The enlightening discussion in Hawaiian Libertarian’s latest fine post references a few works by William Lind. I highly recommend this material to the readers of this blog, because Lind summarizes quite well what we are basically up against in the current culture — a sustained campaign of cultural Marxism.
Cultural Marxism is often criticized by leftists and radicals as being a conspiracy theory, but that’s wide of the mark. No-one is suggesting that there is a cabal of left-wing masterminds sitting around a table in some smoky room in Sweden directing this campaign in a conspiratorial way. No, it is instead a loose cooperative movement which operates largely in the open, and which uses methods, and teaches theories, which are clearly Marxist in nature.
In essence what has happened in the West in the past several decades is the result of the realization by the radical left in the early to mid 20th century that the campaign to radicalize the proletariat and mobilize them against the bourgeoisie was not going to be successful a large scale in the West. This realization led to a new strategy. The economic Marxist dialectic of opposing the proles and the bourgeois was retained in the form of socialist or social-democratic political parties in many Western countries, using legislation as a means to further that agenda, while the radical left looked to other categories to create a new revolutionary dialectic that could impact society in a broader and more fundamentally revolutionary way. The Italian communist theorist Antonio Gramsci was instrumental in steering this line of Marxist theory, from the intelletctual and theoretical perspective. Gramsci’s insight was that a certain set of cultural assumptions and structures supported the capitalist system, and needed to be undermined or outright dislodged in order for the revolution to eventually succeed in overturning the established order.
Following Gramsci’s insights, the philosophers of the radical left, in particular the “Frankfurt School“, began to examine different criteria which could be used to create the kind of cultural disruption Gramsci described. Various theories and leftist intellectual currents developed from this group, but one strong line of thought was that once the left placed into conflict (1) everything that was not straight, white and male against (2) everyone who was straight, white and male, a much more powerful and visceral dialectic would be created which could be harnessed to destroy what the Marxists saw as a deep, structural cultural resistance to the revolutionary change that they sought.
This approach proved to be more effective than the “classical Marxist” economic dialectic because it tapped into long-standing, visceral hatreds that certain segments of the population had against straight, white men due to long-standing grievances. As a result, the radicals needed to do less to “radicalize” the new “proletariat” (i.e., women, minorities and gays), because the visceral emotional hate was already largely there and could easily be harnessed as a drive for revolutionary change on the cultural level. Essentially, it was necessary to rewrite history from the perspective of viewing almost everyone as having been ruthlessly oppressed by straight, white men for all of history, and reduce our understanding both of all of the past and the present structures in society to a vision which views the entire narrative as one extended campaign of white male rape and domination of everyone and everything else.
Once this revisionist narrative was completed and disseminated, it provided powerful kindling for the movements which characterized the cultural revolution that took place in the West in the 1960s and 70s and its aftermath. The revisionist vision provided a rigid, reductionist narrative which could serve as a lexicon to explain everything in the past and the present, much as economic Marxists had tried to do with “classical” economic Marxism in the early 20th century. The seductiveness of a narrative which portrays everyone other than straight, white men as past and present victims is quite obvious — it liberates those in the “preferred” classes from taking responsibility for their own problems, and instead permits them to blame straight, white men for everything that they find wrong in their lives and in the wider world. And this is precisely what has been done, and which continues to be done, by disproportionate numbers of people in the “preferred” classes (i.e., women, minorities and gays).
The best part was that it wasn’t at all necessary that the Marxism be expressly preached. Although some of the feminists and race liberators did, in fact, deploy Marxist theories openly, most did not do so, while they nevertheless read from the new cultural Marxist reinterpretation of history as being nothing but a story of domination by straight, white men to the detriment of women, minorities and gays. In other words, even those activists who would not admit that they were Marxist, or who would truthfully deny that they believed in Marxist ideas, nevertheless drew from a revisionist history which was, itself, thoroughly Marxist in content.
The main success of the Marxist-Feminist movement lies in its success in peddling this revisionist history to the culture as a whole. In many circles, for example, it is now taken for granted that recorded history is nothing more than a catalog of straight, white male crimes against everyone else. This is the version of history that dominates in our universities, and the one which is endlessly peddled by the mainstream media as well. It creates an atmosphere which entitles everyone to hate straight, white men, and to support laws and social customs which are designed to wrest “power” (even in an age where men are disproportionately impacted by recession) from straight, white men and redistribute it to everyone else, as a matter of “social justice”.
