| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Give in and join the Glorious People's Revolution!
Vive le Galt!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Get involved in politics at the local level? What you shouldn't do is buy in to the idea that violence is justified because there is "no other way."
Edit: In this particular case, I'd start by researching the actual definition of Cultural Marxism, and by paying attention to who is trying to redefine it to what you appear to believe it to be.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
After watching this video, I've become deeply concerned about the state of things here in America. What can I do?
I stopped at the first blatant lie. That took 24 seconds. The first thing you can do is learn to spot lies better.
I stopped at the first blatant lie. That took 24 seconds. The first thing you can do is learn to spot lies better.
Maybe I missed it...what "lie" did you hear?
Just curious...
I'd go with stop watching or listening to right wing loons.
Name calling is a bit much...maybe the lad has some extreme views, but "loon"?...
And yet, he's entitled to his opinions, the same as you...of course, if you're ideology is rooted on the far left of the spectrum, most other political viewpoints could be considered "right-wing"...just sayin'...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is always good to understand ideologies and political systems to the best of your ability.
However, once he started having a go at feminism and the whole of the liberal arts, because what is taught there only radicalises the stupid masses, well, I question whether he has gone to uni. It is not that simple Jim.
Amongst the liberal arts, you find more than a few different types of people (this isn't exhaustive):
Radical leftists: who he is referring to and which are not the majority.
For the cause: those tied up in and susceptible to emotional causes and appeals. They are generally just a nuisance.
Careerists: they are getting their education for a job, they don't care about radical politics.
Scholars in the making: people really interested in the discussions and debates within the arts. They lean towards being more objective because they read widely enough to not be stupid.
Escapists or the half-interested majority: people there for a degree, but whom may change their degree a number of times, but which aren't that interested in the debates, or scholarship or career. "Perhaps I will change my major again."
Educators: a variant of the careerist. These are the people that are interested enough in the material and disciplines, but they will be drawn towards teaching more than anything. Pedagogy will be far more important than Marxism for them.
Centrists: unimpressed by the left or the right.
Writers hiding at uni: people that will actually go on to pursue non-academic writing as a career, but they are attending uni because it is expected of them or something they want to do. The world they will go to in their heads will be far more significant for them than Marxism.
The conservatives: whatever their discipline, this group rigidly reject Marxism and Socialism. Their information sources will be quite divergent to the leftists.
These are just some of the types of people you can find in the liberal arts. It is not all mind-controlled monkeys of Marxism.
So I find myself agreeing with Krensky.
|
And I've done my own research. What I'm not certain of is what I should do as a result of that research. I don't know how to implement the Non-Agression Principle in my life, and I know voting for third-party candidates is only good for a moral stand, as it won't affect who gets elected or public policy. I don't know how to avoid hedonism and irrational behavior in my life, without doing something drastic like becoming an ascetic hermit or something, and as a diagnosed Aspie, I'm practically hard-wired to be irrational.
Maybe try some Stoicism. Worked for me.
If you want to understand the hedonistic society around you, that you feel to be pulling you in undesirable directions, there is also a number of Marxist-influenced writers you could engage with. This may be taboo for you, but I care more about what people are saying and less about who says it (to the shock of some of my leftist colleagues). Have you heard of the Chicago school, Weber, Kolakowski, Johann Arnason, Ortega y Gasset?
There is so much you could read to grasp society and culture, your journey starts when you will.
I'd go with stop watching or listening to right wing loons.Name calling is a bit much...maybe the lad has some extreme views, but "loon"?...
And yet, he's entitled to his opinions, the same as you...of course, if you're ideology is rooted on the far left of the spectrum, most other political viewpoints could be considered "right-wing"...just sayin'...
