Frankfurtskolen, kulturmarxisme og politisk korrekthet.

Diskusjon om andre ideologier, slik som sosialdemokrati, sosialisme og konservatisme.

Frankfurtskolen, kulturmarxisme og politisk korrekthet.

Innlegg Per Anton Rønning 12 Mai 2009, 23:09

Vi er alle på det rene med at vi i dag må passe langt mer på hva vi sier enn tidligere. Vi kan ikke fornærme noen og langt mindre uttrykke ringeakt eller hat mot noen uten å komme i søkelyset.. For da bryter vi en kodeks som har fått navnet "politisk korrekthet".
Norsk lov forbyr bl.a. ytringer som kan stemples som "rasistiske", og dette er ytringer som uttrykker hat/ringeakt mot religioner og kulturer andre enn vår egen.
Straffelovens §135 a foreskriver fengsel i inntil 3 år for brudd på bestemmelsene.
Dette ble endret fra 2 til 3 år i forbindelse med den nye diskrimineringsloven,
lov om forbud mot diskriminering på grunn av etnisitet, religion mv. av 6. mars 2005 nr. 33. I følge lovens § 1 er formålet «å fremme likestilling, sikre like muligheter og rettigheter og å hindre diskriminering på grunn av etnisitet, nasjonal opprinnelse, avstamning, hudfarge, språk, religion og livssyn». Loven trådte i kraft 1. januar 2006 og håndheves av Likestillings- og diskrimineringsombudet.

Vi ser av dette at et viktig element innenfor den politisk korrekthet nå er sterkt forankret i norsk lovgivning og forvaltning.
Dette har glidd inn nesten helt uten motforestillinger, svært få innen offentlig debatt har tatt skikkelig til motmæle mot dette og hevet fanen for Grunnlovens §100.

Riktignok har Høyesterett lagt en del vekt på å forhindre uthuling av Grl. §100, men
dette er ikke konsekvent:

I en plenumsdom fra 2002, kom Høyesteretts flertall til at Grunnlovens § 100 hindret at en nazihilsen og appell kunne straffes etter § 135 a. Dog: I en dom avsagt av Høyesterett i plenum i 1997 kom flertallet derimot til at uttalelser bl.a. om at adoptivbarn enten bør reise tilbake til sitt opprinnelsesland eller la seg sterilisere, ble rammet av § 135 a. Flertallet fant at slike uttalelser ikke var beskyttet av Grunnlovens § 100. Mindretallet la avgjørende vekt på ytringsfriheten og stemte for frifinnelse. For mindretallet var det viktig at uttalelsen var fremsatt i et partiprogram.
(Kilde: Store Norske Leksikon på nett)
Jeg leser dette slik at Høyestrett iikke fører noe konsekvent forsvar for ytringsfriheten,
den har også løpt den politiske korrekthetens ærend. Høyesterett utviser derfor en kulturell bevisstløshet som definintivt er skremmende.

Så hva er så politisk korrekthet, og hvor stammer dette fenomenet fra? Det kunne være fristende å tro at dette er noe den såkalte 68-generasjonen har drevet frem,
men dette er ikke tilfelle.
At 68-erne begjærlig griper til den politiske korrekthetens doktriner er lett å observere,
men fenomenet ble skapt lenge før denne generasjonen så dagens lys.

Vi må tilbake til første verdenskrig for å finne grunnlaget for dette.
Politisk korrekthet er en marxistisk ideologi, hverken mer eller mindre.
Den er en reformulering av marxistiske prinsipper der man i stedet for økonomiske forhold vektlegger kulturelle forhold. Kort etter utbruddet av WW-I ble således en kulturmarxisme grunnlagt som i dag har bredd om seg og gjennomsyrer vårt samfunn.
Dette har skjedd omtrent uten motforestillinger.

Ungareren Georg Lukács og italieneren Antonio Gramschi (begge fremstående marxistiske tenkere) oberserverte at den russiske revolusjonen ikke bredte seg vestover. Da WW-I brøt ut fremsto ikke arbeiderklassen som en enhet som forberedte revolt mot de borgerlige samfunn, tvert imot, de gikk i krigen for sine respektive land.
Dette stemmer dårlig med marxistisk teori, og man må kunne si at klassebevisstheten
ikke var på et nivå som kunne utløse noen revolusjon.
Allerede her ser vi at marxitisk teori med basis i utbytting og det materialistiske historiesyn bryter sammen.

Lukács innså med dette at marxistisk ideologi ikke lar seg innføre ad de mekanismene Marx selv foreskrev, så han formulerte doktrinen om at vestlig kultur må ødelegges før marxismen kan vinne frem. Og den må ødelegges innenfra.
"Hvem vil redde oss fra vestlig sivilisasjon" ? spurte han, for han så at dette ikke kunne bli proletariatet - arbeiderklassen.
Derfor begynte en ideskapning som i sitt grunnleggende premiss var uhyre skaprsindig: Kan vi finne et substitutt for arbeiderklassen som drivkraft for
å bære frem marxismen og erstatte det borgerlige pluralistiske samfunnet med en kollektivtisk ideologi?

