PDA

View Full Version : Cultural Marxism



Tom Montgomery
09-04-2017, 01:56 PM
Aquinian claimed the SPLC is Marxist.

Here is what the SPLC has to say about the currently popular right-wingnut meme "Cultural Marxism":



Television commentator Pat Buchanan says it is being used to "de-Christianize" America. Washington heavyweight William Lind claims it is turning U.S. college campuses into "ivy-covered North Koreas." Retired naval commander Gerald Atkinson fears it has invaded the nation's military academies. Immigration activist John Vinson suggests it aims "to distort and destroy" our country.



"Cultural Marxism," described as a conspiratorial attempt to wreck American culture and morality, is the newest intellectual bugaboo on the radical right. Surprisingly, there are signs that this bizarre theory is catching on in the mainstream.

The phrase refers to a kind of "political correctness" on steroids — a covert assault on the American way of life that allegedly has been developed by the left over the course of the last 70 years. Those who are pushing the "cultural Marxism" scenario aren't merely poking fun at the PC excesses of the "People's Republic of Berkeley," or the couple of American cities whose leaders renamed manholes "person-holes" in a bid to root out sexist thought.

Right-wing ideologues, racists and other extremists have jazzed up political correctness and repackaged it — in its most virulent form, as an anti-Semitic theory that identifies Jews in general and several Jewish intellectuals in particular as nefarious, communistic destroyers. These supposed originators of "cultural Marxism" are seen as conspiratorial plotters intent on making Americans feel guilty and thus subverting their Christian culture.

In a nutshell, the theory posits that a tiny group of Jewish philosophers who fled Germany in the 1930s and set up shop at Columbia University in New York City devised an unorthodox form of "Marxism" that took aim at American society's culture, rather than its economic system.

The theory holds that these self-interested Jews — the so-called "Frankfurt School" of philosophers — planned to try to convince mainstream Americans that white ethnic pride is bad, that sexual liberation is good, and that supposedly traditional American values — Christianity, "family values," and so on — are reactionary and bigoted. With their core values thus subverted, the theory goes, Americans would be quick to sign on to the ideas of the far left.

The very term, "cultural Marxism," is clearly intended to conjure up xenophobic anxieties. But can a theory like this, built on the words of long-dead intellectuals who have little discernible relevance to normal Americans' lives, really fly? As bizarre as it might sound, there is some evidence that it may. Certainly, those who are pushing the theory seem to believe that it is an important one.

"Political correctness looms over American society like a colossus," William Lind, a principal of far-right political strategist Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation (https://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2003/summer/into-the-mainstream) and a key popularizer of the idea of cultural Marxism, warned in a 1998 speech. "It has taken over both political parties and is enforced by many laws and government regulations. It almost totally controls the most powerful element in our culture, the entertainment industry. It dominates both public and higher education. ... It has even captured the clergy in many Christian churches."

From PC to Cultural Marxism

The idea of political correctness — the predecessor of the more highly charged concept of cultural Marxism — was popularized by the mass media in the early 1990s, highlighted by a 1991 speech by the first President Bush in which he warned that "free speech under assault throughout the United States." By the end of 1992, feature stories on the phenomenon had appeared in [I]Newsweek, New York magazine, The New Republic, Atlantic Monthly and the New York Review of Books.

The Wall Street Journal, whose editorial writers had recklessly pilloried a University of Pennsylvania academic as the personification of political correctness, said it posed a "far worse ... threat to intellectual freedom" than McCarthyism. In the pages of The Washington Times (see 'Defending Dixie' (https://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2003/summer/defending-dixie)), Heritage Foundation scholar Laurence Jarvik wrote angrily that "storm troopers" were attacking "Western culture."

Of course, the phrase was basically a politically charged construct that was used to mock the left and even liberals. Challenges to gender bias, efforts to diversify the nation's universities, and similar policies were dismissed as attempts to turn the universities into "gulags" under the thumbs of left-wing thought police. The term was used to attack ideas while avoiding any discussion of their merits.

Although he didn't use the words "cultural Marxism," white nationalist Pat Buchanan (see description of The American Cause (https://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2003/summer/into-the-mainstream?page=0,1#1)), helped frame the debate as a "culture war" in his inflammatory speech in support of the first President Bush's nomination for reelection at the 1992 GOP convention in Houston.

"There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America," Buchanan said in his nationally televised address. "It is a cultural war, as critical to the nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself."

But it may be William Lind, who has long worked at the Free Congress Foundation that his ally Paul Weyrich founded, who has done the most to define the enemies who make up the so-called "cultural Marxists." Ultimately, this enemy has come to embody a whole host of Lind's bęte noires — feminists, LGBT people, secular humanists, multiculturalists, sex educators, environmentalists, immigrants, black nationalists, the ACLU and the hated Frankfurt School philosophers.

In July 1998, Lind told a conference of the right-wing watchdog group Accuracy in Academia that political correctness and cultural Marxism were "totalitarian ideologies" that were turning American campuses into "small ivy-covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted 'victims' groups that revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble."

It's the Jews, Stupid

At the core of the far right's concept of cultural Marxism are the Jews. Lind made this plain in June 2002, when he gave a speech on the subject to a Washington Holocaust denial conference hosted by the anti-Semitic journal, Barnes Review (https://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/barnes-review).

Although he told his audience that his Free Congress Foundation was "not among those who question whether the Holocaust occurred," he went on to lay out just who the cultural conspirators were: "These guys," he explained, "were all Jewish."

Like Jews in general, the Frankfurt School makes a convenient antagonist — one that is basically seen as antithetical to all things American. The school, says social psychology professor Richard Lichtman of the Berkeley-based Wright Institute, is "a convenient target that very few people really know anything about.

"By grounding their critique in Marxism and using the Frankfurt School, [cultural conservatives] make it seem like it's quite foreign to anything American. It takes on a mysterious cast and translates as an incomprehensible, anti-American, foreign movement that is only interested in undermining the U.S.," he said. "The idea being transmitted is that we are being infected from the outside."

Not everyone who uses the cultural Marxism construct sees Jews in general at the center of the plot. But a 1998 book by California State University-Long Beach evolutionary biologist Kevin MacDonald (https://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/kevin-macdonald) — one of just two witnesses to testify on behalf of Holocaust denier David Irving (https://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/david-irving) in a famous 2000 libel trial — makes plain that Jews in general are implicated in what is seen as an attack on the West.

In The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Social Movements, MacDonald says that while all Jews are not guilty, the movements he attacks are indeed "Jewishly motivated."

In a chapter devoted to the Frankfurt School, MacDonald suggests that Jews criticize non-Jews' desire to form "cohesive, nationalistic, corporate gentile groups based on conformity to group norms" — with Frankfurt School principals painting this desire as a psychopathology — while they hypocritically pursue cohesiveness in their own group.

Tom Montgomery
09-04-2017, 02:06 PM
Continued:



In other words, Jews foist multiculturalism on other people even as they cynically pursue a group strategy that rejects that ideology for themselves.



The idea, in MacDonald's construction, is that Jews in general are seeking to weaken anti-Semitism by sabotaging Gentiles' natural nationalistic instincts.

