Monday, April 29, 2024
Trumpy has adopted KKK policy that racism against white people is the predominant racism in America
Trumpy has adopted KKK policy that racism against white people is the predominant racism in America
Trumpy has adopted KKK policy that racism against white people is the predominant racism in America
Sunday, April 28, 2024
Ancestor piety , original culture and language, is using things and words to represent people who no longer exist.
CB: Symboling is ,as I like to explain it , using something to represent something it is not. Imaginary beings are using something ( words or drawing or sculpture ) to represent something that doesn't exist or nothing. Math is all that. Numbers don't exist except in the imagination . Lines in geometry are infinitely long, but there are no infinitely long lines in reality , only in imagination.
Ancestor worship , original culture and language, are using things and words to represent people who no longer exist.
Kelly Smith: "Hmmmmmm I dig this concept. It reminds me of the a priori/a posteriori knowledge distinction, which I am a big fan of thinking about. In this vein, Stanford has a great philosophy site but this seems to be a pretty nice article too: http://www.iep.utm.edu/apriori/". Just for those who want more info cuz it's super fucking fascinating shit"
CB: Yes , I have an interest in a priori / a posteriori knowledge since my philosophy 101 teacher had us thinking about it ; Kantian issues .
Knowledge from ancestors is from experiences that are a priori to the living generation's experiences ; it is not spun out of thin air by the living individual.
As far as scientific knowledge, Newton said he stood on the shoulders of giants. The Giants were his dead scientist ancestors .
CB: For me , original human society (at least , 200,000 ya) is given qualitatively greater wisdom about the struggle for existence than any other species, even close species like chimps, because to a significant extent the living generation is able to share the experiences of many, many past dead generations. Instead of 50 living heads only , there are 1000 heads from the past inside the living 50 heads as language and culture.
YESS!!!!!! I think about this constantly!!! And the internet is such a fantastic bridge to the past and the future even, like whaaaattt
CB: Yes the Internet is a leap; as writing was a leap from the Stone Age.
Todd L. VanPool: Relevant article talking about the universality of ancestor worship...
Steadman, Lyle B., Craig T. Palmer, and Christopher F. Tilley. "The universality of ancestor worship." Ethnology 35.1 (1996): 63-76.
Emotions don't exist except in the imagination, correct?
Well, they often correspond to physiological changes. Changes in breathing, hormonal changes, and so forth. If someone hits your system with a lot of adrenaline or suppresses your thyroid hormone production, it will have consistent impacts on emotions for example. "Love" likewise corresponds to certain physiological responses. So, emotions are not completely imaginary, even if something like "love" exists in the mind.
We can track "love" through chemical changes to different areas of the brain. As well as fear, anger, lust and a host of basic human emotions.
Part of the emotion is memory, memory of a past sensation and accompanying memory then, no ?
Emotions are not imaginary. They are sensations and memories , both of which exist in the brain; are material . Memories correspond to past sensations. They are "images", drawings , recordings of past sensations. They are semi-symbols of those past sensations, the way a drawing is semi-symbolling
to represent what it depicts. A drawing is not what it represents , but it imitates, is not arbitrarily related to what it represents; not the way full symbols, like most words , do not imitate in anyway what they represent.
A major proportion of human memories are of symbols , especially words. Many memories of Culture as material, not mystical, "soul" transcending generationally the mortality of all individual Selves; cultural immortality, eternity , symbolized as gods.emotions are of words or concepts of emotions.
Since 6,000 years ago there is a lot of what you are talking about, Devin Boyd, I must agree with you completely on that.
I'm trying to use science to get to how human society was 200,000 years ago when our 23 chromosome pairs were set : original human nature in our genes. I'm thinking it was super peaceful among everybody in the 25 to 50 person bands, and peaceful between bands . They were organized based on kinship , family relations connecting everybody. The kinship was organized based on ancestor worship , tradition to dead ancestors of family .
Saturday, April 27, 2024
Right wing motive for opposing abortion is that it reduces the _white_ population , not an honest moral objection.
Wednesday, June 29, 2022
Racist motive of opponents to abortion revealed by Freudian slip
"And GOP Rep. Rodney Davis, one of the last moderates in the Republican caucus, fell to Trump-backed Rep. Mary Miller, who at a rally with the former president this weekend described the Supreme Court decision as “a victory for white life.” A spokesman said she meant to say “right to life.” Right wing motive for opposing abortion is that it reduces the _white_ population , not a moral objection.
