Then Veblen broke down that illogic and therefore she revamped the presumptive paranoid defensiveness of the assumed utility of reacting against a global communism, which assumption was merely for effect.
That she knew this , which she must have, then probably she was as much involved in the national conspiracy to mask the larger international plan to de-ideologize the effort to cover an
early attempt to popularize the so called New World Order.
She knew it and the suggestion gaining some awareness that the difference between the remaining two factors in a social welfare state in the US’s two party system is deceptively over exaggerated.
Hi Sil. The term “cultural Marxism” has been around since the 1930’s. It was coined by those in the Frankfurt School but yep, you’re right. Marx focused on economic structures; he believed the working class would rise up against the ruling class if war broke out in Europe however, the opposite happened. The working class put on uniforms and went to war for their masters.
After Marx, his followers concluded that the reason the working class didn’t follow Marx’s theory was because the working class had been blinded by democracy and capitalism - so they set out to destroy them.
‘Cultural terrorism’ was the precursor to ‘cultural Marxism’. The ‘cultural terrorists’ set up in Frankfurt Germany and established what came to be known as the Frankfurt School in the early 1920’s. A decade later the Frankfurt School mixed Freud with Marx and created ‘cultural Marxism’. By that time, Germany was mired in depression, corruption and debauchery. Hitler was voted into power and the Marxists (mostly Jewish) fled to New York and set up their HQ in Columbia University (Obama’s old school :-" ) and set out to ‘liberate’ America from her oppressive traditional Christian values.
But the destruction of nationalism and traditional values isn’t just a left wing conspiracy. Far from it. The right wants a one-world trading system, a world bank, a single world currency, world-wide markets, free flow of labour and ultimately a world government, as well and because of this, we’ve seen the neo liberals and the neocons increasingly merge into one party.
In 2016 the corporatist neo-liberals under Hillary Clinton voted NOT to push for a $15 min wage, NOT to introduce a carbon tax, NOT to oppose fracking, NOT to oppose the TPP and the outsourcing of jobs and to continue the war in Syria. These are traditional Republican policies, not Democrat ones.
Ironically, Trump opposed the TPP, he opposed the outsourcing of jobs and opposed illegal immigration that took jobs from the American workers and kept wages low. He also opposed the escalating the war in Syrian and in less than a year, brought Obama/Clinton’s war to a close. Policies that help workers and oppose wars were traditional Democrat policies, not Republican ones.
My point? The Democrats and the Republicans are fundamentally the left wing and the right wing of the same bird – not an majestic eagle but a vulture. Yes, there are a few national issues like guns, abortion, healthcare etc they still retain but these don’t interfere with the aims of the globalists (at this stage) and besides, they need something other than corporate colours and logos to make them distinguishable from each other.
Behind the scenes, the ‘capitalists’ and Marxists work together.
Here’s an example. One of the first aims the cultural terrorists/cultural Marxists set out to do when they arrived in America was to infiltrate the minds of students. To do this the professors set about re-writing the text books from a Marxist perspective. The books on Marxism were written by Marxist professors but so too where the books on capitalism, free markets and history. In 1950’s the Reece Committee found that big capitalist foundations like the Carnegie, Rockefeller and Ford Foundations – set up as tax-exempt charities – were funding these pro-Marxist programs and publications.
Several years after The Reece Committee report, JFK gave a famous ‘secret societies’ speech. At the time reporters were fearful Kennedy’s administration would become more secretive and increase censorship. This was his response to the news organisations:
Today, organisations like the Council of Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission (set up by Rockefeller and friends) are leading the push towards one-world government ruled, of course, by the oligarchs and they make no secret of it. There’s a plethora of books written on the subject sometimes by the men in the inner circle themselves. On page 405 of ‘Memoirs’ by David Rockefeller, Rockefeller says:
The world is being Balkanized one country at a time. Nations like Iraq, Libya and Syria are being split into hostile tribes, ethnicities and religions that are perpetually at war with each other while Western nations are being Balkanized internally by Marxist ‘identity politics’, ‘critical theory’, ‘liberating tolerance’ (aka hate and violence against the opposition) and censorship through ‘political correctness’. The policy to force millions of ‘refugees’ who have no allegiance to America or her values into America (and the rest of the west), is just another tool in the destabilization of the nation state.
The politicians don’t give two shits about those who are homeless and suffering. If they did, they wouldn’t have spent the last two decades slaughtering millions of innocent people and decimating their countries.