I don't think the guy is a loon, just very wrong (from what I listened to).
|
|
It's more a concern about the picture this video paints: that we're tottering on the edge of societal and economic collapse that's been engineered by cultural Marxists since the end of the Second World War, and that a lot of the things I grew up believing in, like public education, LGBT rights, and state/federally funded programs like the ones that helped me find employment following high school and college, were all basically lies designed to undermine the fabric of the western world to usher in a new age of totalitarianism, and that by benefiting and contributing to these sorts of things, I've aided and abetted that collapse. That by getting a BA in English Literature for my four-year degree was a waste of my time, effort and money, and that my siblings are going down the same path with degrees in Music Therapy and Theater/Performing Arts. That things are going to all fall apart, and the Orwellian image of a boot stamping on a human face forever will soon become reality and it's partially my fault for that.
I don't know what's right and what's wrong anymore. I've raised concerns like these to my family, and they look at me like I'm nuts (my parents are both quite liberal, as they work for the local public school district, and my mother has always been a dedicated advocate for the rights and integration of people with neurological or developmental disabilities, such as myself).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I stopped at the first blatant lie. That took 24 seconds. The first thing you can do is learn to spot lies better.
Maybe I missed it...what "lie" did you hear?
Just curious...
That would be "where their are socialists, communists are never far behind."
Which is demonstrably false.
The vast majority of western and northern europe, are social democracies. They have never been communist states, and communism has never really stood a serious chance in these states.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I stopped at the first blatant lie. That took 24 seconds. The first thing you can do is learn to spot lies better.
Maybe I missed it...what "lie" did you hear?
Just curious...
That would be "where their are socialists, communists are never far behind."
Which is demonstrably false.
The vast majority of western and northern europe, are social democracies. They have never been communist states, and communism has never really stood a serious chance in these states.
Exactly. It's so obviously wrong that the speaker has to either know it and be deliberately lying or very paranoid.
Painted pictures can be lies, like if I painted myself with a giant ****.
Which is related to an internet vid claiming to really have the answers, and to summarise the arts and parts of society down to a few throw-away lines. Why? Because that is self-blowing, intellectual, self-blowing.
The west has been supposedly tottering on the edge of societal collapse for over a century. The literate and anxiety on this goes back further. Similar to Chinese communism, there have been naysayers that they would collapse for decades, but on the party endures.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's more a concern about the picture this video paints: that we're tottering on the edge of societal and economic collapse that's been engineered by cultural Marxists since the end of the Second World War, and that a lot of the things I grew up believing in, like public education, LGBT rights, and state/federally funded programs like the ones that helped me find employment following high school and college, were all basically lies designed to undermine the fabric of the western world to usher in a new age of totalitarianism, and that by benefiting and contributing to these sorts of things, I've aided and abetted that collapse.
I'm going to take just one thing here because, well, the amount of wrong in that quote is staggering.
Zousha, can you explain to me how LGBT rights undermine the fabric of the western world? How are they going to lead to the collapse of the economy and society? Give me the step by step here.
Or feminism.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any society that CAN be undermined by public education, equal rights for all, and the idea of "to each according to his need" SHOULD be undermined.
Goddess I hope this is a troll thread.
Praise Lamashtu.
|
|
It's more a concern about the picture this video paints: that we're tottering on the edge of societal and economic collapse that's been engineered by cultural Marxists since the end of the Second World War, and that a lot of the things I grew up believing in, like public education, LGBT rights, and state/federally funded programs like the ones that helped me find employment following high school and college, were all basically lies designed to undermine the fabric of the western world to usher in a new age of totalitarianism, and that by benefiting and contributing to these sorts of things, I've aided and abetted that collapse.I'm going to take just one thing here because, well, the amount of wrong in that quote is staggering.
Zousha, can you explain to me how LGBT rights undermine the fabric of the western world? How are they going to lead to the collapse of the economy and society? Give me the step by step here.
