The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby tapitsbo » Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:13 pm

jakell » Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:01 am wrote:On here I've seen some fairly strong denouncements of the idea of Cultural Marxism. At the time I mused that it seems ok for the Left to have all shades of conspiracy theories from strong to flimsy, and they are all mostly received with a degree of interest..... however, when the Right does a similar thing it is treated automatically with derision, a fairly unsymmetrical attitude.


Could be because you're observing/interacting with leftists. Politics contribute to peoples' epistemology, what seem like facts to the author of the OP "don't real" to most of the people in this thread.
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby jakell » Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:17 pm

Luther Blissett » Thu Mar 24, 2016 5:54 pm wrote:
jakell » Thu Mar 24, 2016 12:36 pm wrote:I should add, in the light of earlier mentions of white supremacism (still not shown BTW),…


The author believes reverse racism is real, argues against multiculturalism, is sad that people can't be openly racist and xenophobic for fear of losing their jobs, uses the term Hispanic in place of Latino, laments that people have discovered that there is white privilege and institutional racism, believes that Black Lives Matter serves only to make racial tensions worse, and lastly, specifically equates multiculturalism with knocking "the best" down "to match it with the worst the world has to offer".

It's taking me some mental gymnastics to imagine how that multiculturalism stance means something other than what it clearly means. That cultural Marxists force (FORCE!) Oglala Lakotas to live with some of the dregs of society - like white hedge fund managers - "injecting" the Rez with these jerks in order to destabilize it.


None of these directly equate to white supremacism though. Even racism does not equate to white supremacism, it is just about a dislike, and I can't even find any overt racism in the piece.

You may recall that I am very keen on defining the ecology (AD's word, but quite useful)of the extreme/far/alt right (these being separable) with a view to understanding them better, I cannot understand how intelligent folk (still) seem unable to overcome emotional responses here.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby tapitsbo » Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:23 pm

Is Latino more acceptable than Hispanic because it refers to ancient Italy? I want to know what RI thinks about this. I thought it was supposed to be "latinx" if we are going full Cultural Marxist (j/k)
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby jakell » Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:26 pm

Sounder » Thu Mar 24, 2016 5:57 pm wrote:
The people defending it here would be up in arms if AD posted something similarly vapid.


There is a lot in this life that is vapid. But one difference here is that the 'defenders' are willing to speak to critics without screaming; 'you, you Cultural Marxists', as distinguished from AD who posts vapidity, then will not speak to critics, and does nothing more than scream; 'youse guys are fascists'.


Don't know where your quote came from, (I wish folks would leave headers in), but it seems to be an assessment from way back. Nowadays, the stuff that AD posts barely seems to get any attention, if so then some of my critiques may have got some responses.

Here we have a good example of an article getting attention though. One article accompanied by three pages of analysis... which is how it should be right?
Contrast this with AD's three pages of copypasta (I may exaggerate slightly) followed by one lowly response... usually me.

You are right with the inverted commas on 'defenders', no one has 'defended' the article, no-one here is dumb enough to treat it as a whole... are they?
Last edited by jakell on Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby tapitsbo » Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:28 pm

Easy there jakell, you're casting aspersions on people with important jobs as Cultural Marxists.
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby jakell » Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:35 pm

tapitsbo » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:28 pm wrote:Easy there jakell, you're casting aspersions on people with important jobs as Cultural Marxists.


I've counted my aspersions and they're all present and correct. It must have been something else I was casting.

I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate a point I made earlier... to look specifically for 'Cultural Marxists' is a blind alley, and this is a mistake the author makes (it's a lazy easy mistake to make though, Leftists usually do it as 'TPTB'), and was the first bit that Wombat picked up on.

We could argue their reality till the cows come home, but really, CM is better seen as an idea/belief-system that is occasionally subscribed to various degrees. From the article:

..... what I would call a sociopolitical theology.....
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby Rory » Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:05 pm

jakell » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:26 pm wrote:
Sounder » Thu Mar 24, 2016 5:57 pm wrote:
The people defending it here would be up in arms if AD posted something similarly vapid.


There is a lot in this life that is vapid. But one difference here is that the 'defenders' are willing to speak to critics without screaming; 'you, you Cultural Marxists', as distinguished from AD who posts vapidity, then will not speak to critics, and does nothing more than scream; 'youse guys are fascists'.


