm not denying there have been specific efforts by specific individuals (like Gramsci) to try to insinutate this kind of change in the West; what I am objecting to is the exaggeration of their significance -- which obscures a larger more amorphous process, whose solution will more likely elude us if we continue to indulge in simplistic analyses. I.e., the Gramscis of the world would have little success in America if there were not also a larger process of PC change in which they can more effectively operate.

alexon,

"You are right to chide me for oversimplifications, but I stand by my main point that our children are being taught -- at the least -- to feel ashamed of being American, and -- at the worst -- to hate America/themselves/their past."

Yes, I agree, but again this teaching would have much less effect on our youth were there not a wider atmosphere in which it fits and makes sense.

"It's not a grand, diabolical plot but i do think it comes from leftist elites who have made their life work tearing America down in vain hopes of establishing a fantasy utopia on earth which has never existed and never will exist."

I agree that Leftists have played a significant role in this whole process; but Leftism doesn't explain why the majority of conservatives today are PC with regard to whitewashing Islam.

"But to insinuate that I was having 'fun' is a gross, false mischaracterization."

Sorry, I didn't mean to literally charge you with that; it was a rather loose rhetorical remark of mine, probably motivated by frustration at what I have perceived to be too much simplification of a problem that will be less likely to be solved if its accurate nature & dimensions are not appreciated.

"I agree that Leftists have played a significant role in this whole process; but Leftism doesn't explain why the majority of conservatives today are PC with regard to whitewashing Islam." -- RC

Here is my take on why many conservatives are reluctant to face the full threat that Supremacist Islam poses:

1) Wishful Thinking (it runs across the political spectrum).

If only... it truly is a 'tiny minority' which is causing the trouble. If only... since they were with us against Soviet style Communism we can win them over to our side
now too. If only... Islam can learn to accommodate to modernity the way Christianity has....

2) Religious Empathy.

Christian conservatives have themselves experienced the pain of unfair, smearing attacks by secular leftists, especially so in the past half century, so they are reluctant to treat Muslims who are simply culturally 'conservative' in that same unfair way. Sort of Dinesh D'Souza's take.

3) The Miasma of PC Islam.

Leftist elites have so successfully dominated the discussion of Islam that it has become socially and intellectually TABOO to argue that the problems with Islam go beyond a few thousand die-hard trouble-makers.
After all (the PC line goes) "all religions have their violent nuts." It's comforting to think this way, even for conservatives who don't want their own "nuts", for example Fred Phelps of the gay-hating Westboro Baptist Church, to be held up as representative of Baptists or conservatives in general.

4) What If It Is True?

Companion reality to the denial and wishful thinking in point #1. If it IS true that Islam is beyond reform and compatibility with the rest of the world, it means that there is an impending Class of Civilizations and World War which will lead to terrible strife and suffering and destruction across the globe in the coming years. Who wants to embrace that kind of future?

I'd be interested to read other takes on why many conservatives recoil from confronting What's Wrong with Islam.

This is 100% true. It takes firm resolve to teach our children that
America is a unique place and that our liberties must not be taken for granted or some will work to take them away.

My and my husband's grandparents emigrated from different parts of the world as did many others at the turn of the 20th century. Our parents were taught the benefits and blessings of living here in the US and that they were worth fighting for. Sadly, students today are taught again and again that America is the cause of problems throughout the world and are NOT taught about what positive things America has done or is doing. America and Americans, in some people's eyes, are always the bad actors.

Soem people do get it, even with all the propaganda. I saw this recently in an old Reader's Digest:

"America is not perfect, but it's much better than anywhere else in the world."
-- Catherine Zeta-Jones

alexon,

I don't think your four explanations suffice to explain why the majority of conservatives buy the PC paradigm. The actual nature & dimensions of the problem must take into account the fact that conservatives over the past 40+ years have become PC-ified. Conservatives wouldn't buy a worldview manufactured by Leftists. Therefore, a much deeper and broader change in social consciousness must have occurred. PC is much larger than Leftism -- that is PC's secret of success. If it were merely a Leftist phenomenon, it would not have become mainstream; but it has.

