Cultural Marxism: Endgame Of The Elites
Google Images
"Universal egalitarianism," like all Cultural Marxist rhetoric is the polar opposite of their true intent. Without rewriting the history of Cultural Marxism, suffice to say that it is a tool being used to destroy Western civilization in general and American exceptionalism in particular. When the Frankfurt School fled the Nazis to relocate in America they began infesting centers for higher learning from their base of operations at Columbia Univ. and using them to infect America with their poisonous doctrines. The Long March begun by Gramsci et.al. has proven fairly successful. The compulsion to destroy Western civilization by the "useful idiots" doing the grunt work is understandable, as is the politics of resentment... as Ralph Waldo Emerson so eloquently put it: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." What is more difficult to understand is, why are the elites behind the plan?
The more I thought about why the richest, most influential people in the world would embrace Socialism- a ridiculous philosophy that EVERYONE except the useful idiots knows doesn't work- the less sense it made... After all, these are the rich, greedy Capitalists- the 1%- the people everyone hates... Socialism? ANTIFA, radical feminists and the other useful pawns I can understand- they all believe they have something to gain and perhaps in the short term, they do.
This is probably obvious to everyone else, but it took me a while to get the picture- that's how it usually works, I'm slow, what can I tell ya! But then like the fulmine- it came to me... when you own the casino it doesn't matter what games the suckers play because the House ALWAYS wins. So why Socialism? Two reasons: one managerial, the other more or less social. The House- staying with the casino analogy (it seems to fit perfectly)- is only interested with the bottom line, improving it to be more precise. A Socialist/totalitarian regime is easier to control, but it requires some measure of ideological homogeneity... hence they propagandize to make large segments of the population think alike- groupthink, or perhaps more accurately, sheepthink. The House always pushes the game that reaps the most dividends for the house, not the suckers. The second reason will become more apparent as we go along.
Once again, what drives Cultural Marxist sheep is the same impetus that drives suckers to the casino- hope. Everyone who goes into a casino hopes to leave with more than they came with- or perhaps even hit a jackpot. Jackpots are to the casino what the politics of resentment/critical theory are to Cultural Marxism- great propaganda for the House. Critical theory is, by its very nature, nothing more than a naked attempt to destroy the family- the cornerstone of any civilization. If you want to bring down a building, you destroy the foundation- then the rest falls on its own... This is why it appeals to the "Far Left."
For every jackpot in a casino, the House benefits exponentially (if not more). For every social institution damaged by radicals, the elites benefit. Remember, the game is ALWAYS rigged to benefit the House. Any benefits to the useful idiots are illusory and short term at best. Whenever there is a coup d'etat, who are the first massacred? Teachers, college professors, useful idiots and other "fellow travellers." After all, if they're traitors to their own culture, the elites know better than to trust them. What the elites hope to gain is a "herd"... A population that is easily, efficiently and inexpensively maintained. They make no secret about it- it's written on the Georgia Guidestones, plain as day for anyone to read (in 7 languages).
There is only one hope for humanity... one institution that can save us. Unfortunately, it's the most vulnerable institution in existence- the family. It is only through strengthening the nuclear family can mankind be saved. When you hear terms like "sustainable development," and other benign "save the, this or save that," be equally afraid. Any proposed program that puts some cause ahead of strengthening families is an attack... it's an attempt to sway you into sheepthink, thus benefiting the House, not you. Any attack on Western culture is an attack on the very thing that makes it possible... the family.
GIF by @papa-pepper
Ethiopia...and a great many other places where socialism has been tried...comes to mind.
It never works- so they repackage it, give it a new name and the useful idiots eat it up!
anarchism->socialism->communism->progressiveness->liberalism-->humanism->back to anarchism
the wheel of lies never stops turning
Don't forget neo-functionalism!
gottinhimmel...another term to look up!?!?!?! ;>
why do I bet it's the same crap with just a different name? LOL
Don't bother- it is! I wrote a book review for one of my professors about how the ICJ is just a front for US hegemony. I said it was from a Marxist perspective and he corrected it- neo- functionalist!