Similarly, the Frankfurt School is described as advocating sexual freedom, rebelliousness against family and other radical ideas for Gentiles, even as Jews themselves remain in tightly cohesive families — an idea that is tied tightly to Lind's view of the Frankfurt School as attempting to undermine Christian America.

Ultimately, MacDonald suggests that this kind of devious Jewish behavior is at least partly responsible for anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. "National Socialism developed as a cohesive gentile group strategy in opposition to Judaism," he writes. In a later book, MacDonald suggests that Jewish critiques of Gentile culture are a dangerous strategy that may ultimately produce ethnic conflict in America.

Although Lind rarely mentions the Jews in discussing cultural Marxism, he sounded a similar note in 1995, when he wrote a "futuristic fantasy" in which the United States, after developing "the stench of a Third World country," opts correctly to break up into racial mini-states. In now all-white New England, Lind wrote, "the majority had taken back the culture. Civilization had recovered its nerve."

Behind the Attacks

The most significant institutional support for the theory of cultural Marxism comes from Weyrich, Lind, and their Free Congress Foundation (FCF). Lind writes that the FCF "was the first Washington-based conservative think tank to ... develop a new cultural conservatism ... aimed directly at the causes of America's cultural decline."

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/ir_110_reframing2_200x240.jpg
Paul Weyrich, far-right political strategist

In 1987, the foundation's first book was published on the subject: Cultural Conservatism: Toward a New National Agenda. Next came Cultural Conservatism: Theory and Practice, an anthology of essays. All this culminated in a videotape that attacked the Frankfurt School, "Political Correctness: The Dirty Little Secret."

Weyrich's role is significant. Over the last three decades, he has been instrumental in developing many of the right's most influential institutions. He helped fund the Heritage Foundation, now one of the most powerful think tanks in Washington. He is a founder of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-sponsored association of hundreds of conservative lawmakers. And he helped establish two key conservative coalitions: The Rev. Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority in the 1970s, and Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition a decade later.

In 1999, Weyrich authored a widely circulated "letter to the conservative movement" in which he lamented the widespread popularity of the "ideology of political correctness" and "the cultural disintegration that is gripping society." Conservatives should separate themselves "from the institutions that have been captured by the ideology of Political Correctness," Weyrich argued.

At the same time, Weyrich has had a "habit of flirting with racists and anti-Semites that dates back to his early involvement with George Wallace's America Independent Party," according to New York Observercolumnist Joe Conason. As one example, Conason cites a 2001 Easter E-mail sent by Weyrich to thousands of his supporters declaring that "Christ was crucified by the Jews."

A year earlier, Weyrich had blasted Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen for "adhering so slavishly to the line laid down by the Frankfurt School." Cohen's sin? He had criticized Charlton Heston, then the National Rifle Association spokesman.

"Surely [Cohen] must recognize that Political Correctness is an ideology ... that ... demands we all accede to many lies: that men and women are interchangeable, that there are no differences among races or ethnic groups within races (when those groups are taken as wholes, as PC demands), that homosexuality is normal," he wrote. "This is, in fact, the unholy trinity that Political Correctness requires we all bow down and worship: 'racism, sexism, and homophobia.'"

The Ripple Effect

Over the years, the idea of cultural Marxism has picked up speed. At an October 2000 campaign stop in Denver, Reform Party presidential candidate Pat Buchanan accused Native Americans attempting to block a Columbus Day parade of "cultural Marxism."

"America's history and heroes and Western civilization itself are under relentless attack," Buchanan told the Rocky Mountain News. "The violence of this political correctness is nothing less than cultural Marxism."

The following year, in his book The Death of the West, Buchanan described cultural Marxism as a "regime to punish dissent and to stigmatize social heresy as the Inquisition punished religious heresy. Its trademark is intolerance."

At around the same time, the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens (https://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/council-of-conservative-citizens) produced a video — most of it a carbon copy of the FCF video on the same topic — called "Political Correctness: The Frankfurt School Story."

"Racism, sexism and chauvinism are powerful weapons in the Marxist psychological warfare against traditional American values," it said. "Political correctness, the product of critical theory, is really treason against the U.S. Constitution and against America."

Some "pro-South" hate groups have adapted the theory for their own purposes. Franklin Sanders, writing recently on the League of the South's Web page, did not use the words "cultural Marxism." But he did say that "Marxists," by calling slavery the worst evil known to man, were twisting reality to attack the South. And, Sanders warned darkly, "If the South goes, civilization goes with it."

By early 2002, F.C. Blahut, a writer for the anti-Semitic American Free Press, wrote that cultural communists, motivated by a "hatred of the West," were wrecking Western civilization. They were, he said, "parasitic Freudian Talmudists."

John Vinson, leader of the Americans for Immigration Control hate group, doesn't reference Jews in his own attacks. But he claims that "Marxists" have for a century "promoted large-scale immigration while sabotaging assimilation."

Whither Cultural Marxism?

Will the far right succeed in using the cultural Marxism label to demonize social movements and people whom it opposes? Despite the tone of underlying anti-Semitism, is this a theory that can bring radical ideas into the mainstream?

There are indications that this is happening already.

Paul Craig Roberts is a syndicated conservative columnist who is connected to several right-wing think tanks. In a recent review of Buchanan's The Death of the West,Roberts makes it clear that he has signed on to the idea. "Cultural Marxists," he says, "assault not only our history but also the family, the chastity of women and Christianity, important pillars of our civilization. Cultural Marxists use education, entertainment and the media to create a new people that shares their values."

David Horowitz, the leftist-turned-right-winger who heads the Los Angeles-based Center for the Study of Popular Culture (https://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2003/summer/into-the-mainstream?page=0,1#7) and edits FrontPageMagazine.com, adds that the Frankfurt School "believed only in destroying ... and if you look at today's campuses that type of nihilism is really the dominant theme."

Jim Kibler, a professor of Southern literature at the University of Georgia, joined in recently. Kibler told a reporter this spring that suggesting that those who support the Confederate flag are racists is the "propagandistic, cultural Marxist approach" that is used by newspapers, business and New South proponents.

It's not clear whether this diffusion of the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory into the mainstream will continue. Certainly, the anti-Semitism that underlies much of the scenario suggests that it may be repudiated in the coming years. But for now, the spread of this particular theory is a classic case of concepts that originated on the radical right slowly but surely making their way into the American mind.



Bill Berkowitz, a regular columnist with Working Assets' WorkingForChange.com, is a free-lance writer specializing in right-wing political movements.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching

Paul Pless
09-04-2017, 02:09 PM
Here is what the SPLC has to say about the currently popular right-wingnut meme "Cultural Marxism":



they would say that wouldn't they? :D

Tom Montgomery
09-04-2017, 02:10 PM
^
It's all part of the evil plot.

TomF
09-04-2017, 02:21 PM
This is fooking ridiculous, and scary. Where the hell is this antisemitism resurgence coming from - and why the hell is anyone even remotely attracted to it?

Has nobody seen any WW2 movies? Anybody notice who the "good guys" were?

skuthorp
09-04-2017, 04:09 PM
It likely depends how much, what version and at what level history is taught. If it's taught at all.
Of course in the US there seems not to be a National Curriculum, and the interference of ideology in schools in the guise of religion likely means that some are just ignorant of what their grandfathers did in the 1940's.

CWSmith
09-04-2017, 04:22 PM
Has nobody seen any WW2 movies? Anybody notice who the "good guys" were?