RC,

I disagree with your statement that a "majority of conservatives buy the PC paradigm". I think conservatives are very skeptical of PC and do not go along for the ride most of the time. Islam is a new frontier for most conservatives and it's taking time for them to come to grips with it.

"Conservatives wouldn't buy a worldview manufactured by Leftists."

Well, yes and no. Honestly, it isn't easy to resist the miasma of leftist taboos and prescriptions which is spread so thickly, widely by so many. Years and years of it does begin to take hold and all the do's and dont's of leftist thought begins to just seem like the right thing to do.

The perfect example of this is so-called "Affirmative Action". The words themselves mean absolutely nothing except as cudgels to beat opponents with. But it must be the right thing to do because it's "affirmative" and "action" neither of which any fair-minded person could possibly be against, right? And it's well-intentioned, right? It seeks to right past wrongs and give wronged people a chance to be part of this wealthy system. Nevermind that the reality is quite different. It sounds good and makes sense and thus over time becomes THE fair-minded thing to do. And if you disagree then you may even be a "racist".

And so it was born; Government sanctioned and implemented race discrimination. Preferences and --despite protests to the contrary-- Quotas, BASED ON RACE. What could be more "racist" than that?! But it took hold and lots of fair-minded elites, left and right, think it's a great idea. And it doesn't even seem like a left-wing policy any more because they managed to mainstream it over time. So many conservative do buy into these things. Boil the frog slowly and it doesn't even realize what's happening until it's too late.

RC, you dismiss my ideas with a wave of your hand but don't offer up any of your own ideas. That's poor sportsmanship. What are some of YOUR ideas for why conservatives buy into PC?

"Therefore, a much deeper and broader change in social consciousness must have occurred."

Please be more specific. What? When? Where? How? Why?

alexon,

"I disagree with your statement that a "majority of conservatives buy the PC paradigm". I think conservatives are very skeptical of PC and do not go along for the ride most of the time. Islam is a new frontier for most conservatives and it's taking time for them to come to grips with it."

I'd have to disagree: the only reason it's "taking time" for conservatives is because of PC. Without PC, the problem is easy to analyze properly. PC is not monolithic; a person can be PC about some things, not PC about others. Also, some PC givens are more specific and delimited, others are more vague and general. The problem of Islam fits into the more vague and general haze of PC, and is therefore more amenable to being difficult to pinpoint and extract for rational analysis.

"it isn't easy to resist the miasma of leftist taboos and prescriptions which is spread so thickly, widely by so many. Years and years of it does begin to take hold and all the do's and dont's of leftist thought begins to just seem like the right thing to do."

But again, how did this Leftist miasma become dominant and mainstream? You seem to be implying a chicken-and-egg situation, or you are begging the question. The only way out of the questions raised by your implication is to posit an actual conscious Leftist takeover beginning some time in the early 60s perhaps, which I don't think is possible in the healthy and free sociopolitical situtation of the United States. Many Leftist ideas did, in fact, become dominant and mainstream, but I maintain this did not happen, and could not have happened, as an actual conscious manipulation by Leftists. I don't dispute that there were certain Leftists who had this agenda to transform the sociopolitical landscape of America (and the West in general) -- but again, they would not have been successful had there not been a wider trans-Leftist sea change already occurring around them.

"The perfect example of this is so-called "Affirmative Action". "

Again, affirmative action could not have succeeded were it not enmeshed within a wider web of PC givens (and even then, there was considerable resistance, since PC has not been a static phenomenon, but is an organic growing process).

"And it doesn't even seem like a left-wing policy any more because they managed to mainstream it over time."

It's not merely that it becomes mainstream over time; it's also that while it was being introduced into the sociopolitical fabric, it took advantage of, and also semi-consciously reflected, a wider already mainstream PC mindset. But PC, besides not being a static ahistorical phenomenon that was always the same from the beginning until now, is also not a uniform monolithic process: some aspects of PC were stronger earlier, others have become stronger later but were weaker or less influential earlier; etc.

