The People's Glossary™

User avatar
I don't have the patience to read all that when there are capitalists arround to be beaten. I'll read this later...



User avatar

An appendage only the ruling eliets are allowed for its power is too much for the masses to safley use.



Theory vs. Throey
Politics Student wrote:Prat

The People who made this website, who seem to have no idea about Political Throey or Thought.

You're right. We have no idea about "Political Throey". It sounds quite abstruse and esoteric, though. Our interest is definitely piqued. Perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten us, o' sapient one. Please bring us out of the throes of ignorance...



pot pie

A soviet (Russian: сове́т) originally was a workers' local council in late Imperial Russia. The first soviet (in this sense) was created in Saint Petersburg in January 1905 by workers meeting in the apartment of Voline. The councils and the term later were adopted by the Bolsheviks, who saw it as the basic organizing unit of society....

...much like Rick Warren's 'Purpose Driven Church' and cell groups that also meet in living rooms and must agree to not "be bothered by facts"...



User avatar
First of all, I don't think that arming bears is that great of an idea. All we need is a radical group of crazed bears killing our useful idiot hippies who go communing with nature.
Personally, I take my second amendment right seriously, and have several stuffed bear arms above the mantelpiece in my new hunting lodge in one of this countries national parks.
Lastly, I find it a coincidence that the bear is not only the symbol for soviet power, but also the mascot of California.



User avatar
Ah, yes, Potemkingrad will save the humyn race - the progressive portion of it, that is to say.



User avatar

I was browsing through the People'sGloassaryTM and I could not find a definition for the term Tolerance. Because this word is the capstone of most socialist philosophies and it the typical entry point during their assimilation of other societies, I thought it would be appropriate to try and define it for the Cube.

For your consideration for the People's GlossaryTM the word Tolerance defined.


Is a major tool in The Party's armormentarium that is frequently employed in social, cultural and religious contexts to describe attitudes and practices that prohibit discrimination against those practices or group memberships that may be disapproved of by those in the majority.

The Party understands that Liberal Tolerance is a duplicitous term and it is not what it appears to be when taken for face value. This subtle verbal weapon which can be applied in multiple circumstances by trained Party Officials is actually a partisan philosophical perspective with its own set of dogmas specifically set against the principles of Conservatism.

The term Tolerance of course assumes a relativistic view of moral and religious knowledge. This assumption has been used to carefully indoctrinate the way many people think about issues such as homosexuality, abortion rights, and religious truth claims, leading them to believe that a liberally tolerant posture concerning these issues is the correct one and that by its very nature ought to be reflected in our laws and customs. However, the oblivious "feel-good" masses do not realize that this posture is actually very dogmatic, intolerant, and coercive, for it asserts that there is only one correct view on these issues, and if one does not comply with it, one will face public ridicule, demagogic tactics, and perhaps legal reprisals. The hidden but logical deduction would be that Liberal Tolerance is neither liberal nor tolerant.

By absolute necessity Liberal Tolerance is grounded in relativism, the view that no one point of view on moral and religious knowledge is objectively correct for every person in every time and place. This notion, as force-fed into popular culture by our Mainstream Media, depends heavily on pluralism, the reality of a plurality of different and contrary opinions on religious and moral matters.

This convoluted and mired thinking process creates a wondrous backdrop which works to our advantage. It causes the unsuspecting in our culture to conclude that one cannot say that one's view on religious and moral matters is better than anyone else's view. For example, they assert that it is a mistake to claim that one's religious beliefs are exclusively correct and that believers in other faiths, no matter how sincere or devoted, hold false beliefs. Thus, religious inclusivism is the correct position to hold. Relativism, pluralism, and religious inclusivism are the backbones in our creed of Liberal Tolerance. Tolerance masquerades as open, tolerant, and liberating, but in reality is dogmatic, partisan, and coercive and does not and cannot tolerate any rivals.



User avatar
HUMAN RIGHTS: n. Any service provided by the government at the taxpayers' expense. See Healthcare, Housing, Abortion, Shovel-Ready Projects.



User avatar
I received an interesting email today regarding our definition of Islam in Gramscian terms:


Today's most progressive, politically correct religion of choice. Its popularity with the Western liberals following the attacks on America has caused the cultural elites to give up Buddhism, Daoism, Paganism, and other progressive cults in favor of Islam. Following Gramsci's teaching, we are currently working on helping the world's Muslim populations to accept our definition of them as an oppressed minority under the umbrella of international Marxism. There currently are about 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, many of whom pray daily for the destruction of Jews and Israel. It is mandatory, therefore, for all progressive organizations to display a fervent support for the Palestinian struggle, its goals, and methods, and to denounce Zionism as the greatest evil, likening the Jews to the Nazis. The opportunity to recruit 1.2 billion Muslim supporters is just too good to let go; if that means watching a few million Jews being pushed into the sea and drown, we say it's all for The Greater Good™.
The email said:
Gramsci predicted Islam would collapse within a few years of being freed from the colonial rule of Britain and France, because Islam was a product of the agricultural system of production. The point is once Egypt, Algeria, etc., became independent, they would become industrialized, and everyone's workaday behavior would first soften, then rinse out Islam. Gramsci expected Islam to be less relevant than stamp collecting is now, to the populations of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, etc. by 1980 or so.
A quick Google search on this produced no results. Of course, Marxists aren't known for parading their many erroneous predictions. But if this is confirmed, it'll be another spectacular proof of the delusional nature of Marxist "science," especially given Gramsci's prominent position in modern-day Marxist pantheon.

Marxists have mastered the art of raising hell, but to what end? None of their plans to reorganize the society have worked as predicted. Could it be that they, like Gramsci, are delusional about the inner workings of human cultures?

If someone can find a good reference to Gramsci's predictions regarding Islam, please post it here or send me an email to