How do you like my other term... sheepthink???
sheepthink, groupthink, herdthink
all convey the same bbaaahh mentality
we have to ( and I am very bad at this)keep in mind that we are in a propaganda war and should try to avoid insulting people we are trying to persuade. I kind of cringe when I hear fols that are farther to the Right than I am use the word sheeple...even if the language and tone I sometimes use has the same effect
otoh, Trump has shown the value of showing a combative posture as well
It's only a propaganda war if both sides use propaganda... I use the truth to make people think. Believe it or not- the truth is NOT subjective!
China seems to be doing okay for a communist state.
Genial of the devil to use the good in people who fall for the brainwash of egalitarianism - sad.
Though we are the same, as human beings, we all have different abilities, wants, needs, aspirations and motives. Treat people accordingly.
The spirit of freedom and liberty will never die. The evil of those who try to exault themselves above all will perish.
We will win in the end... I lament the cost in lives and minds lost in the meanwhile!
Yes, indeed Rich. One more reason for spreading the word - and Steemit blog and MSP-Waves Radio are perfect platforms.
If you ever want to interview a crazy old man just holler!
The best show is probably the CHAOS Show, better yet is @r0nd0n's FreezePeach. Air-times are on mspwaves.com
Either way, we would love to have you on!
I'll check them... I have skype on my phone- you have to fill me in on the technical stuff... Who is r0nd0n?
The other thing that is hard to grasp... and doesn't fit into how normal people view the world, is that the elite do not care about money. They have all the money in the world. They print as much as they want.
What they want is control. Ultimate control.
Why do you think they are pushing UBI so hard?
Because people are so easy to control if you can turn off their source of sustenance at any moment.
These devils want fear and destruction. They want to laugh at other's folly. Putting a block in someone's way and watching them trip over it is their greatest delight. Yes, they really are that childish. Stuck at an age of me, me, me. They may be great manipulators, but they do not have any creativity. Further, they can never bring a wholesome future, because the only relationship view they have is dominance, or dominated.
And yes, they have worked so hard to destroy the family. Mostly through feminism and feminist empowerment movies. Where the women do horrible thing, throwing out a long relationship to have a fling and (the lie) get the hunk that they always wanted.
great point about UBI
Sounds like you read The Night Gods lol!
Hi again! Regrets for not responding sooner, but I hit post #1999 yesterday afternoon and I wanted to make #2000 something special. So I wrote my first-ever "Introduce Yourself" post.
Just to let you know, I mentioned your post in mine. Thoughts on yours to follow.
Thoughts on your post: the rise of Cultural Marxism is certainly topical. I've read up on it myself, but one point of head-scratch I've had is the fact that Cultural Marxism has grown in tandem with the general economy growing less socialistic by the standard measure. All the analyses I've read about it have focused on its negative aspects (deconstruction) but not its 'positive' aspects.
Namely, what political change did the Cultural Marxists hope for? It would be damned odd if their 'positive' goal were not some kind of socialism. With respect to that, they've been a flat failure. Instead of they being a purely destructive force, I think the boys of the Frankfurt School were good at tearing down but hapless at building up.
As for their influence, I think it resulted from they getting a push-up from the then-WASP elite: particularly from the CIA. The Cultural Marxists were Marxists who showed little-to-no interest in hooking up with the Soviet Union. Since the CIA (for one) dreaded a repeat of the "Red Decade" 1930s, I'm sure they saw the Frankfurt School as a kind of Marxism that would euchre out Soviet Marxism.
In other words, contra those conspiracy theories, Cultural Marxism got a boost from the then-powers-that-be because it provided a Marxism that would forestall another Red Decade and consequent national-security nightmares.
From the standpoint of managerialism, you can peg Cultural Marxism as assimilated Marxism. At least apparently, Cultural Marxist are not bothered by today's wide income disparities - over and above tongue-clucking.
The New Left terrorists (almost all red diaper babies), wanted to be komisars on their own behalf, not beholden to rule from outside their own influence circles
There's a lot of sense in that. Based upon what David Horowitz wrote about his own parents, I'm sure the red-diaper babies were worried that they'd wind up as puppets of the Kremlin like their parents.
It also explains why Cultural Marxism gained strength after the Soviet Union fell. With the U.S.S.R. gone, so did the worry that the Kremlin would step in and hijack the movement.