Don't know where your quote came from, (I wish folks would leave headers in), but it seems to be an assessment from way back. Nowadays, the stuff that AD posts barely seems to get any attention, if so then some of my critiques may have got some responses.

Here we have a good example of an article getting attention though. One article accompanied by three pages of analysis... which is how it should be right?
Contrast this with AD's three pages of copypasta (I may exaggerate slightly) followed by one lowly response... usually me.

You are right with the inverted commas on 'defenders', no one has 'defended' the article, no-one here is dumb enough to treat it as a whole... are they?


LMAO
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby semper occultus » Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:07 pm

Sounder » 24 Mar 2016 16:34 wrote:Still there is a loud minority of people around that seem dedicated to undermining the value of nation states, and from my POV at any rate, looking to replace nation states with some kind of corporate super-state.

I call them Trans-nationalists or Globalists.


....well national identity & loyalties are to the globalist elite as a chastity belt is to the rapist......
User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby 82_28 » Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:18 pm

Everybody is correct. Nothing to fight over. It just is how it is. I know, very eloquent. However, there is never anything to fight/argue over. Every fucking soul (we all have some sort of life force within us) can always get along. I've never seen it yet otherwise until I see it. All are welcome in this existence. Everyone has "flaws". Don't point them out, but welcome the difference of immediate opinion. Sounds totally stupid, I know, but you just hug it out and wish people the best no matter what. Once you continue down this path, it won't get you anywhere, you will find that loving people/entities always works. You do not have to like them. Like I told my old "boss" I don't like you anymore but I will always love you.

Does no good but this is the nature of the beast. I will warn though that being the fucking friendliest asshole out there gets you nowhere but at least you know you cheered someone/something up by not having an "attitude". YMMV.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby jakell » Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:21 pm

Haven't seen any fights/arguments.

Of course, there could be, but on this occasion people seem to have held it together
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby 82_28 » Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:56 pm

No they haven't! This is deplorable. I hate the green function. So I won't use it. But I'm just kidding.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby jakell » Thu Mar 24, 2016 4:42 pm

82_28 » Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:56 pm wrote:No they haven't! This is deplorable. I hate the green function. So I won't use it. But I'm just kidding.


I'm losing track of how serious you might be here, so instead I'll just try and get back to the article (three pages and still no additional copypasta, can't be bad)

I've commented on this but there's another angle I wanted to look at:

Luther Blissett » Thu Mar 24, 2016 5:54 pm wrote:
jakell » Thu Mar 24, 2016 12:36 pm wrote:I should add, in the light of earlier mentions of white supremacism (still not shown BTW),…


The author believes reverse racism is real, argues against multiculturalism, is sad that people can't be openly racist and xenophobic for fear of losing their jobs, uses the term Hispanic in place of Latino, laments that people have discovered that there is white privilege and institutional racism, believes that Black Lives Matter serves only to make racial tensions worse, and lastly, specifically equates multiculturalism with knocking "the best" down "to match it with the worst the world has to offer".

It's taking me some mental gymnastics to imagine how that multiculturalism stance means something other than what it clearly means. That cultural Marxists force (FORCE!) Oglala Lakotas to live with some of the dregs of society - like white hedge fund managers - "injecting" the Rez with these jerks in order to destabilize it.


Most things can be done well, or done badly, and it is my opinion (based on UK experience) that 'multiculturalism' has been done badly. I don't recall it being a word for ages even and then suddenly, at the beginning of the 00's, integration was out, and multiculturalism was the new thing. I suspect this was a fudge though, 'integration' was becoming a bad joke.

Multiculturalism is a nice idea, lots of varying cultures living side by side and amongst each other, all getting along and respecting each others space and dignity, what could be better. This hasn't really worked in the past, but apparently things are different now and a new (but mysterious) magic glue has been discovered (I might speculate about this glue at another time).
Outside of the world of magic, what has enabled diverse folks to co-exist is an overriding culture, now it doesn't matter what that culture may be, as long as it holds the others together and is acceptable to all, and there are two appoaches to this.. use a pre-existing one, or invent a new one, this latter is the dream of CM's, but not just them, several other utopians have tried it too.

Unfortunately, in practice (and in the UK) multiculturalism hasn't really attended to either of the above and has been mainly a finger crossing exercise, authorities hoping that it will 'just work'. This is what I mean by 'multiculturalism done badly', and what I believe the author of the article is referring to.