Lukács ble assisterende kulturkommisær i den bolsjevikiske regjeringen i Ungarn ledet av Béla Kun (mars-aug 1919), og han lanserte straks en "kulturell terrorisme", idet han introduserte et meget radikalt program for seksuell opplæring i skolen.
Hensikten med dette var å undergrave kjernefamilien som sosial enhet.
Den ungarske arbeiderklassen reagerte sterkt negativt på Lukács angrep på tradisjonell vestlig kultur, og dette var mye av årsaken til at Kun-regjeringen fikk kort levetid.
Samtidig ble et nytt forsøk på marxistisk kritikk av vestlig kultur gjort i Tyskland.
Felix Weil ønsket å danne en tenketank for avansert marxistisk tenkning og han
grunnla "Institut fũr Sozialforschung" , en relativt nøytralt navn for ikke å henlede oppmerksomheten for mye på forankringen i marxitisk ideologi.
Dette var grunlaget for den såkalte Frankfurtskolen, da instituttet var knyttet til
universitetet i Frankfurt. Instituttet åpnet i 1924. Frankfurtskolen fulgte etter hvert i Lukács fotspor, og engasjerte seg i å omformulere marxistisk teori til å basere seg på kulturelle i stedet for økonomiske termer. Dermed var retningen satt mot det vi i dag kjenner som politisk korrekthet. Instituttets første leder Carl Grünberg sa under åpningen av instituttet at intensjonen var opprettholde ensrettethet i hvordan man så på problemer og hvordan man angrep dem for å løse dem. Intensjonen var å gi marxismen et hjem. Under Grünberg drev instituttet tradisjonelle økonomiske studier,
men da Max Horkheimer overtok ledelsen i 1930, skjedde det en total reorientering.
Det var nå omformuleringen av økonomisk marxisme til kulturmarxisme for alvor startet. Horkheimer innså det samme som Lukács, revolusjonen ville neppe komme fra arbeiderklassen, dertil var levekårene under kapitalismen for gode, så en måtte finne et substitutt for arbeiderklassen, og han tok nå fatt i Lukács arbeider i den hensikt å finne en vei. Dermed var revisjonen av marxismen i full gang.
Neste skritt var å krysse Marx med Freud. Tradisjonell marxisme hevder at arbeiderne er undertrykt av det kapitalistiske system, mens Frankfurtskolen tar Freud til inntekt for seg og hevder at alle lever et liv i psykologisk undertrykkelse innen den vestlige kultur.
Dette var et genialt trekk som fikk store følger, og som vi enda ikke har sett enden på.
Nå bruker man psykoanalysen til å påstå seksuell fremmedgjøring, i stedet for Marx' opprinnelige teori om økonomisk fremmedgjøring.
Så Frankfurtskolen arbeidet dermed ikke bare for en revolusjon mot det økonomiske system, men også det kulturelle grunnlaget i Vesten, og fokus på det kulturelle var
deres viktigste brekkstang. Frankfurtskolen hadde dermed fullstedig tatt til seg resonnementene til Georg Lukács og Antonio Gramschi.

Horkheimer bragte nå inn friskt blod til instituttet, og musikkritikeren Theodor Adorno var et viktig tilskudd. Et annet betydningsfullt medlem var Eric Fromm, praktiserende psykoanalytiker kjent for sin radikale, marxistiske sosialpsykologi.
Han gikk i bresjen for seksuell frigjøring og kjønnspolitikk. Forskjellen mellom kvinne og mann kunne ikke primært forstås gjennom biologiske, kjønnsmessige forskjeller, men gjennom forskjeller i livsfunksjoner, i stor grad bestemt av sosiale forhold.
Dermed var en ny brikke i den politiske korrekthet skapt, og lagt på plass.

I 1932 kom Herbert Marcuse til instituttet som nytt medlem. Dermed var den person på plass som etter hvert skulle bli Frankfurtskolens viktigste aktør i utviklingen av den politiske korrektheten.
Marcuse fullførte nå revisjonen av marxismen ved å ikle den kulturelle termer, og ble dermed frontfiguren for å skape "det nye venstre".
Marcuse, Adorno, Fromm og Horkheimer formulerte nå "Den Kritiske Teori".
Hva er det slags teori? Jo, teorien er å kritisere, dvs. rette destuktiv kritikk mot alle institusjoner innen vestlig kultur, i håp om å knuse det vestlige samfunn.
Teorien har gitt opphav til homo-studier, sorte (fargede) studier, kvinnestudier og alle andre slags studier av ulike minoriteter som florerer ved amerikanske universiteter i dag. Dette er basisen, eller hjemmet til den politiske korrektheten.

Etter WW-II dro flere av Frankfurt-aktørene tilbake til Tyskland etter å ha vært i New York under krigen, men Marcuse ble værende og ble professor ved UCSD.
Det var Marcuse som fant det endelige svaret på Horkheimers spørsmål: Hvem kan erstatte arbeiderklassen som instrument for å gjennomføre revolusjonen?
Man måtte finne nye "ofre" for vestlig kulturs utbytting og undertrykking, enten det var homoseksuelle, fargede, kvinner, ymse minoritetsgrupper eller hva. Marcuse hadde nå formulert en marxisme som passet for alle disse gruppene, og kunne dermed binde dem sammen i en koalisjon.
Marcuse tok opp igjen Fromms ide om seksuell frigjøring, og han fordømte enhver restriksjon mot seksuell adferd. Han gikk altså inn for polymorf perversitet, hvor der finnes ingen grenser for noe. Det var også Marcuses kulturmarxisme som ga startskuddet for "homofil frigjøring", da han anså dette som en viktig forkor for nedbryting av Vestens tradisjonelle familiemønster. Så seksuell undertrykking ble nå kanalisert som den nye revolusjonære kraft, til erstatning for arbeiderklassen som ikke fant noen grunn til å klage på den velstanden kapitalismen ga dem.
Marcuse har også skapt et særtrekk ved politisk korrekthet som vi stadig observerer, nemlig total intoleranse mot alle andre synspunkter enn deres egne.
Han hevdet at toleransen i det amerkanske samfunn engentlig var undertrykkende
(en typisk marxistisk omskriving av virkeligheten) og formulerte derfor prinsippet om "frigjørende toleranse". Dette betyr intoleranse mot ideer eller bevegelser fra høyre,
men toleranse for ideer fra venstresiden. Dette er en perfekt resept for meningsterror mot annerledes tenkende, og dette er noe vi stadig observerer fra venstresiden, de ønsker, og forsøker på alle måter å undertrykke meninger de selv ikke har.

Så vi kan tilskrive Herbert Marcuse og Frankfurtskolen den tvlsomme ære for å ha etbalert den radikale multikulturalismen, samt dens metode for gjennomføring, nemlig politisk korrekthet.

Man kan ikke annet enn å ta av seg hatten for den genialitet, dyptpløyende analyse og den intellektuelle utholdenheten som har ført frem til dette ideologiske sluttresultatet. Det er mange års arbeid der sten er lagt på sten, og så til slutt Herbert Marcuse som fullførte byggverket og skapte "the New Left".

Dette stiller også multikulturalisme i et helt annet lys. Vi blir forsøkt pådyttet dette som noe vi må godta fordi vi angivelig er forpliktet til å være inkluderende.
Den radikale multikulturalismen knesetter en ubegrenset kulturrelativisme, vi må ikke
mene noe negativt om- eller ha noen kritikk å føre frem mot andre kulturuttrykk, hvor motbydelige vi enn mener de er - innerst inne. Vi avkreves respekt - respekt for hva?
Tvangsekteskap? Kjønnslemlestelse? Æresdrap? Middelalderske straffemetoder?
At kvinner behandles som kveg? Listen kan bli lang over ting vi skal respektere fordi vår kultur ifølge kulturrelativistene ikke er noe bedre enn deres, innvandrernes.