The reason Trump and Putin are so hated by BOTH the left and the right is because they are proud nationalists who don’t support the fragmentation and destabilization of their respective countries so what better tactic to use against them than to claim Trump and Putin are CONSPIRING to destroy America – straight out of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a list of techniques and propaganda tactics for Marxists to use against his opponent.
What does Hillary have to do with this? Lots, but to finish off, her final university thesis was on Alinsky and his methods. Now keep that in mind when you read that she paid to have a fake Russian dossier compiled to insinuate Putin had compromising info on Trump (pissing prostitutes) and that Trump was Putin’s bitch.
PS: I’m going to be annoyed at myself for posting this because I don’t have time to follow up but so be it. If you want to follow up on anything here, research it.
Finally, not everything the left or the right have done has been evil. Initially the left did wonderful things for women, blacks, minorities, gays, the environment etc but they’ve lost their way. It’s the same with the right. If you’re going to live in a corrupt society then the capitalist one we live in is arguably the best. We live better now than the Kings and Queens did a hundred years ago or so, so we have to remember not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Drain the swamp but let’s keep the fish and the swans.
too I agree with most of your thoughts and as far as the Muller commission is concerned it is likely that the in an effort to avoid confrontation with the ex-Marxist countries there may have been a deal, behind closed doors, to albmoliate the ideological. differences between nationalist and.
Internationalist solutions to avoid a major cataclysm.
The deal of colluding may have saved the world. from unimaginable horror.
To counter any incidentary fallout from thinking along these lines, the deal also may have included the cooperative effort to defang North Korea.
The political charade may also be a cover-up hiding a bilateral party agreement serving as a smokescreen . and at this point Trump’s presidential future is viewed with total indifference by those in the know" deep state or any other. I think Trump is just as indifferent ill playing out this role knowing that he is protected by the underlying myth of the conspiratorial undertow.
It is not a fictional use of paranoia as in some Dickey type genre , nor an artistic Dali type innovative hyperlinks , but a political retrogression and conflation of factual and fictional political antithesis, missing in the actual national structural form of it in the U S , in the corresponding and emerging universal political stage.
It is a compensitory yet a shadow worrld where big players. like exclusive members only participate , I.e. the Club of Rome and the Bildenberg group.
If this argument is followed to its likely conclusion. and it’s likelihood surmised on an incrementally progressive anti derivative, then the usefulness of Marx is in line with the New World Order’s inception traced back to approximately at a congruent temporal structural ideological development, of the late 19 th century. A leading role was played by the futurist HG Wells, et.al. and correspondent to the era of declining influence of the British Empire. In fact it is no mere coincidence that Marx was a British subject as well.
So the shadow world consisted of both: dialectical materialism and its antithesis : the dialectical derivative of pure. categorical certainty.
I’ll add some more in a moment, but first I wanted to point out that not only is the Gulag/Big Brother/Democrat machine using their newfound power in the age of the internet to alter history and the meaning of cultural Marxism, but they already also did the exact same thing to the history and cultural meaning of fascism. Do you recall when the dictionary definition of fascism changed overnight? It was a year or so ago, maybe two years ago.
Pay attention everyone, watch the world around you and other people. They are changing before your eyes. And never doubt that you already live in Winston’s 1984 “utopia”. All that can happen now is a further unwinding and refining of this logic that has already been put in place.
When people vote for Clontin and believe everything they hear from state propaganda media, when so-called progressive leftists organize into mobs to defend the government, when “reality is racist” (lol) as that meme suggests, when Trump is somehow actually seriously compared to Hitler… yeah. Things will only get more interesting from here on out.
“There seems to be a natural tendency for people to desire to collectivize (Styxhexenhammer called it a desire on the part of people to organize, which desire basically renders anarchism impossible) and there are various reasons for this. But whenever this tendency reaches an apex and takes over the general political will and thought of a society, that society starts to lose its ontic coherence.
An entity’s existence depends on its maintaining ontic coherence. This is also what we call self-valuing.
Collectivism, so called, only has a proper existence as the natural overflow of values from a strong, coherent self-valuing. A self-valuing will share its values with whatever falls within its broader values-sphere, with whatever it values. But obviously those values must exist, and that self-valuing must be free to share or not share those values. Values cannot be compelled from a self-valuing without distorting those values, cutting out their natural existentiality, and also not without seriously harming the self-valuing from which values are taken. Future valuing possibility is seriously undermined by values-theft, even if that theft produces a momentary increase in values-availability and ‘work’-effort.