Magic glue made me think of this (poor punchline, but good sketch):

" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby Luther Blissett » Thu Mar 24, 2016 4:47 pm

I don't know, I live in a multicultural neighborhood and it's worked for approximately 4-5 decades.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4990
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Thu Mar 24, 2016 4:50 pm

tapitsbo » Thu Mar 24, 2016 1:10 pm wrote:Without reading the article I just think it's funny that "cultural marxist" and "white supremacist" which people now don't call themselves (demanding explanations of what the terms they are being called mean) - were once self-identifying terms.


For the sake of my smug, didactic compulsions, that's not the case for "cultural marxist," which was conceived of and implemented as an epithet. There was never a school of earnest "cultural marxists," and if we're gonna talk about the Frankfurt School, I'm pretty sure the existing term of "Frankfurt School" suffices nicely.

I believe "cultural marxist" was a Weyrich / Heritage product initially, although of course it's all open source now.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby American Dream » Thu Mar 24, 2016 5:05 pm

The shoddiness of the thesis has been established for decades now and yet reactionaries in search of a convenient straw man keep returning to it like flies to shit...

Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment: The Frankfurt School as Scapegoat of the Lunatic Fringe

Martin Jay

Salmagundi
No.168/9, Fall 2010/Winter 2011


Although the process was foreshadowed in the 1960s when Herbert Marcuse became the media’s favorite “guru” of the New Left and was often portrayed in simple-minded terms, it wasn’t really until a decade or so ago that the School as a whole entered the netherworld of garbled memedom, and began circulating in a wide variety of narratives, such as that promoted by Estulin and Castro. Most of these, to be sure, came from a very different political direction. Patrick Buchanan’s 2001 best-selling screed against the nefarious impact of immigration, The Death of the West, was one major source, stigmatizing as it did the Frankfurt School for promoting “cultural Marxism” (a recycling of the old Weimar conservative charge of “cultural Bolshevism” aimed at aesthetic modernists). But the opening salvo had, in fact, been fired a decade earlier in a lengthy essay by one Michael Minnicino called “New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and ‘Political Correctness’,” published in 1992 in the obscure journal Fidelio.[4] Its provenance is particularly telling: it was an organ of the Lyndon Larouche movement cum cult, one of the less savory curiosities of nightmare fringe politics.

Larouche and his followers have, to be sure, always remained on the fringe of the fringe, too confused in their ideology to be taken seriously by either radical left or right, with little, if any significant impact on the real world. But the germ sown by Minnicino was ultimately to bear remarkable poisonous fruit. The harvester was the Free Congress Foundation, a paleo-conservative Washington think tank founded by Paul Weyrich, who was also in on the creation of the Heritage Foundation and the Moral Majority movement. Much of the financial support came from his collaborator Joseph Coors, who knew how to turn all that pure Rocky Mountain water into a cash flow for the radical right. The FCF sponsored a satellite television network called National Empowerment Television, which churned out slickly produced shows promulgating its various opinions.

In 1999, it broadcast an hour-long, skillfully crafted exposé of “Political Correctness: The Frankfurt School,” which was put together largely by William Lind, one of Weyrich’s colleagues at the Foundation and head of its Center for Cultural Conservatism. Weyrich himself appeared only at the end during a question-and-answer session with viewers who called in. In addition to Lind, a number of the usual suspects—the right-wing pundits Roger Kimball and David Horowitz, and the former football star and homophobic religious preacher Reggie White—comment on the School’s history. There is as well one anomalous figure, the author of the first history of the Frankfurt School, The Dialectical Imagination. The book was itself displayed at the end of the show, and recommended to anyone interested in the full story, albeit with the cautionary reminder that its author was himself a dangerous apologist for the School’s philosophy. Later Lind would crow in a column in The American Conservative, “The video is especially valuable because we interviewed the principal American expert on the Frankfurt School, Martin Jay, who was then the chairman of the History Department at Berkeley (and obviously no conservative). He spills the beans.”[5]