Vi må slutte å kalle dem kulturrelativister, vi må sette det rette navnet på dem:
De er kulturforrædere, kultur-quislinger. De er kulturmarxismen og Frankfurtskolens sanne løpegutter enten de skjønner det eller ikke. Etter mine begreper er f.eks. professor Thomas Hylland Eriksen en av våre fremste kultur-quislinger, ikke minst fordi han åpenbart bruker faget sosialantropologi som et slags (indirekte) garantist for at alle andre kulturer er like bra som vår, slik at vi må slutte å være kultursjåvinister og omfavne alt vi egentlig tar fullstendig avstand fra. Denne mannen har faktisk hevdet at muslimer har mye å tilføre vår kultur, uten at jeg kan se at han har gitt et eneste eksempel. Han (og langt fra bare han) blir fra seg om han oppdager at noen driver med "diskriminering", men diskriminering er egentlig å velge, man velger noe man vil ha, og velger bort noe man ikke vil ha.
Men da blir man også utsatt for den "frigjørende toleransen" som sier at slike valg ikke er kompatible med det politisk korrekte, og det er ikke lov, det må undertrykkes.

Når Frankfurtskolens ideer for alvor folder seg ut på netthinnen er det også lett å se hvilken formidabel motstander vi står overfor. Ikke minst fordi vår kulturs verste fiender er å finne blandt våre egne, som er villig til å selge ut vårt samfunns individualistiske grunnpillarer i bytte for kollektivistisk meningsterror og ensretting.
Vi har i dag svært lite å stille opp av motvekt, særlig i form av institusjoner a la Institut fũr Sozialforschung. Norge er dessverre i dag helt strippet for motvekt mot dette, spesielt fordi Frankfurtskolen hele tiden har vært preget av slik livskraft og energi, og kraft til å forme unge menneskers tankegang. Vi trenger noe tilsvarende, men når så få innser hvem fienden er, hvilken ideologi han har og hvilken gjennomslagskraft han har vist seg å ha, er det nokså vanskelig å få gehør.
Dette lille bidraget er et forsøk på å spre opplysning om hva begrepet politisk korrekthet egentlig går ut på.
I've always found that the speed of the boss is the speed of the team.
Lee Iacocca
Per Anton Rønning
 
Innlegg: 3322
Registrert: 09 Sep 2003, 08:54
Bosted: Oslo

Re: Frankfurtskolen, kulturmarxisme og politisk korrekthet.

Innlegg Ultima_Thule 23 Feb 2010, 08:29

Den politisk korrekthetens historie: http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/2009/07/hi ... tness.html
Det fins masse gode, informative, politisk ukorrekte videoer på KitmanTV.
Ultima_Thule
 
Innlegg: 164
Registrert: 16 Jan 2010, 09:15

Re: Frankfurtskolen, kulturmarxisme og politisk korrekthet.

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 23 Feb 2010, 10:30

Ultima_Thule skrev:Den politisk korrekthetens historie: http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/2009/07/hi ... tness.html
Det fins masse gode, informative, politisk ukorrekte videoer på KitmanTV.


Linken virker ikke.
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7861
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Frankfurtskolen, kulturmarxisme og politisk korrekthet.

Innlegg Ultima_Thule 24 Feb 2010, 03:23

Ultima_Thule
 
Innlegg: 164
Registrert: 16 Jan 2010, 09:15


Re: Frankfurtskolen, kulturmarxisme og politisk korrekthet.

Innlegg Ultima_Thule 01 Mai 2015, 15:15

The Nazi Roots of Multiculturalism
by Lewis Loflin

The origin of multiculturalism (a secular/leftist belief system) lies with two Nazis, Martin Heidegger and Paul de Man. National Socialism is also another leftist belief system. Their philosophy became the basis of Deconstructionism, an irrational belief system that rejects facts for feelings. The French philosopher Jacques Derrida (1930 - 2004) introduced the term, but he was influenced by Heidegger.

Multiculturalism is a form of inverted Nazism. Nazism in essence rejected reason and rational proof for the subjective and a blind lust for power. The individual is to be sacrificed for the collective, in reality those in power representing the collective.

It's inverted Nazism because unlike Nazism that promoted an irrational hatred of a minority by a majority, instead espouses an irrational hatred of the majority by a minority and that minority is within its own ranks.

This amounts to a type of self-hatred by liberal/progressive whites who see anything associated with "white" (Western culture, white Americans, etc.) is be rejected and only race and class has any real meaning. This creed permeates academia and those institutions it feeds into such as the arts, education, entertainment, and government.

Jews and Liberal Protestants are by far the worst because so many are college graduates. The nonsense was imported from Europe into the American education system. This for a better term is a type of mental illness that creates a hatred of the very system they so benefit from and even personal self-hatred. Terms such as "self-hating" Jews and whites I think is a fair description, while others refer to forms of it as Leftism. (Dennis Prager.)

So how did evils such as Nazism and multiculturalism even arise among the often most affluent and educated people in the Western World? The rise of the secular Enlightenment in Europe did do away with mindless superstition and undermined Christianity, leaving a cultural dead zone. By the late 19th. Century in particular among the educated and elite Christianity was dead.

Attacking the Church and its institutions was so prevalent this left a huge moral and cultural vacuum across Europe. Not only was the Church largely destroyed, but its discipline and morals went with it. In this vast cultural ruin free of restraint blossomed not reason, but anger and rage against the entire system and a desire to create a new one.

So while Christianity and the Enlightenment destroyed each other, an enemy arose that was out to destroy both of them.

A definition for Deconstructionism from answers.com:
A philosophical movement and theory of literary criticism that questions traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth; asserts that words can only refer to other words; and attempts to demonstrate how statements about any text subvert their own meanings: "In deconstruction, the critic claims there is no meaning to be found in the actual text, but only in the various, often mutually irreconcilable, 'virtual texts' constructed by readers in their search for meaning".

Irrational thinking and double standards abound. As one writer correctly wrote,
It is common practice for Multiculturalists to teach that colonialism was bad, but fail to tell students that colonialism usually raised the living conditions and life expectancy of colonial populations. They teach about Western colonialism, but rarely - if ever - mention Third World colonialism.

They teach about Black slavery in White America, but neglect to teach about slavery by Arabs, Africans, and Asians. They rarely, if ever, teach about the huge numbers of White people sent into slavery.

They teach about White "racism", about discrimination against non-Whites, but don't teach much about non-White racism. African and Asian organizations set up to defend their people are viewed as expressions of "ethnic pride", but White organizations set up to defend their people are described as "racist". Discrimination against non-Whites is "terrible racism", but discrimination against Whites is "affirmative action" (tell that to dirt-poor White people who miss out on employment opportunities because of the color of their skin).