Friday, April 26, 2024
Thursday, April 25, 2024
Sucheta’s womanifesto
“Trying to explain anything to a bunch of hostile post-modernists whose only argument against a dissenting opinion is to send dissenters to gulags is sort of useless, but at least I can say I tried. Sex is biological and gender is an oppressive patriarchal construct that attributes certain behaviour and roles on the basis of sex. Trying to bring in the question of people with genital defects, ambiguous genitalia and other biological defects which are very rare is a mere distraction. It's like saying that having sight isn't a normal, biological feature because some people are born blind.
Gender is oppressive because it has been used to restrict, confine and oppress women by mounting certain expectations on them and forcing various restrictions on them. Biology also plays a major role in the oppression of women. Women are often subjected to sexual violence, attempts to control their reproductive choices and they are vulnerable on account of their biology too. Scientific research has proved that there's no difference in male or female brains. The only difference between men and women lies in their reproductive functions.
Gender roles are oppressive even for men, to an extent. If a man chooses to discard masculinity and do whatever he pleases...wearing dresses or makeup, learning how to knit, etc., well, more power to him. Wearing dresses or makeup doesn't make someone a woman because being a woman isn't a feeling, it's a biological fact. In fact, there is no such thing as "feeling like a woman". If you subscribe to that line of thought, then you're actually validating gender roles, you're actually saying that gender is not a construct, that women feel and act a certain way, and men feel and act a certain way. It is this notion of gender essentialism that feminists have fought against. Women have fought for the right to work outside of their homes, to wear what they want to and behave however they want.
The transgender movement isn't breaking down gender. It's actually reaffirming gender stereotypes when men say they "feel like a woman". There's no such thing as feeling like a woman. Being a woman is not a feeling, unless you affirm gender roles and femininity. Liking things that are stereotypically associated with women doesn't make you a woman, it makes you a gender non-confirming man.
It is also ridiculous that having lived lives steeped in male privilege, men now tell women how to be feminist. In many feminist conferences, "trans women" have prevented women from discussing periods, childbirth, contraception, even breast feeding because they find it triggering. They insist on not respecting the right of women to organise independently. Anyone who criticises them is threatened with violence, rape etc. which is typical male behaviour. This movement runs parallel to the MRA movement. When trans people complain about violence and oppression, let me point out that that violence is committed against them by men, not women. Yet they spend all their energy fighting feminists. The MRAs love this!
Does this somehow mean I hate so-called transpeople? I don't. I want all people to be free from all oppression and violence. But I will not have a man tell me what a woman is. Patriarchy has done that for thousands of years and the trans movement is its glorious descendant. It's interesting to note that most trans people are "male to female" and mostly white.
The trans movement has effectively moved the left away from issues like labour rights, workers' movements etc. We are making a huge mistake by co-opting post-modern politics. We know have trans-racial people, trans-disabled people and trans-species people. This has opened up Pandora's box and the only people who have benefited are the powers-that-be.
If I'm banned for this post, so be it.”
“Trying to explain anything to a bunch of hostile post-modernists whose only argument against a dissenting opinion is to send dissenters to gulags is sort of useless, but at least I can say I tried. Sex is biological and gender is an oppressive patriarchal construct that attributes certain behaviour and roles on the basis of sex. Trying to bring in the question of people with genital defects, ambiguous genitalia and other biological defects which are very rare is a mere distraction. It's like saying that having sight isn't a normal, biological feature because some people are born blind.
Gender is oppressive because it has been used to restrict, confine and oppress women by mounting certain expectations on them and forcing various restrictions on them. Biology also plays a major role in the oppression of women. Women are often subjected to sexual violence, attempts to control their reproductive choices and they are vulnerable on account of their biology too. Scientific research has proved that there's no difference in male or female brains. The only difference between men and women lies in their reproductive functions.
Gender roles are oppressive even for men, to an extent. If a man chooses to discard masculinity and do whatever he pleases...wearing dresses or makeup, learning how to knit, etc., well, more power to him. Wearing dresses or makeup doesn't make someone a woman because being a woman isn't a feeling, it's a biological fact. In fact, there is no such thing as "feeling like a woman". If you subscribe to that line of thought, then you're actually validating gender roles, you're actually saying that gender is not a construct, that women feel and act a certain way, and men feel and act a certain way. It is this notion of gender essentialism that feminists have fought against. Women have fought for the right to work outside of their homes, to wear what they want to and behave however they want.