They adopt the mantle without the values.

Aquinian
09-05-2017, 05:17 AM
Cross-linked by Tom:

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?227844-Hate-groups-are-growing&p=5335799#post5335799


Thanks Tom, I saw that. I even read it, interminable and incredibly badly written as it was. A high school English teacher would have given it, what, 50%? An essay needs to have a central idea, cogently expressed, and developed in an interesting and supported manner, with a clear conclusion. That piece is a classic hatchet job, implying without any real proof that anybody who notices that Marxist ideology has conquered our academic institutions is an anti-semite. I did notice that the SPLC writer didn't so much as hint that there's anything wrong with Marxism, of course. That would be because the SPLC is essentially a Marxist organisation, and if you need complete proof, note that the Pigs walk around on their hind legs, like Men. Yes, the SPLC is packed with highly paid fat-cats, who look down on everybody else. Definitely Marxist.

I must ask my business partner, with whom I have been friends for thirty years, whose grandfather died in Theresienstadt, why he hasn't noticed what an anti-semite I am!

Keith Wilson
09-05-2017, 07:00 AM
Right. http://forums.liveleak.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif There are certainly some folks who could be described as Marxists teaching in universities, usually far from sciences or history departments, usually in areas like 18th-century English Literature, and more who might be accused of having some silly leftish ideas, but 'Cultural Marxism'? And the SPLC a Marxist organization? Pull the other one, Mortimer. This hogwash gets three sparkly pink unicorns.

http://yoursmiles.org/gsmile/unicorn/g3103.gifhttp://yoursmiles.org/gsmile/unicorn/g3103.gifhttp://yoursmiles.org/gsmile/unicorn/g3103.gif

This stuff is written by people who appear to be stuck around the year I was born, when genuine Marxism was a real thing. The world has changed since then, the rest of us have caught on to the fact, and 'Marxist' is now mostly a meaningless childish insult, like 'poopy-head'.

PeterSibley
09-05-2017, 07:07 AM
Cultural Marxism ????? Hogwash, a totally made up phrase that would only work on people for whom Marx remains the ultimate bogeyman but who have absolutely no idea what Marxism actually is.

Osborne Russell
09-05-2017, 10:01 AM
What's the Marxist part?

I thought the idea was that economics trumps culture.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
09-05-2017, 10:03 AM
Its a bit different from a paper I read in my youth entitled "Towards a Marxist aesthetic"...

johnw
09-05-2017, 12:04 PM
I've actually read some of the philosophers of the Frankfort school. They were trying to come up with an alternative to Stalinism, some form of Marxism that would not be totalitarian. In fact, Adorno is best remembered for his work on authoritarianism.

That whole delicate lacework of Western European Marxism is pretty much dead, and it never was about the stuff Buchanan claims it was about. He makes them sound like they were a lot more fun than they were.

It's pretty obvious what the trope is for. It allows the right to apply the Marxist bogyman against people and groups that are clearly not Marxist. After all, the fall of Marxism and the end of the cold war have left them with fewer enemies than they need to justify the vitriol they espouse against their fellow citizens.

Osborne Russell
09-05-2017, 12:08 PM
You mean like setting up a scarecrow and beating it with sticks? But then you have to build another one. Won't people notice you're using the old straw?

johnw
09-05-2017, 12:24 PM
You mean like setting up a scarecrow and beating it with sticks? But then you have to build another one. Won't people notice you're using the old straw?
Only those who are not members of this odd crew will notice.

TomF
09-05-2017, 02:10 PM
I had a prof who said that mid to late 20th century social theory was an extended battle between Frankfurters and French Fries.

johnw
09-05-2017, 03:06 PM
I had a prof who said that mid to late 20th century social theory was an extended battle between Frankfurters and French Fries.
Good one, but what about the buns?

TomF
09-05-2017, 03:08 PM
So long as they weren't buns of steel, good.

David G
09-05-2017, 03:26 PM
Another example of very elaborate, stilted, pseudo-intellectual dishonesty. As long as it's plausible enough on the face, with all the trappings, so as to not immediately scare one off... it will be accepted by those whose preconceptions lean that way. To refer back to another thread... a lazy failure of Type II thinking.

johnw
09-05-2017, 03:58 PM
Another example of very elaborate, stilted, pseudo-intellectual dishonesty. As long as it's plausible enough on the face, with all the trappings, so as to not immediately scare one off... it will be accepted by those whose preconceptions lean that way. To refer back to another thread... a lazy failure of Type II thinking.
I think it's more peculiar than that. Consider this syllogism:

Marxism is awful because Stalin and his successors were authoritarian.
Theodore Adorno was associated with the Frankfort School.
Therefore, Adorno's anti-authoritarian writings are "cultural Marxist."
And if Adorno is a cultural Marxist, he must be as bad as Stalin.
The F-Scale is therefore cultural Marxism and to be condemned because of Stalin, who would have had Adorno killed if he'd written such things while living in Russia.

I think that's the sort of pretzel logic that gets people to pretend the Southern Poverty Law Center is Marxist.

Ted Hoppe
09-05-2017, 04:01 PM
The bastions of the various people's republics are gone. Those 1960-80s radical elements have moved to dirty assisted living facilities. The rest is strawmen - much needed in the alt right argument to whittle more of the safety net and spread fear. No one here is willing to argue about wage and living parity. Cheap labor and participant dreamers are needed to serve in the military are the order of the day.

For cultural Marxism - there needs leadership. What artists and thinkers of any consequence are actively drawing interest and support. Glad to read up on them if there are any who are thoughtful, deep thinkers. Hashtag it for me to find.

Ian McColgin
09-05-2017, 04:48 PM
As a retired professional "community organizer" who always gets a kick out of righties' obsessions with Alinsky and Soros, I can only say, would that we were that organized.

Sky Blue
09-05-2017, 05:07 PM
"Cultural Marxism," as expressed by the modern new right, refers primarily to the ideas of Italian political theorist Antonio Gramsci and his theory of "cultural hegemony."

oznabrag
09-05-2017, 06:22 PM
"Cultural Marxism," as expressed by the modern new right, refers primarily to the ideas of Italian political theorist Antonio Gramsci and his theory of "cultural hegemony."

Why do you insist on calling a bunch of Seditious, Moron, Nazi, White-Supremacist, Snowflakes by any name other than 'garbage', is anybody's guess.

Ian McColgin
09-05-2017, 06:50 PM
If those righties can even spell Gramsci, they read his stuff with about as much attention as they ever read Alinsky. That would be about zero.

Duncan Gibbs
09-05-2017, 06:57 PM
"Cultural Marxism," as expressed by the modern new right, refers primarily to the ideas of Italian political theorist Antonio Gramsci and his theory of "cultural hegemony."
This ^ tells me you have precisely NO idea what you're talking about.

None whatsoever.

TomF
09-05-2017, 07:02 PM
And Gramsci was primarily being descriptive. Discussing how the dominant class retained dominance through marketing their ideology in such a way that people who never had a slim hope of joining the 1% took on the values of the 1%. We're encouraged to do so in false hope. And thus adopted and defended values and interests which contributed to their own oppression.

Gramsci said that the dominant, "hegemonic" ideology served the interests of the dominant class, and that folks in the rest of society wouldn't be well served till they woke up to their own interests instead.

