Don't forget; he didn't just talk his way into power; he also instilled fear and admiration through his brown shirts.

This is the 1st reply:

If they're not all like this I'm gonna be very disappointed.

Post #9 is quoted.

I'm making a prediction: TS has realized the error of his ways. There are way more Churchills now, luckily, and we will successfully stop the rise of trump's evil empire, especially with an intellectual titan like TS as a fellow ally Churchill.

GODSPEED CHURCHILLS

Whelp, 3rd-string pseudo-intellectual TS did not get the clowning he needs, but he did get the clowning he deserves.

added

Tooth, at one point I thought you were a pretty smart guy. This OP has stripped me of that opinion.

This OP reads like something a college freshman would write. Even the first line saps all your credibility—you really think proponents of PC culture were the SOLE reason for Hitler's killing of Jews? Surely the brownshirts and the SS, and maybe even all the people who actually voted for Hitler and then fought in the war and killed Jews in the camps had something do with it. The hyperbole signals the frailty of your thesis.

And you inexplicably equate dismissive attitudes toward perceived military threats with an overreach of political correctness. Not wanting to go to war, and being incredulous to Hitler's belligerence, does not make one PC. You are just throwing the term PC in there to mean "conformity" or "ignorance" or whatever you want it to mean to support your unfounded thesis.

Unsurprisingly, I'm not the only one to have pointed out these most glaring of shortcomings. I still think you're smart enough that if you weren't blinded by some anti-PC agenda, you could see that your argument is pathetically untenable.

The sole reason? Didn't even read past this absurd claim. Yawn.

Seems like toothy was at least smart enough to stop digging when he realized he was in a giant hole.

I was looking forward to how pacifism is political correctness gone mad.

Is this what we get when 2+2's self-proclaimed free thinker doesn't visit breitbart, chiefsplanet etc?

The first problem with this is that it makes the historical error of anachronism. You are projecting a rather recent phenomenon -- PC -- and treating it as the same thing as happened in the 1930s. While there are comparisons to make via poetic license, these movements arise in very different contexts, separated by decades. You are arguing from dogma, not data, which is your M.O. The pacifist movement was more in popular culture than in government, you have grossly exaggerated its influence.

Another anachronism is that you are presentist, expecting people then to be as wise as we in retrospect. Today we know about the Holocaust and the scope of the war,but none of that was apparent at the time even to Hitler's worst critics. Even Churchill didn't predict the Holocaust. His worry was losing pieces of empire.

An even bigger inaccuracy is that the left you denounce was an early adopter of antifascism; the coddling of Hitler came from different sources. Hitler was seen as less of a threat because so many industrialists in the U.S. and Britain sympathized with him and wanted to adopt his methods. America First, for example, was more influenced by Henry Ford than pacifists. The US and Britain were deeply antisemitic and Hitler just did not carry the same stigma then. Like Trump, he was saying what everyone else was thinking.

Today's PC is also distinct from the neutrality movement in that the Marxist left, presumably the wellspring of PC, was angrily denouncing Hitler long before most anyone else. You have members of the American Communist Party calling for rearmament while FDR was still proclaiming neutrality. (Yes, this briefly changed after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty, but the rest of the hard left continued denouncing Hitler.) Hitler exterminated the German communist party and the USSR was his biggest nemesis; you completely miss what a villain he was to the people who come closest to being today's PC.

Cliffs: PC didn't exist then; the left actually opposed Hitler first; fascist sympathizers were more influential than pacifists in dismissing the German threat; TS deals in crude word games and sloppy conflation of terms, not data.

And another thing: TS' biggest problem is laziness. There is no effort to get terms and facts right, he just free associates at the speed of Rush. When I'm tired, I give writing like his a B, but when I'm alert I notice that there's no content to the seemingly deft prose and it's a C or worse.

Another aspect to why people didn't listen to Churchill was his involvement in the disaster at Gallipoli:

Not that it was fair or correct, but it wasn't PC.

This is comedy gold, thanks everyone, especially Bill. Busy day today unfortunately, but this topic deserves some serious justice, and the OP is of course correct, including the false statements.

One of the most interesting things is how the rise of Hitler in Germany itself (ignoring England) was enabled by censorship in that country as well. The Nazi Party was a nothing party until Germany's chezes (this is my way of adding my name to the petition), tried to censor and censure them; it was mostly downhill from there. That was the first time they soared in popular power and became a meaningful political force.

We're seeing something similar in Europe today, with far right parties, as the chezlaws in power lay down the (PC) law.

History repeats itself, and most people, like Bill Haywood above, think this time is different because we use different terminology to describe exactly the same attitudes and mistakes.

You ever going to answer those lingering questions up thread?

Okay, let's test this.

