"It hath been found by experience that no matter hoe decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of 'bigotry', 'hatred' or 'intolerance' approaches 1 (100%)" [Cranmer at http://www.archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/].

"I often wonder why Leftists refer to conservatives as 'wingnuts'. A wingnut is a very useful device that adds versatility wherever it is used. Clearly, Leftists are not even good at abuse. Once they have accused their opponents of racism and Nazism, their cupboard is bare" [http://dissectleft.blogspot.co.uk/]

"A Leftist's beliefs are all designed to pander to his ego. So when you have an argument with a Leftist, you are not really discussing the facts. You are threatening his self esteem. Which is why the normal Leftist response to challenge is mere abuse" [http://dissectleft.blogspot.co.uk/]

"Because of the fragility of a Leftist's ego, anything that threatens it is intolerable and provokes rage. So most Leftist blogs can be summarized in one sentence: 'How DARE anybody question what I believe!'. Rage and abuse substitute for an appeal to facts and reason" [http://dissectleft.blogspot.co.uk/]

"Their threatened egos sometimes drive Leftists into quite desperate flights from reality. For instance, they often call Israel an 'Apartheid State' - when it is in fact the Arab states that practice Apartheid - witness the severe restrictions on Christians in Saudi Arabia. There are no such restrictions in Israel" [http://dissectleft.blogspot.co.uk/]

"The term 'Fascism' is mostly used by the Left as a brainless term of abuse. ... In fact, Fascism is simply extreme socialism plus nationalism" [http://dissectleft.blogspot.co.uk/]

"Are the DM [Daily Mail] going to refer to UAF [United Against Fascism] and Hope Not Hate as extreme left wing groups or is it only right wing groups that get labeled ''extreme'? The far left has done the country more harm than the so called far right" [comment by Raskilnikov: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2167009/The-far-Right-leader-Sikh-headscarf-disturbing-anti-Muslim-alliance-EDL-joins-protesters-angry-grooming-girls.html]

"People who transgress politically correct beliefs are seen not just as wrong, to be debated with, but evil, to be condemned, silenced and spurned ... Because the politically correct believe they are not just on the side of right, but of virtue, it follows that those they are opposed to are not just wrong, but malign. In the PC mind, the pursuit of virtue entitles them to curtail the malign views of those they disagree with. rather than say I would like to hear your side, the politically correct insists: 'you can't say that'. ... Instead of addressing the explicit content of an argument, the politically correct attack what they see as the hidden psychology behind the argument: their opponents are not just wrong but bad" [Anthony Browne, The Retreat of Reason, pp. 6-7]

"Accusing someone of hidden and malign motives avoids the often intellectually and emotionally difficult task of engaging with their actual arguments. ... The inevitable consequence of psychologising arguments is ad hominem attacks, attacking the arguer rather than the argument. Those who question the politically correct shibboleths are deemed a viable target for any personal abuse in either public or private. Those who critique politically correct nostrums are often denounced as extreme" [Anthony Browne, The Retreat of Reason, pp. 21-22]

"Political correctness succeeds by attaching a sense of moral superiority to itself, and a sense of shame to opposing beliefs. ... The politically correct enforce the censorship with powerfully silencing accusations of 'sexism', 'homophobia', 'racism' and 'fascism'. they are widely inappropriately applied, because the aim is not an accurate analysis, but merely to silence opposing views" [Anthony Browne, The Retreat of Reason, p. 48].

"Interesting that Nigel Farage, ... easily won the EU debate against Nick Clegg, despite several attempts to smear him. I'm familiar with most of these smears, especially the 'living in the past' one, always used by people who have run out of arguments" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 06 April 2014].

"Roger Helmer, Ukip's candidate in the forthcoming Newark by-election, is vilified by the Left for supporting the death penalty. I though capital punishment, rather like abortion, was a matter of conscience: but of course the Left allows no one to have a conscience unless it coincides with theirs. Incidentally, Barak Obama endorses the death penalty - so why doesn't the Left attack him?  [Simon Heffer, Daily Mail, 10 May 2014].

"Senior managers at a local authority have been criticised by the most senior family court judge in England and Wales over the way they handled a case involving a toddler who had been placed in foster care at birth because of the father's links to the English Defence League. ... social services staff said the youngster should be adopted - and had raised concerns about his father's morality. They were concerned because he had at one stage had some involvement with the 'racist' EDL ... A social worker said the nature of the values and beliefs of the EDL were 'immoral'. ... Sir James [Munby] said ... 'social services are not guardians of morality'" [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11417943/Judge-criticises-council-after-toddler-taken-into-care-over-fathers-links-to-English-Defence-Leage.html].

"There is a joke: the definition of a racist is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal. ... There are essentially two reasons the left use this insult. Firstly, as they lose the argument on immigration, they must shift the debate from facts to morality. Secondly, racism is such a damaging accusation that even when untrue, it can do great harm to opponents. ... Leftists do not live in a reality-based world. They live in a world of ideology and theory and 'wouldn't it be nice if'.  As a result, they tend to be very uncomfortable with arguments that revolve around observable fact. In debates about immigration they ideologically believe that immigration is good. But when they are shown the facts about the negative impact of mass immigration, they become defensive. Leftists rarely win arguments based on the facts, as facts are not their currency of choice. Instead, they focus on the alleged moral failings of their opponent" [http://ukipdaily.com/ukip-racism-and-reality/].

---------------------------------------

"The Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief - or even the hope of belief - that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution.

Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the 'oppressive' order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus - 'continuing the work of Western Marxists by other means' as one of their members noted.

To further the advance of their 'quiet' cultural revolution ... the [Frankfurt] School recommended (among other things):

(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.

One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud's idea of 'pansexualism' - the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:

(a) attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children,
(b) abolish differences in the education of boys and girls,
(c) abolish all forms of male dominance - hence the presence of women in the armed forces,
(d) declare women to be an 'oppressed class' and men as 'oppressors'."

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!"
(Isaiah 5:20-21)

   Quotations, Comments, Miscellaneous Information  

Websites and Recommended Materials    |    Scripture References

Education    |    The Front Of It (Chart)    |    The Front Of It (Documentation)

Bayith BTR Articles