Ever since that lamentable broadcast I have often been asked how I fell among such dubious characters, and so let me beg the reader’s indulgence for a moment to explain before moving on to the larger issues at hand. When I was approached for the interview, I was not informed of the political agenda of the broadcasters, who seemed very professional and courteous. Having done a number of similar shows in the past on one or another aspect of the history of the Frankfurt School, I naively assumed the end results would reflect my opinions with some fidelity, at least within the constraints of the edited final product. But what happened instead was that all my critical remarks about the hypocrisy of the right-wing campaign against political correctness were lost and what remained were simple factual statements confirming the Marxist origins of the School, which had never been a secret to anyone. Interweaving my edited testimony into the larger narrative may have given it an unearned legitimacy, which I now, of course, regret, but it’s likely the effect would have been pretty much the same without my participation as “useful idiot.” Those beans I allegedly spilled had already been on the plate for a very long time, and it would have taken no effort at all to confirm that, yes, they were Marxists, and yes, they thought cultural questions were important, and yes, they—or at least Marcuse—worried about the effects of “repressive tolerance.”

In any event, the “documentary,” soon available on the net, spawned a number of condensed textual versions, which were reproduced on a number of radical right-wing sites. These in turn led to a welter of new videos now available on You Tube, which feature an odd cast of pseudo-experts regurgitating exactly the same line. The message is numbingly simplistic: all the ills of modern American culture, from feminism, affirmative action, sexual liberation and gay rights to the decay of traditional education and even environmentalism are ultimately attributable to the insidious influence of the members of the Institute for Social Research who came to America in the 1930s. The origins of “cultural Marxism” are traced back to Lukács and Gramsci, but because they were not actual émigrés, their role in the narrative is not as prominent. Nor do most of the commentators attribute responsibility to the Communist International, although occasionally, as in the case of Cry Havoc!, a 2007 book by a founder of the National Review, Ralph de Toledano, the crackpot claim is actually advanced that the Frankfurt School was a Commie front set up by Willi Muenzenberger.[6]

There is a transparent subtext in the original CFC program, which is not hard to discern and has become more explicit with each telling of the narrative. Although there is scarcely any direct reference to the ethnic origins of the School’s members, subtle hints allow the listener to draw his own conclusions about the provenance of foreigners who tried to combine Marx and Freud, those giants of critical Jewish intelligence. At one point, William Lind asserts that “once in America they shifted the focus of their work from destroying German society to attacking the society and culture of its new place of refuge,”[7] as if the very people who had to flee the Nazis had been responsible for what they were fleeing![8] Airtime is also given to another of Weyrich’s colleagues at the FCF, Lazlo Pasztor, who is innocently identified as a “leader of the Hungarian resistance against Communism,” but had already been discredited a decade earlier as a former member of the pro-Nazi “Arrow Cross,” who had to leave the Bush campaign in 1988 when he was outed.

A number of years later a fringe neo-Nazi group called “Stormfront” could boldly express what had hitherto only been insinuated, and in so doing really spill some foul-tasting beans:

Talking about the Frankfurt School is ideal for not naming the Jews as a group (which often leads to a panicky rejection, a stubborn refusal to listening anymore and even a “shut up”) but naming the Jew by proper names. People will make their generalizations by themselves – in the privacy of their own minds. At least it worked like that with me. It was my lightbulb moment, when confusing pieces of an alarming puzzle suddenly grouped to a visible picture. Learn by heart the most important proper names of the Frankfurt Schoolers – they are (except for a handful of minor members and female “groupies”) ALL Jews. One can even quite innocently mention that the Frankfurt Schoolers had to leave Germany in 1933 because “they were to a man, Jewish,” as William S. Lind does.[9]


Now that the real origins of political correctness in the cultural Marxism devised by a clever bunch of foreign-born Jews had been revealed, the full extent of the damage they had caused could be spelled out. Here is a list cited verbatim from many of the websites devoted to the question:

1. The creation of racism offences

2. Continual change to create confusion

3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children

4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority

5. Huge immigration to destroy identity

6. The promotion of excessive drinking

7. Emptying of churches

8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime

9. Dependency on the state or state benefits

10. Control and dumbing down of media

11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family
[10]

Well, I suppose at least the second plank has been realized, with perhaps the self-inflicted help of the sixth. In this confused world, it is only a short step to blaming everything from Roman Polanski’s lust for underage girls to the allegedly liberal curriculum at the Naval Academy to Obama’s health care initiative—these are among many of the wild assertions one can find online—on the sinister influence of Horkheimer and his friends. One site even asserts that the Fabian Society, the reformist intellectuals of late 19th-century British socialism, was “a division of the Frankfurt School,” which suggests that linear chronology can be swept aside when it comes to exposing the work of the devil. The ultimate goal of “cultural Marxism” in their telling is thus far more than the leftist thought-control that denies alternative positions under the guise of restricting hate speech. It is the subversion of Western civilization itself.