Tell us who is Goebbels today, and we can debate if he has "exactly the same attitudes" as the original.

And since history repeats itself, who was Goebbels in 240 BCE? And don't forget that you are not allowed to say the times were different as reason why he can't be found.

History repeating itself itt. It's pretty obvious who Goebbels is here.

Chezbbels gonna influence you to hate whites with PC propoganda! ( is it okay to parody white genocide propaganda or is that a personal attack?)

According to the new propagandist, we shouldn't listen to what Chez says, we should look into his heart.

Interesting post!

Not sure if TS is coming back, but I like this conversation. I found where I think he's getting these ideas.

https://www.academia.org/the-origins...l-correctness/
If you read on, the author makes the claim PC is just rehashed cultural Marxism. I've seen similar things said elsewhere, but I've not explored that opinion very far. The problem is there are a lot of parallels, and if you're not a fan of PC, these sorts of arguments are very seductive.

Since there are a lot of defenders of PC here, I think I'll pick up the mantle of rabid PC hater (not too difficult ) and try to prove yall are secret commies. More to come.

Does this read like a man who knows what the **** he is talking about?

Bill Lind on Cultural Marxism.

yeah no straight white men on TV rings true

Yep, sounds like you're picking up the Odious ToothSayer's baton just where he dropped it. Keep it up and you too can aspire to be the Administrator of Odiousness !!!1!

Historical note: The Odious zan nen, the original Administrator of Odiousness, was into this conspiracy theory as well. So I guess if it's OK for you to smear chezlaw by association as a Marxist, it's OK for me to smear you by association as a racist and advocate of child porn ("pics not pokes").

LOL, WTF does "Cultural Marxism" even mean? Workers control the means of producing culture? That sounds sort of like the opposite of how Hollywood works? Just more gibberish these idiots invent so they can masquerade as educated people.

Leaving aside, at least for a moment, the problem of defining what "political correctness" means in relation to various political or philosophical ideologies (post-modernism, Marxism, post-Marxism, ...) and the assertions Lind makes about those ideologies (i.e that they are totalitarian), I think you should see a problem with the way his argument is made, analogous to a problem in the way you perceive liberal arguments are made. Lind's rhetorical strategy is essentially as follows

1. "Political correctness", in the form of radical feminism, gay studies, black studies, and etc. are Marxist.
2. Marxism is bad.
3. Therefore all those things are bad too and must be rejected.

I'm suggesting that should sound to you like this argument

1. The Republican party (or conservatives, or ...) is racist.
2. Racism is bad.
3. Therefore the Republican party (or conservatives...) are bad and must be rejected.

You object to the second argument because you think (1) is an over-simplification driven by polemic. I object to Lind's argument on the grounds that his (1) is similarly an egregious over-simplification, but equally important is the fact that his reductionistic view of Marxism is also wrong, and so is yours when you take up the task of chastising political correctness (or concern with social justice) as communism.

He's lumping a pretty diverse set of ideas under the umbrella of Marxism and claiming they are all revolutionary ideologies intent on realizing Gramsci's "war of position" in order to prepare for the revolution, and that's not an adequate account even of the parts of the intellectual traditions that are the most accurately described as "Marxist." It's essentially a conspiracy theory intended to foment red scare reactions. It's a rhetorical strategy that allows him to completely bypass actually arguing with the ideas being presented.

For example, I (with a glimmer in my eye) chose to read Foucault's History of Sexuality, Vol 1. and then Rosemary Hennessy's Materialist Feminism and the Politics of Discourse to kick off my SJW book report thread. Those two books are squarely in the tradition of what Lind is calling Cultural Marxism, although neither author uses the phrase. But neither are their works merely a setup for communist revolution, although Hennessy is obviously anti-capitalist and so was Foucault at least through much of his career. But, if you read my summary of the Foucault book, you'll note that besides the use of the word "bourgeois" and the reference to the rise of capitalism and the Industrial revolution, the central ideas have basically nothing to do with communism. It is quite possible to separate ideas about power and discourse from conclusions about political economy, and many people do.

Additionally, the ideas in those books are representative of an intellectual tradition centered in Humanities departments. When Lind compares "political correctness" to "cultural marxism", he conflates "political correctness" with a critique of certain prevalent traditions in Humanities departments, but there are other academic disciplines with distinct intellectual traditions that are equally concerned with social inequalities, and so I, though a consummate SJW (in terms of my interests), am not actually very familiar with many of the authors Lind mentions. That's because my version of all this cultural theory arises out of intellectual traditions in sociology and anthropology, with a whole different set of theorists, many of whom also read and borrowed Marx's idea of social conflict, but in various and different ways, and again there is quite obviously no actual commitment to socialism or communism entailed.