In fact Arab slavery of Europeans was one of the reasons Thomas Jefferson had to send the American Navy to battle the Barbary Pirates. They don't teach why Europeans were forced to occupy Muslim countries due to centuries of attacks by Muslims.

Multiculturalism is the mindless trash fed into the minds of so many of our educated ruling class in large universities instead of historical facts. Another wonderful person that influenced Deconstructionism was Friedrich Nietzsche.

"Nietzsche's singular philosophical approach was an important forerunner of deconstruction." (Wiki) Nietzsche was also a major (via his sister) influence on Nazism. Derrida and Nietzsche alike have been charged with nihilism. (Life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.)

The Yale Alumni Magazine (November 10, 2009) reports:
The German philosopher's work - which provided the underpinnings of existentialism, postmodernism, and deconstructionism - reeks of another ism: Nazism.

So argues a book by French scholar Emmanuel Faye, newly published in English translation by the Yale University Press. Drawing on previously unavailable materials, Faye concludes that it's impossible to separate Heidegger's work - "hate speech," in the New York Times's characterization - from his personal views and allegiance to Hitler.

This referred to An Ethical Question: Does a Nazi Deserve a Place Among Philosophers? New York Times November 8, 2009. To quote that article,
For decades the German philosopher Martin Heidegger has been the subject of passionate debate. His critique of Western thought and technology has penetrated deeply into architecture, psychology and literary theory and inspired some of the most influential intellectual movements of the 20th century. Yet he was also a fervent Nazi.

Now a soon-to-be published book in English has revived the long-running debate about whether the man can be separated from his philosophy. Drawing on new evidence, the author, Emmanuel Faye, argues fascist and racist ideas are so woven into the fabric of Heidegger's theories that they no longer deserve to be called philosophy.

As a result Mr. Faye declares, Heidegger's works and the many fields built on them need to be re-examined lest they spread sinister ideas as dangerous to modern thought as "the Nazi movement was to the physical existence of the exterminated peoples."

First published in France in 2005, the book, "Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism Into Philosophy," calls on philosophy professors to treat Heidegger's writings like hate speech. Libraries, too, should stop classifying Heidegger's collected works (which have been sanitized and abridged by his family) as philosophy and instead include them under the history of Nazism...to prevent the careless spread of his most odious ideas, which Mr. Faye lists as the exaltation of the state over the individual, the impossibility of morality, anti-humanism and racial purity.

...left-wing intellectuals have more frequently been inspired by his ideas. Existentialism and postmodernism as well as attendant attacks on colonialism, atomic weapons, ecological ruin and universal notions of morality are all based on his critique of the Western cultural tradition and reason...

American philosopher Richard Rorty, who once wrote in The New York Times, "You cannot read most of the important philosophers of recent times without taking Heidegger's thought into account." Mr. Rorty added, however, that "the smell of smoke from the crematories" will "linger on their pages."

Nazism like all left-wing pseudo-religions sought to destroy Western Judeo-Christian culture. Now the Deconstructionists are targeting all of Western culture for "deconstruction" and like the Nazis are obsessed with race. To quote the writer below, "And what shapes those assumptions and emotions? Contemporary Deconstructionists conclude that they are shaped by collective social forces, by modern academia's holy trinity of "race, class, and gender."

According to The New York Times Heidegger joined the Nazi party in 1933 when he became rector of Freiburg University and oversaw the dismissal of all Jewish professors. After the war Heidegger was banned by a de-Nazification tribunal from teaching. Heidegger was a critic of modern technological society and of the Western philosophical tradition that gave rise to it.

He argued that we must overcome this tradition and rethink the very nature of human existence or being. He would find much in common with modern environmentalism and its anti-human philosophy. Heidegger is also the father of modern moral relativism.

The entire article can be read The New York Times. It's the constant attack on Western culture from the inside and the alliance of convenience between Progressives and Islamists we must understand and oppose. France should understand this more than anyone, but is so deluded by multiculturalism they can't see the trees much rather the forest.

In 2012 the Liberal elite is still in denial as more and more "homegrown" Muslim terrorists pose more and more of a threat. Finally some are admitting that multiculturalism has failed. David Cameron, the British prime minister, said the doctrine of state multiculturalism had encouraged segregation:
"We have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives apart from each other and the mainstream. We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong."

In October 2010, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, announced that the multicultural society had failed:
"Of course the tendency had been to say 'let's accept the multicultural concept and live happily side by side, and be happy to be living with each other'. But this concept has failed, and failed utterly."

This is also the view of Nicolas Sarkozy of France as well as Holland where a Muslim butchered Theo van Gogh on a city street for criticism of Islam.

The political left just can't give up their deranged multiculturalism and still believe they can use Muslims to help over throw the West hoping they can then step in and gain power. Socialist theology predicts a "fall" of capitalism and the West, which to their dismay keeps failing to happen.

But Muslims are not stupid and we must question who really is using whom? See Multiculturalism and the Self-Liquidation of Europe

Multiculturalism Seattle in Public Schools

In one of the most insane example is the Seattle Public Schools. They have "deconstructed" the very word racism to mean:
The systematic subordination of members of targeted racial groups who have relatively little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites).

Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as "other", different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers.

The Seattle Public Schools removed this racist trash after it got onto the local press and claimed the purpose was "to bring communities together through open dialogue and honest reflection around what is meant by racism..." This mindless nonsense is what multiculturalism is really about and they said it, not me. If I substituted Jews for whites Hitler would be right at home.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/guilt.htm (med hyperlenker) (via The Symbiosis Between Islam and Multiculturalism, Capitalism Magazine)
Ultima_Thule
 
Innlegg: 164
Registrert: 16 Jan 2010, 09:15

Re: Frankfurtskolen, kulturmarxisme og politisk korrekthet.

Innlegg Ultima_Thule 21 Jun 2015, 23:09

Utdrag fra to kommentarer under temaet Modernity and Terrorism fra Atlas Society:

Conservatives, in short, have been critics of the Enlightenment's confidence in reason and progress, as well as its moral and political individualism. But conservatism was only one wing—the premodern wing—of the counter-Enlightenment. On the cultural Left, thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx rejected modernity from a different standpoint.