The transgender movement isn't breaking down gender. It's actually reaffirming gender stereotypes when men say they "feel like a woman". There's no such thing as feeling like a woman. Being a woman is not a feeling, unless you affirm gender roles and femininity. Liking things that are stereotypically associated with women doesn't make you a woman, it makes you a gender non-confirming man.
It is also ridiculous that having lived lives steeped in male privilege, men now tell women how to be feminist. In many feminist conferences, "trans women" have prevented women from discussing periods, childbirth, contraception, even breast feeding because they find it triggering. They insist on not respecting the right of women to organise independently. Anyone who criticises them is threatened with violence, rape etc. which is typical male behaviour. This movement runs parallel to the MRA movement. When trans people complain about violence and oppression, let me point out that that violence is committed against them by men, not women. Yet they spend all their energy fighting feminists. The MRAs love this!
Does this somehow mean I hate so-called transpeople? I don't. I want all people to be free from all oppression and violence. But I will not have a man tell me what a woman is. Patriarchy has done that for thousands of years and the trans movement is its glorious descendant. It's interesting to note that most trans people are "male to female" and mostly white.
The trans movement has effectively moved the left away from issues like labour rights, workers' movements etc. We are making a huge mistake by co-opting post-modern politics. We know have trans-racial people, trans-disabled people and trans-species people. This has opened up Pandora's box and the only people who have benefited are the powers-that-be.
If I'm banned for this post, so be it.”
On May 5, 1862, the Mexican army defeated the French in the Battle of Puebla. This prevented French Emperor Napoleon III from supplying weapons to the Confederacy during the Civil War. Napoleon III had planned to trade weapons for cotton with the Confederate states during France's invasion of Mexico.
On May 5, 1862, the Mexican army defeated the French in the Battle of Puebla. This prevented French Emperor Napoleon III from supplying weapons to the Confederacy during the Civil War. Napoleon III had planned to trade weapons for cotton with the Confederate states during France's invasion of Mexico.
How Cinco De Mayo Prevented the Confederacy's Win in the Civil War (https://www.businessinsider.com/how-cinco-de-mayo-prevented-the-confederacys-win-in-the-civil-war-2022-
On May 5, 1862, the Mexican army defeated the French in the Battle of Puebla. This prevented French Emperor Napoleon III from supplying weapons to the Confederacy during the Civil War. Napoleon III had planned to trade weapons for cotton with the Confederate states during France's invasion of Mexico.
https://www.businessinsider.com › ...
How Cinco De Mayo Prevented the Confederacy's Win in the Civil War (https://www.businessinsider.com/how-cinco-de-mayo-prevented-the-confederacys-win-in-the-civil-war-2022-5#:~:text=On%20May%205%2C%201862%2C%20the,during%20France's%20invasion%20of%20Mexico.)
Exposing transgenderism for what it is: A lie
Exposing transgenderism for what it is: A lie
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/equality-not-elitism/exposing-transgenderism-for-what-it-is-a-lie
By Kara Dansky September 21, 2022 06:00 AM
Gender blend There is a lot of talk in America today about “transgender rights.” News outlets talk about “transgender athletes ,” “transgender prisoners ,” and “transgender students .” Our society is steeped in debate about so-called transgenderism. However, I see very few people asking the question, “What does ‘transgender’ mean?” or “What exactly is ‘trans?’”
The crux of the matter is this: People across the political spectrum have been persuaded to accept that there is a coherent category of people for whom sex is irrelevant and that this category of people is called “transgender” (or simply “trans”). Democrats on the whole support “rights for ‘transgender people,’” and Republicans on the whole oppose allowing sex-confused people to hijack sex-specific spaces. But regardless of whether or not a person supports or opposes “rights for ‘transgender people,’” that person probably believes that there is such a category of people.
But there isn’t. “Trans” is a lie. It is a lie as big as the lie that the emperor is wearing clothes. He isn’t wearing clothes. He’s naked. He’s just too arrogant to acknowledge it, and everyone around him is too cowed to say so.
> To understand how transgenderism became so entrenched in our society despite its obvious distortions, one must first understand the philosophy from which it began. Starting in the 1970s, a group of people in academia started talking about postmodernism — a new philosophical and political movement that dismissed claims to objective fact and reason. It objected to the idea that anything could be grounded in material reality. One of its main proponents was Michel Foucault, a French philosopher who taught for a while at the University of California, Berkeley. Foucault was also, incidentally, a known pedophile who advocated the abolition of age-of-consent laws. For Foucault, age was just a construct, which meant that adults should be permitted to have sexual relationships with children.
