Is Britain a culturally Marxist society?
http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism
http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism
Is Britain a culturally Marxist society?
- Thread starter monoglot
- Start date
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
i don;t know, what do you think n00b?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
No. It's not.
Bill Lind. Accuracy in Academia. No, that's what it honestly says.
What do you see as the definding characterisrics of cultural Marxism monoglot? What are it's defects? Are there any advantages to seeing the world in this manner?
Bill Lind. Accuracy in Academia. No, that's what it honestly says.
What do you see as the definding characterisrics of cultural Marxism monoglot? What are it's defects? Are there any advantages to seeing the world in this manner?
No not a bit. Britain is a culturally capitalist society sadly. Marxist ideas are very much a tiny minority, probably less than 1% of the population.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Hocus Eye. said:
What's a culturally capitalist society mean?
How did you come up with the 1% figure? What do you think marxist ideas are limiited to 1%?
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
yeha, i'd disagree with that too. marxist ideas are a lot wider - in my social group it's about 90%, in my wider experience i reckon at least 20% of people have views which, upon alalysis are marxist even if they don't realise it or describe themselves as such.
Concepts like racism, sexism and homophobia reverse the normal pluralist assumption that people be free and expected to have more than one view on issues of gender, race and culture etc. to one which presumes a conformity to a belief in equality. With such concepts increasingly being given the weight of law it could be argued that the law is becoming a political instrument for forcing conformity to what is an essentially communist or cultural Marxist social ethos of equality.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6742955.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6742955.stm
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
Well that clinches it, let's lock *everyone in the country* up as a bunch of card-carrying commies.monoglot said:
You're weird. Do you really think that the current ideas of 'equality' (as enforced by law) only comes from Marxism? That's pretty ignorant.
Seems to me you just don't like it so you're trying to smear it with the oldest insult in the book. It's fine to disagree and I don't necessarily like all the legislation myself, but you're not really presenting arguments here, just attempted insults.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
monoglot said:
Explain this.
This is your multi-culturalism from the right, that connects with the more liberal multi-culturalism from the left. Hey. we've all got our cultural diffs and they are our destiny (which is where this comnnects back to the biological rcism this thinking is based upon).
Concepts like racism are based on equality of treatment anyway - not equality of 'views'.
Help! I'm being oppressed for being a racist sexist homphobe - this clearly
reverses the normal pluralist assumption that people be free and expected to have more than one view on issues of gender, race and culture
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Leaving aside the obvious and humiliating spelling error in 'conservative:
Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American University
So what you're saying is that the measures taken to help people avoid falling into the mindset of generalised negative stereotyping by removing or tabooing the language that can be used to express such thought are actually akin to Marxism?
Why not be honest and say that you think PC-influenced language is a variant on Orwell's 'Newspeak' instead of using your essay title...
Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American University
So what you're saying is that the measures taken to help people avoid falling into the mindset of generalised negative stereotyping by removing or tabooing the language that can be used to express such thought are actually akin to Marxism?
Why not be honest and say that you think PC-influenced language is a variant on Orwell's 'Newspeak' instead of using your essay title...
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
S/he wants to be able to call queers and niggers queer niggers in peace bascially.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
@ KS:
Thanks for explaining it.
I genuinely had no idea what the OP could possibly mean. Strange idea.
Eta: and couldn't be bothered to read the links
Thanks for explaining it.
I genuinely had no idea what the OP could possibly mean. Strange idea.
Eta: and couldn't be bothered to read the links
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Well s/he/it can do so in the privacy of their own home; indeed, they can do so outside in the street, only that action will have a consequence one way or another.
I fail to see where s/he/it's problem lies...
I fail to see where s/he/it's problem lies...
I'm a male actually and I'm simply asking a question.
If people are not allowed to express their honest opinions effectively in order to defend their interests as they see them and to obey their moral consciences, but permitted merely to express their true beliefs only in private, isn't that concept of freedom rather ineffectual and cosmetic and rather like the way religion must be practised in communist societies.
A society in which people are effectively only allowed to believe in equality and only to be tolerant is not a free society.
If people are not allowed to express their honest opinions effectively in order to defend their interests as they see them and to obey their moral consciences, but permitted merely to express their true beliefs only in private, isn't that concept of freedom rather ineffectual and cosmetic and rather like the way religion must be practised in communist societies.
A society in which people are effectively only allowed to believe in equality and only to be tolerant is not a free society.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
You're right.monoglot said:
You should be free to be an intolerant bigot.
And I should be free to kick your head in.
That the kind of freedom you're talking about?
You forget that there are two kinds of freedom - the freedom to act and the freedom not to be acted upon. Obviously these freedoms are often mutually exclusive, and so a restriction on one person's freedom is imposed in order to support the freedom of another.
