The Views You've Been Trained To Accept

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,898
60,271
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. The Left, in endorsing the collective over the individual, misunderstands the aspirations of human kind. And, also incorrect, the corollary, that human nature is malleable and can be altered by just the right governance.



But, in some ways, the Left has grasped and used truths that explain why their star is in the ascendancy.

a. Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."

And this:

b. "..., since the Haves publicly pose as the custodians of responsibility, morality, law, and justice (which are frequently strangers to each others), they can be constantly pushed to live up to their own book of morality and regulations. No organizations, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book. You can club them to death with their "book" of rules and regulations. This is what that great revolutionary, Paul of Tarsus, knew when he wrote to the Corinthians: "Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter killeth." -- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, P.152
Articles The Totalitarian Minority




2. Today, in secular America, control of the methods of dissemination of information, has allowed the Left to persuade many.....many.....that they will not be the ones to be slain, or oppressed, ...and it is only the 'enemy' to whom they will lie.

At the heart of this misrepresentation is a view that I never imagined Americans could be trained to accept:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

Well, then....the slaughter of innocents matters not- as long as you aren't one of said innocents. Accept this view....and you will be rewarded with material emoluments!



3. It is not as if the warning were not there.....

a. " Nineteen Eighty-Four, often published as1984, is a dystopian novel by English author George Orwell published in 1949.[1][2]The novel isset...in a world of perpetual war,omnipresent government surveillance and public manipulation, dictated by a political system euphemistically named English Socialism(or Ingsoc in the government's invented language,Newspeak) under the control of a privileged Inner Party elite, that persecutes individualism and independent thinking as "thoughtcrime"
Nineteen Eighty-Four - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


b. " The Camp of the Saints(Le Camp des Saints) is a 1973 French apocalyptic novel by Jean Raspail. The novel depicts a hypothetical setting whereby Third World mass immigration to France and the West leads to the destruction of Western civilization. Almost forty years after publication the book returned to the bestseller list in 2011." The Camp of the Saints - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



Who can deny that the above has come to pass.
 
Is OP a Papist?

Anyway, thangod for secular America :thewave:

its about time the thumpers :eusa_pray: and their sky pixie constructs gave up their grip, they had to, on cultural hegemony.
 
Our good public education system has turned out scores of millions of Americans who can read the above, laugh, and pick it apart without any problem.

Put it in the conspiracy forum, please.
 
4. Who, a generation or two ago, could have imagined a Barack Obama, a man so far to the Left that he endorsed infanticide so as not to burden his supporters with a responsibility for the children they caused to be created?


"Newt Gingrich deflected a question ...by pointing out thatObama voted in favor of a law that protected abortion providersduring his term as state senator of Illinois
"You did not once during the 2008 campaign ask whyBarack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide,"Gingrich said. "If we're going to debate about who is the extremist on this issues, it is President Obama, who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies."
Newt Gingrich Calls Obama An 'Extremist' Who Supported 'Infanticide' At GOP Debate


a. In·fan·ti·cide/inˈfantiˌsīd/
Noun:
The practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth.


5. "Gingrich was presumably referencing Obama’s opposition to Illinois’ proposed version of a “born alive” law,intended to require doctors to administer immediate medical care to any infant that survived an intended abortion....FactCheck.org found holes in Obama’s explanations as to why he did not support the “born alive” legislation..."
FACT CHECK: Gingrich Claim on Obama Infanticide Vote A Stretch - Naureen Khan - NationalJournal.com

a. "Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported.Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee’s 2003 mark-up session."
FactCheck.org : Obama and ‘Infanticide’

If a child is 'accidentally' born alive as a result of a botched abortion attempt, Senator Obama had no problem allowing that newborn to die,sans any medical attention.





Pay special attention to the vid @ :50

2:01

2:40

3:55

5:28

Such are the 'Views You've Been Trained To Accept.'
 
Our good public education system has turned out scores of millions of Americans who can read the above, laugh, and pick it apart without any problem.

Put it in the conspiracy forum, please.





Not a thing in there that you could "pick it apart without any problem"....as proven by the dearth of examples in your post.

Is that because you're a moron or because you're a liar?
 
Last edited:
6. Now, lest anyone believe that there is a nuanced explanation that would be acceptable to normal people....consider the fact that President Obama appointed Professor Peter Singer as his heathcare advisor.
Peter Singer Joins Obama's Health Care Administrators : I Am Not a Fan of Peter Singer Story & Experience



a. Peter Singer says infants aren't normal human beings with rights to life and liberty: "Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness...make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics.Killing them, therefore,cannot be equated with killing normal human beings."
Peter Singer Joins Obama s Health Care Administrators I Am Not a Fan of Peter Singer Story Experience


Vote for Obama?

This is what you've been trained to accept: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky






b. "Singer once wrote, "because people are human does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals."He not only advocates abortion but also killing disabled babies up to 28 days after they are born.In his book "Practical Ethics," he wrote, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed....Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.Often, it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 191.




So...does Obama have a cavalier attitude about killing infants?Would you appoint anyone who advises killing infants?....Obama did.


Was Gingrich correct?
Indisputable.


Imagine....had your parents or grandparents been told that this sort of candidate was running.....what would they have done?
Vote for 'em?
Hardly.
 
Our good public education system has turned out scores of millions of Americans who can read the above, laugh, and pick it apart without any problem.

Put it in the conspiracy forum, please.

Jake, ever the reflexive defender of statism
 
"Not a thing in there that you could "pick it apart without any problem".actually has been many scores of times to your screeds.

All you do is deny, never counter rebuttal, get foul, and proclaim victory. :)
 
"Jake, ever the reflexive defender of statism"

Frank, ever the defender of who knows what :lol:
 
Our good public education system has turned out scores of millions of Americans who can read the above, laugh, and pick it apart without any problem.

Put it in the conspiracy forum, please.
^ that


"....who can read the above, laugh, and pick it apart without any problem."


Do you not realize how stupid you appear when you post this, yet, clearly cannot "pick it apart"???

I hate to be the one to tell you, but it's not the weather being discussed when you hear folks refer to ' twenty below...' It's your IQ.
 
"Not a thing in there that you could "pick it apart without any problem".actually has been many scores of times to your screeds.

All you do is deny, never counter rebuttal, get foul, and proclaim victory. :)



Still nothing?

So....you were lying when you claimed you could "pick it apart without any problem"?

So THAT'S why you're known as 'fakey.'
 
And PC's OP flutters and sputters.



You wrote "....scores of millions of Americans who can read the above, laugh, and pick it apart without any problem."

Now you're running with your tail between your legs.


Inadvertently, you're verifying everything I post.


You moron.
 
Oh great, another totally biased opinion OP based on thoughts from another ideology that PC has been forced to accept, based on her inability to think or herself.
So in the end, this is an ironic thread/OP.


".... totally biased opinion OP based on thoughts from another ideology that PC has been forced to accept, based on her inability to think or herself.
So in the end, this is an ironic thread/OP.


So....where are all of your refutations....I mean...you do suggest that you can "think or (sic) herself."

Can you guess what is obvious when you fail to find any item in the thread that you can address?

Yup....you're another 'is not, is noottttttt' moron.
 

Forum List

Back
Top