"RC, you dismiss my ideas with a wave of your hand but don't offer up any of your own ideas. That's poor sportsmanship. What are some of YOUR ideas for why conservatives buy into PC?"

As I implied in an earlier post, I think PC has grown over a very long time, going back to the Protestant Reformation in a nebulous way, but more clearly stemming from the 18th century Enlightenment period and then the post-Enlightenment 19th century after the French Revolution: in that century, although there were many sociopolitical forces reacting against the excesses of the French Revolution that was in many ways the extremist logical conclusion of the Enlightenment, there were deeper currents of change leading up to, and then exacerbated by, the crisis of World War One near the beginning of the 20th century: this crisis was not merely military or political, but was profoundly cultural, philosophical and spiritual: from the 1890s through to the post-War period of the 1920s, the West went through profound soul-searching and extreme doubts about all its principles, whether Graeco-Roman or Judaeo-Christian, and that period (1890s-1920s) also saw the beginning of the most extreme and pathological self-criticism of the West. Again, nothing falls out of the blue sky: this pathological self-doubt and self-criticism of the West had roots going back to the 18th century Enlightenment: but where in the 18th century -- and continuing throughout the 19th century "utopian" movements and ideals and continuing dreams of revolution which finally erupted with the Russian Revolution in the early 20th century -- the anti-Westernism was more optimistic about providing a new, revolutionary alternative to the corrupt and evil West, in the 1890s-1920s period began a profoundly pessimistic anti-Westernism, leading to existentialism, nihilism, skepticism without relief from even utopian idealism, rampant culvitations of mind-numbing or mind-distracting divertissements (whether frivolous art, bizarre lifestyles, or actual drug addictions), etc. Of course, this profoundly pessimistic anti-Westernism didn't become the uniform norm throughout the West, but it did plant itself as a major pathology in constant tension with periodic renewals of health and optimistic rationality, as well as with renewals of irrational utopianisms of one sort or another (with Communism being a major backdrop for several decades, of course).

The particular aspect of PC that concerns the blindness to the problem of Islam revolves around the closely related twin factors of:

1) anti-Westernism (on the part of Westerners)

2) romanticization of non-Western peoples and cultures.

These two factors, as my rather rushed and muddled historical overview above implied, have been percolating long before the 60s -- going back to the 18th century. While it took some time for these twin factors to become as mainstream as they have been since the 60s, and although there have been currents in conservatism that have partially resisted the implications of these factors, nevertheless the dominance has become ensconced in certain respects (respects that directly affect our responses to the problem of Islam), and I just don't think Leftism through Leftist agents could have done it alone.

Unfortunately, I haven't thought of a solution to this problem of PC's dominance. It just might well be that only horrific shocks from Muslim attacks -- far worse, more numerous and more widespread than have already occurred -- against the West will shake loose the irrational bolts and rivets that hold the dominant PC paradigm together.

If you're interested, you can read an essay I wrote on my blog where I analyze the PC assumptions of an article by a scholar of Islam written as far back as 1917.

When Did Political Correctness Begin?

http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2007/03/when-did-politically-correct-attitude.html

Oh my. I'll need to look all of this over more carefully later, including your link. Thanks.

RC, it might be a few days. I hope the topic doesn't close in the meantime.

remote_control attempts to complicate the problem by depicting political correctness as a phenomenon that has been with us a long time and grown naturally, rather than as a noxious tool deliberately planted in the West by Marxism as a means of achieving their designs through thought control.
He also uses ad-hominem argument by using terms such as "paranoid", "sinister and dastardly" and
"by all means don't let me spoil the fun of reducing a complex problem down to comfortably manageable and demonizable proportions" to portray anyone suspecting Marxist agents at work as comically paranoid.

Who the hell cares if some aspects of political correctness can be traced back to even the dawn of time; the real problem of Marxist and Islamic indoctrination of kids in our schools is a reality NOW, and in my opinion has been deliberate and malicious in intent.

Perhaps remote_control would be more comfortable if we all just went back to sleep and the mental rape of our kids continues apace.
Just who's side are you on remote_control?