Sky, have you ever read Gramsci? Or only those who tell you what they would like you to believe he wrote?

Aquinian
09-05-2017, 07:09 PM
You mean like setting up a scarecrow and beating it with sticks? But then you have to build another one. Won't people notice you're using the old straw?

Unlike Nazism, which died in 1945, Communism was phenomenally successful in both geographic and cultural warfare terms. If you're unaware of the billions spent by Russia over many decades engaging in this cultural warfare, you won't understand anything, quite frankly.

Taking the whole picture into account, the scarecrow-building is exactly what you guys are up to with your neo-Nazi focus. And guess where it came from? The tactic was a Soviet one, assiduously cultivated through all of their hundreds of puppet organisations and activists spread throughout the West by their well-orchestrated and hugely well-funded programme of cultural warfare. A giant, obvious, example, was their defamation campaign against Senator McCarthy, something which was so successful that many today still react Pavlov-dog like to the mere mention of the man's name.

TomF
09-05-2017, 07:13 PM
Cultural Marxism is a nothing burger. It does not exist except as a slogan to rally the uneducated towards the ideas of the alt.right.

Duncan Gibbs
09-05-2017, 07:21 PM
Unlike Nazism, which died in 1945, Communism was phenomenally successful in both geographic and cultural warfare terms. If you're unaware of the billions spent by Russia over many decades engaging in this cultural warfare, you won't understand anything, quite frankly.

Taking the whole picture into account, the scarecrow-building is exactly what you guys are up to with your neo-Nazi focus. And guess where it came from? The tactic was a Soviet one, assiduously cultivated through all of their hundreds of puppet organisations and activists spread throughout the West by their well-orchestrated and hugely well-funded programme of cultural warfare. A giant, obvious, example, was their defamation campaign against Senator McCarthy, something which was so successful that many today still react Pavlov-dog like to the mere mention of the man's name.
So hundreds of Nazis waving Nazi flags in the streets aren't actually Nazis, and communism was a raging success...

Okay...

Sky Blue
09-05-2017, 07:25 PM
it's a nothingburger

If only. It is the most corrosive, anti-Enlightenment social movement in the West today, pervading nearly all aspects of social, intellectual and political existence.

Understanding what Cultural Marxism is grounded in explains why Trump is such a threat to its vile portent.

PeterSibley
09-05-2017, 07:30 PM
So hundreds of Nazis waving Nazi flags in the streets aren't actually Nazis, and communism was a raging success...

Okay...

The things you learn !

https://media.giphy.com/media/BFJSz0xyDbTxe/giphy.gif

TomF
09-05-2017, 07:31 PM
So quote me some relevant bits of raw Gramsci, maybe from the Prison Notebooks, and show yourself to be more than a repeater of talking points written by someone allegedly better read.

It's been about 25 years for me, but I could probably dig out my old copy. ;)

Duncan Gibbs
09-05-2017, 07:41 PM
If only. It is the most corrosive, anti-Enlightenment social movement in the West today, pervading nearly all aspects of social, intellectual and political existence.

Understanding what Cultural Marxism is grounded in explains why Trump is such a threat to its vile portent.
You wouldn't know what Marxism is it painted itself purple with pink polka-dots and yelled out, "Marxism is here today."
Again, the statement about Gramsci above is proof positive you don't have a single clue about Marxism. There is NO 'portent' in Marxism as it is a form of cultural and economic analysis.

And you STILL support that Nazi Trump? What's with his constant use of the White Power 'okay' hand signal? Ohhh.. I know! He's a friggin' NAZI.

oznabrag
09-05-2017, 07:42 PM
If only. It is the most corrosive, anti-Enlightenment social movement in the West today, pervading nearly all aspects of social, intellectual and political existence.

Understanding what Cultural Marxism is grounded in explains why Trump is such a threat to its vile portent.

Boy did you ever miss the mark.


The most corrosive, anti-Enlightenment social movement in the West today is the Republican Party, without any doubt.

EVERY Enlightenment Ideal is being soiled as bumwad by those seditious ratfreakers, and they have the temerity and evil intent to cook up lies and feed them to their braindead zombie-orc Morons to deliver the final death-blow to the Enlightenment.

The poor are evil!

Women should be silent!

Only rich, white men should have any say!

The thing these Moron Manipulators are going to have to come to grips with is the difference between exhorting the Morons into bringing out the torches and pitchforks because they're mad and scared, and 200 million people solemnly picking up those weapons because the grisly duty to defend the Constitution from the Grima Wormtongues of the world has come.



https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c9/8b/d4/c98bd44324ee90d9f262a3b7f5538849.jpg

johnw
09-05-2017, 08:06 PM
So hundreds of Nazis waving Nazi flags in the streets aren't actually Nazis, and communism was a raging success...

Okay...
Orwellian.

Aquinian
09-05-2017, 08:42 PM
"Unlike Nazism, which died in 1945"

So hundreds of Nazis waving Nazi flags in the streets aren't actually Nazis, and communism was a raging success...

Okay...

Please try and read what was written.

Osborne Russell
09-05-2017, 08:57 PM
So quote me some relevant bits of raw Gramsci, maybe from the Prison Notebooks, and show yourself to be more than a repeater of talking points written by someone allegedly better read.

It's been about 25 years for me, but I could probably dig out my old copy. ;)

Sounds like a very elaborate way of saying who pays the piper calls the tune, which is true but only half the story. Who's paying for what tune and where did they get the money? -- is the rest.

The modern right has a lot of money and spends freely on institutionalizing culture. Would-be Gramscis. Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn, no climate change or evolution in science curriculum, etc. Gramsci was pre-electronic, however. There is a red theory that takes modern media into account, promulgated by Greg Gutfeld of Fox News, set out in his books The Hipster Elite And Their War On You and The Joy Of Hate: How To Triumph Over Whiners In The Age Of Phony Outrage. One of the most powerful "cultural Marxist" institutions is the Hipster Elite, who control Pop Culture.


Fact is, the real war over hearts and minds these days is not in politics but in pop culture. As Andrew Breitbart once said, politics is downstream from pop culture, not the other way way around.

Greg Gutfeld, The Joy Of Hate: How To Triumph Over Whiners In The Age Of Phony Outrage (2012)

https://books.google.com/books?id=3s9yZdIe2egC&pg=PT166&lpg=PT166&dq=%22politics+is+downstream+from+pop+culture%22&source=bl&ots=MC1QsHiBUp&sig=9RmIv9uwrlyL80qzX55CFWusHP8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix-uyOmZbKAhVJ9mMKHVJKDWgQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=%22politics%20is%20downstream%20from%20pop%20cul ture%22&f=false

All of which begs the question, if control of pop culture leads to control of the larger culture, which in turn leads to control of institutions; and the enslaving of people through pop culture is so easy, so productive, and so vital, how come the right can't do it? Where are the cool right people to take on the Hipster Elite? There could be a revolution, they could replace the old elite, make money, make it flow downstream into politics, and into all of culture, remake society, get all Gramsci with it.