Of course, due to the “structural power” of men in the highest echelons of society, none of this cultural and legal change could have taken place without their collaboration. So, why did they collaborate?
The main reason is that the “men-in-power” at the top of any given society have always regarded the larger mass of men with a mixture of contempt and fear. Males, generally speaking, compete in hierarchies, and the ones at the top of the hierarchy generally know that they are under some threat from the males in the rest of the hierarchy. Historically this has been managed by those at the apex through a combination of feudal loyalties and practices designed to cull the lower ranks of men, such as prolonged warfare and the creation of a eunuch class. The cultural Marxism of the late 20th century handed the men-in-power a powerful tool to keep the lower ranked men at bay, more or less permanently, by arranging the entire rest of society against them. In this way, the men-in-power reduced the threat to their position from other men. For the most part, this group did not fear that it, itself, would ever be replaced by people who are not mostly straight, white men, precisely because it was creating cultural structures that would prevent this from other men. This class certainly did not fear being replaced by women at the top of the ladder, probably because the men at this level are on the right tail of the curve in some power-related traits such that being supplanted by women does not seem to be a realistic risk.
That’s not to say that there was, or is, a “conspiracy” between the radical left and the men-in power. Rather, the men-in-power have collaborated with the ideas of the radical left because it serves their own interests — namely, preserving their own power at the heights of society by hemming in most other men through a tangled web of entitlements, preferences, and outright discrimination designed to displace men by less threatening people who are not white, straight and male. It’s this precise alignment between our elites (still mostly white guys) and our radical leftists that permitted the cultural revolution to have the impact that it did, and does, in the culture, and which operates to keep most men down, rather deliberately.
I think it’s impossible to understand what has really happened in the West since 1960 without understanding the underlying cultural Marxist basis. This also explains why the system created in the aftermath of the cultural revolution has been so resilient and strong — it has the backing of almost all of our elites, in one form or other. Of course, in the long run, the elites will get knives in their backs from the radical left, if the revolutionary programme ever comes fully to fruition. But for the time being, there is a quite strong alignment of interests between the elites and the radicals, such that the entire society has been recast in ways that actually serve to preserve the power of the current elites by dividing the rest of the population against itself.
The path forward for men needs to recognize this cultural Marxism and its deliberate demonization of our sex, often with willing collaboration by useful idiot males (I won’t call them “men”, because, frankly, they do not deserve that term). But it also needs to recognize that our path is nevertheless a revolutionary path, and one which will take us in new directions, rather than old ones. We are the masters of our own destinies, if we let ourselves be, and we can go in so many stunning directions if we simply have the will to do so. A pre-requisite for that is understanding this cultural Marxist apparatus that has been set up to screw us, and the fact that the social conservatives are collaborating with it. The next step is raising our middle fingers at that apparatus and its social conservative enablers and walking off.
The step beyond that is true male liberation. It will come to us, as individuals, if we take these steps, with integrity and confidence. And with a healthy and utter disregard for what women think of this. This is our game, and our lives.
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 47 comments… read them below or add one }
I like this alot. Very succinct and on point.
Best intro to cultural Marxism I’ve read since Buchanan’s Death of the West.
Good.
Wait where’s all the feminist hate? Nova, you’re not at the level of PM/AFT.
I know. I seriously need to up my game.
Novaseeker I normally avoid articles about Marxism as they can so often just turn into a right wing rant. However, having read your articles before and having been extremely impressed by their insight and quality of thought I decided to read the above through. My opinion of you as an insightful thinker remains intact as your analysis was both persuasive and complete.
I think your conclusion is that there is not a way to combat what has happened through a counter ’social revolution’ but that individual men who see through what has happened can find a better way forwards for themselves and remain men. Is this correct?
If this is correct would it then be the case that men would be few and far between, the others being just males? I have to say that that’s how I would see it.
One wonders why so to say the ‘cultural Marxism’ was (or is) so much more successful than the ‘classical Marxism’ in places like the USA.
You do touch on race, but surprisingly, you say nothing about the gatlin gun of Cultural Marxism: immigration.
Particularly in Europe, where the leftist elites realized, as early as WWI, that the proletariat is not interested in a Workers’ revolution. So, in the mocking words of Bertold Brecht, their elites are “electing a new people” at population-replacement speeds.
In the US, with a discontented native black population, immigration was not as necessary in terms of the Left securing a client base via immigrants. So here, while immigration is still very high, it is not as necessary as a divide-and-conquer method as it is in recently-monoracial Western European countries.