Mike_W,

"the real problem of Marxist and Islamic indoctrination of kids in our schools is a reality NOW"

Again, if the main source of the problem were Leftist and/or Marxist indoctrination, that doesn't explain why the majority of Capitalism-supporting conservatives have been whitewashing Islam for decades, and continue to whitewash Islam 6 years after 911, nor does it explain why the majority of Americans are so shamefully passive that, to pluck one example out of thousands from a turban, they have not risen up en masse in protest against the ABC television network to demand that Rosie O'Donnell be fired from The View. Such passivity is not explained by mere laziness -- it is more cogently explained by a widespread and mainstream whitewashing of Islam, including millions of people who are not "Leftist" nor "Marxists". American people are not dupes: they (and particularly the conservatives among them) would not just sit still and breathe in the gas of brainwashing from Marxist "indoctrinators". Such a theory is absurd and reflects a profound detachment from the reality and greatness of the American sociopolitical fabric.

remote_control,

I have previously posted the following in bits and pieces here at various times and apologize for posting it again but I believe it is very much related to the topic.

Manning Johnson, a former official of the Communist Party USA, gave the following testimony in 1953 to the House un-American Activities Committee:

"Once the tactic of infiltration of religious organizations was set by the Kremlin ... The Communists discovered that the destruction of religion could proceed much faster through infiltration of the Church by the Communists
operating within the Church itself ... In the earliest stages it was determined that with only small forces available to them, it would be necessary to concentrate Communist agents within the seminaries ... to influence the ideology of future clergymen in the paths conducive to Communist purposes."

Mr. Johnson went on to say, "It is the axiom of Communist organization strategy that if a body has 1% Communist Party members and 9% party sympathizers, this 10% can effectively control the remaining 90% who think and act on an individual basis." He further testified that the goals of this infiltration were twofold:
1. To make the Catholic Church no longer effective against Communism.
2. To direct clerical thinking away from the
spiritual and toward the temporal and political ...hence, the preaching of the social gospel."

Another former Communist, Dr. Bella Dodd, a Communist most of her life, after her defection revealed that one of her jobs as a Communist agent was to encourage young radicals to infiltrate seminaries and religious orders, because the Catholic Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent. She said, "In the 1930's we put 1,100 men
into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within. The idea was for these men to be ordained, and then climb the ladder of influence and authority -- to come to be monsignors and bishops. Right now, they are in the highest places ....".

Google Bella Dodd and Manning Johnson for some more eye-openers regarding the deliberate, in my opinion, smearing by communism of the Catholic church, as part of the Gramscian process of cutting the root of the Western civilazation to its Judeo-Christian foundations.

There are also various indications that part of the culture war waged against the West was the "collapse" of Soviet Russia to lull the West into a false sense of security and lower its guard.

Gorbachev's speech to the Politburo in 1987, just prior to "the collapse":

"Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep."

Read the article, Russina footprints by Ion Mihai Pacepa :
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjUzMGU4NTMyOTdkOTdmNTA1MWJlYjYyZDliODZkOGM=

An excerpt :

"In 1972, the Kremlin decided to turn the whole Islamic world against Israel and the U.S. As KGB chairman Yury Andropov told me, a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on America than could a few millions. We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel and its main supporter, the United States. No one within the American/Zionist sphere of influence should any longer feel safe.

According to Andropov, the Islamic world was a waiting petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of America-hatred, grown from the bacterium of Marxist-Leninist thought. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep. The Muslims had a taste for nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch."

Also, "How the Soviets Gave the Mullahs the Bomb"
By Jamie Glazov
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24019

"Political Correctness - The Revenge of Marxism"
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/06/political-correctness-revenge-of.html

In "New Lies for Old"
by Anatoliy Golitsyn
'An ex-KGB officer warns how communist deception threatens the survival of the West.'

