Gramsci + Fanon + Freire = Obama

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,904
60,284
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
I know a homeschool mom who was teaching her son American history, using Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States," totally unaware that he was a communist, and a foe of this nation. Similarly, hardly a college student knows that the most influential texts used in college were written by three similarly oriented individuals: Franz Fanon, Antonio Gramsci, and Paulo Friere.



1. According to the uninformed, communism is naught but a 'bogey-man' that was never a threat in this country, never had and never will hold sway here, ...and communists should be treated as one would treat that crazy old uncle that one sees at annual family functions.

2. Of course, that view is false, and dangerous. Communism has cast its miasma over us as long ago as the socialism of John Dewey, the party whose title he altered to 'Liberal,' and it's march toward domination mirrored that of progressivism...with good reason: Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs.





3. The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.” Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.

a. "Alfred Willi Rudi Dutschke (March 7, 1940 – December 24, 1979) was the most prominent spokesperson of the German student movement of the 1960s. He advocated a long march through the institutions' of power to create radical change from within government and society by becoming an integral part of the machinery.[1] This was an idea he took up from his interpretation of Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt school of cultural Marxism." Rudi Dutschke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. The target was the schools, to convince the captive audience that their nation is evil....and, therefore, whatever happens to America, is deserved. And the plan has been, largely, successful.

a. The books behind the political mentality of the university can be directly attributed to three specific works: Antonio Gramsci's "Prison Notebooks;" Paulo Freire's "Pedagology of the Oppressed;" and Franz Fanon's "The Wretched of the Earth."

a. In 2003, David Steiner and Susan Rozen published a study examining the curricula of 16 schools of education—14 of them among the top-ranked institutions in the country, according to U.S. News and World Report—and found that 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed' was one of the most frequently assigned texts in their philosophy of education courses. Pedagogy of the Oppressor by Sol Stern, City Journal Spring 2009






5. To gauge how successful this infestation of the university has been, note that the nation elected a President with this view. “The wealth of the imperial countries is our wealth too,” writes Franz Fanon in “The Wretched of the Earth.” Fanon fought in the Algerian revolution against he French; Obama says that in college he relished reading and quoting Fanon. “or in a very concrete way Europe has stuffed herself inordinately with the gold and raw materials of the colonial countries….Europe is literally the creation of the Third world….wealth stolen from the underdeveloped peoples.”
Dinesh D’Souza, “Obama’s America,” p. 11.

a. If economic exploitation is the cause of said poverty, then why are those parts of the Third World least touched by contact with prosperous nations so often the most destitute of all? Blame is much easier to understand than causation, far more emotionally satisfying, and, today, more politically convenient.
Sowell, “Economic Facts and Fallacies,” p. 189.

b. "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk- rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy."
Barack Obama

c. How easy to understand Obama's sending back the bust of Winston Churchill, and refusing to send any officials to Margaret Thatcher's funeral.



Franz Fanon, Antonio Gramsci, and Paulo Friere.
“Some ideas are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them.” George Orwell.


They say 'You are what you eat.' Obama, raised on communism, imbibing said doctrines on mommy's knee, could only be the same.
 
her new hero is McCarthy now.


you really do think all people are bad huh?
 
her new hero is McCarthy now.


you really do think all people are bad huh?


I'm beginning to worry about you!

You seem not able to focus....



1. The American hero, Senator Joseph McCarthy is mentioned nowhere in the OP.
An oversight on my part?
Thank you for remedying said oversight.



2. On the other hand, the infliction of communist indoctrination in our colleges is clearly documented.
As you have not commented on same, but pointedly ignored that input, I'll guess that

a. you find it difficult to deny that, and...

b. deep down you see the deleterious effects, but don't want to draw even more attention to same.




So, once again, we see the 'education' system as the fifth column in the war to destroy America.
By extension, the recent election is a step toward that destruction.



True?
 
you dont care about me so stop lying


Now....don't think that!

What would I do without your input in these threads????


In fact...you're the first thought I have in the morn....

...and my last one at night.


Sorta.


Would you care to give your analysis of the OP.....?
 
