Is conservatism the political middle ground?

[gorski]

Nazis may change the rhetoric but not their "minds"...

This one they are deploying nowadays is "milder" and is playing to the "received wisdom" card - but they can't hide their vicious nature, try as hard as they can... Myths and muck of the worst sort!! YUK!!!!!!!!

 

[monoglot]

Well, we've all been over this 'cultural marxism' fantasy enough, I think. All political parties and economic groups everywhere are 'marxist' in the sense that their material interest comes first except when their minds are being effectively muddled by the dominant groups, the ones with 'hegemony'. So much is obvious.

That is not at all to wave away cultural characteristics (though they are obviously not 'innate': move a newborn child from the Hebrides to Mexico, s/he will grow up to be a Mexican). I am a very keen supporter, for instance, of our language, Cymraeg, and a keen reader of English literature, but even if Mr Cameron could read Shakespeare intelligently or went to classes in Bangor to get civilized, that would not put him on 'my' side except on some very narrow cultural issues: I'd have more in common with a Polish or Somali worker, and so would anyone with any sense. You are playing either/or in a very propagandist way, I think. Politics is about priorities.

It's not putting economic interests first which defines a political party or group as culturally Marxist but the
denial of pluralism and the freedom to put cultural interests first, a consequence of the dogmatic materialism which is the basis of Marxist philosophy. Cultural Marxism, because it prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race and culture, denies people the right to defend effectively their distinct cultural and ethnic interests as they see them and is therefore prejudiced against the interests of any distinct culture or race of which native Europeans are an example.

http://urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=214613

As things stand people are currently subject to a constant barrage of materialist propaganda from the media, education system and other sources which is so pervasive that it has become practically invisible, the effect of which has been to sedate and socialise people through the skilful use of materialist diversions into passive acceptance of the current state of decline of European traditions and civilisation as normal and even healthy and desirable. People who accept that view unquestioningly, it could be argued, are simply conforming to the orthodox view of our time as a result of that process of conditioning.

 

[Blagsta]

In what sense are you using the word "materialist"?

 

[Fruitloop]

What are 'ethnic interests' exactly? I'm not sure I have any

 

[obanite]

Cultural Marxism, because it prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race and culture, denies people the right to defend effectively their distinct cultural and ethnic interests as they see them and is therefore prejudiced against the interests of any distinct culture or race of which native Europeans are an example.

By "defend our interests" you mean maintain our cultural dominance by eliminating race discrimination laws etc., right?

 

[monoglot]

By "defend our interests" you mean maintain our cultural dominance by eliminating race discrimination laws etc., right?

No, I mean to defend the native interests and character of a society and to survive.

 

[monoglot]

In what sense are you using the word "materialist"?

The provision of economic and material resources necessary to support a population.

 

[Blagsta]

The provision of economic and material resources necessary to support a population.

I see. You are aware that when Marxism is described as materialist, it means materialist as opposed to idealist? That reality is physical as opposed to metaphysical?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No, I mean to defend the native interests and character of a society and to survive.

Simple question: What is a native?

Somebody born here as the word literally means? Or do you have to be the second generation born here? Or third? Able to trace one's ancestry back to the Norman invaders? Or the Vikings? The Angles?

I'd like to know exactly what flavour of bigot you are.

 

[monoglot]

Simple question: What is a native?

Somebody born here as the word literally means? Or do you have to be the second generation born here? Or third? Able to trace one's ancestry back to the Norman invaders? Or the Vikings? The Angles?

I'd like to know exactly what flavour of bigot you are.

See post #31.

 

[monoglot]

I see. You are aware that when Marxism is described as materialist, it means materialist as opposed to idealist? That reality is physical as opposed to metaphysical?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

 

[Blagsta]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

Indeed. You don't seem to understand what it means.

 

[monoglot]

Indeed. You don't seem to understand what it means.

Then perhaps you would be so good as to explain.

 

[gorski]

That article in Wiki is full of nonsense! Sheer nonsense!

Besides, Marx's real "material" is Revolution!