An excerpt of a review in National Review, Sept 7, 1984 by Arnold Beichman, (this review was written in 1984 remember, several years before the "collapse" of the Soviet Union) :

"Most startling is Golitsyn's prediction that is part of the Communist bloc's strategy for victory the following events will soon occur: a public Soviet-Chinese reconciliation; a "spectacular and impressive" liberalization in the Communist bloc with amnesty for dissidents, who would be invited to return; the freeing of Sakharov, more trade-union independence, adoption of constitutional amendments guaranteeing fulfillment of the Helsinki agreements, reduction in the role of Communist parties; a revival of controlled "democratization" on the Czech pattern for Eastern Europe, and even the return of Dubcek to power; demolition of the Berlin Wall--all of them in reality "cosmetic steps," says Golitsyn, because they have been handed down from on high."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_v36/ai_3423788

These predictions by Golitsyn came true, including the demolition of the Berlin wall.

Also, there was an interesting article by H.E Mart Helme, Estonia’s ambassador to Russia 1996-1999 at The Brussels Journal recently, entitled "The Beginning of the New Cold War".
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2028

There are many and various indicators that the West is being set up for a monumental fall by the Communists.

Many conservatives believe themselves in a comfortably superior position and able to afford the luxury of political correctness in indulging our Islamic enemies, especially since our "victory" in the Cold War.

Mike_W,

I spent some time Googling, but could not find a credible source for the Gorbachev speech you cited --

Gorbachev's speech to the Politburo in 1987, just prior to "the collapse":

"Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep."

There are several sites on the Net that reproduce this speech, but I have not found a credible site (i.e., a site not run by Libertarians or Anti-Globalists or Anti-Illuminati Cranks who think the Eye on the Pyramid on the Dollar Bill is Spooky and Sinister) that documents and references this quote. If you have one, I'd appreciate it.

remote_control,

There are many references to this quote on the Internet, as you syggest.

The following article has a footnote(6), providing the following reference,
http://www.garykah.org/article8.html

6. For a similar statement by Gorbachev, see Funderburk, Betrayal of America, p. 57. For additional quotes by Gorbachev and other contemporary socialist leaders, see the Soviet Analyst: An Intelligence Commentary, World Reports Limited, Suite 1209, 280 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016-0802 (telephone: 212-599-4560).

Mike_W,

That footnote does not reference the quote it is footnoting: it simply refers the reader to a similar statement. I've never seen a footnote like that before that, instead of actually citing the source of the quote it is referencing, points to a "similar statement".

If that weren't bad enough, the writer who supposedly wrote that "similar statement", Funderburk, when Googled, is found mentioned apparently approvingly in a website that greets the visitor with this:

The Soon Coming Judgment Of God Upon America and How To Escape It

...aspirations of mankind, based on shared principles and the rule of law. The illumination of a thousand points of light. The winds of change are with us now.”

To the Illuminati a “Thousands Points of Light” has very special meaning. Under Illuminati beliefs, the “Light” to which President Bush referred is Lucifer. He is the “light bearer” or illuminated one. The “Thousands Points of Light” refer to the Illuminati networking around the world to bring about Lucifer’s plans on earth.

When one scrolls down, one finds this tidbit about Funderburk:

1991 – Former U.S. Ambassador to Romania, David Funderburk, exposed President Bush’s agenda for a one-world government. Funderburk told a North Carolina audience:

“George Bush has been surrounding himself with people who believe in one-world government. They believe that the Soviet system and the American system are converging.” Funderburk further explained that the vehicle used to bring about the one-world government would be the United Nations, “the majority of whose 166 member states are socialist, atheist, and anti-American.”

So George Bush Senior is an evil purveyor of an anti-American Globalism? This is very shady flaky wacky stuff.

Anyway, I would need an actual reference to that quote about Gorbachev, not one that leads me to a "similar statement".

remote_control,

I have been searching for a link to a transcript of Gorbachev's November 1987 Politburo speech but am unable to find one.
As you say, many sites referring to Gorbachev's "quote" appear flaky.

So, until I can find a decent reference for this "quote", I will have to assume it is bogus.

Regarding Gorbachev's address to the Politburo in November 1987, The best reference I can find is from House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Feb 1997 (pt 4)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199697/cmhansrd/vo970226/debtext/70226-04.htm

in which Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow) states:

Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will say whether he entirely rejects the words of Mikhail Gorbachev, as reported by Sir William Stephenson, who was formerly Sir Winston Churchill's personal representative and director of British security co-ordination in the western hemisphere. Addressing the Politburo in November 1987, Gorbachev said:

"Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are intended primarily for outward consumption.