Individualism is the philosophy that implicitly centers itself upon the fact of self-valuing. Collectivism is a name for various ideologies that are based the perversion of self-valuing in one form or another as theft of values.
Marx codified collectivist tendency within political application and sentiment, and attempted to use scientific-analytic/Hegelian methodology to reinvent economics in terms of the controlled and coordinated, “scientific” theft of values, which of course means the grinding down and eventual termination of self-valuing; remember that a self-valuing is always the source of a value, any value.
The economic model of scientific collectivism coupled with the freeing of the psychological constraints upon the natural impulse to desire to collectivize, led to humanity becoming infinitely malleable and able to be manipulated by applying a two-prong approach: 1) control their economic situation to produce values-theft and redefine this as “progress” and “production”, and 2) manipulate the public sentiment around moral issues in order to pervert thinking with shallow virtue politics and ‘wedge issues’, building upon existing cultural differences to produce distinct classes that can be pitted one against the others. The combination of 1 and 2 produces the modern political landscape. Almost no one can think past it.”
“A great irony is that the only real “social construct” is socialism itself, the whole edifice of social construction theory. This theory made up the idea of social construction because… that is precisely what it is itself.
So Marx tried to value himself in the shadow of Hegel, and ends upon appropriating Hegel’s Absolute Spirit into a false idea that society is entirely separate from biology, earth, and ‘hard realities’; that society-history is purely a fictional and arbitrary thing, therefore may partake of Hegelian universality, therefore any and all evasions and selective blindness to facts are justified to that end.”
The following is especially relevant, and completely exposes the fraud of Marx/collectivism, forces it to stand naked in the light of truth:
“Communism is a force attempting to release nuclear energy from the [cultural, historical/social, psychological] substance. Communism pulls apart existing relations within the substance in order to release energy from this destruction. For example, the structural relationships at the political or economic level, the molecular relationships at the community and family level, and even and eventually also the atomic relationships at the level of the individual person/psyche itself. Communism aims to provoke these kinds of pulling-apart nuclear reactions in order to release stored energy; this stored energy had formerly been used for maintaining the onto-epistemo-logical structures and for allowing self-valuing to occur at higher thresholds than it otherwise would be occurring at, thanks to the existence and maintenance of those onto-epistemo-logical structures at both the individual, family, local community, and state levels. All of those levels each possess their own being, but are also each only one part in a larger being, namely in the environment in which self-valuing finds itself and by which self-valuing is able to self-value to its highest capacities, translating and interacting with as much truth and as many truths as possible.
The building-up of the social/cultural substance in order to effect that substance as this kind of environment suitable for the highest kinds of self-valuing is a very long historical process, and again is a natural process very much ‘geological’ in nature, whereby derivative layers grow tectonically and create meta-frameworks allowing for new kinds of relations and objects, and just as the root breaks through the rock so too do these kinds of substances break through the harder realities of the natural world and into the light of the moral universe, into the possibility for responding to and knowing facts, values, reason in a more and more direct manner. This whole building-up process is very slow over time, a gradual accumulation.
What happens with communism is that the imbalances within this substance with respect to the distributions of its bulk of hardened capital atop the social/cultural milieu of the substance itself are taken advantage of to cause seeds of internal disorder and destruction to take root, like cancers, within the substance. The first communists (Marx for example) figured out that if you pull apart existing substance-relations there is a sort of energy that is released from this; this energy is chaotic in nature and tends to have a destructive effect, because it is not integrated into the larger substance and environment but rather represents precisely the destruction of a small part of that substance and environment. The substance is now beginning to attack itself in a very profound way, it is becoming cancerous as the communist idea infects self-valuing with lust for forcing new capital-arrangements into being that would ostensibly be more advantageous to that communist self-valuing itself. But all of that is only a secondary causality, more like catalysts and a setting up of the situations in the practical sense; the real reality of communism is simply its being this destructive disordering force ripping apart existing relations within the substance. Any number of excuses and justifications can be used to trigger and grow this force within the substance.
Communists will prey on people’s disaffections, their desires, their frustrations, their embarrassments, their inabilities, in order to trigger nuclear reactions. The communist hopes that these reactions will cascade in chain reactions causing the communist idea to self-perpetuate and take over the entire society, such as occurred in Russia and China. It is important to see that the communist agitator is really a very careful practitioner of this philosophical/‘spiritual’ method of attempting to work directly with the substance to provoke a specific outcome; I am not at all convinced that Marx et.al. had no idea what they were doing, I think all of these early communists must have been at least somewhat deliberate in their intentions and methods. But the communist idea is naturally intoxicating for people whose self-valuing has been damaged or limited in some crucial way, because it offers them a religious escape and excuse for these traumas and failures. Communism is indeed a religion, which is why it does not tolerate other religions (it is ‘atheist’).