Keith Wilson
09-05-2017, 09:03 PM
The tactic was a Soviet one, assiduously cultivated through all of their hundreds of puppet organisations and activists spread throughout the West by their well-orchestrated and hugely well-funded programme of cultural warfare. A giant, obvious, example, was their defamation campaign against Senator McCarthy, something which was so successful that many today still react Pavlov-dog like to the mere mention of the man's name.Oh, my. A Soviet-funded defamation campaign is what caused people to think badly of Senator Joseph McCarthy? We are talking about the same person, right? Tail gunner Joe? Senator from Wisconsin from '47 to his death in '57, censured by the Senate in '54, one of the vilest contemptible lying sacks of sh!t ever to infest US politics? That Joe McCarthy?

webishop14
09-05-2017, 09:17 PM
The most corrosive, anti-Enlightenment social movement in the West today is the Republican Party, without any doubt.


How about the Evangelicals?
https://youtu.be/uTARAarSZlQ

TomF
09-05-2017, 09:22 PM
Aquinian, isn't that exactly what Breitbart and Infowars and the 4Chan and Reddit alt.right groups etc are trying to do? To make Fascist ideas cool enough for impressionable angry young white guys? The guys who love Spencer's "fashi" haircut and natty clothes, who love the gamesmanship of pepe the frog and trying to dupe the establishment media with "fake news"?

This claim of "cultural Marxism" subverting dialogue is projection, is blatant mirror image slandering. Is an example, actually, of the alt.right taking up Gramsci's discussions of hegemony and using them themselves.

mdh
09-05-2017, 09:39 PM
Oh, my. A Soviet-funded defamation campaign is what caused people to think badly of Senator Joseph McCarthy? We are talking about the same person, right? Tail gunner Joe? Senator from Wisconsin from '47 to his death in '57, censured by the Senate in '54, one of the vilest contemptible lying sacks of sh!t ever to infest US politics? That Joe McCarthy?

How Pavlovian.

Sky Blue
09-05-2017, 09:40 PM
How about the Evangelicals?
https://youtu.be/uTARAarSZlQ

It's a great question. I've thought a lot about the evangelicals in the age of Trump. Strangely, they embraced him much more than McCain or Romney, who must be considered moral men by comparison.

Because Trump did not campaign as a moral leader, evangelical support is difficult to understand, unless you factor in cultural Marxism, which has been enormously successful in eroding the institutions dear to evangelicals, namely, faith, traditional marriage, gender roles and the rest of it.

Trump has co-opted evangelicals and minimized their power in some ways (because he's not a moral leader), but they see the threat he represents to this movement, and they're all in. Trump is incredibly shrewd.

Aquinian
09-05-2017, 09:41 PM
Aquinian, isn't that exactly what Breitbart and Infowars and the 4Chan and Reddit alt.right groups etc are trying to do? To make Fascist ideas cool enough for impressionable angry young white guys? The guys who love Spencer's "fashi" haircut and natty clothes, who love the gamesmanship of pepe the frog and trying to dupe the establishment media with "fake news"?

Quite possibly. I wouldn't read any of those sources, and I doubt I ever have. Certainly not consciously, anyway. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that some of that kind of thing, maybe even the bulk of it, is essentially psy-ops by CIA or other TLA type outfits, belonging to one state or another. We live in a very strange era, in which the tactics and methodology of Tsarist Russia got mainstreamed and universalised via the Soviets, and then imitated by the West.


This claim of "cultural Marxism" subverting dialogue is projection, is blatant mirror image slandering. Is an example, actually, of the alt.right taking up Gramsci's discussions of hegemony and using them themselves.

You seem to be saying that the Right is imitating Gramsci (which I agree with), and then if anybody points out that the Communists developed this set of tactics and the supporting theory, and executed it thoroughly, supported by billions of expenditure and a huge staff, this is "projection"?

That doesn't even make sense to me, I'm sorry.

mdh
09-05-2017, 09:45 PM
Aquinian, isn't that exactly what Breitbart and Infowars and the 4Chan and Reddit alt.right groups etc are trying to do? To make Fascist ideas cool enough for impressionable angry young white guys? The guys who love Spencer's "fashi" haircut and natty clothes, who love the gamesmanship of pepe the frog and trying to dupe the establishment media with "fake news"?

This claim of "cultural Marxism" subverting dialogue is projection, is blatant mirror image slandering. Is an example, actually, of the alt.right taking up Gramsci's discussions of hegemony and using them themselves.

No. But compared to the marxist CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO, they're like going to the library.

TomF
09-05-2017, 09:52 PM
Gramsci argued that the dominant capitalist class was using those tactics, and that the lefties of his time needed to recognize it, and not be duped.

After him, a whole lot of lefties decided that they should undertake those same tactics to fight their fight, and try to displace "capitalist hegemony". Which led to all the BS from Lenin and Trotsky etc about the noble "vanguard state" etc.

I think Gramsci was probably wrong to think that the capitalists of his day originated the hegemonic ideology thing too; rhetoric is older than the Greeks, after all. But I think it is also a mistake to think that Gramsci invented the idea, and the modern alt.right is rebranding what were originally communist tactics.

TomF
09-05-2017, 09:53 PM
No. But compared to the marxist CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO, they're like going to the library.
Sweet Jesus man, you have no idea what communism was. Read vintage Pravda, or old Kruschev speeches, and give your head a shake.

PeterSibley
09-05-2017, 09:55 PM
No. But compared to the marxist CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO, they're like going to the library.

:d:d:d:d:d

Aquinian
09-05-2017, 10:29 PM
Gramsci argued that the dominant capitalist class was using those tactics, and that the lefties of his time needed to recognize it, and not be duped.

After him, a whole lot of lefties decided that they should undertake those same tactics to fight their fight, and try to displace "capitalist hegemony". Which led to all the BS from Lenin and Trotsky etc about the noble "vanguard state" etc.

I think Gramsci was probably wrong to think that the capitalists of his day originated the hegemonic ideology thing too; rhetoric is older than the Greeks, after all. But I think it is also a mistake to think that Gramsci invented the idea, and the modern alt.right is rebranding what were originally communist tactics.

I'm certainly on board with the idea that Gramsci was full of sh*t. :)

Like Marx, he got some of things right and a few facts wrong, and then applied the wrong principles, and made a poison soup for the gullible.

The whole approach was wrong-headed. And a lot of it relies upon ambiguity in the terminology. Example: "The rich." Depending upon the context, the term seems to refer to different people. When the left is running their politics-of-envy programme, the "rich" are the super-rich who really do run the world, for their own benefit, and have super-yachts and $500k per year country club memberships, and use their influence to corrupt the political process to favour more wars, more off-shoring of jobs, etc. Indeed, if it didn't refer to those people, it would be so vacuous as not to convince any rational observer. Then, when the Republicans propose tax cuts for "trickle down" reasons, supported by hordes of real middle class people who certainly are not rich, the cry goes up, "Tax cuts for the rich!"

Meanwhile, the real rich escape all scrutiny, and the Dem and GOP voters all get more divided and the discourse gets more poisonous.