One simply can not honestly discuss cultural marxism without acknowledinging its most powerful and permanent weapon, large-scale immigration.
One wonders why so to say the ‘cultural Marxism’ was (or is) so much more successful than the ‘classical Marxism’ in places like the USA.
That is because the core assumptions of what used to be American values are diametrically opposed to the core assumptions of Marxism. Marxism hates capitalism, and the US would not be the US without capitalism.
Cultural Marxism is the slow and systematic destruction of all those old values – religion, family, education, the ethic of achievement over entitlement. Until those values were destroyed, Marxism did not have a chance. Now that they have been, it has become inevitable.
Talleyrand beat me too it. The debate just doesn’t feel the same when we aren’t trying to be heard over offended screaming women.
Zed, although Nova struck first, are you still going to opine on cultural Marxism with a post of your own?
“Talleyrand beat me too it. The debate just doesn’t feel the same when we aren’t trying to be heard over offended screaming women.”
That is because this was not included: “Or consider the echoes of Gramsci in the works of yet another law professor, Michigan’s Catharine MacKinnon. She writes in Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989), “The rule of law and the rule of men are one thing, indivisible,” because “State power, embodied in law, exists throughout society as male power.” Furthermore, “Male power is systemic. Coercive, legitimated, and epistemic, it is the regime.” Therefore, MacKinnon notes, “a rape is not an isolated event or moral transgression or individual interchange gone wrong but an act of terrorism and torture within a systemic context of group subjection, like lynching.” Similarly, MacKinnon has argued that sexual harassment is essentially an issue of power exercised by the dominant over the subordinate group. “
Nova,
I think it is all very fair to say that cultural marxism as developed by Gramsci and introduced by Herbert Marcuse to the New Left via C. Wright Lewis (from memory so I might be mistaken) has taken hold. I had figured that out by June last year. But that does not explain the success of cultural marxism. It was not a movement that happened from the grass roots up. The laws were changed very much in front of any real support. From the top down. Family Law was re-written all around the world with no major outcry from the people to do so. The 1974 mandate from the UN at the worlds first World Population Conference in Bucharest to ‘ensure equal outcomes’ tells you who is really behind it. Citation 1#
Aaron Russos dying testimony that Nick Rockefeller told him the Rockefeller Foundation was the sponsor of feminism makes much more sense to me. So I went back and searched and low and behold in 1970 Nixon Appointed JD Rockefeller III to head up the “Commission on Population Growth and the American Future.” And when they came back with results in 1972 what did they say? “Equal Rights for Women” was right near the top. Now what has the Commission on Population Growth got to do with ‘Equal Rights for Women’? Working women have fewer babies.
So….the evidence is clear. The Rockefellers (fronts for the Rothchilds) sponsored Eugenics, Vaccines, aided and abetted the Communists and the Nazis. They donated the very land the UN building is on in New York and were the champions and sponsors of ‘Equal Rights for Women’. Unless men wake up to the fact that the real enemy is a very well organised conspiracy (which merely means two or more people planning a crime or other nefarious activity) that is massively funded and completely hidden we are going to keep going in circles. I am amazed how resistant even the most intelligent men are to this notion. I am not amazed how fast I get banned off sites for saying this though!! LOL!!
Citation #1
From this page: http://www.population-security.org/27-APP1.html#C.1.c
August 1976
Adopted by the World Population Conference
Bucharest, 1974
Agency for International Development
Washington, D.C. 20523
41. Governments should ensure full participation of women in the educational, social, economic and political life of their countries on an equal basis with men. It is recommended that:
(a) Education for girls as well as boys should be extended and diversified to enable them to contribute more effectively in rural and urban sectors, as well as in the management of food and other househould functions;
(b) Women should be actively involved both as individuals and through political and nongovernmental organizations, at every stage and every level in the planning and implementation of development programmes, including population policies;
(c) The economic contribution of women in households and farming should be recognized in national economies;
(d) Governments should make a sustained effort to ensure that legislation regarding the status of women complies with the principles spelled out in the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and other United Nations declarations, conventions and international instruments, to reduce the gap between law and practice through effective implementation, and to inform women at all socioeconomic levels of their rights and responsibilities.
Note the use of the terms ‘ensure full participation’. This means men must be heavily discriminated against to get the numbers equal. This is a mandate, note ’should’ and it comes from the UN TO governments. Notice there is ‘Elimination of Discrimination against Women’ but not against men. And all this means is to eliminate the ability to discern variable quality in women. That is the real ‘thought crime’.