Communism is a religion of self-worship of the idealized capacity for working; I say idealized because real work can never be rationalized in that way, real work is work of the earth, work as and within and for the substance of the social/cultural and for setting self-valuing properly in its relations to truth. Communism disregards these relations and removes self-valuing from its contexts, forsakes the earth, and attempts to realize a religious neo-substance directly in reality and without any pretext, precursor or vision. Communists must burn up the existing social/cultural substance, first in nuclear reactions to spread communism to a threshold point of self-sustainability and second in using the existing capital and substance relations and objects as fuels, burning these to produce the life-substances that will satisfy the people from moment to moment. The whole central planning, top-down authority aspect of communist economics is no accident, it is an integral part of what communism does to the existing substances and capital: in communism’s ‘spiritual’ (philosophical) attempt to form a religious kingdom on earth, it must simultaneously reject the earth as such and make direct use and consumption of the earth in strict linear manner in order to satisfy the basic needs of the people who are now communist. Because the earth has been abandoned it can no longer provide for the communists and the communists can no longer truly work with the earth, therefore their only recourse to survival is to seize everything around them and appropriate it into new destructive-consumptive processes, digesting the whole history and capital development of the past and present which becomes their ‘new earth’ upon which they attempt to found their religious kingdom.”
Yes, “digesting” it, indeed. Everything about culture, history, society, value, relationships, truth, art, all of it becomes, under communism, nothing but more fuel to toss upon the burning pyre in order to keep the fire going. Communists, like modern leftists/liberals, do not work, they “work”, and therefore can only actually generate heat and light through always finding more to throw into the fire pit. They cannot invent a light bulb or discover electricity for example, to continue the analogy— such actions are psychologically, philosophically impossible for a communist/liberalleftist, their very religion prevents them from being anything but a brutal caveman in the wild (“the wild”, this is what society becomes under communism, as civilization continues to break down as it always does within applied communism), scavenging for the next meal that can be stolen and for whatever works of art, value or truth can be thrown into the fire pit to continue to keep the communist warm for another day.
“…communism is nothing more than entropy. Literally it is entropy.
All of the social, cultural, economic, linguistic-psychological (mental and emotional) constructs and values that are built up during the history of a civilization, a nation, a family, etc. are literally structures, and as structures must be maintained. They are subject to entropic decay if not maintained properly.
Communism is this decay. The burning-up of these structures in order to generate ‘heat’ energy; that heat is what we see as the revolutionary-chaotic impulse to destruction, the mob. The mob is destructive precisely because the mob is this burning-up of existing substances, producing heat-fire, and that heat-fire is simply the actions of the mob.
Communism is the psychological attractiveness to entropy. So literally a form of death. Standing upon the edifice of capitalism, of constructed values, we can look down below us and see communism far down there.”
A shift from histro-hister nautics to semiotic compensitiory
fill ins to manifest for substantial value, where commune type universal brotherhood eliminates the need to fear the bursts of bubbles , and de-signify literally the science of its own decoding.
This seems amusingly simple, but the previous seminal paragraphs leading up to it need to have repeated readings for proper correlation basically for fear of the primary culprit: alienation, for does not communism"s favorite mantra deal with subscriptions of stay here for if you go toward the multi dimensional you’ll fall off the linear?
This last is only a self induced warning how history tends to repeat at times of panicked self valuing…
The apparent catapult of self valuing into the nothingness of the nuclear family , well that goes alongside a warning Franklin Roosevelt made albeit oh so constructively . There is nothing to fear but fear.
And if that undressing proves embarrassing consisting of vastly more inspiration than perspiration, a response such as ’ Oh Well , may not prove much, either to lessen the sense of embarrassment.
In any case a retreat into rhyme without reason may also be an option hoping it will not come to that.
Just a couple of things to add, before I may or may not respond in a bit more depth (and yes, good post Chakra)…
In light of the Kennedy speech, it seems as though the choice is between a messy pluralism that encourages criticism from all sides - a kind of perpetual political war and unrest, or a peace that would by contrast not involve this kind of continually unresolved debate - thereby implying it is beyond question. The latter seems somewhat sinister to say the least, and we most certainly have the former in place at the moment in the West no matter how hard you might freely argue to the contrary.