LGBT activism claims to advocate for equal rights but in doing so marginalizes and breaks up the biological family, which has historically been the most successful model due to the powerful bonding processes that happen biologically with a mother, father and child. What the cultural Marxists are doing is using feminist (and now the Men's movement too, which has been subverted by leftist thinking) and LGBT activism to attack the biological family in order to divide society and manufacture class conflict that they can then step in and solve. It's just one facet of other ways the leftists are allegedly doing everything they can to fan the flames of conflict in our society so we'll be tricked into giving them and the state more power over our lives and decisions.
More of the articles I've read and stuff can be found here.
Rocking Philosophy - RockingMrE's blog, which explains a lot of this stuff a lot better than I could, especially in regards to the dangers of feminism (to clarify, I'm not referring to actual gender equality, but rather the kinds of feminists like Valerie Solanas that tend to dominate modern feminist dialogue).
GirlWritesWhat - a female member of the Men's Rights movement and very eloquent speaker. Her video about how we've bred neoteny into our society and it's negatively impacting it due to neotenous individuals' disregard for reason in favor of emotion is particularly chilling.
Plus, Stefan Molyneux's stuff as well.
And no, I am not trolling. I am 100% seriously concerned over this.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You'll want to know your enemy.
I'd start here: http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/ - Capital is quite dense and it helps to have a guide. This is the underpinning of the whole marxist way of thought.
You'll then want to read Gramsci's work on cultural hegemony- how society is manipulated culturally to accept things. It's a bit trickier to track down, I'll try to find you a link.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those interested in learning more about so-called cultural Marxism, have a read. Did I just Godwin-by-proxy?
LGBT activism claims to advocate for equal rights but in doing so marginalizes and breaks up the biological family, which has historically been the most successful model due to the powerful bonding processes that happen biologically with a mother, father and child. What the cultural Marxists are doing is using feminist (and now the Men's movement too, which has been subverted by leftist thinking) and LGBT activism to attack the biological family in order to divide society and manufacture class conflict that they can then step in and solve. It's just one facet of other ways the leftists are allegedly doing everything they can to fan the flames of conflict in our society so we'll be tricked into giving them and the state more power over our lives and decisions.
So...gay people are being used as pawns by the "cultural marxists" in their quest to subvert the family and replace it with the state?
Makes perfect sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like Pan says the world has been supposed to end ever since homosapians started to tell stories.
Change happens and we live in interesting times for sure, but every generation has had to deal with change and interesting times.
Fear is a very useful tool in selling ideology. The best demagogues and fear/hate mongers make fiction look like fact, they cherry pick, and twist and misrepresent.
You will find the worst kind of people telling you you can restore values and traditions buy assigning blame to x group of people....
Disclaimer .... I lean towards Fabianism, I believe that social justice should take priority over state and I am an equalitarian.
|
|
LGBT activism claims to advocate for equal rights but in doing so marginalizes and breaks up the biological family, which has historically been the most successful model due to the powerful bonding processes that happen biologically with a mother, father and child. What the cultural Marxists are doing is using feminist (and now the Men's movement too, which has been subverted by leftist thinking) and LGBT activism to attack the biological family in order to divide society and manufacture class conflict that they can then step in and solve. It's just one facet of other ways the leftists are allegedly doing everything they can to fan the flames of conflict in our society so we'll be tricked into giving them and the state more power over our lives and decisions.So...gay people are being used as pawns by the "cultural marxists" in their quest to subvert the family and replace it with the state?
Makes perfect sense.
Essentially, yes, at least according to what I've been reading. I myself believe that everyone should have the same rights and freedoms, regardless of sexuality, but agree that the rights of one group, like gay people, shouldn't take precedence over the natural rights all people have.
It's not like the other political party's any better, since they merely replace Marxist collectivism with religious collectivism.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop and someone to accuse cultural marxists of being slaves to the reptilians.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Risk Society, Towards a New Modernity by Beck.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/assoc/bowling.html - Bowling Alone by Putnam.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biological family is nothing special (the extended family of the Mediterranean type differs considerably, but also seems to create people just fine) but for the conservatives, it is their sacred cow. To talk of manipulation, be careful Zousha you are not being made into a conservative puppet.
