Need Freeper help...

[Maverick68]

I am having trouble remembering something. Was it Marx or Hitler that said, and I'm paraphrasing, "when they disagree with you, call them racists to stop any argument."

[tiger-one]

Google it

[dirtboy]

'Why should I respond to Kautsky? If I did that, the Kautsky would respond to my response, and then I would have to respond to his response, and so on. All I have to do is say that Kautsky is an enemy of the people, and everyone will understand everything.'

N. Lenin

[raybbr]

I can't answer your question but here is a dissertation on the use of the accusation of racism in modern politics.

The Path to National Suicide by Lawrence Auster (1990)

An essay on multi-culturalism and immigration.

Click the Pic!!!!

How can we account for this remarkable silence? The answer, as I will try to show, is that when the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was being considered in Congress, the demographic impact of the bill was misunderstood and downplayed by its sponsors. As a result, the subject of population change was never seriously examined. The lawmakers’ stated intention was that the Act should not radically transform America’s ethnic character; indeed, it was taken for granted by liberals such as Robert Kennedy that it was in the nation’s interest to avoid such a change. But the dramatic ethnic transformation that has actually occurred as a result of the 1965 Act has insensibly led to acceptance of that transformation in the form of a new, multicultural vision of American society. Dominating the media and the schools, ritualistically echoed by every politician, enforced in every public institution, this orthodoxy now forbids public criticism of the new path the country has taken. “We are a nation of immigrants,” we tell ourselves— and the subject is closed. The consequences of this code of silence are bizarre. One can listen to statesmen and philosophers agonize over the multitudinous causes of our decline, and not hear a single word about the massive immigration from the Third World and the resulting social divisions. Opponents of population growth, whose crusade began in the 1960s out of a concern about the growth rate among resident Americans and its effects on the environment and the quality of life, now studiously ignore the question of immigration, which accounts for fully half of our population growth.

This curious inhibition stems, of course, from a paralyzing fear of the charge of “racism.” The very manner in which the issue is framed—as a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus “racism” on the other—tends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject. One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences. Instead of saying: “We believe in the equal and unlimited right of all people to immigrate to the U.S. and enrich our land with their diversity,” what if they said: “We believe in an immigration policy which must result in a staggering increase in our population, a revolution in our culture and way of life, and the gradual submergence of our current population by Hispanic and Caribbean and Asian peoples.” Such frankness would open up an honest debate between those who favor a radical change in America’s ethnic and cultural identity and those who think this nation should preserve its way of life and its predominant, European-American character. That is the actual choice—as distinct from the theoretical choice between “equality” and “racism”—that our nation faces. But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice.

[Mad Dawg]

Marx, Hitler, Hillary, it was one of them, I'm sure ....

[VictoryGal]

I doubt it was either since both were open racists.

[Sherman Logan]

What you said.

Of course, in Marx's time racism was taken for granted, and viewed as scientific, modern and all other good things. Only fruitcakes were non-racist.

Hitler certainly wouldn't have said it, as he built his entire ideology on racism.

[Just A Nobody]

Great post!

when the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was being considered in Congress, the demographic impact of the bill was misunderstood and downplayed by its sponsors.

As a result, the subject of population change was never seriously examined. The lawmakers’ stated intention was that the Act should not radically transform America’s ethnic character; indeed, it was taken for granted by liberals such as Robert Kennedy that it was in the nation’s interest to avoid such a change.

"The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants.
It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society.
It will not relax the standards of admission.
It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."
- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA.)U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965.

Liar then...liar now.

But the dramatic ethnic transformation that has actually occurred as a result of the 1965 Act has insensibly led to acceptance of that transformation in the form of a new, multicultural vision of American society.

[Maverick68]

I've tried to Google it, to no avail...

[Just A Nobody]

I did a search using dogpile and came up with zip...?

Are you sure the quote was not from the DNC handbook?

No-I AM serious!

[Rodney King]

I'm sure it was neither.