Glenn Beck on the Cloward Piven Strategy

The Glenn Beck show recently aired a story on ACORN and its relationship to the Cloward-Piven Strategy. Most of it tracks the American Thinker article of last September. Watch below. Apparently, he found my chart too.

The Great Depression of 1920 - Why Haven't We Heard of It?

The Great Depression Of 1920



Never heard of it? That’s not surprising - it didn’t last long. The 20’s were roaring, not greatly depressing. Yet virtually none of the American population knows that the nation’s economy actually took a worse hit in 1920 than it did at any point during the Great Depression.

Consider these wiki-nuggets of wiki-knowledge:

The recession in the United States was brief relative to the Great Depression later that decade, but it included a very sharp price deflation. The decline in the GNP price deflator from 1920 to 1921 is the largest one-year percentage decline in the series in the more than 120 years covered….

Various estimates show that one-year deflation figures were 18 percent, 13.0 percent, and 14.8 percent, respectively. The closest comparator is the 11.5 percent deflation recorded for 1931-32, the third year of the Great Depression. Wholesale prices declined by 36.8 percent for 1920-21, the largest one-year decline on record, going back at least to the American Revolutionary War period. The 1921 deflation contains another striking feature. Not only was it sharp, it was large relative to the accompanying decline in real product.

The ratio of the percentage decline in the GNP deflator for 1920-21 to the percentage decline in real GNP is 2.6 using the Department of Commerce figures. By contrast, during 1929-30, the first year of the Great Depression, the GNP deflator declined by 2.7 percent and real GNP by 9.4 percent, for a ratio of 0.3. The ratios of the percentage decline in GNP prices to the percentage decline in real GNP for 1930-31, 1931-32, 1932-33, and 1937-38, the other Great Depression years in which real GNP declined, were 1.0, 0.9, 1.2, and 0.3, respectively, all well below the 1920-21 figures.

In other words, if Jim Cramer were alive in 1920, he would have actually committed suicide on air.

So why did Al Capone spend the next decade walking around in pinstripe suits instead of rags stolen from orphans and the recently deceased? Because rather than the massive government intervention that took place in the 30’s, in 1920 and 1921, the feds hardly did anything at all:Federal spending was cut from $6.3 billion in 1920 to $5 billion in 1921 and $3.2 billion in 1922.

Federal taxes fell from $6.6 billion in 1920 to $5.5 billion in 1921 and $4 billion in 1922. Harding’s policies started a trend. The low point for federal taxes was reached in 1924; for federal spending, in1925. The federal government paid off debt, which had been $24.2 billion in 1920, and it continued to decline until 1930.

With Harding’s tax and spending cuts and relatively non-interventionist economic policy, GNP rebounded to $74.1 billion in 1922. The number of unemployed fell to 2.8 million— a reported 6.7 percent of the labor force— in 1922. So, just a year and a half after Harding became president, the Roaring Twenties were underway. The unemployment rate continued to decline, reaching an extraordinary low of 1.8 percent in 1926. Since then, the unemployment rate has been lower only once in wartime (1944), and never in peacetime.

The worst economic crash since we started keeping most relevant records didn’t happen during the Great Depression. It happened in 1920. Yet America was back on its feet in less than two years, while the next crunch was dragged out for a decade.

The free markets have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they grow faster than planned economies - why on earth wouldn’t they fix themselves faster, too?

Source

Revolution

By Herbert Meyer

During the last 30 years we Americans have been so politically divided that some of us have called this left-right, liberal-conservative split a "culture war" or even a "second Civil War." These descriptions are no longer accurate. The precise, technical word for what is happening in the United States today is revolution.

Because of our country's history, we tend to think of revolutions as military conflicts, and of the revolutionaries as the good guys; the image of Minutemen fighting valiantly against the British forces at Lexington and Concord lies deep within our DNA. But sometimes -- quite often, actually -- revolutions aren't military conflicts, and the good guys are the ones trying to keep the revolution from happening.

In January 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany by its elected president; he would spend the next two years consolidating his power with the legislative connivance of his political allies in the Reichstag. In October 1917, Lenin and his Bolsheviks took control of Russia from Kerensky and his Social Democrats -- who had overthrown the Czar earlier that year -- entirely through parliamentary maneuvering in Russia's fledgling Duma.