Gender norms can change without the society collapsing. Gender norms change constantly but slowly, because of the changes to language, media influences and political developments. Braudy put out a really good book on the changing nature of masculinities. Our current ideas on male and female, masculine and feminine (and what is the family norm) really do change with time. I am reminded of the example of Chevalier d'Andrieu, a French nobleman. Now today, footballers and roughnecks would consider this man a dandy, a fop (if they had that word in their vocabularly) and an effete homosexual. He has the record for killing the most people in France during a time of heavy duelling. An extremely brutal "man" but would be considered effete in our times. And despite his crazy antics, and all the other duellists killing eachother, on the society went.
Good call on Gramsci, got him on one of my shelves. Civilisation theory can be worthwhile, but a bit dense at times. Michael Mann, Ibn Khaldūn, Arnason whom I already mentioned, can get you into it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
LGBT activism claims to advocate for equal rights but in doing so marginalizes and breaks up the biological family, which has historically been the most successful model due to the powerful bonding processes that happen biologically with a mother, father and child. What the cultural Marxists are doing is using feminist (and now the Men's movement too, which has been subverted by leftist thinking) and LGBT activism to attack the biological family in order to divide society and manufacture class conflict that they can then step in and solve. It's just one facet of other ways the leftists are allegedly doing everything they can to fan the flames of conflict in our society so we'll be tricked into giving them and the state more power over our lives and decisions.So...gay people are being used as pawns by the "cultural marxists" in their quest to subvert the family and replace it with the state?
Makes perfect sense.
Essentially, yes, at least according to what I've been reading. I myself believe that everyone should have the same rights and freedoms, regardless of sexuality, but agree that the rights of one group, like gay people, shouldn't take precedence over the natural rights all people have.
It's not like the other political party's any better, since they merely replace Marxist collectivism with religious collectivism.
When are gays going to become the new elite nobility lording over us again? Is it soon?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And Simmel - The Metropolis and Modern Life - http://www.altruists.org/static/files/The%20Metropolis%20and%20Mental%20Lif e%20%28Georg%20Simmel%29.htm
The deepest problems of modern life derive from the claim of the individual to preserve the autonomy and individuality of his existence in the face of overwhelming social forces...
Those all should get you started on understanding the forces at work.
That old iron cage.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When are gays going to become the new elite nobility lording over us again? Is it soon?LGBT activism claims to advocate for equal rights but in doing so marginalizes and breaks up the biological family, which has historically been the most successful model due to the powerful bonding processes that happen biologically with a mother, father and child. What the cultural Marxists are doing is using feminist (and now the Men's movement too, which has been subverted by leftist thinking) and LGBT activism to attack the biological family in order to divide society and manufacture class conflict that they can then step in and solve. It's just one facet of other ways the leftists are allegedly doing everything they can to fan the flames of conflict in our society so we'll be tricked into giving them and the state more power over our lives and decisions.So...gay people are being used as pawns by the "cultural marxists" in their quest to subvert the family and replace it with the state?
Makes perfect sense.
Essentially, yes, at least according to what I've been reading. I myself believe that everyone should have the same rights and freedoms, regardless of sexuality, but agree that the rights of one group, like gay people, shouldn't take precedence over the natural rights all people have.
It's not like the other political party's any better, since they merely replace Marxist collectivism with religious collectivism.
More likely the cultural Marxists will dispose of them to create "order" once they reach the Normalization stage of their subversion, where they're in power and can do as they please.
The biological family is nothing special (the extended family of the Mediterranean type differs considerably, but also seems to create people just fine) but for the conservatives, it is their sacred cow. To talk of manipulation, be careful Zousha you are not being made into a conservative puppet.
Well, that's sort of why I came out with this question. To get other opinions and see if I'm being led astray in a different direction. Like I said, I'm confused about what's right and what's wrong now. This guy's videos shook up my worldview, and I'm not certain how to evaluate my decisions and morality in the face of that.