Unlike you, who'd like to petrify it all...

And how? With a lot of violence!

Of particularistic sort!

Bleugh...

 

[Blagsta]

Then perhaps you would be so good as to explain.

I already did.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I can only state my own views, the cultural character is that determined by the shared instincts, beliefs and loyalties of the masses.

Please name one of these 'shared instincts'.

Also, define 'masses'.

 

[articul8]

what makes you think you define a (singular) people with just one (singular)corresponding culture. Surely it is the condition of modernity that no one community partakes of just one monolithic 'culture'?

 

[Fruitloop]

It's sounding more and more like fascism all the time tbh.

 

[monoglot]

Please name one of these 'shared instincts'.

Also, define 'masses'.

The will to survive.

http://wordweb.info/

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The will to survive.

http://wordweb.info/

That is a puerile response. You are using the term 'masses' as if there were a well-defined lump of people who are the 'masses', and another group who are not the 'masses'. This is vague. Define your terms, do not post idiotic links to dictionaries.

 

[monoglot]

what makes you think you define a (singular) people with just one (singular)corresponding culture. Surely it is the condition of modernity that no one community partakes of just one monolithic 'culture'?

I don't claim to define anything, it is the shared instincts of people and their will to survive which determines their identity.

 

[monoglot]

It's sounding more and more like fascism all the time tbh.

It's pluralism.


What I am saying is that all characteristics of man by the very fact of their existence and survival have a greater claim to legitimacy than the often untested and unproven philosophies which seek to improve upon that working model by their eradication.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't claim to define anything, it is the shared instincts of people and their will to survive which determines their identity.

Name one 'shared instinct' of one named people.

 

[butchersapron]

It's plurality.


What I am saying is that all characteristics of man by the very fact of their existence and survival have a greater claim to legitimacy than the often untested and unproven philosophies which seek to improve upon that working model by their eradication.

Is this true of all conditions of historical human existence?

Here's a gaping contradication - you're arguing that something exists (cultural marxism is the ' the prevailing social orthodoxy') but that it shouldn't on the basis that what exists is legitimate! Square that circle please.

 

[Blagsta]

The will to survive.

http://wordweb.info/

You haven't really thought any of this through have you?

 

[monoglot]

Is this true of all conditions of historical human existence?

Here's a gaping contradication - you're arguing that something exists (cultural marxism is the ' the prevailing social orthodoxy') but that it shouldn't on the basis that what exists is legitimate! Square that circle please.

What I'm saying is that the characteristics and instincts of man which gave rise to phenomenon such as cultural Marxism are legitimate but so too are those things which cultural Marxism seeks to eliminate. I don't make a claim that man's instincts are logical, they are not, simply that they all have their place by virtue of their existence and survival.

At their root I believe political philosophies, like all action, originate from either man's instinctive self interest or instinctive altruism, both necessary, though irreconcilable and mutually exclusive. The problem is with dogmatic philosophies which seek to eliminate their complementary philosophy, such dogma would then be dogmatically self interested and therefore similarly prejudiced against the interest of others or dogmatically altruistic and therefore similarly prejudiced against its own self interest, both untenable positions and a road to extremism since they would seek to subordinate surviving human nature to that ideology.

 

[articul8]

I don't claim to define anything, it is the shared instincts of people and their will to survive which determines their identity.

So the identity of a 'people' is some kind of absolute biological given, the essence of which is determined outside of any possible shared rational discourse? These ideas have a very nasty pedigree...

 

[gorski]

Name one 'shared instinct' of one named people.

He already did, dontvhaknow...

 

[monoglot]

So the identity of a 'people' is some kind of absolute biological given, the essence of which is determined outside of any possible shared rational discourse? These ideas have a very nasty pedigree...

The ideological stifling of the human spirit also has a similar reputation.

 

[gorski]

You mean, the Nazi type "cleansing" of the Spirit has THAT reputation?

[What a larf you are... Either a proper troll or a new age Nazi... but soooooo siiiillyyyyyy...]