What are the colleges teaching prospective teachers?
1. This from the OP:
" In 2003, David Steiner and Susan Rozen published a study examining the curricula of 16 schools of education—14 of them among the top-ranked institutions in the country, according to U.S. News and World Report—and found that 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed' was one of the most frequently assigned texts in their philosophy of education courses."


2. Lest any believe that Freire is about education,....

"Freire isn’t interested in the Western tradition’s leading education thinkers—not Rousseau, not Piaget, not John Dewey, not Horace Mann, not Maria Montessori. He cites a rather different set of figures: Marx, Lenin, Mao, Che Guevara, and Fidel Castro, as well as the radical intellectuals Frantz Fanon, Régis Debray, Herbert Marcuse, Jean-Paul Sartre, Louis Althusser, and Georg Lukács. And no wonder, since Freire’s main idea is that the central contradiction of every society is between the “oppressors” and the “oppressed” and that revolution should resolve their conflict. The “oppressed” are, moreover, destined to develop a “pedagogy” that leads them to their own liberation."


The pedagogical point of Freire’s thesis : its opposition to taxing students with any actual academic content, which Freire derides as “official knowledge” that serves to rationalize inequality within capitalist society.


It is indoctrination, pure and simple.


And it results in students, simple and easily manipulated.
 
What are the colleges teaching prospective teachers?
1. This from the OP:
" In 2003, David Steiner and Susan Rozen published a study examining the curricula of 16 schools of education—14 of them among the top-ranked institutions in the country, according to U.S. News and World Report—and found that 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed' was one of the most frequently assigned texts in their philosophy of education courses."


2. Lest any believe that Freire is about education,....

"Freire isn’t interested in the Western tradition’s leading education thinkers—not Rousseau, not Piaget, not John Dewey, not Horace Mann, not Maria Montessori. He cites a rather different set of figures: Marx, Lenin, Mao, Che Guevara, and Fidel Castro, as well as the radical intellectuals Frantz Fanon, Régis Debray, Herbert Marcuse, Jean-Paul Sartre, Louis Althusser, and Georg Lukács. And no wonder, since Freire’s main idea is that the central contradiction of every society is between the “oppressors” and the “oppressed” and that revolution should resolve their conflict. The “oppressed” are, moreover, destined to develop a “pedagogy” that leads them to their own liberation."


The pedagogical point of Freire’s thesis : its opposition to taxing students with any actual academic content, which Freire derides as “official knowledge” that serves to rationalize inequality within capitalist society.


It is indoctrination, pure and simple.


And it results in students, simple and easily manipulated.


Nail

Head

Hit
 
The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.” Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.

Just as many became neo-cons and libertarians, all radicals in the own rite. :cool:
 
I know a homeschool mom who was teaching her son American history, using Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States," totally unaware that he was a communist, and a foe of this nation.

But, but, but...Matt Damon told us Zinn's book on American history was the one to have. Surely the Hollywood elite wouldn't mislead us...:eek:
 
The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.” Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.

Just as many became neo-cons and libertarians, all radicals in the own rite. :cool:

Nonsense.

Your usual input.



O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist. O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows.
http://old.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-jos062603.asp
 
Last edited:
I know a homeschool mom who was teaching her son American history, using Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States," totally unaware that he was a communist, and a foe of this nation.

He never claimed to be a Communist. He called himself a "democratic socialist". He said,

"I think it's very important to bring back the idea of socialism into the national discussion to where it was at the turn of the [last] century before the Soviet Union gave it a bad name."

Howard Zinn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shame on you. Just because someone's Jewish, it doesn't automatically make them a Communist.
 
The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.” Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.

Just as many became neo-cons and libertarians, all radicals in the own rite. :cool:

Nonsense.

Your usual input.

O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist. O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows.
John O'Sullivan on O'Sullivan's First Law on National Review Online

You have collectives on the brain. I'm talking about individuals. As many 60s radicals became libertarians and neo-cons as became Communists. Most however became your average Republicrat American.
 
Last edited:
I know a homeschool mom who was teaching her son American history, using Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States," totally unaware that he was a communist, and a foe of this nation.

