Cultural Marxism

I stay in trouble because I defy laws and rules and social conventions all the time. I assess means and needs, and act. Collectivism is mob management. But the world moves as billions, not one.
 
But the world moves as billions, not one.

Bullshit.

The world moves as billions of ones - reality can be no other way.

Individuals naturally make every collective possible, while every collective's insatiable nature is to absorb individuality into itself.

Collectivism simply by definition isn't negative - it's to what degree the collective displaces individuality that matters whether the collective is one of good, or evil (toward individuals and their natural right to liberty).

Government is the ultimate collective, and it neither is negative just by definition alone. In fact, collective government is a gift to civilized man...

...but only if that government is greatly limited in its power and scope by a constitution grounded by the individual liberty of its citizens above all else.

That is the cage Leviathan must be confined to else the zookeepers themselves be eaten alive.
 
Cooperation and association are simply not collectivism.



Do not conflate bottom up communities with top down directed communal living...
 
There is always a strain of thought that goes to the idea of, with proper governance and extensive education we can abrogate human nature, here the idea being that one world government would immediately ameliorate conflict between groups of people who identify along some sort of tribal, regional or racial relationship.

This, of course is nonsense. Because we live in a world of limited resource, some groups will always be more wanting than others and no amount of government/education will placate their united complaint because government is notoriously and demonstrably proven to be a very inefficient mechanism by which to distribute resources.
 
Bullshit.

The world moves as billions of ones - reality can be no other way.

Individuals naturally make every collective possible, while every collective's insatiable nature is to absorb individuality into itself.

Collectivism simply by definition isn't negative - it's to what degree the collective displaces individuality that matters whether the collective is one of good, or evil (toward individuals and their natural right to liberty).

Government is the ultimate collective, and it neither is negative just by definition alone. In fact, collective government is a gift to civilized man...

...but only if that government is greatly limited in its power and scope by a constitution grounded by the individual liberty of its citizens above all else.

That is the cage Leviathan must be confined to else the zookeepers themselves be eaten alive.

Let me do the heavy thinking, ROB, you stick to the heavy lifting.
 
Economist Thomas Sowell was trained in the nonsense that is Keynesnian theory. That somehow, taking resources out of productive use, filtering it through the sticky, inept fingers of civil servants will result in more wealth for all.

He was hired to work for the Feds and quickly realized that the overhead of bureaucracy is immense and cannot possibly be overcome by gains in efficiency, even if that was even in anyone's charter.

Obamacare is a microcosm for the mindset that somehow government demanding lower costs lowers the.

He said succinctly, "If we cannot afford healthcare, how are we going to afford all those same expenses plus a massive bureaucracy?"
 
There is always a strain of thought that goes to the idea of, with proper governance and extensive education we can abrogate human nature, here the idea being that one world government would immediately ameliorate conflict between groups of people who identify along some sort of tribal, regional or racial relationship.

This, of course is nonsense. Because we live in a world of limited resource, some groups will always be more wanting than others and no amount of government/education will placate their united complaint because government is notoriously and demonstrably proven to be a very inefficient mechanism by which to distribute resources.


Sure, but the motto of all Democrats ls: NOT MY JOB, MON

When the work starts, Democrats vanish

Democrats all believe they've done their part supervising the rest.
 
Sure, but the motto of all Democrats ls: NOT MY JOB, MON

When the work starts, Democrats vanish

Democrats all believe they've done their part supervising the rest.

.... and right here folks, is where discussion of Cultural Marxism took a right turn... Pun intended!.
 
Source: Frankfurt School - Wikipedia (but I doubt you will read it)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

'Cultural Marxism' in modern political parlance commonly refers to a conspiracy theory which sees the Frankfurt School as part of a contemporary movement within the political left to take over and destroy Western society.[52][53][54] Originally the term had a far less common, niche usage within Cultural Studies where it described The Frankfurt School's objections to forms of culture they saw as having been mass-produced and imposed from above by a top-down Culture Industry, which they claimed alienates the masses from developing a broader sense of their own cultural context and class interests.[55][56][57] Later theorists such as Stuart Hall of the Birmingham School adopted a "British Cultural Marxism" by which culture could be analyzed as consumed, decoded, produced, encoded and reproduced by multiple classes simultaneously; also known as the Encoding/decoding model of communication.[58] However, since the 1990s the term "Cultural Marxism" has been misappropriated by the paleoconservative movement as part of an ongoing Culture War where it refers to a conspiracy theory in which The Frankfurt School are seen as having engineered the downfall of western society using multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness as their methods.[53][59][60] This conspiracy theory version of the term is associated with American religious paleoconservatives such as William S. Lind, Pat Buchanan, and Paul Weyrich but also holds currency among alt-right/white nationalist groups and the neo-reactionary movement.[60][54][61]

