What's Going On: Explaining Ideologies

Dec 2016
5,570
2,825
Canada
#61
[/QUOTE]

Naughty, naughty. If I want to tell you who I am or give out personal details I’ll let you know. :) (My name is not Warden).[/QUOTE]
Okay, Watkins...whatever! You told us that the 2nd essay on Hubpages in the OP that was authored by "James A. Watkins is yours. And fwiw, I couldn't find much else that a 'J.A. Watkins' had written online on anything. And if you want to make arguments from authority -- claiming to be a credentialed scholar of some sort, you got to show your cred as proof!

For my part, I've had no formal education past high school, and claim no credentials, nor am I impressed by credentials of others -- if I think information or an argument is valid....especially if it's something I haven't seen or known about before, then I start taking interest.
 
Aug 2019
164
88
Warwickshire UK
#63
Naughty, naughty. If I want to tell you who I am or give out personal details I’ll let you know. :) (My name is not Warden).[/QUOTE]
Okay, Watkins...whatever! You told us that the 2nd essay on Hubpages in the OP that was authored by "James A. Watkins is yours. And fwiw, I couldn't find much else that a 'J.A. Watkins' had written online on anything. And if you want to make arguments from authority -- claiming to be a credentialed scholar of some sort, you got to show your cred as proof!

For my part, I've had no formal education past high school, and claim no credentials, nor am I impressed by credentials of others -- if I think information or an argument is valid....especially if it's something I haven't seen or known about before, then I start taking interest.[/QUOTE]


Not Watkins either and I’ve never said that article on Hubpages was mine. The ‘Cultural Marxism – Social Chaos’ was mine. I have also never claimed to be a ‘credentialed scholar’ and even if I was, I wouldn’t need to prove it to a forum. I’ve studied at post-grad level and taught the social sciences internationally, that’s all you get unless I choose to offer you more information. I don’t write for you and couldn’t care less whether you like the basic posts I write here. Does that clear things up a bit? If I decide to write an autobiography about myself I’ll let you know. Meanwhile, stick to the topic? :)
 
Aug 2019
164
88
Warwickshire UK
#64
A major problem is that a generation has been so indoctrinated to believe in racism, Nazism and that everything around them is now a right wing conspiracy, that they’re looking around right wing websites for proof and not finding anything are left scratching their heads.

A lot of you lefty’s on the forum are young people and it shows. That’s not a problem in itself, but the problem is you were never taught critical thinking because that’s dangerous. It would mean you would start to question and that’s not allowed because if you had to think and explain yourselves it would sound like nonsense even to you. It’s also why the left use political correctness to stifle debate and why you skip the content and focus on the poster using sound bites. No problem, it's expected.

You function, to use an American euphemism, on ‘trigger’ words. It’s rather like the word association used by psychiatrists. White – racist. Trump – Nazi. Cultural Marxism – right wing. When you do come up against questions that need thought, your indoctrination didn’t teach you how to respond and so anything you don’t understand becomes right wing, as does the poster. It’s a robotic form of answer using defined sound bites.

Many of the people who put this nonsense into soft heads can’t articulate what they mean either and employ professional scrip writers. Look, I’ll give you an example. Here’s a 1.10m video of Obama without a script to read from. You know, the one who came to heal America, the Messiah with all the answers, brave new world and all that?




If Obama can’t speak for one minute, I wouldn’t expect debate from his followers either and it’s why they left (pun) you lot to go into the streets with your masks on hitting people over the head and they went into politics and got rich. It’s also why I use videos on occasion to point out nonsense. This replicates itself across Youtube where reporters go to left protests and occupy sit-ins and many times the people there don’t even know what they’re protesting about and the reporter also becomes a right wing fascist for asking. Why would I expect any different on a forum? It’s why I explain. Some like it, some don’t. Never mind who I am. I'm the person who tells you what the indoctrination missed out. Look on me as Defending the Truth! :)
 
Last edited:
Likes: coldjoint
Dec 2016
5,570
2,825
Canada
#65
Naughty, naughty. If I want to tell you who I am or give out personal details I’ll let you know. :) (My name is not Warden).
Okay, Watkins...whatever! You told us that the 2nd essay on Hubpages in the OP that was authored by "James A. Watkins is yours. And fwiw, I couldn't find much else that a 'J.A. Watkins' had written online on anything. And if you want to make arguments from authority -- claiming to be a credentialed scholar of some sort, you got to show your cred as proof!