What defines a revolution -- and this is the crucial point to grasp -- is that when it's over a country has changed not merely its leaders and its laws, but its operating system.

Since most of us think of computers when we hear the phrase "operating system" let me use this analogy to illuminate my point: Every computer has an operating system, and most of us are using either the Microsoft or the Apple operating system. If you want to do something with your computer -- send an email, watch a DVD, read an online essay like this one -- you must do it the way your computer's operating system is designed to work.

No operating system is perfect, which is why Microsoft and Apple send updates to their customers from time to time. And every so often these companies launch new versions of their operating systems that incorporate a lot of modifications at once. Can you change the operating system you use? Of course you can. Two years ago I threw out every Microsoft-based machine in our company's office and replaced them with Apple products. Last month I met a corporate CEO who had just done the opposite, and replaced the Apple computers in his office with ones that run on the Microsoft operating system.

Democracies and Dictatorships

Now, just as computers have operating systems so too do countries. In fact, countries have dual operating systems - one political and the other economic. Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of each: Politically you can be a democracy or a dictatorship, and economically you can have either a free market or a command economy. Because countries don't buy their operating systems off the shelf, the way we buy our computer operating systems, each country develops its own versions.

This is why our country's democracy is somewhat different from Canada's, which in turn is slightly different from Australia's, and so forth. These countries all have free-market economies, but again they aren't quite the same. Still, the similarities among democracies and free-market economies are more striking than the differences. Likewise, while no two dictatorships are the same, and no two command economies work in exactly the same way, the differences among them are comparatively trivial.

Since no country's operating systems are perfect, can they be improved? Of course they can. Every time our Congress passes a new law, or enacts a new regulation -- or whenever the Supreme Court issues an opinion -- that's the equivalent of an update to our political or economic operating system. Can you change a country's operating system? Yes, you can. And the precise, technical word for replacing one political or economic operating system with another is -- revolution.

When politics in a democracy is normal, the political parties all agree to preserve the operating system while they compete to improve it. This is what is actually happening when one party in Congress introduces a new piece of healthcare or education legislation and the other party opposes it or introduces its own healthcare or education bill, or when two candidates for the Senate argue over whether or not to change our immigration laws.

Honorable people often will disagree about what to do -- sometimes quite strongly, just as the software engineers at Microsoft and Apple will sometimes argue through the night about whether a proposed change in the operating system's code is an improvement or just "kludge." But in normal politics the outer limits of all these disagreements are marked by a shared commitment to preserving and improving the operating system.

In abnormal politics, the objective of one party isn't to improve the operating system, but to overthrow it.

With this analogy in mind, now we can see clearly what's been happening in the United States during the last three decades. While conservatives have been working to improve our democracy and our free-market economy, liberals have been working to replace our democracy with a dictatorship, and our free-market economy with a command economy controlled by the government. The liberals couldn't say this aloud, because if they did the American people would have tossed them out of office on their ears. So the liberals worked covertly, feigning support for democracy and for the free market while working diligently to undermine both.

This is why our politics has been so partisan, so vicious, and so deadlocked. This is why words have lost their meaning in Washington, why we can never get to the bottom of anything, why we lurch from one manufactured scandal to another. It's all been part of a decades-long effort by the liberals to throw sand in our eyes -- to keep us from seeing clearly where they really want to take us. (And this explains why, when we question their judgment on some issue, they go berserk and accuse us of questioning their patriotism. They're afraid we're on the verge of catching on.

If you want to have some fun, the next time you're chatting with a liberal and he goes nuts when you call him a socialist, say to him: "I'm so sorry you're offended. Please tell me, what is there about socialism you don't like?" You won't get a coherent answer; he'll just accuse you of a hate crime.)

Obama's Two-Front Offensive

With the election of Barack Obama as president, the liberals have launched a massive, two-front offensive they believe will end in victory. They have judged that our public education system is so degraded that only a few Americans are left who even understand what a democracy is, and how the free market actually works. They are convinced that the majority of Americans are too frightened by the current recession to care about preserving the principles that made us the most powerful, productive and innovative country the world has ever known. In short, the liberals are reaching for victory because they believe that history now is on their side.

The speed of their offensive is breathtaking.