A system of rights which imposes a stifling egalitarianism on society and prevents groups from competing with one another and from effectively defending their interests as they see them denies that society the right to preserve its native character and is therefore prejudiced against that native character, this is cultural Marxism, a social model which is likely to produce the same debilitating effects which economic Marxism has on an economy in the cultural and social sphere.
monoglot said:
sorry mr Nationalist idiot but your version of 'our' 'native character' I suspect is a long long way from the multiferious ways of life people in fact opt for in our society. It is you who obviously want to impose a rigid system of culture and beliefs based on some nightmare (dream to you) vision of an English or British spirit that has never existed.
rhys gethin
New Member
monoglot said:
What on earth has this rant got to do with marxism, first of all? Second, who is imposing this 'stifling egalitarianism' (not that I've seen any) but the society itself? What is 'its native character' - something, I'd guess, that goes with the outmoded concept 'anglo-saxon' and its associated German-style racism? I think you have indigestion and are just mouthing irritation; otherwise, you sound to be a serious racist, and my notion of our native character is that bigots such as that should be locked up before they can do serious harm.
Cultural Marxism is based on an assumption of cultural and racial equality which denies people the right to express a discriminatory preference on those terms, now it is impossible to believe in anything if it is considered to be no better than any alternative and if it is necessary to believe in something strongly enough to express a discriminatory preference in its favour for it to survive then cultural Marxism denies people the right to such belief and therefore the right to survive.
I think that it is the denial of this essential right to survive from which comes the popular perception that Cultural Marxism and multi-culturalism in the European context are damaging to the native interests and character of European society.
Cultural Marxism is therefore postulated on the basis of a process of cultural and racial homogenisation which is prejudiced against the interests and survival of any distinct cultural and racial identity of which indigenous Europeans are an example.
I think that it is the denial of this essential right to survive from which comes the popular perception that Cultural Marxism and multi-culturalism in the European context are damaging to the native interests and character of European society.
Cultural Marxism is therefore postulated on the basis of a process of cultural and racial homogenisation which is prejudiced against the interests and survival of any distinct cultural and racial identity of which indigenous Europeans are an example.
I don't really see the point in engaging with the o/p.
There is no racially pure homogonous Europe that needs saving from extinction by the existance of multiculturalism.
The things the o/per detests are not the result of some imposed 'Marxist' mindset (imposed by a cabal of Jews is that?).
The reason the white monoculture imagined by your average Nazi has not 'survived' is because it never existed.
There is no racially pure homogonous Europe that needs saving from extinction by the existance of multiculturalism.
The things the o/per detests are not the result of some imposed 'Marxist' mindset (imposed by a cabal of Jews is that?).
The reason the white monoculture imagined by your average Nazi has not 'survived' is because it never existed.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
look mate, if you want to go around yelling racist/sexist/homophobic/theophobic/whatever comments, you are completely free to so so. Hell, if you want to write a paper on the scieitific reasons WASPs are the pinnacle of human evolution, stand at Speakers corner saying that Women should be in the kitchen, or stand at gay Pride yelling at everyone that they're killing the species via their non-procreative orientation you are COMPLETELY free to do so - the only things you can really be badgered by the OB on seriously is if you start calling for violent action to be taken against people.
But as LBJ quite rightly points out, anyone listening to the shit that would be spewing from your mouth who disagrees with it is also free to disagree with it in as vehement a way as is legally allowed...and if no-one's looking at the time maybe a little more.
Fuck all to do with Marxism - if you'd said Maoist or Leninist you might be on slightly stronger grounds, but you have failed to identify a philosophy that prevents or denies any group a right to defend it's interests - multiculturalism isn't a philosophy, it's an ongoing (and IMV misguided) political project that stems from a combination of the identity politics of the 70s and 80 and the notion of political correctness, which I agree in some of it's forms DOES behave the way newspeak works - ban the words and you have no way of expressing the thought, but that's impossible - if you have a thought you'll find a way to express it via some form of communication.
But as LBJ quite rightly points out, anyone listening to the shit that would be spewing from your mouth who disagrees with it is also free to disagree with it in as vehement a way as is legally allowed...and if no-one's looking at the time maybe a little more.
Fuck all to do with Marxism - if you'd said Maoist or Leninist you might be on slightly stronger grounds, but you have failed to identify a philosophy that prevents or denies any group a right to defend it's interests - multiculturalism isn't a philosophy, it's an ongoing (and IMV misguided) political project that stems from a combination of the identity politics of the 70s and 80 and the notion of political correctness, which I agree in some of it's forms DOES behave the way newspeak works - ban the words and you have no way of expressing the thought, but that's impossible - if you have a thought you'll find a way to express it via some form of communication.
dash_two said:
In particular the native group and their interest in defending the native character of their homeland. In a genuinely free society people are free to determine what their own interests are as they see them and not to have them defined for them by an authority which has no sympathy, loyalty or understanding for the interests of that group.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
What is the native group - how are they indentified? And what are their interests? How do are they identified?
Similar threads