There will be no significant internal change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep".

Alexon wrote:

"Christian conservatives have themselves experienced the pain of unfair, smearing attacks by secular leftists, especially so in the past half century, so they are reluctant to treat Muslims who are simply culturally 'conservative' in that same unfair way. Sort of Dinesh D'Souza's take."

This has something to it. Many of us on the Christian Right who have lived abroad, in major American cities, or in university communities have received kindly treatment at Muslim hands. I, for one, still refuse to impugn the American patriotism of people like Amb. Khalilzad or numerous Muslim immigrants and their children in the US Armed Forces who have NOT gone over to our enemies. Some of us also know Muslim people who were refugees from the Communists and remain grateful to the US for providing a home or a protecting alliance in a non-American country. I have even taught a Somali kid who wanted to join the US military in order to give what for to the people who made his family refugees.

Further, time in the wilderness after falling from cultural domminance has made a lot of us Christian Rightists ask whether or not it was a divine payback for casual bigotry (the point of the parable of the good Samaritan, after all, is that our neighbor can be and often is a "them" rather than an "us") and a less-than-compassionate use of wealth back when Evangelicals dominated the land. After all, it is in the Book that "[God] looked for justice, but behold, a cry" was spoken to those to whom God's grace had been given richly.

Hence, we can think it a pity that our Jewish neighbors don't know M'shiach rather than cast stones. Hence we can think it a pity that our Mormon and Muslim neighhbors are misled by false prophets without jeering at their children.

But there is another wrinkle. We have recently seen an unprecedented openness to the Gospel on the parts of both Jews and Muslims. Indeed, the defections from Islam to Evangelical Christianity, while pleasing our mission-minded circles, has taken us by surprise. Hence, we wonder, can it be, when we have fought with prayer and witness, that God is blessing the weapons of the true holy war when He turned his back on armed Crusades? We do not wish to spoil fruit which God may want to harvest in the not-too-distant future. Now, I do not pretend to be a prophet, but I feel, after a lifetime of reading the Prophets and Apostles, that I am allowed a pious opinion.

I certainly accept that Islam is a horrible religion; and I have stated on this blog that the Qu'ran bears some bald-faced false witness against Jews and Christians. Further, as an heir of the Just War tradition, I accept that the victims of Jehadi aggression are allowed to defend themselves.

BUT, do not think that Gramscian dynamics work in only one direction. Some of the posters here note a reaction away from PeeCeeism and renewed interest in traditional religion in the academy (Yes, Virgnia, academics sometimes grow up, too).

Mike W wrote:

"As I implied in an earlier post, I think PC has grown over a very long time, going back to the Protestant Reformation in a nebulous way, but more clearly stemming from the 18th century Enlightenment period and then the post-Enlightenment 19th century after the French Revolution..."

No, the Protestant Reformation was far from PeeCee. Just ask Protestants who lived under Catholic princes, Catholics who lived under Protestant princes, and Anabaptists and anti-Trinitarians who lived almost anywhere in those times (and I speak as an unabashed admirer of Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, and the Puritans). Protestantism accepted that some things are true, some things false, and that falsehood needs to be seen and treated as such. Its use of Scripture to criticise tradition was a clear echo of the prophets of Israel, those founders of the Western self-critical tradition.

Nor were 18th century Enlightenment thought and 19th century scientism PeeCee. Indeed, they were more often than not unabashedly racist and sexist. Even Marx himself, that great follower of 19th century scientism, dismissed most non-Western peoples as "historyless" (the fool should have been made to sit in a present-day Taiwanese high school history classroom, where five millennia of the Chinese historical tradition must be digested).

Perhaps Peeceeism is no more than a perversion of the Golden Rule. I want respect, so I must respect others. I want acceptance (rather than loving correction of my error?), so I must accept.