It is, frankly, very difficult to know what to make of all of this and even harder to imagine a way to counter it. The radical Left, it has to be conceded, has at times also scapegoated émigré intellectuals for their sinister, covert influence. After Bush’s invasion of Iraq, the neo-conservatives supposedly inspired by Leo Strauss and his followers were blamed for inspiring a foreign policy that was ultimately in Israel’s interest. Here too a certain anti-Semitic subtext could easily creep into the discourse.[11] And as we see in the unholy alliance of Castro and Estulin, the Frankfurt School could be assigned the same role by leftists also fighting against the shadowy string-pullers allegedly running the universe. Indeed, if we go back to Estulin’s original Spanish text and look for the source that he cites to make his absurd claim that was swallowed whole by the gullible Castro, we find the very same 1992 essay by the Lyndon Larouche minion Michael Minnicino that was the source of the Free Congress Foundation video![12] But the vast majority of accusations of this sort come out of a swamp of shockingly ill-informed, logically challenged demagogues on the radical right, whose easy access to the internet allows them blithely to spread the most egregious nonsense.

Does the sheer quantity of sites devoted to disseminating it, almost always drawing on the same obsessively repeated pseudo-facts and unfounded speculations, suggest a genuinely widespread phenomenon? Although it may be hard to gauge its real extent, the momentum of the dissemination has certainly accelerated in the past few years. What began as a bizarre Lyndon Larouche coinage has become the common currency of a larger and larger public of addled enragés. As the case of Pat Buchanan shows, it has entered at least the fringes of the mainstream. Indeed, if you include right-wing radio demagogues with sizeable audiences like the thuggish Michael Savage, it has now become their stock in trade as well.[13] Can it be doubted that if you polled the crowds at Tea Party rallies about the influence of “cultural Marxism” on the decline of American culture, which they want to “take back” from immigrants, recent and otherwise, you would find significant familiarity with this discourse?

Until very recently and then only in passing has the radical right’s obsession with “cultural Marxism” and the Frankfurt School even been noticed, let alone systematically analyzed.[14] There has, in contrast, been a sustained scholarly interest in the ways in which Critical Theory has been received in America, including scrupulously researched and judiciously argued new books by David Jenneman and Thomas Wheatland about the ways in which they interacted with American culture during their actual time as émigrés.[15] But only their influence on and interaction with other intellectuals has attracted real attention. There is little, if any, connection between this reception and the one detailed above. The latter functions instead on the far lower level of the demagogic propaganda spewed by the very “prophets of deceit,” to cite the title of Lowenthal’s contribution to the Institute’s Studies in Authority, who were analyzed sixty years ago by the Frankfurt School itself.[16]

It is very disheartening to see how robust this phenomenon remains today, and a source of bitter irony to observe how the School itself has become its explicit target. But if there is one positive implication of these developments, it is the perverse tribute today’s radical right pays to the School’s acuity in revealing the workings of their deplorable ideology and its origins in their political and psychological pathologies. In looking for a scapegoat for all the transformations of culture which they can’t abide, they have recognized the most acute analysts of their own condition. In the fog of their blighted understanding, they have discerned a real threat. But it is not to some phantasm called “Western civilization,” whose most valuable achievements they themselves routinely betray, but rather to their own pathetic and misguided worldview and the dangerous politics it has spawned in our climate of heightened fear and despair.

The answer should not be to replace one scapegoat with another and trace all critiques of political correctness and the anxieties of those who level them back to the machinations of an extremist cult. Only a solution in which the deeper sources of those anxieties can be reduced will lessen the attraction of such theories to the people who find them persuasive. But perhaps at least exposing the paper trail leading from Lyndon Larouche to both Paul Weyrich and Fidel Castro can cause some of the more gullible to pause before they leap into the abyss. If not, at least we can always fall back on those death panels mandated by our foreign-born Muslim socialist president, himself a tool of the Frankfurt school,[17] to keep those who resist our plot to destroy Western civilization in line. Oops, sorry, more beans spilled…
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests