Posts Tagged ‘Social Justice’

Can You Define “Social Justice”?

December 14, 2018

Can You Define “Social Justice”?

My title for this posting is a kind and soft question designed to illustrate a not-so-kind hard fact.

Radical liberals inflict “kind and compassionate” balderdash (“social justice”) upon us to further their own political agendas.

They make-up their own socialist definitions of this amorphous term. These political operatives are scoundrels bent upon creating a powerful socialist government in order to confiscate your money and redistribute it to whoever else they see fit. 

The scam is that they find ways to take your money, “in fairness to the poor and disadvantaged, and disenfranchised”, and give it to others so-defined in order to gain their votes and strengthen their own political power. 

Of course there are those who support “social justice” because it makes them feel kind and compassionate and/or; because they are simply uniformed about the long-term consequences, i.e, political corruption, identity citizen disorder, socialism, growing population dependency upon the government, national financial ruin and eventual anarchy.

I challenge you to see the following  video and learn about the “sweet’ vacuous propagandistic language of the radical left, now embedded within a growing segment of our population wittingly or unwittingly destroying freedom and independence in America.

V. Thomas Mawhinney, Ph.D., 12/14/18

France: A Specter Of America’s Future

March 10, 2014

France: A Specter Of America’s Future

Ginger was kind enough to send me the following thoughts in response to my blog on 3/8/14, entitled, America: Stuck In The Driveway.

“I agree with you that America needs to wake up.  We are all Americans.  I have grown weary of the attitudes that think they have to put everyone in a box.

I relate wholeheartedly to this text from the Hillsdale College mission statement:”

‘The College values the merit of each unique individual, rather than succumbing to the dehumanizing, discriminatory trend of so called “social justice” and “multicultural diversity,” which judges individuals not as individuals, but as members of a group and which pits one group against other competing groups in divisive power struggles.’

My response follows:


Thanks so very much for taking time to contribute to this blog. I love the quote you appended from the Hillsdale College Mission statement. When many people hear the terms “social justice” and “multicultural Diversity” they have a warm feeling.

If people would only study the deferred sociocultural consequences of these sweet sounding catch-phrases and the political philosophy they disguise, they would see the truth. They are a significant component of a systematic strategy to transform The United States America into The Socialist Republic of America. This process has been perpetrated by both progressive/socialist Democrats and Republicans and it has been frighteningly successful.

Tomorrow’s blog will provide a real-time specter of our not-too-distant future, should we fail to reverse current trends.

The following video is “tomorrows blog” and it requires no further explanation from me than you will derive from its viewing. Stand-by for a strong message from the French.

VTM, 3/10/14

Competition In Education Will Win!

February 15, 2012

Competition In Education Will Win!

The following is a great article on education, Obama’s proposed program to lower the costs of college. Two University of Michigan students debate the merits of this proposal. One is in favor of Obama’s big government supposed solution, the other student argues for free market competition in education.

I judge that the free market solution is the winner, as indicated in my remarks at the end of this article.

Please consider the following:     V. T. Mawhinney

Obama and Alinsky: Take From Haves and Give to Have-Nots

October 25, 2010

Obama and Alinsky: Take From Haves and Give to Have-Nots

In his pamphlet on this topic, “Rules for Revolution”, David Horiwitz documents the strong connection between President Obama and Saul Alinsky, the radical revolutionary.

On page 31, he quotes and interprets Alinsky:

Alinsky’s book could easily be called Machiavellian Rules for Radicals, after the man who devised principles of statehood and advice for rulers in his book, The Prince. In Alinsky’s view, the difference between the unethical behavior counseled by Machiavelli and the unethical behavior he would like to see practiced by radicals lies solely in the fact that their political enemies are different. ‘The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power,’ Alinsky writes, ‘Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-nots on how to take it away’.

For Alinsky, politics is a zero sum exercise, because it is war. No matter what Alinsky radicals say publicly or how moderate they appear, they are at war. This provides them with a great tactical advantage since other actors in the political arena are not at war. The other actors actually embrace the system, which commits all parties to compromise and to the peaceful resolution of conflicts. It commits them to a pragmatism of ends as well as means. Not every wish can be satisfied. By contrast, Alinsky radicals have an unwavering end, which is to attack the so-called Haves until they are finally defeated. In other words, to undermine the system that allows them to earn and possess more than others. Such a system, according to the radicals, is one of ‘social injustice,’ and what they want is ‘social justice.’ The unwavering end of such radicals is a communism of results.

End quote of David Horowitz.

V. Thomas Mawhinney, Ph.D.

To learn much more: Read the following: Click on Quick view.

Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model – Untitled

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
David Horowitz Freedom Center. PO Box 55089. Sherman Oaks, CA 91423. (800) 752-6562.…/Rules%20for%20Revolution%20(2).pdfSimilar

%d bloggers like this: