• Home
  • Socialism/Radical Left/Communism

How Socialist School Teachers Brainwashed the Snowflake Generation


By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh
CanadaFreePress.com

The universe is made of protons,
neutrons, electrons, and morons.”

-  Anonymous

While the left is busy demonizing President Trump for his remarks about the MS-13 gangs who enter our country illegally through the porous southern border, Congressional members, working against the safety interests of the American people and cheered by the leftist media and half of the voting population, are doing their best to stall, defund, and vilify any effort by our president to build a border wall and to deport the illegal criminal elements who are already in this country and have committed atrocious crimes.

As Senator Diane Feinstein said in a 1994 video interview, 40 percent of babies on Medicaid in California were babies born of illegal immigrants, and 17 percent of the prison population was comprised of illegal immigrants who committed felonies, costing the taxpayers $300 million a year. She called for the enforcement of our borders then but things have changed today.  The Democrat Party needs these illegal voters in order to stay in power.

The Democrat Party has locked up the votes of minorities, illegals, Millennials, the welfare underclass, women, low information voters, and rich liberals who live a good life no matter who is in control of the country, the media, academia, and pretty much anybody who attended public and private schools for the past 50 years and has been brainwashed by socialist teachers and administrators into becoming the snowflake generation they are today. Divide and conquer and race-baiting has worked well for the Democrat Party.

A study found that Democrat professors outnumber Republican professors at 40 major universities by a ratio of 11.5 to 1. No wonder students, after having spent a fortune to be indoctrinated into progressivism, finish college as hard-core socialists. Hating capitalism, even though it provided them with opportunities and freedoms they would have never found in Castro’s Cuba or in North Korea’s prison state, they are adamant that socialism will bring them happiness and equality with a six-figure salary and five-star amenities.

The fact that academia is highly controlled by liberals (75% at Yale) has aided in shaping generations to be blind and unquestioning little communist sheeple.

Teachers unions like the National Education Association (NEA) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) forced children in public education to take part in their professionally-organized protests.

Same teachers, administrators, and textbook writers, funded by billionaires like Bill Gates, Al Gore, George Soros and his many Open Society non-profit foundations shaped the thoughts and “feelings” of young and impressionable minds, young Americans who began to see themselves as global citizens even though they did not necessarily understand the issues clearly.

Our children worship at the altar of socialism, communism, and Islam, without really understanding why communism fell everywhere it was tried and why 100 million people living under communism were killed for wanting liberty and freedom of speech.

The same academics are forcing Common Core education on smart students so as not to hurt the “feelings” of other children and spare them embarrassment, dumbing down education for all. It is a touchy-feely snowflake generation that needs special spaces, corners, and rooms to hide from the reality of life otherwise they are “triggered” by visceral hate to destroy everything historical they disagree with.
Administrators have also decided that anyone can make the cheerleading squad because one child failed and the parents complained. Competition is bad and so is meritocracy, we are told by the left. Let’s make everybody “equal.” The proverbial trophy for walking across the stage without tripping has come to pass.

Public education is now confusing children as to which bathrooms they should use, and what sex they are.  Sometimes dangerous hormones are given in public schools without parental consent in order to help a student transition to whatever sex they think they are or are told they are.

LGBT militant groups are in the classroom, mostly without parental consent, teaching children not sex education under health, but actually methods of having sex and sexual perversions, even to children as young as kindergarten.  Administrators are forcing students to listen to assemblies about sexual choices and the parents have no clue nor have they been given the choice to opt out their child.

Public education teaches students how to pass a test that determines how much funding the school receives per pupil from the federal government.  There is little math, science, reading, and English being taught because of the discipline problems and the time outs for protests for various causes d’jour, but there is plenty of Spanish taught and remedial math and remedial reading in college.

As our children and their parents go into debt to get that four-year worthless college degree in majors that cannot possibly find them employment, i.e. women’s studies, gender studies, social justice, environmental justice, racial justice, and even white guilt, technical jobs go unclaimed while Johnny and Jenny work as baristas, grocery store clerks, and waiters while living in mom and dad’s basement for free because they can’t afford to move out.

Will we ever be able to dismantle such deplorable public schools in which militant teachers indoctrinate students into their collectivist global politics? No matter how bad they are, how do you fire them when they immediately bring out the race and religious discrimination card?

We should optimistically keep in mind the words of the late Dr. Nino Camardese, an immigrant from Mussolini’s Italy, who used to say, “Truth plus one equals a majority.” Lately though, it’s been more like “The Twilight Zone plus one makes reality.”

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: South Africa’s Turn to Communism Exposed in U.S. by AfriForum


By Alex Newman
NewAmerican.com

DALLAS, Texas — On a recent trip to the United States, leaders of AfriForum, Africa's largest civil-rights organization, exposed the South African government's growing extremism, including official plans to steal land from European-descent farmers as well as escalating calls for violence and murder against minority communities. Indeed, violence, especially against farmers, is already off the charts.