Citation #2
http://www.population-security.org/10-CH2.html
March 16, 1970. Remarks of President Nixon on Signing Bill Establishing the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future.
You can read it yourself…Nixon appoints JD Rockefeller III head of the commission.
“Ladies and gentlemen:….
An indication of that broad support is that John D. Rockefeller has agreed to serve as Chairman of the Commission. ”
…..
And when they delivered their recommendations in 1972 what did they say?
“EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN
The Commission recommends that the Congress and the states approve the proposed Equal Rights Amendment and that federal, state, and local governments undertake positive programs to ensure freedom from discrimination based on sex.”
Yes…you read that correctly. The “Commission on Population Reduction” to give it its real name headed by John D. Rockefeller recommends “Equal Rights for Women”. Why? Because by forcing women into the work force fewer babies would be born. It is as simple as that.
THIS is THE ’smoking gun’…..Men…you have no idea how long it took me to find these quotes….weeks….they are not easy to find if you do not know what you are looking for. Please spread them around to all thinking men. Our friends the Rockefellers are in this up to their eyeballs. Anyone refusing to believe this has to deny a mountain of evidence.
Haven’t read this yet but I already know it’s valuable information which more men need to know. It’s indeed the template of what there experiencing and observing. They can’t rationalize all the pieces because they’re unaware of the core.
“You do touch on race, but surprisingly, you say nothing about the gatlin gun of Cultural Marxism: immigration.
Particularly in Europe, where the leftist elites realized, as early as WWI, that the proletariat is not interested in a Workers’ revolution. So, in the mocking words of Bertold Brecht, their elites are “electing a new people” at population-replacement speeds.
In the US, with a discontented native black population, immigration was not as necessary in terms of the Left securing a client base via immigrants. So here, while immigration is still very high, it is not as necessary as a divide-and-conquer method as it is in recently-monoracial Western European countries.
One simply can not honestly discuss cultural marxism without acknowledinging its most powerful and permanent weapon, large-scale immigration.”
Bingo! BM here. Far from anti-latino, but I recall Haitians floating in rubber rafts to our coast to escape revolution in the 90’s and being kicked right back out to sea. It’s hypocritical and most definitely a TACTIC as elaborated by PA. If one more Mexican prepares my Pizza? Ima scream! No problem w/legal mexicans. It’s the principle.
PS. will some one tell me how to quote people as I see others doing.Is it just the matter of an HTML tag?
Yep. Italics or blockquote work fine.
Probably too difficult to throw out shaming language when the article deals with more intellectual topics.
Paul October 16, 2009 at 9:30 am
“I think your conclusion is that there is not a way to combat what has happened through a counter ’social revolution’ but that individual men who see through what has happened can find a better way forwards for themselves and remain men. Is this correct?”
Hi Paul, the Illuminati via the UN get their ‘power’ by telling guvments what statutes to pass then fraudulently calling them laws. They then beat the drum of ‘you must obey the law’ and ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’ so someone charged with an ‘offense’ immediately hires a ‘lawyer’ because we all know the statutes are too difficult to understand. You are supposed to ‘obey the law’ when you can’t even read it and understand it. The act of hiring a lawye waives all rights and they they have a little charade in court to try and convince people it is all legitimate. It’s not. It’s ALL a hoax.
Therefore, the men (and women) who have figured this all out Robert-Arthur: Menard, Mary Croft, John Harris, Thomas Anderson and many others all point to the same solution. Learn common law, learn Uniform Commercial Code, deny jurisdiction and deny being subject to THEIR statues which are NOT laws.
This is the real remedy. The real remedy is the common law in former british colonies. By using common law we can jail corrupt judges today. We throw a few judges and a corrupt police chiefs in jail how long do you think it will take for them to either declare their hand openly or decide they do not want to face the wrath of good men? This is the way to combat ‘Cultural Marxism’. Cut off the head of the ‘enforcement/extortion’ arm.
Here is a whole book about it if you want. http://www.freedomfiles.org/extortion.pdf
It is 350 pages and in places it is tough going and I do not necessarily agre with it all. But it does describe in great detail exactly how the legal system is little more than the enforcement arm for the Illuminati. My own little problem is that I have read so many of these books etc and we are trying to get the word out to men but when we go to sites like this the men just do ‘rabbit in headlights’ and say ‘no…that can’t be true’ and dismiss what we say for a more palatable answer. Sigh…it’s taking longer than we would like to wake men up and we are in real danger of being too slow.
zed October 16, 2009 at 9:42 am
“the US would not be the US without capitalism.”