For my part, I've had no formal education past high school, and claim no credentials, nor am I impressed by credentials of others -- if I think information or an argument is valid....especially if it's something I haven't seen or known about before, then I start taking interest.

Not Watkins either and I’ve never said that article on Hubpages was mine. The ‘Cultural Marxism – Social Chaos’ was mine. I have also never claimed to be a ‘credentialed scholar’ and even if I was, I wouldn’t need to prove it to a forum. I’ve studied at post-grad level and taught the social sciences internationally, that’s all you get unless I choose to offer you more information. I don’t write for you and couldn’t care less whether you like the basic posts I write here. Does that clear things up a bit? If I decide to write an autobiography about myself I’ll let you know. Meanwhile, stick to the topic? :)
Okay, so you're "John V" then, the author of the first piece about cultural marxism. Which also makes no mention of the fact that any phenomena that became labelled by rightwingers as "Cultural Marxism" does not have foundations in Marxist theory! It's just a rightwing critique of a range of liberal social advocates and their policies. If you were teaching in a communist or former communist country, how would you not be aware of the difference?

This liberal defense and critique of the use of the term "cultural marxism" by conservatives gives a better understanding of where it came from, and why it's impossible to separate the use of the term from its first appliers,who blamed it's origins on what became known after WWII as "The Frankfurt School." A group of Jewish intellectuals, most of whom taught philosophy and social theory at the Goethe University Frankfurt after the end of the first world war. Many of them fled Nazi Germany during the 1930's and continued work together in America in the creation of the relativistic school of thought known as Post-Modernism. And which conservatives in America blamed for the rise of the "beatniks" in the 50's and hippies in the later 60's. So, if you're going to write about The Frankfurt School, why not mention that this group of theorists began at the Institute for Social Research at Goethe University instead of making an unsubstantiated and notably unfootnoted claim that the ISR began as the "Institute for Marxist Studies and changed it's name?" There are records of these places and events.

Horkheimer made three important changes.
First, he changed Marx’s theory that culture was merely a part of society’s superstructure and that culture wasthe driving force.​
Second, he deviated from the proletariat as agents of revolution and determined the culturally oppressedreplace them.​
Third, the oppressed existed under psychological repression. The important distinction of introducingpsychology deviated from ideological philosophy and introduced psychological conditioning, to change society’sopinion​

Could be right! I have never been interested in post-modernism, and I don't appreciate the shift liberals have made over the decades from working with labor to the "Third Way" Clinton/Blair method, and detaching themselves and their concerns from working class people. Many black and certainly a lot of Latinos view expressions of concern for them as empty gestures and tokenism, as the elite Liberal Class seems just intent on promoting a ruling class elite from each targeted visible minority. This has been the net effect of affirmative action quota campaigns, which have only benefited those able to qualify for university and professional careers/ NOT the majority who are left behind. Even Goldman-Sachs can run ad campaigns with multicultural faces, bragging about the 'diversity' of their hiring methods........while foreclosing on black homeowners and gentrifying renters out of neighborhoods they've lived in for three or more generations! To me, this is the great weakness and failing of identity politics, regardless of which group (including poor whites) is being played! Which in the bulk of that essay, seems to be what you are aiming for!

Fear and revulsion over homosexuals being allowed and allowed to get married; fear that the boot will slip off the necks of the black underclass trapped in urban ghetto misery: fear of a hysterical claim of "white genocide," that colored immigrants will overrun our culture and make America and Canada non-white countries.....which they were before a centuries-long ethnic cleansing campaign aided by imported slave laborers from Africa....but the myth is America is supposed to be a white nation. And rich Republicans will try to keep the loyalty of a base of increasingly impoverished suburban and rural voters by saying skin color trumps comparative wealth!

Well, rich blacks don't share the economic interests of the black majority and rich whites don't share the majority interests either! The Superrich fear Marxism or any other socialist class-based theory, because they represent a small minority ruling class which has all the power over our lives and controls both sides of the politcal aisle. So revolution aside, there's no way to vote out the bastards! Because both conservative and liberal identity politics serve the same masters!

Sure, some of these billionaires may be liberals, and likely a majority consider themselves conservatives. But, regardless of which side of the identity politics aisle they are playing, that's the arena where they want the game to be continued in. The last thing they want is for more working people to notice that average hourly pay is less than what it was in the early 70's..adjusted for inflation, and savings are crashing, as Bernie Sanders frequently declares that close to half of the population doesn't have enough in savings to cover a 400 or 500 dollar emergency expense.