I fully support the rights of LGBT families, and there ARE studies showing that they're more stable than things like single-parent families and certainly better than foster care. But they face additional challenges due to lacking the same biochemical reactions that occur during a child's formative years. It's not that the biological family is BETTER and that LGBT families are BAD. It's that biological families work more easily due to the biological processes involved along with kin altruism.
Gender norms can change without the society collapsing. Gender norms change constantly but slowly, because of the changes to language, media influences and political developments. Braudy put out a really good book on the changing nature of masculinities. Our current ideas on male and female, masculine and feminine (and what is the family norm) really do change with time. I am reminded of the example of Chevalier d'Andrieu, a French nobleman. Now today, footballers and roughnecks would consider this man a dandy, a fop (if they had that word in their vocabularly) and an effete homosexual. He has the record for killing the most people in France during a time of heavy duelling. An extremely brutal "man" but would be considered effete in our times. And despite his crazy antics, and all the other duellists killing eachother, on the society went.
That's a very good point. I will admit that RockingMrE's stance IS very reactionary against feminism and men's rights, even if he himself is relatively moderate compared with other Libertarian philosophers I've looked at, like Stefan Molyneux. I started getting a bit suspicious of him around the time he made the assertion that Senator Joseph McCarthy is the victim of a leftist smear campaign.
Good call on Gramsci, got him on one of my shelves. Civilisation theory can be worthwhile, but a bit dense at times. Michael Mann, Ibn Khaldūn, Arnason whom I already mentioned, can get you into it.
Looks like I've got a lot more reading to do.
I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop and someone to accuse cultural marxists of being slaves to the reptilians.
I think that Mike Myers has this covered
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problem: Marxists aren't united.
Truly their squabbles and inability to get along are legendary.
Secondary problem: even when they can introduce new words into the larger vocabulary and have some influence, they are still disliked by a great many cohorts and segments of classes. Labourers, bureaucrats, police, military.
To me it seems like you can see this one Marxist horse in the race. Problem is, there is not only one Marxist horse (one guy above mentioned the social democrats) and the Marxist horses are not the only horses in the political-cultural race. Who do you think are writing your sources? They aren't the Marxists, they are the competitors to the Marxists. There is fear-mongering against Marxists going on here (and not all Marxists are bad/wrong/evil so be careful of buying that bit of opinion).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hard to take the rockin' dude with the Aerosmith shirt who doesn't seem to know the difference between Communism and Socialism very seriously.
I hope this thread dies by falling off a cliff onto a bunch of bullets.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What does it even mean to be a Marxist in this day and age?
I see the world--history, society, current events--through the perceptive lens that all conflicts are conflicts of class and of power disparity. I'd consider myself a MarxIAN, in this respect, but politically I'd consider myself a fiscally moderate, reformist progressive.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You should find gramsci's work interesting - he was a journalist and a marxist in Italy. He was considered so intelligent and dangerous that at trial his prosecutor said that "For twenty years we must stop this brain from functioning".
So, he gets thrown into jail by Mussolini, he's sick and dying, and looking back on his life, trying to make sense of why the worker's revolution he was a part of failed and why the Fascists rose to power instead.
It is exactly the thought processes of a marxist grappling with how to change society the next time around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hard to take the rockin' dude with the Aerosmith shirt who doesn't seem to know the difference between Communism and Socialism very seriously.
I hope this thread dies by falling off a cliff onto a bunch of bullets.
Being able to tell the difference between the two as well as the flavours in between seems to be a problem for a lot of Americans.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
... a lot of the things I grew up believing in, like public education, LGBT rights, and state/federally funded programs like the ones that helped me find employment following high school and college, were all basically lies designed to undermine the fabric of the western world to usher in a new age of totalitarianism, and that by benefiting and contributing to these sorts of things, I've aided and abetted that collapse. That by getting a BA in English Literature for my four-year degree was a waste of my time, effort and money, and that my siblings are going down the same path with degrees in Music Therapy and Theater/Performing Arts.