But in a way, it put the New-Left terrorists in a bind. The fall of the Soviet Union meant the fall of socialism, except as a relic. There's a geopolitical explanation as to why Cultural Marxists are talented at destroying but hapless at building.
I know that C.M. is the big bugaboo now, but the West did dodge a bullet when Communism collapsed. There was a time in the 1970s when it looked like the Soviet Union would make inroads into Western Europe: France and Italy were going down that road to Hell.
He was as vain as a drug-addled lefty could be, but Billy Ayres wasn't joking when he said that the imposition of Communism in America would require the democide of ~25 million Americans:
(Source.)
The irony is, there wasn't a cold chance in Hell that the New Left could have pulled this off unless the Soviet Union stepped in and took over - which would have entailed the read-diaper babies becoming puppets of the Kremlin like their parents.
inherent to leftism, I think
Obviously, there is some cross-over (Ayers mentoring Obama), but that is to be expected in power politics and the double-dealing nature of these people
Well, if Clinton represents the New Left - there's a good argument that she does - then the New Left is gentrified (or, as I like to say, assimilated.)
I still remember the avalanche of BernieBros flaying Clinton for being the Wall Street candidate. You can take this as a sign that the Democratic-Unnderground Left is goofy, but I do remember reading one DUer saying that President Obama was a "moderate Republican."
No foolin': that's an exact quote.
rofl I remember that quote...it was bandied about quite a bit with a great deal of accompanying laughter
the Old Left/New left split was one of those things that I wanted to take a good look at, but was always being set aside for other projects
Right: participating actively on Steemit does have a way of turning into a job. :) Mostso if it's the job you love.
It is significant that the rebel part of the Left has latched onto a more old-left vibe. The Berniebros hate the Clinton left about as much as conservative populists hate the RINOs: maybe more.
Cultural Marxism is more akin to Fabianism (if that's a word). It's a purley social movement rather than economic. The "original" Marxists saw the conflict in purely economic terms... That the class warfare would come as the result of the workers "throwing off the chains of the oppressive managerial class." WWI rolled around and much to their disappointment- nationalism kicked in and the workers took up arms for their respective countries.
To succeed the neo-Marxists changed their focus away from economics to society... More particularly in destroying it- in effect payback for the failure of economic Marxism. The only political change I can see coming from it is the destruction of the status quo- Western Civ. I can't see anything positive coming out of the radical left- they just hate everything Christian, moral... It's an ideology of negativism/nihilism. The only result I can see is licensiousness.
Fabianism is a word; don't worry. :)
You're right about Cultural Marxists changing over because of their disappointment with straight Marxism. In addition to the disillusionment over WW1, a lot of them had hoped that the German Communist party would either beat the Nazis or come roaring back after widespread disgust with Nazism. Neither wish came true.
As a result, they were pretty embittered about the working classes. Significantly, that part of Cultural Marxism has led to life becoming harder for the same group that Marx himself pegged as the proletariat.
Well.... there is a difference between "positive" in the sense of beneficial and "positive" in the sense of achieving a goal. Lemme put it this way: For Cuba, Communism was a disaster - but for Castro and his buds, it meant that they succeeded in taking over the country. In this sense, Castro was talented at achieving a 'positive' goal in that he did conquer the country.
On the other hand, the Cultural Marxists - as you noted - haven't been able to successfully push any kind of political program except for making universities into Loonyversities, reinforcing the ideological rationale behind special status for so-called disadvantaged minorities, pushing for censorship that sometimes taints the laws, but little else.
That paucity is profoundly different from what the Fabians can brag about. They have a fair brag in claiming credit for the modern welfare state.
Good point about the Fabians... I hadn't thought about that aspect- I was focusing more on the social vs economic differences. Communism/Socialism/Fascism... any political system always benefits somebody... "It's good to be the King."
I understand. If I had any ulterior motive ;) , it was to deflate the implicit puff-job that the conspiracy theorists have given to the Frankfurt School. Sure, they have power, but conspiracy theorists tend to exaggerate the power of a certain group.