Out of postmodernism came “queer theory,” the idea that biological sex is a social construct. Queer theorists in the 1990s argued from their ivory towers that the material reality of sex doesn’t exist and that it is a social construction meant to oppress. However, the “queer” theorists understood that if they tried to persuade ordinary people that sex isn’t real, they would have been (rightly) ridiculed and ignored. So they invented a new term: “transgender.” This term does exactly what it was intended to do — it persuades ordinary people that the material reality of biological sex isn’t real or, at least, that it doesn’t matter.
There very well may be people who sincerely suffer from what the DSM refers to as “gender dysphoria.” But it does not follow that it makes sense or is healthy for a society to allow people to “identify as” a gender different from their sex. In fact, doing so will only create more confusion and anxiety in those who are very often mentally vulnerable to begin with.
And before anyone asks, I am not a political conservative. I have always been a staunch leftist and, for as long as I can remember, a feminist. I registered as a Democrat the day I turned 18 years old, and I am still a registered Democrat (though I spent a short time as a registered member of the Green Party).
Some have pointed the blame at feminists for the rise of gender ideology. But that’s not a fair accusation. Actual feminists fight for the liberation of women and girls, by which we mean female human beings. Feminists aren’t confused about the category of human beings for whose liberation we fight. We are not confused about the category of people whose voting rights suffragists fought for (at great peril to their own safety). We are not confused about the category of people who are subjected to the horrific offense of female genital mutilation. (The word is right there.) When feminists complain about male violence against women, we aren’t confused about what the words “male” and “women” mean. Feminists didn’t create this “trans” monster. And we are more than willing to work with anyone, even those with whom we might generally disagree, to protect the sex-based rights of women.
The U.S. chapter of Women’s Declaration International, for example, of which I serve as president, works to advance the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights throughout U.S. law and society. We are nonpartisan and work with women across the political spectrum who agree with the principles outlined in the declaration. (We are also not shy about our support for abortion as a sex-based right for women and girls.)
Because of our opposition to gender ideology and the harms that it is doing to women, we are often smeared by the Left as traitors to progressivism. However, we are not the ones who abandoned progressive values. That crime belongs to the gender ideologues who are pushing an ideology that is politically regressive in every way. Indeed, “transgenderism” destroys the equality that women have achieved and actually enshrines harmful sex stereotypes in law, medicine, academia, and throughout all of society.
But that is exactly the goal of gender ideology: to take over our institutions and destroy from within any truth that grounds us to material reality, including biological sex. The entire edifice of “trans” is being driven by a vicious industry whose aim is to literally obliterate the reality of sex. This industry is a loose conglomeration of Big Tech, Big Pharma, medical supply companies, legacy media, and government agencies. I realize this sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it isn’t. This industry operates out in the open, from renowned children’s hospitals to legacy newsrooms to the White House itself.
Thankfully, more and more people are willing to speak up about this ideology and the damage it is doing to our society. But the only way we win this battle is if we push back as boldly and aggressively as the gender activists who pushed this on us in the first place. We have to tell the truth: “Transgenderism” isn’t real. “Gender identity” is a fake concept. The “transgender” emperor isn’t wearing any clothes.
Kara Dansky is the president of the U.S. chapter of Women's Declaration International and the author of the book "The Abolition of Sex: How the 'Transgender' Agenda Harms Women and Girls." She has a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School and a B.A. from Johns Hopkins University. Follow her on Twitter and Facebook and subscribe to her Substack .
Wednesday, April 24, 2024
In corporate circles, this pronounced and sustained shift was met with disbelief and then alarm. By 1971, future Supreme Court justice Lewis Powell felt compelled to assert, in a memo that was to help galvanize business circles, that the “American economic system is under broad attack.” This attack, Powell maintained, required mobilization for political combat: “Business must learn the lesson . . . that political power is necessary; that such power must be assiduously cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination—without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.” Moreover, Powell stressed, the critical ingredient for success would be organization: “Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations.”[3]
U.S. President Richard Nixon holds a commission that he will present to Lewis F. Powell Jr., left, and another will be given to William Rehnquist, right, at a White House ceremony in Washington, D.C., Wednesday, Dec. 22, 1971. Both Powell and Rehnquist are commissioned as Associate Justices of the Supreme Court and will take their oath Jan. 7, 1972. The two men were appointed to the Supreme Court by President Nixon. (AP Photo/Charles Tasnadi) U.S. President Richard Nixon holds a commission that he will present to Lewis F. Powell Jr., left, and another will be given to William Rehnquist, right, at a White House ceremony in Washington, D.C., Dec. 22, 1971. The two men were appointed to the Supreme Court by President Nixon. (AP Photo/Charles Tasnadi)
Powell was just one of many who pushed to reinvigorate the political clout of employers. Before the policy winds shifted in the ’60s, business had seen little need to mobilize anything more than a network of trade associations. It relied mostly on personal contacts, and the main role of lobbyists in Washington was to troll for government contracts and tax breaks. The explosion of policy activism, and rise of public interest groups like those affiliated with Ralph Nader, created a fundamental challenge. And as the 1970s progressed, the problems seemed to be getting worse. Powell wrote in 1971, but even after Nixon swept to a landslide reelection the following year, the legislative tide continued to come in. With Watergate leading to Nixon’s humiliating resignation and a spectacular Democratic victory in 1974, the situation grew even more dire. “The danger had suddenly escalated,” Bryce Harlow, senior Washington representative for Procter & Gamble and one of the engineers of the corporate political revival was to say later. “We had to prevent business from being rolled up and put in the trash can by that Congress.”[4]
Powell, Harlow, and others sought to replace the old boys’ club with a more modern, sophisticated, and diversified apparatus — one capable of advancing employers’ interests even under the most difficult political circumstances. They recognized that business had hardly begun to tap its potential for wielding political power. Not only were the financial resources at the disposal of business leaders unrivaled. The hierarchical structures of corporations made it possible for a handful of decision-makers to deploy those resources and combine them with the massive but underutilized capacities of their far-flung organizations. These were the preconditions for an organizational revolution that was to remake Washington in less than a decade — and, in the process, lay the critical groundwork for winner-take-all politics.
Businessmen of the World, Unite!
The organizational counterattack of business in the 1970s was swift and sweeping — a domestic version of Shock and Awe. The number of corporations with public affairs offices in Washington grew from 100 in 1968 to over 500 in 1978. In 1971, only 175 firms had registered lobbyists in Washington, but by 1982, nearly 2,500 did. The number of corporate PACs increased from under 300 in 1976 to over 1,200 by the middle of 1980.[5] On every dimension of corporate political activity, the numbers reveal a dramatic, rapid mobilization of business resources in the mid-1970s.
What the numbers alone cannot show is something of potentially even greater significance: Employers learned how to work together to achieve shared political goals. As members of coalitions, firms could mobilize more proactively and on a much broader front. Corporate leaders became advocates not just for the narrow interests of their firms but also for the shared interests of business as a whole.
Ironically, this new capacity was in part an unexpected gift of Great Society liberalism. One of the distinctive features of the big expansion of government authority in the ’60s and early ’70s was that it created new forms of regulation that simultaneously affected many industries. Previously, the airlines might have lobbied the Civil Aeronautics Board, the steel companies might have focused on restricting foreign competitors, the energy producers might have gained special tax breaks from a favorite congressman. Now companies across a wide range of sectors faced a common threat: increasingly powerful regulatory agencies overseeing their treatment of the environment, workers, and consumers. Individual firms had little chance of fending off such broad initiatives on their own; to craft an appropriately broad political defense, they needed organization.