Kepha,

That quote you credited me with was by remote_control :)

You wrote:
"But there is another wrinkle. We have recently seen an unprecedented openness to the Gospel on the parts of both Jews and Muslims. Indeed, the defections from Islam to Evangelical Christianity, while pleasing our mission-minded circles, has taken us by surprise. Hence, we wonder, can it be, when we have fought with prayer and witness, that God is blessing the weapons of the true holy war when He turned his back on armed Crusades? We do not wish to spoil fruit which God may want to harvest in the not-too-distant future."

It would be wonderful indeed if God is using the current crisis between the West and Islam as a process to peacefully free many Muslims from Islam's shackles.
Such is the rationale of many Christians, who are inviting the wolf Islam into their communities.
It is dangerous and I believe, ultimately suicidal.

It's such a tough weekend for me, I wish I could devote more time to this discussion. For those of us who want to keep going some more here we can type "American Taliban" into the search function and this topic will pop up even after it drops off the main page (which it looks like it will soon).

Kepha, I read your contribution with appreciation (for the obvious consideration that went into it) and interest.

I am not religious myself. I would even call myself an atheist (albeit not an arrogant or militant one). But I find far more often than not that my outlook aligns with traditional and religious conservatives, and in near complete opposition to the preening peacocks of neo-liberalism, as they jockey further and further left in seeming competition with each other to see who can be most nauseatingly righteous and pure of "Progressive" politics. All the while pretending that 'righteousness' is only found among religious Christians, whom they seem to hold some irrational animus towards.

And maybe they have a point in that, yes, some religious conservatives are "righteous" in that they hold to fixed standards of right and wrong which derive directly from the Bible and other Christian teachings. But, in my opinion, where Neo-Liberals have an insufferable blind-spot is that they are just as 'guilty' (if that's the right word here) of righteousness as any stereotypical 'Bible Thumper', but in the form of "Self" righteousness, derived not from fixed standards of tradition or faith but rather from their own passions and perceptions, individually shaped and held, veneered as scientific or rational.

Even that word "Progressive" which is so proudly spouted in a Holier-than-Thou manner, means absolutely nothing! Progressing toward what?! It's like "Affirmative Action" which literally means "doing something that I approve of", which means nothing. I approve of = Self-righteous.

There is of course an umbrella of ideals which covers the progressive/neo-liberal agenda. If you asked, you would get an earful of basically Heaven On Earth: Equality, Environmentalism, Democracy, peace, justice, and more, ever more.
It's a juggernaut agenda which is its own justification and seeks to engage and steamroll all opposition which can only be reactionary or ignorant. After all, who could rationally object to such high-minded goals? Who could object to Heaven on Earth?

The flip side of this progressive campaign to Save The World (as opposed to saving individual souls; again, which sounds more important?), is the Doom and Gloom of what will happen if we do not all go along with the progressive, POLITICALLY CORRECT, agenda to Save the World. It's the non-religious version of hell, but hell on earth, aka GLOBAL WARMING.

It's the liberal/progressive/politically correct version of the old cliche of religious zealots picketing here and there with signs reading "THE END IS NEAR". A laughable, pitiable sight when proclaimed by religious zealots, but profoundly urgent and indisputable when proclaimed by liberals and leftists. Well of course! One is based on fable while the other is based on FACT.
Such Arrogance. Such Hypocrisy.

Such is Political Correctness in our time. Nevermind that in the 1970s the New York Times was a Cassandra of warning that GLOBAL COOLING was leading to a great new ICE AGE! And that meticulous SCIENTIFIC measurements around the world were confirming that the earth was COOLING and that if we didn't stop consuming, polluting etc., that indeed the end would be near in the form of a new Ice Age that we were creating by our industrial actions. [The author of this post is not advocating pollution; just pointing out how the scientific FACTS are not always as factual as they may appear]. There was also the international Rome Report of (i think) 1973, which scared people to death with dire, and greatly exaggerated, predictions of Doom and Gloom in the form of scientific projections/predictions of catastrophic population explosion/collapse, environmental degradation/collapse, etc. THE END IS NEAR. And maybe it is... I mean, we on this website believe that Islam is the great curse which is afflicting this planet. I know I do. Of course the liberal left has nothing but contempt for our warnings, but expect us to bow down before their warnings.