In an interview with The New American magazine in Dallas, one stop on the trip to America that also included a stay in Washington, D.C., AfriForum Deputy CEO Ernst Roets (shown) explained how serious the situation was getting. Among the key concerns he expressed were the so-called “farm murders” in which innocent families — falsely accused by government of “stealing” the land — are mercilessly tortured and murdered. Thousands have been slaughtered, including babies. Meanwhile, political leaders openly sing songs advocating genocide.

Another top worry expressed by Roets and his organization surrounds the government's plans to expropriate land from white farmers without compensation. The ruling alliance, composed of the African National Congress and the South African Communist Party, is moving increasingly toward full-blown Marxism-Leninism as part of what they refer to as the “Second Phase” of the “National Democratic Revolution.” The Parliament recently voted overwhelmingly to change the Constitution and legalize the theft of property.

At the same time, Roets said there was growing pressure targeting the Afrikaner people, their language, and their culture. For instance, authorities are increasingly forcing Afrikaans-language primary and secondary schools to accept non-Afrikaners in what many view as an effort to erase Afrikaans education. Just recently, Roets said, the courts dealt a devastating blow to the Afrikaans language at the university level, too.   

In the interview, Roets, who is also an attorney, said he hoped the international community would pay attention to the situation and speak out on the escalating violence. He asked that investors from around the world, whose capital would be at risk under the measures being pursued by authorities in South Africa, apply pressure. Especially important is for everyday Americans to speak out about these issues, including on social media, Roets added.   

With growing questions about the future of South Africa and especially its embattled minority communities, Roets also addressed some of the various visions being put forward by concerned citizens and leader. Among the ideas he discussed that are gaining prominence were potential secession and self-determination for oppressed minorities, or even the prospect of further mass emigration to Europe and the United States.   

Watch the full interview here:

 
 
 

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Immigrants! Don't Vote for What You Fled


Many of America's legal and illegal immigrants fled nations that were ruined by corrupt politicians and failed government policies. But once here, they support the same things. Why? Gloria Alvarez, Project Director at the National Civic Movement of Guatemala, explains.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Why Isn't Communism as Hated as Nazism?


When people think of humanity's greatest evils, why is "communism" rarely mentioned? After all, it has caused more suffering than any other ideology, including Nazism. Watch Dennis Prager's account of communism's horrific legacy.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Communism’s Bloody Century


In the 100 years since Lenin’s coup in Russia, the ideology devoted to abolishing markets and private property has left a long, murderous trail of destruction

By Stephen Kotkin
The Wall Street Journal

A century ago this week, communism took over the Russian empire, the world’s largest state at the time. Leftist movements of various sorts had been common in European politics long before the revolution of Oct. 25, 1917 (which became Nov. 7 in the reformed Russian calendar), but Vladimir Lenin and his Bolsheviks were different. They were not merely fanatical in their convictions but flexible in their tactics—and fortunate in their opponents.

Communism entered history as a ferocious yet idealistic condemnation of capitalism, promising a better world. Its adherents, like others on the left, blamed capitalism for the miserable conditions that afflicted peasants and workers alike and for the prevalence of indentured and child labor. Communists saw the slaughter of World War I as a direct result of the rapacious competition among the great powers for overseas markets.

But a century of communism in power—with holdouts even now in Cuba, North Korea and China—has made clear the human cost of a political program bent on overthrowing capitalism. Again and again, the effort to eliminate markets and private property has brought about the deaths of an astounding number of people. Since 1917—in the Soviet Union, China, Mongolia, Eastern Europe, Indochina, Africa, Afghanistan and parts of Latin America—communism has claimed at least 65 million lives, according to the painstaking research of demographers.

Communism’s tools of destruction have included mass deportations, forced labor camps and police-state terror—a model established by Lenin and especially by his successor Joseph Stalin. It has been widely imitated. Though communism has killed huge numbers of people intentionally, even more of its victims have died from starvation as a result of its cruel projects of social engineering.



A communal Chinese farm in the 1950s during the Great Leap Forward. Photo: UIG/Getty Images

For these epic crimes, Lenin and Stalin bear personal responsibility, as do Mao Zedong in China, Pol Pot in Cambodia, the Kim dynasty in North Korea and any number of lesser communist tyrants. But we must not lose sight of the ideas that prompted these vicious men to kill on such a vast scale, or of the nationalist context in which they embraced these ideas. Anticapitalism was attractive to them in its own right, but it also served as an instrument, in their minds, for backward countries to leapfrog into the ranks of great powers.

The communist revolution may now be spent, but its centenary, as the great anticapitalist cause, still demands a proper reckoning.