Business was galvanized by more than perceived government overreach. It was also responding to the growing economic challenges it faced. Organization-building began even before the economy soured in the early 1970s, but the tumultuous economy of that decade — battered by two major oil shocks, which pushed up inflation and dragged down growth — created panic in corporate sectors as well as growing dissatisfaction among voters. The 1970s was not the economic wasteland that retrospective accounts often suggest. The economy actually grew more quickly overall (after adjusting for inflation) during the 1970s than during the 1980s.[6] But against the backdrop of the roaring 1960s, the economic turbulence was a rude jolt that strengthened the case of business leaders that a new governing approach was needed. When he penned his influential memo, Lewis Powell was chair of the Education Committee of the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber was one of a number of business groups that responded to the emerging threat by becoming much more organized. The Chamber doubled in membership between 1974 and 1980. Its budget tripled. The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) doubled its membership between 1970 and 1979.[7]
Of course, big business fought back as well. In 1972, three business organizations merged to form the Business Roundtable, the first business association whose membership was restricted to top corporate CEOs. In part at the urging of Bryce Harlow, lobbyist for Procter & Gamble, this new organization combined two groups focused on relatively narrow business issues with an informal organization called the March Group. The March Group had grown out of a meeting with top Nixon administration officials and prominent executives and was designed to bring together many of the nation’s most powerful CEOs. Within five years the new mega-organization had enlisted 113 of the top Fortune 200 companies, accounting for nearly half of the economy.[8]
The role of the business community not only grew but expanded, shifting into new modes of organization that had previously been confined to its critics. Recognizing that lawmaking in Washington had become more open and dynamic, business groups remade themselves to fit the times. The expanding network of business groups would soon be capable of hoisting the public interest groups on their own petards. Using rapidly emerging tools of marketing and communications, they learned how to generate mass campaigns. Building networks of employees, shareholders, local companies, and firms with shared interests (for example, retailers and suppliers), they could soon flood Washington with letters and phone calls. Within a few years, these classically top-down organizations were to thrive at generating “bottom up”–style campaigns that not only matched the efforts of their rivals but surpassed them.
These emerging “outside” strategies were married to “inside” ones. Business organizations developed lists of prominent executives capable of making personal contacts with key legislative figures. In private meetings organized by the Conference Board, CEOs compared notes and discussed how to learn from and outmaneuver organized labor. In the words of one executive, “If you don’t know your senators on a first-name basis, you are not doing an adequate job for your stockholders.”[10] Business also massively increased its political giving — at precisely the time when the cost of campaigns began to skyrocket (in part because of the ascendance of television). The insatiable need for cash gave politicians good reason to be attentive to those with deep pockets. Business had by far the deepest pockets, and was happy to make contributions to members of both parties. Clifton Garvin, chairman of both Exxon and the Business Roundtable in the early 1980s, summarized the attitude toward partisanship this way: “The Roundtable tries to work with whichever political party is in power. We may each individually have our own political alliances, but as a group the Roundtable works with every administration to the degree they let us.”[11]
The newly mobilized business groups understood that Democrats and Republicans could play distinct but complementary roles. As the party with a seemingly permanent lock on Congress, Democrats needed to be pried away from their traditional alliance with organized labor. Money was key here: From the late 1970s to the late 1980s, corporate PACs increased their expenditures in congressional races nearly fivefold. Labor PAC spending only rose about half as fast. In the early 1970s, business PACs contributed less to congressional races overall than labor PACs did. By the mid-1970s, the two were at rough parity, and by the end of the decade, business PACs were way ahead. By 1980, unions accounted for less than a quarter of all PAC contributions — down from half six years earlier. The shift was largest among Democrats, who were of course the most reliant on labor money: Nearly half of Senate incumbents’ campaign funds came from labor PACs in the mid-1970s. A decade later, the share was below one-fifth.[12]
Read the Powell Memo. (Download the PDF.) Footnotes 1. National Journal, 1974, 14.
2. David Vogel, Fluctuating Fortunes: The Political Power of Business in America (New York: Basic Books, 1989), 59; R. Shep Melnick, “From Tax-and-Spend to Mandate-and-Sue: Liberalism After the Great Society,” in The Great Society and the High Tide of Liberalism, Sidney Milkis and Jerome Mileur, eds. (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2005).
3. Lewis Powell, “Confidential Memorandum: Attack on the Free Enterprise System,” August 23, 1971, quoted in Kim Phelps-Fein, Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan (New York: Norton, 2009), 158, 160.
4. Thomas Byrne Edsall, The New Politics of Inequality (New York: Norton, 1984), 114.
5. Vogel, Fluctuating Fortunes, ch. 8.
6. Calculated from http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls.
7. Ibid., 198.
8. Vogel, Fluctuating Fortunes, 198; John Judis, The Paradox of American Democracy: Elites, Special Interests, and the Betrayal of Public Trust (Pantheon: New York, 2000), 121.
9. Quoted in Sidney Blumenthal, The Rise of the Counter-Establishment: From Conservative Ideology to Political Power (New York: Times Books, 1986), 80.
10. Quoted in Leonard Silk and David Vogel, Ethics and Profits: The Crisis of Confidence in American Business (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1976), 65.
11. Blumenthal, Rise of the Counter-Establishment, 78.
12. Taylor E. Dark, The Unions and the Democrats: An Enduring Alliance (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999), 149.
13. Vogel, Fluctuating Fortunes, ch. 8 1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)