To be continued... maybe...

A quick note to RC: I have not had time or energy to read your web writings yet. But from what you've written on this topic here I would say that along with the danger of over-simplification comes the danger of over-complication. If I am indulge the former then you may well indulge the latter. On the other hand, I do respect your search for origins.

Quick note to Mike: I agree with you that the important work is in the here and now, resisting a known evil; Islamic Supremacism. Is RC is not on board? I've not encountered him on other topics. It seems to me that he can both investigate the origins of PC and -- in this case -- analyze why many (but not most, RC) conservatives buy into it, without losing his anti-jihad head over it. He's probably just be intellectually anti-jihad with an analytical approach. Hey RC, you're not supposed to be reading this!

And, again, Kepha; Great to read your perpective.

If there are additional entries here, I will re-visit as time and energy allow.

Kepha,

I wrote: "I think PC has grown over a very long time, going back to the Protestant Reformation in a nebulous way, but more clearly stemming from the 18th century Enlightenment period and then the post-Enlightenment 19th century after the French Revolution..."

You responded: "No, the Protestant Reformation was far from PeeCee."

I didn't say the Protestant Reformation was PC; I said that PC has "grown over a very long time" with roots going back to the Protestant Reformation in a nebulous way.

Complex sociopolitical processes like PC don't just drop from the blue sky whole and intact: they grow and therefore go through phases of growth, beginning with germination. So yes, the Protestant Reformation was "far" from PC -- in the same sense that a root is "far" from the fruits.

Secondly, complex sociopolitical processes do not develop in a simplistic way: often their early phases contain elements that are paradoxical or even contradictory to elements in later phases. The Protestant Reformation was a historical catalyst to profound dislocations and changes in the early modern West: the challenge to the dominant theocracy embodied by the Catholic civilization opened up a Pandora's box that would lead to (among other things) a sociopolitical prevalence of agnosticism, skepticism and atheism unprecedented in world history -- and certainly unforeseen by the Reformers themselves. Nevertheless, the chain-reaction the Reformers through their Protestations unleashed helped to pave the way for changes they neither envisioned nor desired. (As a modern Western secularist myself, I do not see these changes as all bad: like everything else in this life, they were -- and continue to be -- a combination of good and bad.)

"Nor were 18th century Enlightenment thought and 19th century scientism PeeCee."

Again, I am talking about a long slow process, not a sudden entity that plopped down from the sky in the 1960s. As a long, slow process, there will be phases and increments. One finds, for example, in one Enlightenment figure, Rousseau, a statement that is quite close to our current PC attitude about Islam. You can read my brief analysis of it at this link:

http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2007/03/was-rousseau-pc-about-islam.html

"Indeed, they were more often than not unabashedly racist and sexist."

Again: Complex sociopolitical processes like PC are not simplex whole chunks that are always the same from their inception throughout their career: they grow and develop, and therefore likely have earlier phases where not all the elements that characterize them are fully present. One can find, for example, even among the 60s Hippie movement that many if not most of the men involved were quite sexist: by your logic, then, we would have to discount the 60s Revolution as being a major cultural carrier and developmental force of PC -- which would be absurd.

alexon,

I agree with the principle that over-complication can be as bad as over-simplification. We both agree that PC is obstructing our ability in the West to rationally diagnose and take action against the problem of Islam.

I would put this in the strongest terms: we will not be able to adequately defend ourselves against Islam unless we first dismantle PC.

However, we cannot dismantle a sociopolitical process, like PC, if we don't have an accurate assessment of its nature and dimensions. Over-simplifying PC would tend to set up straw men and red herrings as targets, and we would thereby miss the actual problem we are trying to dismantle. Over-complicating PC would tend to dissipate or dilute our enterprise, leaving us no traction by which to actually concretely dismantle anything: if PC is overly atomized by our complications, there would be no "there" there to dismantle.

However, I don't think I am over-complicating PC; I see my analysis as serving as a corrective to the prevailing tendency (among those who are awake to the problem of Islam) to isolate easy bogeymen.