Weyrich first aired his conception of Cultural Marxism in a 1998 speech to the Civitas Institute's Conservative Leadership Conference, later repeating this usage in his widely syndicated Culture War Letter.[60][62][63] At Weyrich's request William S. Lind wrote a short history of his conception of Cultural Marxism for The Free Congress Foundation; in it Lind identifies the presence of homosexuals on television as proof of Cultural Marxist control over the mass media and claims that Herbert Marcuse considered a coalition of "blacks, students, feminist women and homosexuals" as a vanguard of cultural revolution.[53][59][64] Lind has since published his own depiction of a fictional Cultural Marxist apocalypse.[65][66] Lind and Weyrich's writings on this subject advocate fighting Cultural Marxism with "a vibrant cultural conservatism" composed of "retroculture" fashions from the past, a return to rail systems as public transport and an agrarian culture of self-reliance modeled after the Amish.[53][66][67][68][69][70][71][excessive citations] Paul Weyrich and his protégé Eric Heubeck later openly advocated for a more direct form of "taking over political structures" by the "New Traditionalist Movement" in his 2001 paper The Integration of Theory and Practice written for Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation.[72][73][74]

In 1999 Lind led the creation of an hour-long program entitled "Political Correctness: The Frankfurt School".[75] Some of Lind's content went on to be reproduced by James Jaeger in his YouTube film "CULTURAL MARXISM: The Corruption of America" which wrongly attributes quotes from Pat Buchanan's "Death of the West" as having come from The Frankfurt School themselves.[76][77][78] The intellectual historian Martin Jay commented on this phenomenon saying that Lind's original documentary:


"... spawned a number of condensed textual versions, which were reproduced on a number of radical right-wing sites. These in turn led to a welter of new videos now available on YouTube, which feature an odd cast of pseudo-experts regurgitating exactly the same line. The message is numbingly simplistic: all the ills of modern American culture, from feminism, affirmative action, sexual liberation and gay rights to the decay of traditional education and even environmentalism are ultimately attributable to the insidious influence of the members of the Institute for Social Research who came to America in the 1930's."[75]

Dr. Heidi Beirich likewise claims the concept is used to demonize various conservative “bêtes noires” including "feminists, homosexuals, secular humanists, multiculturalist, sex educators, environmentalist, immigrants, and black nationalists."[79]

According to Chip Berlet, who specializes in the study of extreme right-wing movements, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory found fertile ground within the Tea Party movement of 2009, with contributions published in the American Thinker and WorldNetDaily highlighted by some Tea Party websites.[80][81][82]

The Southern Poverty Law Center has reported that William S. Lind in 2002 gave a speech to a Holocaust Denial conference on the topic of Cultural Marxism. In this speech Lind noted that all the members of The Frankfurt School were "to a man, Jewish", but it's reported that Lind claims not to "question whether the Holocaust occurred" and suggests he was present in an official capacity for the Free Congress Foundation "to work with a wide variety of groups on an issue-by-issue basis".[83][84]

Although it became more widespread in the late 1990s and 2000s, the modern iteration of the theory originated in Michael Minnicino's 1992 essay "New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness'", published in Fidelio Magazine by the Schiller Institute.[75][85][86] The Schiller Institute, a branch of the LaRouche movement, further promoted the idea in 1994.[87] The Minnicino article charges that the Frankfurt School promoted Modernism in the arts as a form of Cultural pessimism, and shaped the Counterculture of the 1960s after the Wandervogel of the Ascona commune.[85]

More recently, the Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik included the term in his document "2083: A European Declaration of Independence", which along with The Free Congress Foundation's "Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology" was e-mailed to 1,003 addresses approximately 90 minutes before the 2011 bomb blast in Oslo for which Breivik was responsible.[88][89][90] Segments of William S. Lind's writings on Cultural Marxism have been found within Breivik's manifesto.[91]

Philosopher and political science lecturer Jérôme Jamin has stated, "Next to the global dimension of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, there is its innovative and original dimension, which lets its authors avoid racist discourses and pretend to be defenders of democracy".[52] Professor and Oxford Fellow Matthew Feldman has traced the terminology back to the pre-war German concept of Cultural Bolshevism locating it as part of the degeneration theory that aided in Hitler's rise to power.[92] William S. Lind confirms this as his period of interest, claiming that "It [Cultural Marxism] is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I."[84]
 
I reported that post MiC because it violated forum policy on quotations.

Keep it simple, keep it short, keep it succinct and above and beyond all conversational and on topic, mostly keeping in mind where the conversation is at the moment you decided to hijack it.
 
Economist Thomas Sowell was trained in the nonsense that is Keynesnian theory. That somehow, taking resources out of productive use, filtering it through the sticky, inept fingers of civil servants will result in more wealth for all.

He was hired to work for the Feds and quickly realized that the overhead of bureaucracy is immense and cannot possibly be overcome by gains in efficiency, even if that was even in anyone's charter.

Obamacare is a microcosm for the mindset that somehow government demanding lower costs lowers the.

He said succinctly, "If we cannot afford healthcare, how are we going to afford all those same expenses plus a massive bureaucracy?"

Similarly, UG's go to hate guy, Ludwig Elder von Mises began his economic career as a Socialist, in the school of the Socialists of the Chair, and it was only through relentless pursuit of the truth, that he turned to the line of reasoning and economic thought that was to become known as the Austrian school.