If you're in any doubt about this, have another look at who really provides the funding for the two main political parties. It's primarily, and most importantly, the super-rich. The Clintons work for them as much as the Bushes did. If you see the major political parties as existing to absorb, and mis-direct, scrutiny by the ordinary people of the super-rich, you'd not be far off, in my opinion. And I sense that a lot of people feel this instinctively, and that partly explains the Trump and Brexit phenomena. Voting for Trump seemed as much as "anybody but the usual suspects" as it was any kind of positive approval for the guy. I know plenty who voted for him while holding their nose.

oznabrag
09-05-2017, 10:44 PM
Quite possibly. I wouldn't read any of those sources, and I doubt I ever have. Certainly not consciously, anyway. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that some of that kind of thing, maybe even the bulk of it, is essentially psy-ops by CIA or other TLA type outfits, belonging to one state or another. We live in a very strange era, in which the tactics and methodology of Tsarist Russia got mainstreamed and universalised via the Soviets, and then imitated by the West.



You seem to be saying that the Right is imitating Gramsci (which I agree with), and then if anybody points out that the Communists developed this set of tactics and the supporting theory, and executed it thoroughly, supported by billions of expenditure and a huge staff, this is "projection"?

That doesn't even make sense to me, I'm sorry.

Why are you even still thinking about communists?

Their day is done.

Why are you not turning your attention to the fascist Morons?

Sky Blue
09-05-2017, 10:45 PM
You gentlemen are talking about something else, off-topic. This short piece should bring it back into focus.

https://www.powercube.net/other-forms-of-power/gramsci-and-hegemony/

Aquinian
09-05-2017, 11:06 PM
Why are you even still thinking about communists?

Their day is done.

Why are you not turning your attention to the fascist Morons?

Because I can't seem ever to see one out there? I mean, if Trump is a fascist, then the term has no meaning, and if you're still talking about the twenty neo-Nazis who ended up quivering in fear behind the police while hundreds of householders massed in protest against them, then you are not sufficiently attached to reality.

On the other hand, the Soviet Union expended massive resources changing the West, and succeeded, and unless that is understood, you cannot understand today, or see what is happening and where it might be going. One factor alone makes this study worthwhile - the loss of momentum of what is called "Progressivism" bewilders the Progressives. They are panicking over the situation. They are looking for fascists in power to explain it. They are looking for the wrong cause. The real major cause, I think, is that the Soviet Union, which generated their philosophy and supported it, and paid for it to be disseminated, collapsed in 1989, and the loss of that constant, powerful, injection of left-wing thought into the Western body-academic, politic, and educational, has resulted in the slow return to normal of many minds, and the absence in our youth of the expected left-wing orientation (check out the youth vote for Trump).

You've spent so long training yourself to reject any scrutiny of Soviet influence as "reds under the beds" paranoia, that you didn't see the elephant in the room, and you can't understand the big piles of steaming turds he left behind; indeed, you think the turds are "human rights" and "equality"...

PeterSibley
09-05-2017, 11:07 PM
I'm certainly on board with the idea that Gramsci was full of sh*t. :)

Like Marx, he got some of things right and a few facts wrong, and then applied the wrong principles, and made a poison soup for the gullible.

The whole approach was wrong-headed. And a lot of it relies upon ambiguity in the terminology. Example: "The rich." Depending upon the context, the term seems to refer to different people. When the left is running their politics-of-envy programme, the "rich" are the super-rich who really do run the world, for their own benefit, and have super-yachts and $500k per year country club memberships, and use their influence to corrupt the political process to favour more wars, more off-shoring of jobs, etc. Indeed, if it didn't refer to those people, it would be so vacuous as not to convince any rational observer. Then, when the Republicans propose tax cuts for "trickle down" reasons, supported by hordes of real middle class people who certainly are not rich, the cry goes up, "Tax cuts for the rich!"

Meanwhile, the real rich escape all scrutiny, and the Dem and GOP voters all get more divided and the discourse gets more poisonous.

If you're in any doubt about this, have another look at who really provides the funding for the two main political parties. It's primarily, and most importantly, the super-rich. The Clintons work for them as much as the Bushes did. If you see the major political parties as existing to absorb, and mis-direct, scrutiny by the ordinary people of the super-rich, you'd not be far off, in my opinion. And I sense that a lot of people feel this instinctively, and that partly explains the Trump and Brexit phenomena. Voting for Trump seemed as much as "anybody but the usual suspects" as it was any kind of positive approval for the guy. I know plenty who voted for him while holding their nose.

and Trump is them.

Aquinian
09-05-2017, 11:09 PM
Maybe, Peter, but if that were completely true, one would need to explain why the corporate media has it in for him.

I reckon they're just so used to being unchallenged, in complete, uncontested, control, that Trump, a loose cannon, scares them witness. He shouldn't, he's no threat to them, and he's already, foreign-policy wise, looking awfully like Bush and Obama...

oznabrag
09-05-2017, 11:17 PM
Because I can't seem ever to see one out there? I mean, if Trump is a fascist, then the term has no meaning . . .


Rofl.

Sky Blue
09-05-2017, 11:22 PM
Trump is not a threat to the media

To the contrary. He threatens their legitimacy (if not their profits). He used them to get elected, attacking them the entire way. This is another shrewd strategy, for much of America resents the cultural power of the media and opposes it. This is why he benefits from attacking it.

mdh
09-05-2017, 11:32 PM
Sweet Jesus man, you have no idea what communism was. Read vintage Pravda, or old Kruschev speeches, and give your head a shake.

Oh yes i do. And those outlets i mentioned are to the democrat party, what Pravda is to Russia. In fact, their is question as to who leads who.

oznabrag
09-05-2017, 11:35 PM
Sweet Jesus man, you have no idea what communism was. Read vintage Pravda, or old Kruschev speeches, and give your head a shake.

It's just another ration of lies, Tom.

Hitler was a Socialist, you know.

PeterSibley
09-05-2017, 11:43 PM
Maybe, Peter, but if that were completely true, one would need to explain why the corporate media has it in for him.

I reckon they're just so used to being unchallenged, in complete, uncontested, control, that Trump, a loose cannon, scares them witness. He shouldn't, he's no threat to them, and he's already, foreign-policy wise, looking awfully like Bush and Obama...

They have to sell papers and people think Trump is an idiot and want to hear the details. Not everyone has a Twitter account.

mdh
09-05-2017, 11:45 PM
Maybe, Peter, but if that were completely true, one would need to explain why the corporate media has it in for him.

I reckon they're just so used to being unchallenged, in complete, uncontested, control, that Trump, a loose cannon, scares them witness. He shouldn't, he's no threat to them, and he's already, foreign-policy wise, looking awfully like Bush and Obama...

He's definitely a threat to them. Not of his own doing, but in his independence of them. They spent the whole election saying he wouldn't, couldn't win. They have since tried to convince that he shouldn't have, and could be eliminated. They lost the majority of the public well before the election.

Aquinian
09-06-2017, 12:03 AM
Well, his use of Twitter, while often puerile in its content, is a stroke of genius in that it bypasses the media gatekeepers and enables him to say what he wants without being subject to the usual methods of partial suppression, distortion, taking out of context, sensationalising, etc.

And the bonus is, the corporate media still reports his Twitter stuff anyway, so he gets the free publicity anyway.

He's a phenomenon, that's for sure. As I said when he was elected, he sure ain't a victory for conservatives, but he's a hell of defeat for the Establishment, and that made the event a joyous one. What he's done since looks from here like a slow morphing into an Establishment candidate after all, however. But I'm in Australia, relying on the media for most of the information. I'm told by people there that the economy is absolutely booming - the last one who told me that is a guy who hates Trump and explained the whole effect on the election being over. If it's true that things are booming, it's astonishing how the fact has not made the media over here, at all. One would think, from what can be gleaned from the media here, that the US economy is in exactly the same state it was a year ago, no different.

