Marxism means well–for the little guy, egalitarianism seems more fair–promoting social justice, right?
To ignore the danger and evil of communism is so fashionable in the chattering classes, but socialism/Marxism/Communism destroys liberty, civility and a moral civilization in favor of statist totalitarianism. The commies hoped for world revolution, but capitalism and the rise of the middle class screwed up their plans, now they are betting on a Gramscian strategy of playing the culture and the language, winning by an inside game that grabs hold of cultural icons like equality and fairness and inventing an expanded notion of social justice that covers for redistributionist manipulations and a return to a medieval oligo-plutocracy (wonder if that could be a word to describe medieval societal structure that Marx seemed to like so much).
Would anyone question the good intentions of the Marxists we have known?
Influencing children is one ongoing strategy, like common core but going back a long way in the annals of Dewiyite pedagogy.
The left has control of the chattering class, academic life, politics, by promoting statism and the status of experts, the Nomenklatura.
Ignorant Americans think that socialist/Marxist are well meaning, but in the real world statist socialism is a cruel master.
Some think that ideological warfare that includes an effort to characterize the opponent is not worth the time or is excessively confrontational or contentious. I say that leaves the battlefield to the enemy of American culture. And we lose.
Allowing Marxists a foothold in the culture through the indoctrination and rhetoric has been a strategic mistake that we may not survive.
Common core is part of the grand plan.
People who would prefer a more nuanced way to expose evil are searching for a nice way to kill a viper in the sheets. I think it important not to yield and not to hesitate to use descriptors like communist. Communists are culturally ravenous, they enjoy the fight, but that puts the more mannerly and civilized at a disadvantage, so we should not become our own worst disability by shrinking from using labels that properly describe evil and following up with adequate attacks on the inveterate invidious deceptiveness that is socialism at work.
For example, Saul Alinsky and Frank Marshall Davis, both dedicated Communists, were mentors of the current resident of the White House. Does that mean the resident gets to describe his ideology as “Progressive” or would he prefer the label neo-socialist, neo-communist, one committed to the post Stalinist socialism/communism? Or would it be better to call it neo-neo-socialism, the socialism after the fall of the Russian Marxist experiment of 70 savage years?
How is it that Americans who would claim to be well educated know so little about their enemies and the evil ideologies those enemies hod to?
Do you think there are more communists in the White House now or during the administration of FDR?
Robert Stacy MacCain is an articulate voice on the issue of why it makes a difference to know what the enemy is and what the enemy might want to be labeled. How the enemy might want to frame the conversation or debate.
Thanks to Mr. McCain, who speaks to these things eloquently but he also recalls the insightful Ludwig von Mises, who said in Socialism:
Marxism criticizes the achievements of all those who think otherwise by representing them as the venal servants of the bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels never tried to refute their opponents with argument. They insulted, ridiculed, derided, slandered, and traduced them, and in the use of these methods their followers are not less expert. Their polemic is directed never against the argument of the opponent, but always against his person.
Here is Mr. McCain:
http://spectator.org/articles/57691/worst-idea-world
TERRORIST BILL AYERS and the COMMON CORE CURRICULUM
Terrorist Professor Bill Ayers and Obama’s Federal School Curriculum
EDUCATION without REPRESENTATION 101:
https://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/tag/communism/
Three years after the Department of Education announced a contest called Race-to-the-Top for $4.35 billion in stimulus funds, some parents, teachers, governors, and citizen and public policy groups are coming to an awful realization about the likely outcomes:
• A national curriculum called Common Core
• Regionalism, or the replacement of local governments by federally appointed bureaucrats
• A leveling of all schools to one, low national standard, and a redistribution of education funds among school districts
• An effective federal tracking of all students
• The loss of the option of avoiding the national curriculum and tests through private school and home school
Working behind the scenes, implementing these policies and writing the standards are associates from President Obama’s community organizing days. In de facto control of the education component is Linda Darling-Hammond, a radical left-wing educator and close colleague of William “Bill” Ayers, the former leader of the communist terrorist Weather Underground who became a professor of education and friend of Obama’s.
When these dangerous initiatives are implemented, there will be no escaping bad schools and a radical curriculum by moving to a good suburb, or by home schooling, or by enrolling your children in private schools.
How was it that 48 governors entered Race-to-the-Top without knowing outcomes?
It was one of the many “crises” exploited by the Obama administration. While the public was focused on a series of radical moves coming in rapid-fire succession, like the health care bill and proposed trials and imprisonment of 9/11 terrorists on domestic soil, governors, worried about keeping school doors open, signed on. Many politicians and pundits praised Obama on this singular issue, repeating the official rhetoric about raising standards.
It stands to reason, though, that education policies would be consistent with Obama’s agenda. After all, one of his most controversial associations, highlighted during the 2008 presidential campaign, was with an education professor, Bill Ayers. As a terrorist, he and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, had dedicated their Prairie Fire Manifesto to Sirhan Sirhan, the convicted assassin of Robert F. Kennedy. It was for this reason that Kennedy’s son, Christopher Kennedy, chairman of the University of Illinois board of trustees, voted against bestowing “professor emeritus” status on Ayers after he retired. “I intend to vote against conferring the honorific title of our university whose body of work includes a book dedicated in part to the man who murdered my father, Robert F. Kennedy,” he said.
THE OBAMA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: WHERE DID BILL AYERS GO?
Back then, the former bomber and co-founder of the communist terrorist Weather Underground organization was Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The two had worked together closely from the year Ayers hosted a political launch party for Obama, in 1995, to 2002. At the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, “the brainchild of Bill Ayers,” they funneled more that $100 million to radical groups like ACORN and Gamaliel, which used the funds to promote radical education.[i] This initiative was also promoted by Arne Duncan, now Secretary of Education. Also as board members of the Woods Fund, Ayers and Obama channeled money to ACORN and the Midwest Academy.
When initial White House visitor logs were released in 2009, the administration quickly dismissed speculations about visits by “William Ayers.” That was a different William Ayers Americans were told. The Obama administration is appealing an August 17 order to release the other visitor logs in response to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch and others.
BILL AYERS: http://www.aim.org/special-report/terrorist-professor-bill-ayers-and-obamas-federal-school-curriculum/
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION for the ADVANCEMENT of WHITE PEOPLE
Naawp et., al., all rights unreserved
Common Core, for all its apparently laudable intentions and goals, is the beachhead of the UN’s Agenda 21. It is a dagger aimed at the heart of the American soul and culture.