The wealthy interests and the banks and corporations they're invested in, see profit opportunities from both liberal and conservative politics; but anything hinting at socialism.....even the tepid, meek and mild form served up by Sanders is seen as a threat to their profit margins and investment portfolios.
 
Aug 2019
164
88
Warwickshire UK
#66
Okay, so you're "John V" then, the author of the first piece about cultural marxism. Which also makes no mention of the fact that any phenomena that became labelled by rightwingers as "Cultural Marxism" does not have foundations in Marxist theory! It's just a rightwing critique of a range of liberal social advocates and their policies. If you were teaching in a communist or former communist country, how would you not be aware of the difference?

This liberal defense and critique of the use of the term "cultural marxism" by conservatives gives a better understanding of where it came from, and why it's impossible to separate the use of the term from its first appliers,who blamed it's origins on what became known after WWII as "The Frankfurt School." A group of Jewish intellectuals, most of whom taught philosophy and social theory at the Goethe University Frankfurt after the end of the first world war. Many of them fled Nazi Germany during the 1930's and continued work together in America in the creation of the relativistic school of thought known as Post-Modernism. And which conservatives in America blamed for the rise of the "beatniks" in the 50's and hippies in the later 60's. So, if you're going to write about The Frankfurt School, why not mention that this group of theorists began at the Institute for Social Research at Goethe University instead of making an unsubstantiated and notably unfootnoted claim that the ISR began as the "Institute for Marxist Studies and changed it's name?" There are records of these places and events.


Could be right! I have never been interested in post-modernism, and I don't appreciate the shift liberals have made over the decades from working with labor to the "Third Way" Clinton/Blair method, and detaching themselves and their concerns from working class people. Many black and certainly a lot of Latinos view expressions of concern for them as empty gestures and tokenism, as the elite Liberal Class seems just intent on promoting a ruling class elite from each targeted visible minority. This has been the net effect of affirmative action quota campaigns, which have only benefited those able to qualify for university and professional careers/ NOT the majority who are left behind. Even Goldman-Sachs can run ad campaigns with multicultural faces, bragging about the 'diversity' of their hiring methods........while foreclosing on black homeowners and gentrifying renters out of neighborhoods they've lived in for three or more generations! To me, this is the great weakness and failing of identity politics, regardless of which group (including poor whites) is being played! Which in the bulk of that essay, seems to be what you are aiming for!

Fear and revulsion over homosexuals being allowed and allowed to get married; fear that the boot will slip off the necks of the black underclass trapped in urban ghetto misery: fear of a hysterical claim of "white genocide," that colored immigrants will overrun our culture and make America and Canada non-white countries.....which they were before a centuries-long ethnic cleansing campaign aided by imported slave laborers from Africa....but the myth is America is supposed to be a white nation. And rich Republicans will try to keep the loyalty of a base of increasingly impoverished suburban and rural voters by saying skin color trumps comparative wealth!

Well, rich blacks don't share the economic interests of the black majority and rich whites don't share the majority interests either! The Superrich fear Marxism or any other socialist class-based theory, because they represent a small minority ruling class which has all the power over our lives and controls both sides of the politcal aisle. So revolution aside, there's no way to vote out the bastards! Because both conservative and liberal identity politics serve the same masters!

Sure, some of these billionaires may be liberals, and likely a majority consider themselves conservatives. But, regardless of which side of the identity politics aisle they are playing, that's the arena where they want the game to be continued in. The last thing they want is for more working people to notice that average hourly pay is less than what it was in the early 70's..adjusted for inflation, and savings are crashing, as Bernie Sanders frequently declares that close to half of the population doesn't have enough in savings to cover a 400 or 500 dollar emergency expense.

The wealthy interests and the banks and corporations they're invested in, see profit opportunities from both liberal and conservative politics; but anything hinting at socialism.....even the tepid, meek and mild form served up by Sanders is seen as a threat to their profit margins and investment portfolios.
Yes, I’m John and use various pseudonyms, but not that it matters. OK, so we divert back to cultural Marxism. I’m aware of the difference between classical and cultural Marxism, it’s why it was a part of what I taught. The left in America are 50 years behind the rest of the world and still looking around for signs of barricades and red flags to the point where even the Russians are laughing at you. You’re still at the stage of voting in Messiahs and running round the streets in black masks hitting people over the head because you think opposition to mass-immigration makes people Nazis.