I once posted a lengthy list of people who began just that way and I was one of them when I was younger, I really thought Socialism was the cure for selfish human behavior and now I realize and understand that selfishness is the root of sound economy and the tide that lifts all boats.
 
I've had my hands up too many Democrat skirts, and haven't met a Democrat girl yet.
 
Collectivism simply by definition isn't negative - it's to what degree the collective displaces individuality that matters whether the collective is one of good, or evil (toward individuals and their natural right to liberty).

Since when has anyone ever had a natural right to liberty?

I still don't think you can't define "natural rights" in any meaningful way that isn't demonstrable bullshit.

.... and right here folks, is where discussion of Cultural Marxism took a right turn... Pun intended!.

He's not wrong though. ;):D
 
^^^^Exactly. What a coincidence...the speaker used similar terms to yours,AJ. (see passage about the Constitution).

I also added two more captions from the talk, that clarify a bit more his stance :


"1.In the Constitution written by the Founding fathers, it meant that [...] came from the people, and handed to the government. And that the people were the supreme authority,of the sovereignty; they were the ones who created the government and the govt. was subject to Their will.
Because prior to that, it was from top-down until the Constitution was written, then suddenly it was from bottom-up.
Unfortunately, through imperceptible incremential changes, we've now reverted to the old style of government where the government is in charge, and we the people are told what to do by the government. "

Total horseshit!! This is the popular and convenient excuse for those people who don't like certain aspects of the government they have and are too lazy or who have actually convinced themselves that they are powerless to change it.

But as long as we have democratically elected senators and representatives we are never hopeless prisoners of our government -- and that is true even with respect to "unpopular" Constitutional interpretations of the Supreme Court. You want daily prayers in the public schools? Amend the First Amendment.

Not happy with the supremacy of federal law over state law when the two are in conflict? Go back and tinker with the 14th Amendment so that the 10th Amendment regrows some teeth.

And while we're on the subject, why is it that people who so loudly champion "individual liberty" sing a totally opposite tune when gay people assert the "right" to marry? Other than the offense to one's moral or religious sensibilities, what fucking business is it of yours or the governments as to who ultimately "burns in hell"?
 
G Edward Griffin is a fraud.

'Cultural Marxism' is a term invented by Euro-fascist groups to divide the working class.

It's not surprising that it would be taken seriously around here.
 
I'm more and more convinced every day that there should be an IQ test before anyone is allowed an internet connection.
 
As I said, "please fell free to attack the source".
He might be a conspiracy theorist, and one might not share his political stance, but some of the things that he said might apply in various circumstances.

Why not focus on those elements instead? One might call it cultural marxism or neoliberalism, crony capitalism or corporatism, or whatever they like.
My idiosyncratic interoretation of it (I might have gotten it wrong, of course) is that socialism in it's traditional pure sense is a good thing. But that unfortunately, currently we see too often the form of "socialism for the poor and crony capitalism for the rich".

1.Collectivism
The fact that the current movement towards globalization (the EU and UN being a microcosmos) involves mostly top-down decision making, often above the heads of nations.
Nowadays, governments are often biased towards serving primarily the interests of corporations. And that when it comes to sharing the burden, that only involves the little guy (particularly the middle class that is being gradually eviscerated).
- ie: Obamacare: the working and middle class were asked to share the responsibility, not the corporations
- the 2008 economic crash led to austerity measures for laypeople while bankers and Elite maintained their wealth


2.Traditional cultural institutions are gradually losing their meaning
- Religion
Strange trend nowadays in which mainstream religion is often derrided as a whole by new atheists like Sam Harris and so on. Instead of differentiating between the corrupt institutional elements from the functional, helpful parts.
- We are all for gay and transgender rights, particularly legalisation of gay marriages and decreasimg stigma and discrimination of transsgender individuals.
But we also see gender fluidity, the transgender bathroom movements and all sorts of ridiculou fads that aim to challenge traditional concepts. Instead of treating such individuals as minority groups whose rights should be respected, they are often converted to some strange sorts of 60's hip movements leading to conflicts between, as opposed to bridging gaps between groups.


That's not at all what I'm implying.

See point no. 2 above.
Instead of championing for the rights of oppressed minorities, some politicians currently use these issues in order to take away the rights of other minorities and to create further division and discord among the population.

Like the ridiculous move towards "let's take away women's rights to have privacy in certain areas and make all toilets unisex in order to champion for the rights of transgenders". Instead of just adding private toilets or other similar accomodations.



Your dumb-dumb diploma is not serving you well today. :(


attachment.php
 
Excellent argument.
Your brief statement just established, without a doubt that I have a low IQ and you have a high IQ.

And please don't join forces with the vulgar, uneducated masses (the likes of Emerson40).
At least you have an education and a brain and are able to come up with arguments, instead of littering threads with gifs and pics. (buttholes or not) like a third grader or a janitor.

Shut up, retard.
 
Back
Top