At the core of democracy is the rule of law, and we have already lost it. The liberals lecture us incessantly that everything is "relative," but that's not true; some things are absolutes. You cannot claim to be faithful to your spouse because you never cheat on her -- except when you're in London on business. And you cannot claim to have the rule of law if the government can set aside the rule of law when it decides that "special circumstances" have arisen that warrant illegality.

When the President and his aides handed ownership of Chrysler Corp. to the United Auto Workers union, they tried to avoid sending that beleaguered company into bankruptcy by muscling its bondholders into accepting less money for their assets than the law entitled them to collect. These contracts, and the law under which they were signed, were mere obstacles to a thuggish President bent on paying off his political supporters.

It's going to get much worse, fast. President Obama has told us time and again that among his criteria for choosing Federal judges will be "empathy." Empathy is a wonderful quality in any human being, but a judge's job is to rule according to the law. Once our courts are presided over by judges who will reach verdicts based on how they feel about an issue -- such as abortion or the right of citizens to bear arms -- the law will be whatever the judges wish it to be; the rule of law will become an empty phrase rather than the architecture of our civilization.

We have lost our free-market economy as quickly as we have lost the rule of law. Money is to an economy what blood is to a body; life and death resides within the organ that controls its flow. The government already owns our country's leading banks, which means the government now controls our economy. (And in all fairness to President Obama, it was the Bush administration that started us down this ghastly road.) One indicator of the Obama administration's real objective: When some banks that had taken federal money attempted to repay their loans, the Treasury Department refused to accept repayment and step aside. This shows the government's goal isn't to prop up the banks, but rather to control them.

Here, too, things are going to get much worse, fast. The government now owns General Motors Corp., is reaching for control of insurance companies, and has launched plans to take over our country's healthcare industry. It even wants authority to set the salaries of executives in industries that, at least for now, aren't being subsidized or underwritten by the government.
Put all this together, and what we have in our country today isn't a democracy and it isn't a free-market economy. Reader, what we have now is a revolution.

This revolution won't be stopped, and our country won't be rescued, by the Republicans in Washington. This isn't because they lack the votes. It's because most of them are careerist hacks who've been playing footsie with the Democrats for too long; with very few exceptions they lack the intellectual firepower to articulate the present danger, and the political courage to stand up to this Administration and really fight.

But for the absence of frock coats and pince-nez glasses, these Republicans in Washington remind me of those bumbling Weimar Republic politicians in Berlin who never grasped where Hitler and the Nazis were going until it was too late to stop them, or of those hapless Mensheviks in Moscow's Duma who let themselves be tossed into history's dustbin by Lenin and his Bolsheviks. (Yes, of course I realize it's explosive to keep bringing up the Nazis and the Bolsheviks in an essay about the Democrats. I'm not doing this to be incendiary; I'm doing this to be accurate.)

The Future's in Our Hands

Our country's future now lies within our own hands -- yours, mine, all of us who comprise what the Washington insiders sneeringly call the grass roots. Good, because unless I'm very much mistaken the liberals have over-estimated their strength. There still are more of us than there are of them. I mean ordinary, decent Americans from across the political spectrum who may disagree about specific issues, but who understand who we are and how we became who we are; who love our country, have a genius for self-organizing, and won't let the United States go down without a fight.

We need to launch a counter-offensive, so to speak, and the place to start is at the local level. Working with our county and state political parties when we can -- or working around them when we must -- our objective will be to elect as many people as we can to public office who understand what a democracy is and how the free market works. This will include city council members, county commissioners, school board members, judges, sheriffs and even members of the local parks commission. With the strength and political momentum their elections will provide, we can surge to the state level and then -- before it's too late -- take back the power in Washington DC.

I know this isn't the kind of battle most of us want to fight; we would rather watch the talking heads slug it out on Fox News than stand on a street corner handing out campaign flyers. And given our country's history, for a while it will be uncomfortable to find ourselves fighting against the revolution and for the status quo. But we'll get used to this as we make our case over and over again -- to our friends, our neighbors, at barbeques and PTA meetings and at public rallies like those marvelous April tea parties that drove the liberals insane. And we'll draw strength as our ranks swell with new recruits.

The alternative to launching this kind of peaceful and political counter-attack is horrific. Right now sales of guns and ammunition are rising sharply. This reflects an intuitive grasp by grass-roots Americans of what history teaches may lie ahead. It was only after the Nazis had secured their grip on power in Germany, and only after the Bolsheviks had seized control of Russia, that they set out to disarm and destroy the vast numbers of ordinary citizens who - to the astonishment and fury of the revolutionaries -- just wouldn't go along.