True story: one of the reasons why David Horowitz detached himself from the Left came from he and his then-writing-partner Peter Collier writing a book on the Rockefellers. They went into it planning a lefty-type of expose of the Rockefeller's great power, but when they dug into the real lives of the real family they saw "a family in pain."
I'm not trying to stir up any sympathy for cultural Marxists; far from it. If you read that snippet in a certain way, Collier and Horowitz discovered that the real Rockefellers were far less powerful than the New Left's pegging of them.
The same deflation can be made with zero sympathy. After the Harvey Weinstein scandal broke, Vox Day made the point that the specifics of Weinstein's sexual harassment made him look pathetic.
I couldn't find the exact quote, but here's a related one:
(From here.)
With regard to Weinstein and the others, Day makes explicit what you kinda-sorta realize but don't realize fully until someone spells it out. Namely, those purportedly super-powerful moguls aren't all that great.
Sometimes, the Bastille can be stormed with mocking laughter.
In a similar way, or so I hope, the gap between the Fabians' record and the Frankfurt School's makes the latter look politically incompetent. That's good news, as it entails they'll be less difficult to beat.
the biggest reason was that he introduced a friend (a lady accountant) to the Black Panthers to do their accounting; they then murdered her (in his opinion, but very likely)
That's right: I forgot that. I was thinking of him as a New-Lefty-type intellectual, not activist. You're right: he withdrew from the New Left and buried himself in theoretical work after that murder. It certainly was the "first doubt."
I heard about this stuff growing up as a kid. I thought it was just old fogey adults talking
Now I know different. There's socialist agenda is about bringing in the final Roman Empire of One World Government One World Currency and one world religion it's all in the Book of Revelation in the Bible. Thanks for sharing.
You bet! You know what I thought of? In order for the Queen to knight somebody they have to be vetted, by MI-5, MI-6, the Privy Council etc. How come she keeps knighting one sexual deviate after another... Something is up with that!
good g*d, I wish I could resteem this post again due to the amazing discussion in the comments
one of the things we need to start asking for from the devs is a method of co-authoring posts
@richq11 and @nxtblg are giving a realtime dissertation into the ideological development of the Left in this country
I'll resteem it.
You might enjoy listening to it... This guy is right on the money!
I just told @nxtblg about a video I'm halfway through watching (actually a 2 1/2 hr audio) of a talk by Myron Fagan from 1967 where he explains it ALL! I'm thinking about posting it.
post the link as a post, would ya, and we'll get an #informationwar curation going
[Edit, also, I'll post a bibliography of my New Left material today]
I'm going to... You know me, I can't just post something without putting my 2 cents worth in. It isn't right- I use videos to back up some thesis I'm trying to make.
thats the way it should be done.
I dont mind a quick link-and-run post every once in a while from somebody that I know usually puts in effort, especially on a piece of information I havent seen before
The way I fashion my posts for Steemit is like this: First, I consider the audience (which seems to be more visually oriented in my experience- sorry buddy, you're the exception on here). Then I'll watch several videos- doing it like I would an academic piece (3 sources for each point) Then I pick the best video- 3 would be impractical and impracticable. I try to limit my blogs to 2-3 theses.
When I write it I try to do it kind of journalistically rather than all the heavy language- people want to be entertained a bit along with their facts. Maybe throw in some humor... seems to work. (some idiot just wanted sources for my Nazi post yesterday... It;s fucking HUMOR!
I should feel embarrassed for saying this, but I write mostly for me. You wouldn't believe how happy I am when people read and intelligently comment, or when a post gets a good payout ;>
I't been very hard for me to break out of Professor Steve mode ( a mode I entered frequently even before grad school)
Curated for #informationwar by @stevescoins
Relevance: leftist subversion
Our Purpose
Marxists could be a lot faster in their trek to utopia if they just invented a crazy deadly virus and only give the vaccine for it to those who have as much as others. The end result is the same in every case: Lot's of suffering and dead people.
Surely you're not suggesting that Marxists actually take time away from spending other people's money and- dare I say it- WORK???
lol ok you found the reason^^
hallo i really like your post build a steem to be big. i want to like you.
i think we should maintain what you are thinking and that is pick off on your post... carry on