On one hand, ongoing political battle actually feeds back on itself because nobody with an opinion that deviates from supporting the status quo ever feels like they are properly listened to or have any real influence. They shout louder and louder, becoming more and more extreme in a vain attempt to be heard (e.g OPs like this), and ironically from this background of pluralism from which they are demanding in favour of one particular way and not simply arguing against all sides, they are pushing for the aforementioned peace whereby their opposition has lost and no longer has influence. It seems particularly ironic when they claim to be fighting for free speech in order to silence others, simply because they feel that they are the ones being victimised by the silencing power of their political opponents. Each extreme finds the other to be the ones oppressively fighting against free speech.
It seems to me as though we ought to expect to be challenged from all sides, if we are to actually be in favour of free speech.
I am wondering why those currently in power are criticised from one side as the other, and vice versa. It makes me consider that they are neither, or both. In order to gain quantitative favour, it’s their job to be more in favour of your poltical enemies than you are, because the middle-ground is closest to the most number of normally distributed votes. In this way, it’s quite obvious how politicians and the media always appear to be fighting for the other side. The more you exaggerate how much this is so, the more “edgy” your opinion, and you get the approval of like-minded cultish tribal folk. It’s very motivating and cathartic to have and oppose such a clear enemy, the more they are made of straw and the less you realise this the better.
Another aspect of this whole circus is that if there are two options sufficiently distinguishable from one another, at least seemingly, one will always be closer to you than the other unless you somehow lie exactly in the middle - in which case you probably aren’t shouting so hard. It’s no wonder we have a naturally emerging duopoly in politics. Dopamine levels are at their highest when outcomes are feared to be 50/50, hence why politics are compared to sport - and marketed by politicians as such. Sympathising with your opponents is boring!
The problem is that there is no standard for agreement whereby two opposing parties can freely and willingly state, “Okay we can agree on these items”. Given that one thing, the entire socio-political arena changes immensely. And that is what Resolution Debating is about - providing a means to agree while still being open for debate, rather than the demonic “let’s all agree to disagree … Muhahahahaha…”
First of all, thankfully we now have Trump, who as the first modern politician has come from a background of Meritocracy rather than crime and is simply not tied to Marxist deathlogics that prevent someone like the reasonably gifted Silhouette from owning up to his mistakes so as to prepare for the art of thinking. Socialism, Marxism, depravity in general is marked by the structural lack of accountability/self(-knowing).
UrGod - indeed Collectivism is a form of entropy. The idea(l) that a Collective is anything at all other than a heap of squashed ex-individuals, is akin to the idea that piling up a bunch of random machine parts makes a machine.
The most troubling part is that some want to be squashed in such a pile, such a safezone, invertebrate oasis surrounded by reality - they are like worms and yet make claims to Humanity. But worms in a can do not constitute a world.
The world is deep, and you are all about to witness its depths reaching out to you soon enough. It doesnt matter what you opine, it matters whether you heed the principles that made you.
What a complimentary way to call me a non-thinker Damning with faint praise at all?
What intrigues me is the way that a well functioning team can far outperform a collection of individuals each pursuing their own self-interest. Distribution of labour and co-operative strategies and whatnot: the most successful strategies - businesses aren’t even “supposed” to use them beyond a certain level under Capitalism! Cartels and collusion are naughty. Of course Capitalism does not exclude forms of much weaker levels of teamwork, but individualism is the foundation - the ideal. When that ideal is desecrated you get these overpowering “Communist” powers that are taking over the world - how weak those squashed, random-machine-part ex-individuals are!
There is the knowing of oneself as separated from the group, the unknowing of oneself as hiding within a group, and the knowing of more than yourself as empowered by the group. Clearly the second is the weak one, the first much stronger but still it pales in comparison to the third. By all means moving from 2->1 first can enhance one’s perspective on moving from 1->3, I recommend an oscillation between 1<->3 once one is free from 2 - that’s when one can really test their thinking, once they have moved on from merely preparing for the art of thinking.
Don’t be a worm in an irresistible juicy can waiting to be feasted upon into by a bird (2), don’t just be a worm who escapes such a doom to come back a stronger worm (1) - become a net of worms and ensnare that lone crow, your would-be prey! (3)
More inspiring words were never spoken…
Joking aside, Collectivism is so damned as weak ideologically, it doesn’t even seem to be considered that it is in fact stronger when tested.
Damning with faint praise at all? 