THE NEW LEFT IS DEVOLVING AMERICA INTO A CULTURE OF SELF-DESTRUCTION; THEY OPENED OUR BORDERS, SO MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL INTERLOPERS POUR INTO THE USA YEAR AFTER YEAR; YOUR MEXICAN CARTELS ARE RUNNING LEGAL AND ILLEGAL DRUGS ARE KILLING MILLIONS OF AMERICANS EVERY YEAR, OR TWO. THE EVE OF DESTRUCTION IS SOON.
THE NEW LEFT HAS INCULCATED SOCIAL AND CULTURAL MARXISM INTO AMERICA WITH HIGH SPEEDS WE HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED IN OUR HISTORY.
Academia has done its part. THEY HAVE TURNED THEIR STUDENTS INTO MINDLESS COMMUNISTS WHO HATE America. FOR NO APPARENT REASON, THESE SAME STUDENTS HAVE BECOME ANTI-SEMETICS AND WANT TO KILL ALL THE JEWS.
MANY COUNTRIES HAVE SEEMPENIED THEIR PRISONS AND THE MENTALLY INSANE TO US. THE DEMOCRATIC SANCTUARY CITIES ARE FILLED WITH RAPISTS, MURDERERS, AND ALL-AROUND CRIMINALS TO THE SANCTUARY CITIES; CRIMES OF EVERY TYPE ARE GROWING LIKE THE CANCER THEY ARE. R
THE BIG CITY KILLING FLOORS WILL HAVE BLOOD IN THE STREETS DAY AND NIGHT.
The New Left, which developed in the following years, was “a loosely organized, mostly white student movement that advocated for democracy, civil rights, and various types of university reforms and protested against the Vietnam War.” The New Left in the United States also included anarchist, countercultural, and hippie-related radical groups such as the Yippies (who were led by Abbie Hoffman), the Diggers,[34]Up Against the Wall Motherfuckers, and the White Panther Party. By late 1966, the Diggers opened free stores that gave away their stock, provided free food, distributed free drugs, gave away money, organized free music concerts, and performed works of political art. [35]The Diggers took their name from the original English Diggers led by Gerald Winstanley[36] and sought to create a mini-society free of money and capitalism. [37]On the other hand, the Yippies (the name allegedly coming from Youth International Party) employed theatrical gestures, such as advancing a pig (“Pigasus the Immortal”) as a candidate for president in 1968, to mock the social status quo. [38]They have been described as a highly theatrical, anti-authoritarian, and anarchist[39] youth movement of “symbolic politics.” [40]ABC News said, “The group was known for street theater pranks and was once called the ‘Groucho Marxists’.” [41]Many of the “old school” politicians were either ignored or denounced.
The New Storefront Left. Stung by the criticism that they were “high on analysis, low on action,” and in “the year of the ‘discovery of poverty'” (in 1963, Michael Harrington‘s book The Other America” [62]was the rage”), the SDS launched the Economic Research and Action Project (ERAP). [63]Conceived by Tom Hayden as forestalling “white backlash,” community-organizing initiatives would unite Black, Brown, and White workers around a standard program for economic change. The leadership commitment was sustained for barely two years. With no early sign in the neighborhoods of an interracial movement that would “collectivize economic decision-making and democratize and decentralize every economic, political, and social institution in America,” many SDS organizers were readily induced by the escalating U.S. commitment in Vietnam to abandon their storefront offices and heed the anti-war call to return to campus.[64]
In some of the ERAP projects, such as the JOIN (“Jobs or Income Now”) project in uptown Chicago, sensors were replaced by white working-class activists (some bitterly conscious that their poor backgrounds had limited their acceptance within “the Movement”). In community unions such as JOIN and its successors in Chicago, the Young Patriots and Rising Angry, White Lightning in the Bronx, and the 4 October Organization in Philadelphia, white radicals (open in the debt they believed they owed to the SNCC and the Black Panthers) continued to organize rent strikes, health and legal clinics, housing occupations, and street protests against police brutality.[65]
While city hall and police harassment were factors, internal tensions ensured that these radical community-organizing efforts did not long survive the sixties. [66]Kirkpatrick Sale recalls that the most dispiriting feature of the ERAP experience was that, however much they might talk at night about “transforming the system,” “building alternative institutions,” and “revolutionary potential,” the organizers knew that their credibility on the doorstep rested on an ability to secure concessions from, and thus to develop relations with, the local power structures. Far from erecting parallel structures, projects were built “around all the shoddy instruments of the state.” Draper’s were caught in “a politics of adjustment.”.
is from the academic debate between the “New Left” and “the 1990s, both of mock nonlogical labels on the Chinese mainland.” [80]In this context, the term “New Left” is often used to describe a faction that focuses on the continued widening of the urban-rural gap in the post-Deng Xiaoping era and calls for a critical re-evaluation of the legacy of the Mao era (including the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution) in response to the current situation.[81] The Chinese New Left differs significantly from the Western New Left and is difficult to define.[81] Under the one-party dictatorship, no “faction” in China can make political waves, so some scholars doubt the existence of a genuine New Left in China.[82.
Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law rather than a rejection of the system. The civil disobedient, finding legitimate avenues of change blocked or nonexistent, feels obligated by a higher extralegal principle to break some specific law. This is because acts associated with civil disobedience are considered crimes and are known by actors and the public alike to be punishable. Such acts serve as a protest. By submitting to punishment, the civil disobedient hopes to set a moral example that will provoke the majority or the government into effecting meaningful political, social, or economic change. Under the imperative of setting a moral example, civil disobedience leaders insist that illegal actions be nonviolent.
Various criticisms have been directed against the philosophy and practice of civil disobedience. The radical critique of the philosophy of civil disobedience condemns its acceptance of the existing political structure; conservative schools of thought, on the other hand, see the logical extension of civil disobedience as anarchy and the right of individuals to break any law they choose at any time. Activists themselves are divided in interpreting civil disobedience either as a total philosophy of social change or as merely a tactic to be employed when the movement lacks other means. On a pragmatic level, the efficacy of civil disobedience hinges on the adherence of the opposition to a particular morality to which an appeal can ultimately be made.
The philosophical roots of civil disobedience lie deep in Western thought: Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and Henry David Thoreau all sought to justify conduct by its harmony with some antecedent superhuman moral law. Mahatma Gandhi most clearly formulated the modern concept of civil disobedience. Drawing from Eastern and Western thought, Gandhi developed the philosophy of satyagraha, which emphasizes nonviolent resistance to evil.
Related
Vern Bender
AUTHOR ARETURNING CHRISTIANITY TO IWHAT IT ORIIIGIONALY WASND HISTORIAN