Ideologies aren’t static, they adapt to suit an era. You couldn’t for instance win any support now by promising Bread for the Workers and that’s now changed to an Obama phone and welfare. Likewise, the term communism changed to progressivism and the hard-left in the US became Democrats and the working class were abandoned for minorities … What did you expect the Obama’s and Bernie’s to do; walk around the streets waving communist flags? They will tell you they’re progressives and it’s up to you to find out what progressivism really is and it isn’t progress.

There is no liberal critique of cultural Marxism. It’s either denied or dismissed as a right wing plot. I’m not going to go through it again, but for those who are interested I explain where it came from and what it is in my link. If what I wrote was a right wing plot, do you think I’d have put it on an academic website where it’s had over 1200 views? Have you any idea how many academics have downloaded it?

Ex-members of the Frankfurt school were not involved in the 50’s, but they did play a major role in the 60’s ‘Hippy revolution.’ Remember ‘Make love not War’? That’s Marcuse, as was the rallying cry of ‘Marcuse, Marx, Mao’ in the 68 Paris student protests. The origins of the Frankfurt school had nothing to do with a university, it was an independent social research think tank of Marxist theorists who on the rise of Hitler changed their name to its location to disguise its purpose. Post Second World War it may very well have gained university status, but I don’t cover that in my essay.

Ditch the ‘right wing plot’ sound bites and look around you. When did the open borders start? When did Antifa and BLM spring up? When did homosexuality become a mainstream lifestyle choice? When did recreational drugs start to become legal? When did mass shootings spiral …? Under which president did all that start to happen? That’s cultural Marxism; the attempt to destroy traditional values and replace them with anarchy. I think I’ll start from basics and do a thread on HOW to understand society and politics.
 
Likes: coldjoint
Nov 2005
8,964
3,443
California
#67
Trump isn’t some phenomenon that’s suddenly appeared in America, he’s the nationalist reaction to cultural Marxist Obama.​
This seems to be a popular CLAIM that right-wingers throw around but easily falls apart on scrutiny.
Hell. Just one simple question causes this claim to fall apart...

How can "Trump" (who has had a consistent majority disapproval rating for years now) be a "nationalist reaction" to Obama, who finished up with a clear NET APPROVAL rating for months before the Trump / Clinton election?
 
Aug 2019
164
88
Warwickshire UK
#68
This seems to be a popular CLAIM that right-wingers throw around but easily falls apart on scrutiny.
Hell. Just one simple question causes this claim to fall apart...

How can "Trump" (who has had a consistent majority disapproval rating for years now) be a "nationalist reaction" to Obama, who finished up with a clear NET APPROVAL rating for months before the Trump / Clinton election?
You live in a polarized society of two extremes and spend your lives hurling insults at one another without looking at the causes. It’s nothing to do with approval ratings. The litmus test occurs at elections and just as Obama succeeded in 2008/12, by 2016 the population got fed up of the chaos and elected Trump. I’m certainly not a big fan of Trump, but that’s how democracy works. As one extreme failed, another took its place. When the USSR fell it turned nationalist. When Mao died in China it embraced capitalism. It’s how societies work. In the US, everything is the fault of the right or left, depending on which side of the fence you’re on.

In a way, all this makes me smile and I’ve said on another forum, if I was a young man again I’d go to America and I would become very successful. It’s the only place on earth I can think of that I could sell a gullible leftist millennial generation an apple, which when rubbed and a Hail Mary of, ‘Yes we can’, said, would produce a utopia and people would believe me. I couldn’t pretend I’m a Messiah though, as that one has already been done.

It’s visible from the indoctrinated on this forum. At first cultural Marxism was denied to exist. Then it existed but was an attack on the Jews. Then we had the belief that an American called Lind produced it in the 60s and finally it went full circle and became the usual right-wing conspiracy. Open borders containing cultural equality, Antifa violence, BLM riots, huge rise in welfare dependency, campuses that resemble Marxist institutions … They’re all right-wing conspiracies? You didn’t need characters like Obama, Pelosi and Clinton then, it was the conservatives and American right who did it? It’s funny, but also sad that many on the left were not only sold a bridge, but even when they see the results they don’t even realize it. I'm serious, the last time I saw indoctrination on this scale of gullibility was in North Korea.

I’ve said before, political science is not an opinion, it’s based on facts which is why it contains the word ‘science.’ Sometimes those facts don’t fit our subjective views, other times we don’t like to face the results, but the world is what it is and if we fail to realize what produces the consequences, the same mistakes are repeated in every generation and this one is no different. I can read the millennial indoctrination results of the Obama years on this forum as can some others, but it’s so obvious to those of us outside the US.
 

Similar Discussions