In February 1917, Tsar Nicholas II abdicated under pressure from his generals, who worried that bread marches and strikes in the capital of St. Petersburg were undermining the war effort against Germany and its allies. The February Revolution, as these events became known, produced an unelected provisional government, which chose to rule without the elected parliament. Peasants began to seize the land, and soviets (or political councils) started to form among soldiers at the front, as had already happened among political groups in the cities.

That fall, as the war raged on, Lenin’s Bolsheviks undertook an armed insurrection involving probably no more than 10,000 people. They directed their coup not against the provisional government, which had long since become moribund, but against the main soviet in the capital, which was dominated by other, more moderate socialists. The October Revolution began as a putsch by the radical left against the rest of the left, whose members denounced the Bolsheviks for violating all norms and then walked out of the soviet.

The Bolsheviks, like many of their rivals, were devotees of Karl Marx, who saw class struggle as the great engine of history. What he called feudalism would give way to capitalism, which would be replaced in turn by socialism and, finally, the distant utopia of communism. Marx envisioned a new era of freedom and plenty, and its precondition was destroying the “wage slavery” and exploitation of capitalism. As he and his collaborator Friedrich Engels declared in the Communist Manifesto of 1848, our theory “may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

Once in power in early 1918, the Bolsheviks renamed themselves the Communist Party as they sought to force-march Russia to socialism and, eventually, to history’s final stage. Millions set about trying to live in new ways. No one, however, knew precisely what the new society was supposed to look like. “We cannot give a characterization of socialism,” Lenin conceded in March 1918. “What socialism will be like when it reaches its completed form we do not know, we cannot say.”

But one thing was clear to them: Socialism could not resemble capitalism. The regime would replace private property with collective property, markets with planning, and “bourgeois” parliaments with “people’s power.” In practice, however, scientific planning was unattainable, as even some communists conceded at the time. As for collectivizing property, it empowered not the people but the state.

The process set in motion by the communists entailed the vast expansion of a secret-police apparatus to handle the arrest, internal deportation and execution of “class enemies.” The dispossession of capitalists also enriched a new class of state functionaries, who gained control over the country’s wealth. All parties and points of view outside the official doctrine were repressed, eliminating politics as a corrective mechanism.

The declared goals of the revolution of 1917 were abundance and social justice, but the commitment to destroy capitalism gave rise to structures that made it impossible to attain those goals.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

The Delusional Karl Marx


By Jon Rappoport

Prepare yourself for a fantastical Karl Marx quote.

It’s the sort of statement a young person in college might find inspiring, if he had the ability to read it and understand it.

An increasing number of young college students want to believe in a better, more attractive future, in which little or no work will be required of them.

They’ll be provided a “free life.” Housing, food, clothing, an array of consumer items.

They want something resembling college life forever.

Here is the Karl Marx quote:

“For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd, or a critical critic and must remain so if he does not wish to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, to fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have in mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.” (The German Ideology, 1845-46)

I’ll break down Marx’s stunning assertion, section by section.

First, he claims the “division of labor” brings on unwanted consequences. What does that “division” phrase mean? Does it mean someone somewhere, once upon a time, came up with the weird notion that, if you wanted to build a temple, you would have different people work on different aspects of the overall job? Is that what division means?

You could have built the temple with “all the workers doing all the jobs,” but some evil wizard imposed the idea, arbitrarily, that different workers with different skills ought to shape the stones, put them in place, design the overall support structure, execute sculptures, and so on?

This was the cardinal first sin?

Apparently so.

Marx then claims that the division of labor specifically leads to people having certain jobs forced on them, from which they can’t escape. Is that a sound inference? Had he never heard of or encountered people who started their own businesses, their own farms? Had he never heard of people who decided to change one type of work for another?

Moving right along—Marx utters this astonishing phrase: “…in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes…”

Which Communist society will that be? Under a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the people will be able to choose the direction of their lives? Pick their professions, one after another? A farmer can sell his land to a buyer and move to the city and publish a newspaper?

No, that is what can happen in a free market society.

Next, Marx states that “society regulates the general production.” He’s talking about production of goods and services under Communism. But who is this “society?” Everybody? It appears so. Everybody gathers in a great field and intelligently debates how the economy will operate and what and how much it will produce…and then the miracle will come to pass? None of the population will actually go to work making those production quotas come true? It will just happen?

Well, you would think so, from what Marx describes next: “…society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, to fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have in mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.”

In other words, Marx would live for free, unemployed, and do whatever he wants when he wants. And so could everyone else—but somehow the national production of goods and services gets done.

Magic. The magic of the Communist State.

I recommend Marx’s passage to teachers of logic. Have your students chew on it for a week, take it apart, analyze it. It’s a masterpiece of fallacies, taken to the extreme.

And by the way, there is no indication Marx was anticipating a society in which machines and AI would do all the work. If this were his ace in the hole, he would have to re-think his famous “workers of the world unite,” because there would be no human workers, aside from those who monitored and repaired the machines…

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)