Zed, want to bet? The US has been a totalitarian communist state since the 30s. It has had the fascade of ‘capitalism’ sprayed over the top in a wonderful illusion. Really. I included the quote from Mandell House below. But the nub of it is that when your parents ‘registered’ your birth the legal meaning of that was they abandoned you and the guvment salvaged you under maritime salvage rules. They created a company with your NAME and they float a bond for that company with you as the surity. Therefore anything you sign your NAME to is really a security transaction where you authorise the guvment to transfer some mythical ‘money’ from one guvment account to another. The guvment owns everything and you own nothing. The very definition of communism. They have since the 30s. Hence the ‘law’ requiring all gold to be handed in in the 30s.
You guys want education? Here it is. You are bonded slaves until you understand what your NAME really means. This is how they ‘own’ you. This is how they abuse good men. Because they unwittingly answer to their ‘NAME’ and the courts claim by answering to your name you are waiving all rights….
This is how they enforce their agenda by beating you up in the courts if you don’t accept it. Hence all the ‘false allegations’. What would it matter if a woman made a false allegation against you if you can say to the judge “I refuse to consent to your jurisdiction”? It does not matter at all. Your NAME is referred to as a ’strawman’. If anyone is interested, and I really, really hope you are, I can point to books and videos on this stuff until the cows come home. What I am really concerned about is “is anyone interested”? And yes, I know it all seems to unbelievable to be true. For the guys really wanting to know more here’s Mary Crofts book. http://www.spiritualeconomicsnow.net/solutions/How_I_08.pdf
Edward Mandell House had this to say in a private meeting with President Woodrow Wilson:
Citation #1: http://www.gemworld.com/EdMandellHouse.htm
“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions.
Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us (birth certificates) will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.
After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”
Hey Novaseeker:
Do you have a link for the rest of that Lind speech? It says it is part 3, but I can’t find parts 1 and 2.
That was actually Part III of a series on PC at that particular blog, rather than Part III of a Lind speech. That blog does have other entries in it from Lind, however.
“Similarly, MacKinnon has argued that sexual harassment is essentially an issue of power exercised by the dominant over the subordinate group.”
Indeed, as can be seen in the case of the man who nearly lost his job because a woman with whom he was having a fling screamed rape when she got back with her boyfriend.
The boyfriend didn’t like the idea of her fooling with someone else, so she played the rape card, and the whole system came down on the individual man.
In this case, the fellow had emails on his work computer of a remarkably explicit nature from the alleged victim, but he still had to be suspended, and an investigation held, because that’s the way the system’s set up.
Too bad that she was a trollop, too bad that he’d been there for years and was well known (he’s someone I know personally and am happy to vouch for), too bad there was no evidence of wrongdoing on his part – the beast must be fed, and he had to suffer.
It’s systemic, and pervasive, and when I am the only female in my workplace but still the blokes are too cautious to put up pics of women in bikinis or even fully clothed, it really is time for a change.
Zed, although Nova struck first, are you still going to opine on cultural Marxism with a post of your own?
Yes, although as I already said it is going to start with CM as only 1 of 4 major social trends that had to converge in order to create the major level of social change we have seen recently.
Few people really understand Marxism. It is a belief system which is fundamentally different from merit-based thinking – built on different foundations and constructed of different materials in different ways. It is as fundamentally different from the prevailing philosophy of the US as Richard Dawkins beliefs are from Pope Benedict’s. Whatever the merits of the arguments of either side, the opposition is going to reject them because they disagree with the fundamental premises.
Oddly, capitalism is a strange mixture of ideologies. It is half Darwinist – survival of the fittest producer and marketer – and half dependent on a concept that is related to the Divine Right of Kings. Marxism is paradoxically an ideology that has roots which are more Christian than Capitalism is.
Both are presented in a fundamentally misleading way because they both boil down to who controls resources and how they are controlled. Orwell’s “Animal Farm” skewered the fundamental problem with Marxism – it is against one aspect of human nature. However, philosophically it owes a lot to Plato in that it seeks to define a form of social organization which would allow for a steady stable state, instead of wave after wave of political turnover.
Marxism is paradoxically an ideology that has roots which are more Christian than Capitalism is.
Zed, will you be addressing this in your forthcoming post? If not could you explain further?