Anybody want to add their observations?

mdh
09-06-2017, 12:43 AM
The economy hit +3% last month, something every president has done, except Obama. I wouldn't call it a boom. There's lots of work, but it has a slow, steady feel to it. Like all that was needed was to kick some stuff out of the way, and Trump's doing it. The hurricane's doing the broken window effect, with another on the way. Most people are going to be too busy to pay attention to the nazi stuff.

Duncan Gibbs
09-06-2017, 01:12 AM
Please try and read what was written.
I did. What you wrote was wrong. Hundreds of Nazis marched through Charlottesville under Nazi flags. That tells me one thing, and one thing alone. Have a wild stab at was that thing is. Nazism didn't "die in 1945" at all. Who do you think was running Spain and Portugal.

PeterSibley
09-06-2017, 02:12 AM
He's definitely a threat to them. Not of his own doing, but in his independence of them. They spent the whole election saying he wouldn't, couldn't win. They have since tried to convince that he shouldn't have, and could be eliminated. They lost the majority of the public well before the election.

Sorry, wrong. He's made them a fortune with his clown antics. People watch clowns.

Aquinian
09-06-2017, 04:56 AM
I did. What you wrote was wrong. Hundreds of Nazis marched through Charlottesville under Nazi flags. That tells me one thing, and one thing alone. Have a wild stab at was that thing is. Nazism didn't "die in 1945" at all. Who do you think was running Spain and Portugal.

Franco wasn't a Nazi, whatever he was. Salazar was a humble economics professor with a deep piety, lived in a cottage and walked unguarded to work as President every day, and back home again, and didn't have a secret police service, didn't arrest the terrorists who had previously run coup after coup in the decades before his advent to power, and was almost universally loved and respected by his people. I could say a lot more about him, he was a giant, but the one thing that needs to be said is this: If he was a Nazi, or even a fascist (whatever that is, no lefty can ever say without describing a Communist by accident), then say exactly why, and cite your source(s).

And, incidentally, if you discover after looking him up that you repeated bullsh*t from the typical left-wing lie factory about Salazar, what does that tell you about the reliability of your opinions in general?

Introspection is a good thing.

Ian McColgin
09-06-2017, 05:37 AM
Aquinian notes correctly that Salazar came to public life under Carmona, but excuses Salazar's coming to power in his own right because it was Carmona who came to power in his own coup-countercoup. As an authoritarian conservative, even reactionary, Salazar was easily confused with his more nearly fascist pal Franco though neither were actually philosophical about it as Mussolini was. Salazar was really a far right authoritarian corporatist Catholic which resembles fascism in its centralization of power, militarism, and nationalism but which blends more with a version of Roman Catholic dominionism. Salazar was a dictator with a secret police who ruled by repression, censorship, and fear.

One can get thoroughly lost in the entertaining doctrinal differences between various rightwing and nationalistic movements that arose in reaction to the Great Depression - National Socialists, Fascists, and the many nationalistic "strong man" military or semi-military dictatorships. It's not unlike trying to sort the waves of Protestant sects in the seventeenth century, especially if one is attempting to argue how that's relevant to Westboro Baptist.

Duncan Gibbs
09-06-2017, 06:32 AM
Any deeply repressive, deadly, anti-democratic and discriminatory regime I call Nazis because that's what they are. Salazar was a Catholic bigot. The end effects of these types of regimes are mostly the same. Franco was the one exception because he simply died. Does anyone think Novo would have capitulated with the support of the military?

Anyway, Aquinian, what kind of infinitives are you trying to split? Quantum semantics is it?

webishop14
09-06-2017, 08:23 AM
I submit that "cultural marxism" is just another round of toss the kitten a ball of yarn school of misdirection. It's got the liberals worked up in a lather dissecting and parsing the concept for hidden meanings and current relevance, when there is none to be found. This is just another alt-factoid the delusional right is waving to rally their own more tightly into their orbit of delusion, while at the same time providing tantalizing bait to attract newcomers to join their party.

Don't look at where they point their finger. Ask why are they pointing.

Trump used the ball of yarn tactic most effectively during his campaign, and see where it got him?

Keith Wilson
09-06-2017, 08:38 AM
Well, his use of Twitter, while often puerile in its content, is a stroke of genius in that it bypasses the media gatekeepers and enables him to say what he wants without being subject to the usual methods of partial suppression, distortion, taking out of context, sensationalising, etc.Indeed? Of course, the amount of 'partial suppression, distortion, taking out of context and sensationalizing' in Mr Trump's unfiltered ejaculations is far, far higher than in any halfway respectable 'corporate media' (those that have at least a small amount of respect for objective facts), not to mention the astonishing number of outright lies.


I'm told by people there that the economy is absolutely booming - the last one who told me that is a guy who hates Trump and explained the whole effect on the election being over. If it's true that things are booming, it's astonishing how the fact has not made the media over here, at all. One would think, from what can be gleaned from the media here, that the US economy is in exactly the same state it was a year ago, no different.

Anybody want to add their observations?'The media there' have it right. By all objective measures, the economy is doing OK, pretty much as it has done for the past several years. Unemployment is low and slowly decreasing, a continuation of the trend that's been going on since 2010. Partisans of all kinds will latch onto particular bits of noise in the data to claim otherwise; mdh's post is a particularly silly example. But real data is readily available, and the news is 'not much news'.

johnw
09-06-2017, 01:59 PM
Because I can't seem ever to see one out there? I mean, if Trump is a fascist, then the term has no meaning, and if you're still talking about the twenty neo-Nazis who ended up quivering in fear behind the police while hundreds of householders massed in protest against them, then you are not sufficiently attached to reality.



Learn to count.

https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2017/08/12/8cc34d2e-6303-4883-944d-59eb0c8fe1dd/resize/620x465/e2ac5463c6a19da8ed23178af09fdf15/charlottesville-nazi-rally-2017-08-12t080132z-1893804928-rc1223b41d70-rtrmadp-3-virginia-protests.jpg

Sky Blue
09-06-2017, 03:04 PM
Nazis are taking over the country! Run for your lives!

oznabrag
09-06-2017, 03:31 PM
Nazis are taking over the country! Run for your lives!

Run?

Looks like your true color is yella.

oznabrag
09-06-2017, 06:27 PM
Well, that looks about like all she wrote concerning this particular sleazy smear.


I hope you rightwing Morons will step up, admit Trump is a fraud and a thief and a kleptocrat, and kick his sorry carcass to the curb.

just don't do it in New York City. The garbage men there are unionized, and I think they may see scraping feces off the sidewalk as being outside their contract.

Sky Blue
09-06-2017, 07:15 PM
Beware! Trump is really a Nazi! Tell Jared to run!

Aquinian
09-06-2017, 08:28 PM
Aquinian notes correctly that Salazar came to public life under Carmona, but excuses Salazar's coming to power in his own right because it was Carmona who came to power in his own coup-countercoup. As an authoritarian conservative, even reactionary, Salazar was easily confused with his more nearly fascist pal Franco though neither were actually philosophical about it as Mussolini was. Salazar was really a far right authoritarian corporatist Catholic which resembles fascism in its centralization of power, militarism, and nationalism but which blends more with a version of Roman Catholic dominionism. Salazar was a dictator with a secret police who ruled by repression, censorship, and fear.