That's when the real shooting started, and when blood began flowing in the streets.

Herbert E. Meyer served during the Reagan Administration as Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Council. He holds the U.S. National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal, which is the Intelligence Community's highest honor. He is author of The Cure for Poverty and How to Analyze Information.

Domestic Terrorists Arrested at Notre Dame

Sunday May 17, 2009 Norma McCorvey, the notorious “Roe” in the landmark Supreme Court case “Roe v Wade” has been arrested. The plaintiff in the case that made abortion legal in the United States later became adamantly pro-life and in 1995 began a crusade to overturn the law she helped create.

This fact has largely gone unreported by the mass media due to national security concerns. McCorvey was taken into custody today without a struggle after brazenly trespassing on the hallowed grounds of Notre Dame University to protest the pending visit of His Eminence, the pro-abortion President Barack Obama.

Accusations that she brandished a CAR-15 submachine gun, the alleged favorite of militias (and U.S. Special Forces, also on the domestic terrorism watch list), went unanswered by authorities. On Saturday, nineteen more domestic terrorists, including the radical “pro-life” Father Norman Weslin, were arrested as well. Eighteen more got cuffed on Friday, including, Presidential candidate Alan Keyes, another DHS certified domestic terrorist.

“What is the world coming to?” exclaimed an outraged Rev. John I. Jenkins, Notre Dame President. “This is unprecedented! How dare they challenge my moderate, progressive edicts? Who do they think they are, alumni or something? When oh when will these fanatic Catholics ever leave us alone?” he lamented.

“The Messi… I mean, President Obama will be here any minute,” Fr. Jenkins squealed. “We can’t have domestic terrorists running around on our campus threatening His Worship’s aesthetic vista with signs like: ‘God Weeps for the Babies,’ or ‘Notre Dame Cancel Obama,’ or the hurtful ‘Notre Dame Spiritual Sellout!’ which I have to tell you, cuts me right to the bone. The inhumanity! These aggressive acts reveal the brutal nature of these radical right wing thugs!”

One of Fr. Jenkins personal staff – who’s name Notre Dame refuses to release – objected that it was an article of Catholic faith to oppose abortion. “But Father Jenkins,” he was heard to plea; “Didn’t the Conference of Bishops say that ‘Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles?’”

“Well who the Hell do they think they are anyway, the Pope?” Jenkins exploded. I am a moderate! I am not dogmatic! I am NOT dogmatic!” He screamed. “My worldview is not limited by Catholic philosophy," He shouted proudly and without irony. “I am that rare breed of Catholic who is liberal, open-minded, charitable and not hamstrung by tradition, unlike those retrograde scum out there trying to ruin my plans!”

Sputtering uncontrollably, eyes bulging wildly, he roared: “Furthermore YOU’RE FIRED! I refuse to be swayed by such radical distortions of the Church’s teachings! Real Catholics would be well advised to follow my noble lead and get with the program!”

Okay. So it didn’t happen quite like that. I was KIDDING!

All the arrests really did happen, though, including Norma McCorvey’s (but she wasn’t wielding a CAR-15) and Fr. Jenkins really did vigorously defend his decision under the guise of “positive engagement.”

But a peek just a little deeper into this controversy suggests other things at work. First of all it is a disgrace that Notre Dame should choose to arrest peaceful protesters simply because they were “trespassing.” What was the real message? The message I got was that this Notre Dame administration was unwilling to brook any opposition. So who were the real thugs?

More to the point is the willingness of this school president to break with sacred Catholic tenets (whether you agree with them or not) to the point where his action may threaten the very viability of the school. As of May 13, the Catholic News Agency reports that Notre Dame Alumni have already promised to withhold $14 million in donations unless Jenkins is replaced by someone who “is committed to the authentic identity of Notre Dame, grounded in the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

Why would someone charged with the responsibility of maintaining both the traditional Catholic heritage and the financial soundness of a storied university like Notre Dame do such a thing?