Democracy is about the rule of the people. When you think "hey, I like the idea of public education. Let's get that!" and enough people agree, then you have democracy. If this is considered a 'Marxist' idea, who cares? The people are creating a system that they want, and that they selected themselves. They wanted public education, they got public education. The people decided that employment programs were a good thing, so they developed and supported them.
The whole 'bashing liberal arts' thing confuses me. (As an aside - isn't philosophy a liberal art?) Learning how to do things other than science is not a problem. Your BA in English lit will not usher in the collapse of the world as you know it, nor was it a waste. It means that you learned When we stop learning and thinking, that is when the problem starts. Education should not be indicated as the enemy of society - it built society as we know it.Really, I find the whole "things that we acknowledge as good in society were actually just put in place as the bait in a trap set up by a spooky power that is trying to destroy everything" too much like conspiracy theory thinking. Socialism is not a dirty word. Just take a look at Norway, most of Europe, at that, or even your friendly neighbours from up north. We get along just fine, and our society is not crumbling around our ears.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Women's right have an extremely strong correllation with economic growth, progress and stability.
In the US and Europe, women have relatively strong protections and rights, compared to places like Central Asia, Africa and parts of Asia.
Micro-lending institutions have found that lending money to men in developing nations is largely a waste of time. Lending the money to women results in economic growth and reductions in poverty.
So yeah, feminism is good for civilization.
[or even your friendly neighbours from up north. We get along just fine, and our society is not crumbling around our ears.
Thats just what a cultural Marxist WOULD say.
Stalinists are a very radical fringe in this discussion, but the video seems to paint all Marxists as Stalinists. Or the leftists behind feminism (which has its own streams, not all of them radical) and LGBT activists as also Stalinists, or they are really backing the Stalinists as they pursue their own stream, which is not Stalinism. It really gets confusing.
Some people like the idea of being a dictator, but there is a long way to go for the claims of the video to follow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's always interesting that someone claiming a conspiracy might be possible is called a loon.
Do you, explicitly and implicitly, believe everything that everyone in power says? Probably not. At the very least, I pity you if you do. Those in power are there because they WANT to be there. And they want to be there because there is OPPORTUNITY in being there. Only... the people have expectations of what their elected representatives should be doing and what they should NOT be doing, which limits opportunity. Thus, there will always be profit in doing stuff under the radar. More than that, nothing that would seriously limit this possibility would ever be signed into law by these people. It's not rocket science, right?
Now... what would such a conspiracy consist of? At one level, it's just one public representative acting in his or her own self-interest, without any sort of thought of "hey, let's oppress the masses!" But, at another level, these people don't live in a vacuum. They talk with one another, they have interrelations, they have dynastic families, they write for one another and read and discuss what others have written. In this lies a fundamental influence, which most likely translates into "what those in power like and want, will find expression in the systems they operate in, and what they do not like will not." Whether there is anything more organized than this really does not matter, the effects are the same.
So what do they want? Salaries, fringe benefits, money, influence, power to shape the world around them, loyalty from those below them, approval from those above them, positions for their friends, future retreat posts where they can relax once their careers are over. Now, the best way of getting these things is to create LARGE governing bodies. Smaller units get ordered beneath new, bigger governing bodies, which provides new positions, new budgets, new ways to influence.
The sad part is... this is not something that has been going on for 60 years. It's been going on for as far back as there has been any kind of recognizable human society. We have gone from villages, to city states, to regions, to nations, to supranational entities. Wherever there has been someone in power, there have been expressions of the drive to create bigger political units.
Nor is it all bad. With bigger units has come widening circles of communications and understanding. Murder, for example, is at an all-time low, and has been so for a very long time now.
Just please, please don't harp about lizards. Not everyone who sees patterns is a b~*++#@ insane freak, okay? It is entirely possible that your inability to see them is the defect.