THE POSTMODERN CULTURE

Rousseau hated the cosmopolitanism and refinement of Enlightenment life and vehemently criticized inequality, which he thought was an inescapable consequence of civilization. He offered an idealized image of primitive man not yet corrupted by civilization and of life in a nature not yet polluted by cities or machines. The source of those primitivist views was Rousseau's antipathy to reason. He felt that emotion and instinct should be our guides to action. In this respect, he was the father of the nineteenth-century Romantic poets and of the counterculture of the 1960s, with its demand for sexual liberation, its contempt for "bourgeois morality," its emphasis on self-expression rather than self-discipline. The Age of Aquarius sought release from the constraints of reason through drugs and New Age religions. Like Rousseau, it rejected the cosmopolitan modernism of the Enlightenment and praised the authenticity of primitive modes of life.

Rousseau and other thinkers in the postmodern tradition also hated the Enlightenment's individualism and were repelled by capitalism. Like conservatives, they wanted to reassert the primacy of society over the individual, but they realized that there was no going back. They argued instead that we must leap forward to a new society in which community, stability, and social control of change were reintroduced in a non-religious, non-traditional form, as in Marx's vision of a communist utopia "in which the free development of all is the condition for the free development of each." Unlike conservatives, postmoderns have generally favored equality as the chief social value, and many were prepared to seek this value through violent revolutionary means.

On the cultural Left today, postmodern intellectuals have been vociferous foes of reason, attempting to undermine and expunge the very concepts of truth, objectivity, logic, and fact. The followers of Jacques Derrida claim there is no reality beyond language: we can never see past the assumptions and preconceptions embedded in the way we speak; different societies live in different worlds, have different outlooks, use different methods of thinking, none better than others. Richard Rorty, perhaps the most eminent living philosopher in America, tells us "that the world does not provide us with any criterion of choice between alternative metaphors, that we can only compare languages or metaphors with one another, not with something beyond language called 'fact.'" For many postmoderns, the use of reason is an exercise in power, a stratagem on the part of white Eurocentric males to dominate women and suppress other cultures.

Few people outside university departments of humanities and social science can swallow such corrosive nihilism at full strength, but it is available in countless diluted forms. Postmodernism has influenced law schools, for example, through the "critical legal theory" movement. And its central themes now dominate schools of education, from which legions of primary- and secondary-school teachers have learned that respecting other cultures is more important than learning facts or acquiring the methods of thought that enable one to decide which point of view is correct.

Marx's doctrine of class conflict remains a central article of faith on the cultural left. Multiculturalists have expanded the doctrine to include racial, ethnic, and sexual classes, in addition to the economic divisions that Marx emphasized, but they draw the same distinction between victims and oppressors. In academia, this worldview has led to knee-jerk acceptance of racial and other preferences. Humanities courses have dropped the works of "dead white European males"—the oppressor class—in favor of works by women, blacks, and other minorities. Postmoderns have created new disciplines of victimology such as "queer studies" and postcolonialism. And they have imposed speech codes, "diversity training" workshops, and other means of enforcing political correctness.

Though postmoderns subscribe to cultural relativism and deny the possibility of objective knowledge or values, the very term "political correctness" reveals an underlying ethic that they take as an absolute. Indeed, as for conservatives, it is a virtue ethic whose essence is self-denial. Like conservatives, postmoderns tend to see the pursuit of happiness as sinful. The standard of sin is different—exploiting minorities and degrading the environment rather than disobedience to God—but sin still entails guilt, atonement, and renunciation. Thus, to take one minor example, many people recycle garbage with all the piety of a daily sacrament. Not one in a hundred could cite evidence that recycling, on net, saves resources, but that's not the real point; the real point is that recycling is a pain in the neck and thus serves the purpose of atoning for the joys of consumption.

Despite the differences between the cultural Right and Left, in other words, there are deep similarities based on their common rejection of modernity. Despite their mutual hostility, they sometimes join hands against their common enemy. A few years ago, Dave Foreman, founder of the radical left environmental group Earth First!, wrote that Dan Quayle and William Bennett might be on to something in talking about virtue: "There really is a crisis of values in this country, and it really is incumbent on the conservation community to talk about it, to talk about restraint instead of excess, to talk about humility instead of arrogance." More recently, we have had the spectacle of the "What would Jesus drive?" campaign against gas-guzzling SUVs. Patrick Buchanan on the Right and Jeremy Rifkin on the Left have united to oppose free trade, immigration, and high-tech innovation. Fundamentalists and radical feminists joined forces in an effort to outlaw pornography. And some conservative intellectuals, like Richard John Neuhaus, editor of the conservative First Things, have welcomed the postmodern critique of objectivity: "[Relativists'] rebellion against the pretentious certitudes of Enlightenment rationalism, often defined as modernity, is in large part warranted, and that is the kernel of truth in 'postmodernism.'"

The Party of Modernity


In all its forms, even on the avant-garde Left, anti-modernism aims to restore pre-Enlightenment values and ways of life. And in all its forms, even on the conservative Right, it is a reaction against the Enlightenment and is thus essentially new. Fundamentalism, for example, is not simply a revival of traditional Christianity, which was much more intellectually sophisticated. Fundamentalism was created in the early twentieth century by Protestants who opposed Darwin.

Islamist movements are of similarly recent origin. They were created not by illiterate Egyptian peasants or nomads in the Arabian desert but by educated people, most of whom were middle- or upper-class. Many of the intellectuals, like Qutb, had lived and studied in the West. Especially after World War II, they were deeply influenced by Western anti-modernists like Martin Heidegger. They read the works of historians like Oswald Spengler who predicted the decline of the West. They read The Wretched of the Earth, by the French Marxist and existentialist Franz Fanon, who urged Third World activists to use revolutionary violence. Conversely, the postmodern Left has frequently embraced the Islamists. Michel Foucault, the French thinker who attacked Western rationalism as a mask for power, welcomed Khomeini's Islamic revolution in Iran as a triumph of spirituality over capitalist materialism.

9/11 and The War Against Modernity
Ultima_Thule
 
Innlegg: 164
Registrert: 16 Jan 2010, 09:15

Re: Frankfurtskolen, kulturmarxisme og politisk korrekthet.

Innlegg Ultima_Thule 18 Feb 2016, 11:53

Alternativ forklaring på politisk korrekthet.

The economics of political correctness, Institute of Economic Affairs

Utdrag:
PC-brigadiers behave exactly like owners of a positional good who panic because wider availability of that good threatens their social status. The PC brigade has been highly successful in creating new social taboos, but their success is their very problem. Moral superiority is a prime example of a positional good, because we cannot all be morally superior to each other. Once you have successfully exorcised a word or an opinion, how do you differentiate yourself from others now? You need new things to be outraged about, new ways of asserting your imagined moral superiority.