He never claimed to be a Communist. He called himself a "democratic socialist". He said,

"I think it's very important to bring back the idea of socialism into the national discussion to where it was at the turn of the [last] century before the Soviet Union gave it a bad name."

Fuck socialism...and Zinn. Central planning is evil, whether you call it socialism, communism, fascism, or 'Let's everyone hold hands and sing kumbayaism'.
 
I know a homeschool mom who was teaching her son American history, using Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States," totally unaware that he was a communist, and a foe of this nation.

He never claimed to be a Communist. He called himself a "democratic socialist". He said,

"I think it's very important to bring back the idea of socialism into the national discussion to where it was at the turn of the [last] century before the Soviet Union gave it a bad name."

Fuck socialism...and Zinn. Central planning is evil, whether you call it socialism, communism, fascism, or 'Let's everyone hold hands and sing kumbayaism'.

Socialists are responsible for a lot of things we take for granted now, the forty-hour work week, paid vacations, minimum wages, workplace safety laws, food safety laws, etc. It's not all about central planning and "kumbaya". If anything it's the libertarians that a guilty of most of the "kumbaya" thinking these days, i.e. "just trust us and everything will turn out great". :cuckoo:
 
I know a homeschool mom who was teaching her son American history, using Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States," totally unaware that he was a communist, and a foe of this nation.

He never claimed to be a Communist. He called himself a "democratic socialist". He said,

"I think it's very important to bring back the idea of socialism into the national discussion to where it was at the turn of the [last] century before the Soviet Union gave it a bad name."

Howard Zinn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shame on you. Just because someone's Jewish, it doesn't automatically make them a Communist.


Get an education.

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 423 pages on historian and self-described “democratic socialist” Howard Zinn, released Friday morning, outline a record of investigation spanning 25 years, beginning in 1949 with his alleged involvement in communist front groups.

An internal memo dated March 9, 1949, recommended that Zinn’s first FBI Security Index Card be swiped with two X marks—one indicating he was born in the United States, and the other identifying him as a communist. A confidential informant within the ALP had previously told FBI officials that at a picket in Washington, D.C., in 1948, Zinn divulged that he was a member of the Communist Party and regularly attended party meetings.

“Zinn said that he had participated in the activities of various organizations which might be considered Communist fronts but that his participation was motivated by his belief that in this country people had the right to believe, think and act according to their own ideals,” the files say."
Howard Zinn?s FBI Files Reveal Communist Allegations - The Daily Beast



For a taste of Zinn's view of America...from his interview by Dennis Prager:

DP: So do you feel that, by and large, the Zarqawi-world and the Bush-world are moral equivalents?
HZinn: I do. I would put Bush on trial along with Saddam Hussein, because I think both of them are responsible for the deaths of many, many people in Iraq, and so, yes, I think that. Killing innocent people is immoral when Iraqis do it, and when we do it, it is the same thing. What the left thinks: Howard Zinn, Part II - Dennis Prager - [page]


Good source for teaching children American history?

"Shame on you. Just because someone's Jewish, it doesn't automatically make them a Communist."
Shall I await your apology?
 
Last edited:
The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.” Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.

Just as many became neo-cons and libertarians, all radicals in the own rite. :cool:

Nonsense.

Your usual input.



O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist. O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows.
John O'Sullivan on O'Sullivan's First Law on National Review Online
O'Sullivan's First Law of Fascism, you mean!

To the Fascist there are only 2 groups, themselves and "the enemy." And we all know where that leads.

The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.
Adolf Hitler
 
Just as many became neo-cons and libertarians, all radicals in the own rite. :cool:

Nonsense.

Your usual input.

O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist. O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows.
John O'Sullivan on O'Sullivan's First Law on National Review Online

You have collectives on the brain. I'm talking about individuals. As many 60s radicals became libertarians and neo-cons as became Communists. Most however became your average Republicrat American.

You motto:
"Never informed, never in doubt."

Being totally clueless has never impeded you from having strong opinions.
 

Forum List

Back
Top