Father Jenkins received a Masters of Divinity from the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, California. If it is anything like its secular sister a few blocks down the street, then the teaching staff is likely saturated with Frankfurt School proponents. Indeed, on the “Our Faith” page of their website, a testimonial in the sidebar says:

Hours of conversation, study, and prayer with my peers in ministry taught me that we want the Catholic community to lead the work of creating a just society," says Claire Noonan (M.Div. '00). The Program Organizer for Social Justice and Next Generation at Call to Action in Chicago, she creates educational programs and sustained action campaigns focusing on sweatshop labor.

Oh, brother, there’s that word “Chicago” again. Now, in my mind “social justice” has always been a codeword for Marxism, or in this case, the ecclesiastical equivalent, “Liberation Theology.” Of course many Jesuits have been unfortunately drawn into that false ministry. But where is any reference to Catholic, or even biblical teachings? The Jesuit School at Berkeley is a member of the Graduate Theological Union, which has many ties to the Frankfurt School. Jenkins also attended Oxford University, and Oxford has also been penetrated by the Frankfurt philosophy.

As some of you doubtless know, the Frankfurt School was founded by communists shortly after the Bolshevik coup in Russia, and is dedicated to destruction of the West by cultural corruption. Willi Munzenburg, one of the school’s founders put it bluntly. The school’s curriculum was designed to:

organise the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilisation stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.

David R. Carlin, author of “The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America” writes:

In general, the leaders of the Church have never understood the historical significance of the abortion-rights movement (and this can be said of the gay-marriage movement as well). What the abortion-rights movement wants is not simply the right to kill millions of unborn babies; what it also wants is the utter destruction of Christianity. (Emphasis mine.)

The pro-abortion movement has from the beginning wrapped itself in the mantle of “women’s rights.” But the fact of the matter is that in the abortion issue the radical Left saw a rare opportunity to split our society right down the middle, with the unstated goal of obliterating the moral principles that in the final analysis are our only non-violent defense against the designs of the communists. And they have been wildly successful. I do not believe there is a more divisive issue on today’s political landscape, and the left relentlessly rubs salt in the wound.

In his commencement address, Obama called for “open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words” in looking for “common ground.” But who has really been closed-minded here? Since 1973, the American public has been treated to a hateful propaganda blizzard vilifying pro-life citizens as Nazis who deny women’s “rights,” the non-existent “right to privacy” manufactured out of whole cloth by activist judges, and ever more radical legislation grounded in these flawed rulings.

Promises of restraint in the abortion industry have been followed by ever more extreme practices, including partial birth abortion (which early proponents claimed would never occur), to the point where today we are treated to a President who even supports killing children born alive after a failed abortion.

Do you honestly expect Obama to moderate his views at all? So do not be misled by his conciliatory tone! This deceptive talk is the one thing in which he excels – or at least in which his teleprompter excels.

I came across an unusually revealing article, which quotes Australian communists on the Marxist view of abortion. It is noteworthy because you rarely find communists being so straightforward. And the fact that it quotes Australian communists is irrelevant. Communists have the same core beliefs everywhere. Here is a key quote from the article:

The fetus, according to a Marxist, becomes a person when he is judged as such by “someone of higher wisdom.” The humanity of the fetus depends upon how the mother perceives the “social relationship” that exists between them. If the mother desires to keep the baby, then she “fantasizes” it into becoming a human being. But, if she does not want the pregnancy, “it is something else entirely.” Her opinion of the fetus thereby denies it of personhood.

Totalitarian control over our lives is the logical endpoint of this kind of “situational morality,” and some Vatican intellectuals have argued Obama is leading us there.

Whatever Jenkins’ reason for inviting Obama, I have little doubt about Obama’s true motivation. Barack Obama, as I have extensively documented elsewhere, is a hardcore, doctrinaire communist. Conservative Catholics, Christians and other Americans committed to the sanctity of human life, i.e. the pro-life crowd, are some of the most principled and dedicated opponents of Obama’s radical designs. What better way to disrupt, demoralize and divide that formidable group, and indeed the entire country, than to strike at the heart of this cherished bedrock Catholic institution?

That the President of Notre Dame, in a disgustingly servile, supplicating manner singled out one of the most extreme pro-abortion politicians in America for an honorary degree, while ignoring his ecclesiastical peers, a large body of the Notre Dame community, and even countenancing the arrest of harmless protesters, is a huge insult to Catholics everywhere and indeed a disgrace to all Americans. I believe it was deliberate.