You can do that by insisting that the no real progress has been made, that your issue is as real as ever, and just manifests itself in more subtle ways. Many people may imitate your rhetoric, but they do not really mean it, they are faking it, they are poseurs (here’s a nice example). You can also hugely inflate the definition of an existing offense (plenty of nice examples here.) Or you can move on to discover new things to label ‘offensive’, new victim groups, new patterns of dominance and oppression.

If I am right, then Political Correctness is really just a special form of conspicuous consumption, leading to a zero-sum status race. The fact that PC fans are still constantly outraged, despite the fact that PC has never been so pervasive, would then just be a special form of the Easterlin Paradox.
Ultima_Thule
 
Innlegg: 164
Registrert: 16 Jan 2010, 09:15

Re: Frankfurtskolen, kulturmarxisme og politisk korrekthet.

Innlegg Ultima_Thule 30 Mai 2017, 21:19


Capitalism Magazine, March, 2001: Philosophy in the twentieth century is characterized by its essential superficiality. In every branch, contemporary philosophers explicitly renounce the basic content of their subject, leaving them with empty methodology applied to nothing. The result is logic divorced from concepts, concepts divorced from percepts, ethics without epistemology, epistemology without metaphysics -- in short, form without content. This post-modern philosophy of emptiness is the source of the superficiality found in so many areas of art and science today. For example, in psychology we have elaborate statistical studies with no acknowledgement that man is a conscious being; in painting and sculpture, the explicit repudiation of representational art; in economics, complex theories that fail to recognize man's ability to produce material wealth. We have literature without plot, politics without principles, and music without melody. The influence of contemporary philosophy on virtually all subjects has caused them to drop their substance and collapse into the arbitrary manipulation of symbols, into contentless formalism. Even the hard-nosed science of physics has not been immune to the influence of contemporary philosophy. In physics, this modern superficiality takes the form of mathematical formalism divorced from any reference to causal mechanisms, i.e., equations whose referents in the physical world are unknown and not sought. Most people are familiar with the bizarre interpretation usually given to the twentieth century's major development in physics: quantum mechanics. This interpretation, due to Bohr, Heisenberg, and the other founding fathers of the theory, holds that on the microscopic scale matter lacks identity, the law of cause and effect breaks down, and reality fails to exist independently of the act of observation. While a lot is made of this irrational interpretation in the various popularizations of twentieth century physics, most physicists do not explicitly endorse this obvious nonsense. Instead, they adopt a "pragmatic" approach, in which questions of interpretation -- that is, the physical meaning of the mathematical formalism -- are simply dismissed. They take the equations themselves as the essential content of the theory, the attitude being: "Don't worry about what the equations mean or what reality is really like. Such things don't matter. What matters is only that the mathematical laws have been discovered -- now let's just use them to calculate something" - Mathematics vs. Matter: The Philosophic Roots of the Rejection of Physical Causation in 20th Century Physics, Travis Norsen (kilde)

It was far-out at that time, so I brought it to [director] Don [Siegel], and he liked it,” Eastwood recalled Sunday during a visit to the Cannes Film Festival. “A lot of people thought it was politically incorrect. That was at the beginning of the era that we’re in now with political correctness. We are killing ourselves, we’ve lost our sense of humor. But I thought it was interesting and it was daring.

...
Eastwood's latest project is directing “The 15:17 to Paris,” which will tell the story of the three American heroes who stopped a terror attack on a train in Paris in 2015.

Awesome: Clint Eastwood Takes on Political Correctness, Townhall
Ultima_Thule
 
Innlegg: 164
Registrert: 16 Jan 2010, 09:15

Re: Frankfurtskolen, kulturmarxisme og politisk korrekthet.

Innlegg Ultima_Thule 26 Okt 2017, 22:01

What is 'Cultural Marxism'?
Gender, Sex, Class, Race? It's time we properly label the ideology that social justice warriors are practicing in America these days.
Devin Foley | September 26, 2017
Bilde
From the Marxist viewpoint, the world is composed of oppressors and the oppressed. As Marx himself states in The Communist Manifesto,
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

He continues:
“Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”

For most of the 20th century, Americans would have likely thought of Marxism as the economic battle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the haves and the have-nots, capitalists and laborers. And most Americans rightly worried about a Marxist revolution in their country.
“The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors,’ and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment.’



The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons – the modern working class – the proletarians.”

In many ways, Marx’s arguments were put forth in economic terms, which is likely how many people think of his writings. But they were in fact much deeper.

Marx wasn't just about changing the economic order, he looked to upend all of society. His adherents, whether in Russia, Cambodia, China, North Korea, or Cuba forcibly remade the social order when they seized power – often with the disastrous results of millions of people, even tens of millions, dead.

Today, while the Soviet Union is no more and countries like China and Vietnam are allowing for much, much greater freedom, the spirit of Marxism is still alive in the West, particularly in academia. It is as if we won the Cold War, but are about to lose the culture war.

You can see the paradigm of oppressors vs. oppressed taught in classes and argued about in many cultural and political clashes. Thus, the term “Cultural Marxism” has been born, though the adherents would hardly use the label themselves.

Within the framework of Cultural Marxism, one divides people into different camps, such as race, gender, sex, class, ethnicity, and so on. Look at many college syllabi these days and you will find that the study of almost anything is through the lenses of race, gender, sex, class, ethnicity, and so on. For example, the program requirements for an American Studies Major at the University of Minnesota below clearly display the lens through which one is expected to study America.
Bilde
Here is a syllabus example from Edina High School's Pre-AP English Syllabus from a few years ago. Keep in mind, this class is supposed to be studying literature.
Bilde
It's not just in the schools, you will find evidence of this outlook, often misleadingly labeled as Social Justice, in various government bureaucracies, corporate human resources departments, and so on. In fact, later on in this article, I will use the word "conundrum". I wanted to see the exact meaning and so I looked it up and discovered that even in the dictionary we are being taught or propagandized to see the world through a Cultural Marxist lens. See below:
Bilde
To give you an idea of how much change the Cultural Marxists or "Social Justice Warriors" hope to bring to the country, consider their position on strong fathers. To them, traditional fatherhood with fathers as the head of the family is called the hetero-patriarchy. Through the lens of Cultural Marxism, one can argue that the father is the oppressor of the mother and the children because they are in an unequal relationship. Therefore, the hetero-patriarchy must be toppled.
Bilde
There are many other examples. White males in America are considered the oppressors of people of color, therefore they must be toppled. Western Civilization is considered the oppressor of all other civilizations, therefore it must be toppled. Christianity is the dominant religion and oppresses other beliefs, therefore it must be toppled. And so goes the thinking in order to create equality and the new form of the proletarian paradise.