One can get thoroughly lost in the entertaining doctrinal differences between various rightwing and nationalistic movements that arose in reaction to the Great Depression - National Socialists, Fascists, and the many nationalistic "strong man" military or semi-military dictatorships. It's not unlike trying to sort the waves of Protestant sects in the seventeenth century, especially if one is attempting to argue how that's relevant to Westboro Baptist.

I think what you're saying is, it doesn't matter if you defame a man if he isn't a Marxist of some stripe, and anyway, Marxism is so vanilla, not split into tiny sects all abusing each other or anything like that...

Salazar ruled by law, with fairness and openness, and didn't fear his enemies, as his utter personal vulnerability showed. You don't walk down the street without any kind of security detail if the people hate you because you've been "disappearing" their relatives. Stalin, on the other hand, lived in a constant state of almost paralysing paranoia. And for good reasons.

PIDE was not a "secret police" in the usual understanding of that term. It was really exactly like MI5 and MI6, combined. Even the Wikipedia article struggles to come up with any specific examples of PIDE being horrid.

Now, let's see if you can define any of the emotive terms you throw out, in a way that enables us to distinguish them from ideas you approve of: "far right" (I suspect this merely means not Marxist, but we'll see) authoritarian (is the US Government "authoritarian" since it absolutely rules by authority and is very protective of that authority, or do you have some distinction that makes your term menaingful?) corporatist (this has a real meaning, which is essentially a traditional society undivided by the divisive tactics and structures of cultivated class warfare) Catholic (non-Catholics were not treated badly, of course) which resembles fascism (love that word, it never seems able to be defined) in its centralization of power (Ancient Rome, Norman England, Elizabethan England, Cromwellian England, Napoleonic France, Bismarck's Germany, Lenin and Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Fidel's Cuba, all examples of strongly centralised power, agreed? And if agreed, let's see your proof that Salazar's Portugal was particularly centralised in its power, and why you regard centralisation of power as in itself a bad thing, if indeed you do), militarism (this describes ALL Marxist states, without exception, and actually, Portugal was at the other end of the scale), and nationalism (always evil in the eyes of Internationalist capitalists who like to off-shore jobs to wherever people can be had to live most cheaply, and Communists and other Marxists who believe in Marx's historical determinism fantasy) but which blends more with a version of Roman Catholic dominionism (never heard of that one, please enlighten us).

Whew, there's a bit to unpack there, Ian. Let's see how you go!

Aquinian
09-06-2017, 08:37 PM
Aquinian notes correctly that Salazar came to public life under Carmona, but excuses Salazar's coming to power in his own right because it was Carmona who came to power in his own coup-countercoup.

You don't seem to know much about the history, so you're not in a position to judge whether I am "excusing" anything.

Evidently you are not aware that Salazar was a professor of economics who was asked by the new government (after a coup) to run the government's finances, and he agreed on condition that he have the necessary authority to sort the mess out. He was not involved in the coup. He didn't request the job, he didn't want the job, and if memory serves, he resigned and went back to teaching economics when his prescriptions for fixing the chaos were not adopted. After a further period of financial chaos the government again asked him to become finance minister and this time granted him the authority he needed. Some time later, when his work was obviously successful, he was given the Presidency.

This is a man without ambition, without ego, a true servant of his people. Some folks find it hard to believe that such a man could exist, but he did.

Aquinian
09-06-2017, 08:46 PM
Nazis are taking over the country! Run for your lives!

Just because the Nazis really are out to get them, doesn't mean they're not paranoid. :)

oznabrag
09-06-2017, 10:25 PM
Just because the Nazis really are out to get them, doesn't mean they're not paranoid. :)

I think it would be instructive, for the group, for you to show just how this twisted, non-sensical response is somehow claimed to hold water for the rest?

Seriously!

You call yourself a humanitarian?

Really?

Show how bigotry and racism are the shining path of Radical, rightwing garbage,

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)
09-06-2017, 10:36 PM
When the US and allies won WWII, and they set about rebuilding Germany and Japan (after learning the lesson of WWI about the price of not rebuilding), with the goal of maximizing the welfare and standard of living of the mass populace in both countries, what system of government and economics did they implement? Social Democracy. The result? Both countries became two of the fastest growing, healthiest, most educated, most prosperous countries on the planet. The US was headed in that direction too, until we threw a ton of money into Vietnam to support a corrupt government, while simultaneously slashing taxes on the most wealthy US citizens, failing to invest in our own infrastructure, allowing bedrock companies to sell off critical technology to foreign powers for fast cash for the stockholders and company officers, throwing a ton of money at drug interdiction instead of addressing the root cause of the problem from the demand side, etc.

Duncan Gibbs
09-06-2017, 10:43 PM
Salazar ruled by law, [...]
You really are a denier of human rights abuses.

There are a great many documented examples of torture, disappearances and extrajudicial killings, including the assassination of his main rival over the border in Spain.

Your ability to count Nazis in Charlottesville appear to be the equal of your ability to discern human rights abuses. If you were of a left wing persuasion, would you have wanted to live under Salazar?

How about Pinochet? He was another Nazi. (Fascist if you want to get all technical and engage in quantum semantics as you appear to be fond of doing, but I'm lumping them all together these days, as all of these people and regimes are nothing but pure evil).

Lew Barrett
09-07-2017, 12:00 AM
Unlike Nazism, which died in 1945, Communism was phenomenally successful in both geographic and cultural warfare terms. If you're unaware of the billions spent by Russia over many decades engaging in this cultural warfare, you won't understand anything, quite frankly.

Taking the whole picture into account, the scarecrow-building is exactly what you guys are up to with your neo-Nazi focus. And guess where it came from? The tactic was a Soviet one, assiduously cultivated through all of their hundreds of puppet organisations and activists spread throughout the West by their well-orchestrated and hugely well-funded programme of cultural warfare. A giant, obvious, example, was their defamation campaign against Senator McCarthy, something which was so successful that many today still react Pavlov-dog like to the mere mention of the man's name.

Wow. Exactly the inside out opposite of what happened. HUAC was the witch hunt.

Daniel Noyes
09-07-2017, 06:52 AM
This is fooking ridiculous, and scary. Where the hell is this antisemitism resurgence coming from -

do you really not know? (none more blind than those who refuse to see :D) the resurgence is coming from the political propoganda mills of the far LEFT... places like SPLC... they wrote the article describing this nonexistent resurgence in AntiSemitism.

oh, and former NPR employes like Juan Thompson https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=OIP.IIpvzOkWR72Ib9Xb7aw-GgEsCp&pid=15.1&rs=1&c=1&qlt=95&w=184&h=104 and teen age hackers in Israel...

webishop14
09-07-2017, 08:28 AM
do you really not know? (none more blind than those who refuse to see :D) the resurgence is coming from the political propoganda mills of the far LEFT... places like SPLC... they wrote the article describing this nonexistent resurgence in AntiSemitism.


Rod Serling would be amused. We have now graduated from a post-Modern world to a post-Reality world.