The cultural Marxists are rejoicing today.

Hate Crimes Legislation - Back Door Censorship

An extension of the Hate Crimes law recently passed the House of Representatives which will essentially codify into national law the “speech codes” that are smothering academic freedom on college campuses today. This law is the back door method Obama and his fellow socialists will use to stifle free speech in this country, as explained in an informative article by Jerry Kane at American Daughter.

To heck with the “Fairness Doctrine.” Who needs to limit censorship to the airwaves? This legislation will silence anyone who disagrees with them.

Hate crimes legislation has its roots in the communist-inspired, so-called Frankfurt School founded in Frankfurt, Germany by Bolsheviks in the 1920s. Its goal was to implement communism in the West quietly by gradually subverting popular culture – a movement known as Cultural Marxism. One of its leading lights, Herbert Marcuse, opined that the prevailing Western social order is repressive by definition and discriminates against minorities simply by existing.

This creates a phenomenon he called repressive tolerance because even though other views are allowed within Western culture – you know, by that insignificant little old thing called the First Amendment – the Capitalist view is still permitted. It goes without saying that Marcuse considered that to be unacceptable.

Instead, he proposed what he called partisan tolerance, i.e. only tolerating the views of those "repressed minorities" – who Marcuse assumes share his partisan hatred for everything noncommunist – while actively muzzling the views of the majority. So now we have a word for Democrats' eye-popping hypocrisy when they wrap themselves in the mantle of free speech while simultaneously attempting to suppress non-Leftist ideas. We have a word for the Left’s double standard in championing "repressed minorities" only when those minorities share their politics, while savaging principled, accomplished minorities like Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell or Janice Rogers Brown. We have an explanation for why so many college campuses, supposedly the society's heart of open-minded intellectual inquiry, actively, even violently intimidate conservative speakers - when they let them onto campus at all.

They have been practicing "partisan tolerance." That is, tolerance of the extreme Left and virulent intolerance of anything else.Marcuse, among other Frankfurt School advocates, was brought to the U.S. in the 1930s by Edward R. Murrow who at the time headed a program to resettle intellectuals facing Nazi repression. According to Wikipedia, Marcuse worked at the OSS, the State Department and taught at Columbia, Harvard and Brandeis. Now doesn’t that tell you something? He has been called the "Father of the New Left" and inspired many of the 1960s’ young radicals, who now have tenured teaching positions at colleges throughout the U.S. It is easy to see his Frankfurt School influence in university speech codes – indeed it is largely the reason they exist.

In fact the New School, currently run by former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, counts the Frankfurt School as one of its main influences. Barack Obama has an indirect connection to the school, in that his father was offered a scholarship there. According to Wikipedia:

In the early 1960s, the New School offered the father of the US President, Barack Obama, a generous scholarship package that would have paid for his immediate family (including wife Ann Dunham and son, the future President; then residents of Hawaii) to join him in New York City, where he would complete his PhD. He declined and instead abandoned his family and departed for Harvard University, where he had a less-generous scholarship with no family allowance.

The Frankfurt School was dedicated to the destruction of the West. One of its founders, Willi Munzenberg, stated explicitly that its goal was to:

…organise the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilisation stink [sic]. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.

According to an article by Timothy Matthews in Catholic Insight, key strategies to achieve this goal were:

1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion.
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children.
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority.
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking.
7. Emptying of churches.
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime.
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits.
10. Control and dumbing down of media.
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family.

Munzenberg stated flatly, “We will make the West so corrupt it stinks."

Today, his mission appears to have been largely accomplished. Assisted by American public education advocates, Frankfurt School proponents aggressively worked their way into our public education system to the point that today their priorities virtually define it. Their influence explains most of today's sick popular culture. So this is the last piece in the Manufactured Crisis puzzle. It seems apparent that "Hate Crimes" legislation is the vehicle by which free speech will be permanently silenced in America. And after that, the thugs will be firmly in charge.

You need look no further for proof that Marcuse's "cultural Marxists" are in charge in Washington now. Since it is their intention to destroy this country, intellectual appeals to them will fall on deaf ears. The only recourse is to lobby Senate Republicans and those few remaining Democrats with a shred of integrity, if indeed there are any.

We are witnessing the death of our country.

HT: Anti-Idiotarian Rotweiller for the nice picture.