Multiple problems exist with the outlook. The first issue is that of perpetual revolution in the search of perfect equality -- or "equity" as they say today. Let us presume that all of the oppressors of today are crushed and there is perfect equality for a moment. How does society maintain that perfect state of equality? If there is an ounce of freedom, some people are going to do better than others, whether they were born with an edge through good genes or they just happen to adapt well and have the desire to achieve or do something different. As a society, would we purposefully hold those kinds of people down and lift others up? If so, that requires a continuous process of balancing society to make sure no oppressors come to power. How much control does such a government need over the people? And who will run the government? Or will government no longer be needed once we achieve equity? Finally, wouldn't those with the power to make everyone equal be themselves the ultimate oppressors?

Another problem with this idea of entire groups being labeled as oppressors, is that in the name of "social justice" it actually does away with true justice. In Western Civilization, justice has traditionally been defined as "to give to each his due". People are to be judged as individuals, taking a variety of things into account if there is an allegation of guilt. With Cultural Marxism, individual behavior is not judged, rather the individual is labeled or put in a group (based on sex, gender, race, etc.) and if the group is considered guilty of oppressing, then the individual is guilty of oppressing by association. Again, justice is no longer the traditional idea of “giving to each his due” which judges individual actions, but rather the toppling of the oppressor and the uplifting of the oppressed.

What is fascinating, too, are the internal conflicts that arise from an arguably simplistic, binary worldview. Once the white, Christian hetero-patriarchy is removed from the scene, you get some delicious moral quandaries. For instance, Muslims, gays, and women are oppressed by the white, Christian hetero-patriarchy. But now, which side do you take if there is no white, Christian hetero-patriarchy? In other words, do you side with Muslims when they’re executing gays, or do you stand with the gays who are attempting to topple the Muslim culture through various sexual acts and the freedom to marry the same sex? And what about the women in that mix? There are many of these sorts of theoretical situations that could be quite close to what would happen if the so-called Christian hetero-patriarchy is wiped off the planet.

Understanding the illogical conundrums, we can watch the convulsions taking place amongst social justice academics, pundits, and other elite when it comes to the clashes taking place in Europe due to the influx of Muslim migrants. On one hand, to do penance for the wrongs of Western civilization the Europeans must help the oppressed Muslim men, but then those men bring their own oppressive views of women and gays with them. Since the white, Christian hetero-patriarchy has already been toppled from power, those who would align with a cultural Marxist worldview are confronted with the challenge of themselves having to oppress the oppressed to defend another oppressed.

While the desire to help people, particularly those in need or who are legitimately oppressed or held back, is a good thing, we still need to be sure that we treat all people with justice. We cannot forget the individual and try to see the world merely as groupings of people based on class, sex, gender, race, etc. It is ultimately the act of judging the individual and not the group that has provided and expanded freedom in this country. Let's not lose the dignity of the individual while prowling around seeking wrongs to right. The world is more complicated than a simple binary outlook of oppressed verses oppressors. (kilde)
Ultima_Thule
 
Innlegg: 164
Registrert: 16 Jan 2010, 09:15

Re: Frankfurtskolen, kulturmarxisme og politisk korrekthet.

Innlegg Ultima_Thule 27 Okt 2017, 03:09

Ultima_Thule skrev:
The Nazi Roots of Multiculturalism
by Lewis Loflin

The origin of multiculturalism (a secular/leftist belief system) lies with two Nazis, Martin Heidegger and Paul de Man. National Socialism is also another leftist belief system. Their philosophy became the basis of Deconstructionism, an irrational belief system that rejects facts for feelings. The French philosopher Jacques Derrida (1930 - 2004) introduced the term, but he was influenced by Heidegger.

Multiculturalism is a form of inverted Nazism. Nazism in essence rejected reason and rational proof for the subjective and a blind lust for power. The individual is to be sacrificed for the collective, in reality those in power representing the collective.

It's inverted Nazism because unlike Nazism that promoted an irrational hatred of a minority by a majority, instead espouses an irrational hatred of the majority by a minority and that minority is within its own ranks.

Ifølge politisk korrekthet er kjønn, rase, etc. bare et produkt av arv og miljø:
The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment – or, as the Nazi like to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers. - Viktor Frankl
Holocaust Survivor Warns How Societies Make Monsters
Ultima_Thule
 
Innlegg: 164
Registrert: 16 Jan 2010, 09:15

Re: Frankfurtskolen, kulturmarxisme og politisk korrekthet.

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 27 Okt 2017, 07:13

Ifølge politisk korrekthet er kjønn, rase, etc. bare et produkt av arv og miljø:



Jordan Peterson er god om dette, Her er et par videoer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewvqEqIXdhU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fw3bFuQmOw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewvqEqIXdhU
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7861
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Frankfurtskolen, kulturmarxisme og politisk korrekthet.

Innlegg Ultima_Thule 04 Nov 2017, 16:37

Mel Brooks: 'We Have Become Stupidly Politically Correct' and It's Killing Comedy
Could Blazing Saddles or The Producers get made today?
Robby Soave | Sep. 22, 2017 1:15 pm
Bilde
Legendary filmmaker Mel Brooks unloaded on political correctness yesterday, blaming P.C. pressures for undermining comedians' abilities to perform social satire.

"We have become stupidly politically correct, which is the death of comedy," he said on BBC Radio.

Brooks, an actor, writer, and director known for making such comedies as The Producers, Young Frankenstein, Blazing Saddles, and Spaceballs, described comedy as "the lecherous little elf whispering in the king's ear, always telling the truth about human behavior." He complained that his 1974 film Blazing Saddles — in which a black sheriff overcomes the racism of an all-white frontier town — couldn't be made today, given the likelihood that someone would deem it problematic.

We have seen this phenomenon play out again and again in recent years. Can We Take a Joke? a documentary film directed by former Reason TV producer Ted Balaker, highlights a number of cases of comedians being castigated for making politically incorrect jokes on college campuses. Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, and Tina Fey have made similar complaints.

Audiences are under no obligation to appreciate politically incorrect humor, of course, and tastes do change with the times. Consider this part of Brooks' comments, as reported by The Telegraph:
The director said he could find comedy in almost everything but conceded there were areas even he would not mine for material.

"I personally would never touch gas chambers or the death of children or Jews at the hands of the Nazis," he told the BBC's Radio 4's Today programme.

"Everything else is ok."

