BASICS: POLITICAL MEANS AND ENDS | nationalsalvation.net
In the 1950s, every student had to learn the difference between "socialism" and "communism." Every college student could parrot that, while socialist GOALS could be the same, professors who were socialists did not advocate violent MEANS to that end
One high State Department official said he had a problem with this back in the late 40s when he filled out his Federal job application. A question on it was, "Have you or any member of your family ever advocated the overthrow of the United States Government by force or violence?"
He had a little trouble when he replied, "Yes."
His grandfather was still alive and his grandfather was a Confederate veteran.
But note the question was not, "Are you a Communist?" There was a LOT of legal maneuvering then. The Federal Courts ruled that a person could be fired from his job for being a member of the Klan or other "hate" organizations accused of violent intent, but no one could be fired for being a Communist who openly advocated the violent overthrow of the government and the violent seizure of all property.
As we all know, this court law is the one that governs our society.
On the left, one simply has to make it impossible to prove that one is ENGAGED in promoting actual and specific violence. On the left, the ENDS make no difference at all.
On the right, the MEANS make no difference at all. The GOAL of preserving the white race opens the door to any action anyone wants to take.
This policy is, as usual, most fanatically supported by respectable conservatives. William Buckley kept whining to liberals that he wouldn't hire anyone they called a racist. So why were Major New York Times writers openly not only pro-Communist, but pro-Stalinist?
The simple answer, of course, would be, "Largely because of prostitutes like you."