Brooks never satirized death chambers, but he did make fun of Nazis in his very first film, The Producers, in which a theater company produces a deliberately offensive pro-Nazi play called Springtime for Hitler: A Gay Romp with Adolf and Eva at Berchtesgaden. One could very easily imagine a boycott of the film today, with some activist accusing Brooks of normalizing Nazism.

But with the alt-right ascendant and white supremacists marching in Charlottesville, is not the need for un-PC Nazi-skewering greater than ever? We don't need to punch Nazis; we can just belittle them.
(kilde med hyperlenker)
Ultima_Thule
 
Innlegg: 164
Registrert: 16 Jan 2010, 09:15


Re: Frankfurtskolen, kulturmarxisme og politisk korrekthet.

Innlegg Ultima_Thule 24 Nov 2017, 22:55

William Walter Kay fra nettstedet/bloggen Environmentalism is Fascism ( ecofascism.com ) kritiserer det såkalte alt-right for begrepet kulturmarxisme og fremstillingen av fenomenet i artikkelen Cultural Marxism and the Alt-Right.
I første avsnitt - The Alt-Right on Cultural Marxism - legger Kay ut plot-linet til alt-right om Frankfurt-skolen og kulturmarxismen, for så å påpeke seks faktafeil i narrativet:
There is much wrong with the Alt-Right's Frankfurt School narrative. Some inaccuracies will be rectified in accompanying articles; however, six much-repeated errors can be quickly dispatched. (There are more ludicrous mistakes found in this or that video, but they are not worth debunking.)

Firstly, the crisis in Marxism, circa WWI, resulted not from the fact that workers were stuffed into uniforms and blasted off as cannon fodder in yet another inter-imperialist war – that much was anticipated by the Marxist paradigm. No, the crisis arose because Europe's Marxist leaders themselves wholeheartedly took up the battle cry and, in defiance of what they had been preaching, spewed war-mongering chauvinistic rhetoric.

Secondly, the Hungarian Soviet Republic lasted for 133 chaotic days. (Baron) Lukacs was an education commissar for a few weeks. During this time, battles raged on Budapest's streets. The dubious idea that his sex-education policies were either perverse or consequential is a meme exclusive to loopy anti-Semitic publications where it is never footnoted. More importantly, while Lukacs attended Weil's Marxist Work Week, he was never part of the Frankfurt School.

Thirdly, there never was a Marxist-Communist Party of Germany. There was a Communist Party of Germany (KDP, est. 1919) which the Frankfurt School opposed. A bait-and-switch in the Alt-Right videos involves starting the story with the same grainy black-and-white photo of the 19 attendees to the Marxist Work Week among whom there were a few Communists. The "Frankfurt School," however, consists of a famous clique of scholars (Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, and Jurgen Habermas), none of whom attended the Marxist Work Week. The few associates of the Frankfurt School who were briefly in the KPD are better known for their later anti-communist writings.

Fourthly, Gramsci had no involvement in the Frankfurt School. Gramsci was arrested by Mussolini in 1926 and died in jail in 1937, age 48. He never visited Germany and never met the Frankfurt scholars. His connection to "Cultural Marxism" began in the 1980s when a few publish-or-perish professors established a fertile niche mining his prison notebooks. This project had the obvious ingredients of a successful academic enterprise: (a) a revolutionary martyr unsullied by power; and (b) 3,000-pages of turgid prose based more on classical scholars than Marx. The notebooks (which were vetted by Fascist prison censors) were not available in English until the late-1970s and thus could not possibly have had the timely influence on academia that the Alt-Right alleges.

Fifthly, every Alt-Right video contains a quote, misattributed to Gramsci, about a crypto-communist strategy called the "long march through the institutions of power." The quote is actually from the West German academic Rudi Dutschke (1940-1979) who was primarily involved in anti-nuclear activism, Christian proselytising, and supporting dissident groups in Eastern Europe. The phrase "the long march" elicits Mao Zedong, not Gramsci. The idea that Gramsci reviewed real-time Italian translations of pamphlets from obscure Chinese peasant leaders while on his death-bed is absurd.

Finally, Marcuse was hardly a "key" member of the OSS or CIA. Rather he (and several other Frankfurt Schoolers) were but foot-soldiers in a vast cultural army deployed by the American government at the outset of the Cold War.


Kay skriver videre i avsnittet:
Historical inaccuracy is the least of the Alt-Right's problems. These are men freighted with baleful baggage. Many Alt-Right websites are openly, extremely anti-Semitic. Many glorify known fascist monsters. Their videos rely heavily on argument by repetition. Snarl words like "Marxist" echo obsessively. As well, their videos wander off into topics such as the Federal Reserve, the gold standard, constitutional jurisprudence, and other affairs where elite policy, reprehensible though it may be, cannot conceivably be the puppeteering of the invisible disciples of the Frankfurt School.

The Alt-Right's great analytical failing is their lack of effort to properly insert Political Correctness into the command and control structure of the universities and mass media conglomerates. Had the Alt-Right done this, they would have learned that the directors of such institutions are people without any real or even likely connection to Marxism. Alt-Rightists believe radicalized students control both university carriculum and mainstream media policy; i.e. the lunatics run the asylum.

Whether stated or not, the Alt-Right's Cultural Marxist critique presumes the existence of a sprawling network of Jewish conspirators.

    *

Despite the above, Alt-Right theories about Political Correctness should not be casually dismissed. The Alt-Right is a growing concern, not because of their worn-out Jew-baiting/red-baiting malarkey, but because they are pointing out something that is real and troubling about the world. A massive anti-white, anti-male, anti-heterosexist, anti-Christian campaign is being waged by academic and media elites. This is not a hallucination unique to persons baptised into Judeo-Bolshevik diabolism. The Alt-Right is growing because they are discussing something we are all witnessing. What the Alt-Right projects onto this observation; is quite another matter…


Artikkelen har fem avsnitt til med følgene overskrifter:
    - A Condensed Version of David North's The Frankfurt School, Postmodernism and the Politics of the Pseudo-Left: A Marxist Critique
    - A Brief History of the Frankfurt School
    - Cultural Marxism, Environmentalism, and Sex
    - Conclusion: Red-Baiter & Red Poseur: a marriage made in heaven
    - Footnotes et al.

Jeg har ikke funnet annet om bakgrunnen til William Walter Kay enn en artikkel om ham på den klimarealistiske bloggen DeSmogBlog.
Ultima_Thule
 
Innlegg: 164
Registrert: 16 Jan 2010, 09:15

Neste

Gå til Andre ideologier

Hvem er i forumet

Brukere som leser i dette forumet: Ingen registrerte brukere og 1 gjest

cron