Novaseeker,
That is a laser-point accurate description of cultural marxism and its methods.
This was an interesting post, Novaseeker.
Zed, will you be addressing this in your forthcoming post? If not could you explain further?
I have to second Learner’s question, as this would be a topic of interest to me as well. I have wondered about certain similarities I had found between Christianity and Marxism.
Pretty much, yes.
Pretty much, yes. They’re generally referred to as “new men” or “evolved men” and so on — the ones who collaborate with the current system and enable it.
As Zed noted, in the US our working class does not have a proletarian class consciousness. European working classes in the 20th century had a much stronger class consciousness, but even there the proletariat was not in a terribly revolutionary mood. That’s what led to Gramsci theorizing as to what could be done about the problem that the proletariat didn’t really show up for the revolution as Marx had predicted.
This is a very important point, particularly concerning Europe, as you point out. I would say that in the US immigration is still being used as a wedge to drive up the number of victimhood/preferred classes.
Marxism is paradoxically an ideology that has roots which are more Christian than Capitalism is.
Zed, will you be addressing this in your forthcoming post? If not could you explain further?
It’s already half a book long, so probably not.
Capitalism is almost as poorly understood as Marxism. Unfortunately, it is used as a catch-all word which encompasses a lot of social and economic practices. It’s the best we have to describe what is vaguely termed “The American Way”, which encompasses a lot more than just economics. What we call “capitalism” is a mixture of feudalism, aristocracy, and miltaristic imperialism.
“Capital” in its simplest sense is “a means of production.” If you own a farm, say one section, 640 acres, you can use that farmland to produce something for sale. You may employ laborers to do the work of production, but your ownership under capitalist thinking entitles you to a larger share of the profit than any of the individual laborers, and possibly more than all of them combined.
Now, most people see that as fair. Someone who went to the trouble to acquire the land, and takes the risk to put in a crop, and whose pay to the laborers is not dependent on how his crop turns out, has done a lot of things which make him (or her) and most people believe he has earned the right to his profit.
The sticking point comes from the issue of how the capitalist acquired the means of production in the first place. In the vast majority of cases this was by militaristic imperialism. I have to laugh at libertarians who prattle on about “property rights” when every white person in north America is living on land taken from an indigenous people at the point of a gun. Absolute “property rights” would require confiscating every square inch of land in North America and giving it back to the tribes.
Imperialism requires ruthlessness, aggression, weapons technology, and a morality based entirely on force. The people whose land was taken from them by force may not agree that the owndership of it is “moral.”
Thus, the holders of power and resources always create, institute, and enforce a system of laws which protects and perpetuates their hold on those resources (capital). Those laws are then enforced by standing armies with pledged feudal fealty to the “lord” or holder of the legal ownership of the capital.
The “Divine Right of Kings” stems directly from the “Divine Right of Conquest” or the principle “to the victor belong the spoils.” There is no sense of charity or equality about it.
Marxism does not accept the morality of confiscation by force and then protecting the ownership of what has been confiscated by a system of laws. The idea of worldwide revolution did include taking the means of production from the owners by force, but then destroying the concept of ownership so that everything belonged to everyone communally. The slogan “Property is Theft” sums up these concepts nicely.
That is a gross oversimplification, but, hey, this is a blog post, not a doctoral dissertation.
WW I was basically fought over the issue of the hereditary aristocracies having acquired so much of the ownership of land and other assets that everyone else was basically reduced to peasantry. The old nursery rhyme “Bah Bah Blacksheep” encapsulates what peasant life was like –
“Bah Bah Blacksheep,
Have you any wool?
Yes, sir, yes, sir,
3 bags full
1 for the master (the lord, or owner)
1 for the dame (the lord’s wife)
and 1 for the little boy that lives in the lane (the peasant). “
The forced confiscation of 2/3 rds of someone’s production, when they provided their own seed, feed, etc. and all the labor to produce it, did indeed feel like “oppression” or near slavery. The social conditions were akin to the bondage of the Israelites in ancient Egypt, except the peasants had no place to go.
Capitalism can thus be akin to slave owning. The natural tendency of parents to want to acquire wealth and pass it on to their children will inevitably become ossified into a rigid class structure. Those at the bottom of the class structure will work all their lives and their “masters” will confiscate most of what they produce through social custom or military force.
These are not what I have understood to be Christian ideals.
Those at the top of of the socioeconomic hierarchy always feel that they have earned the right to be there by their hard work. However, when there is no longer any work involved and they simply receive income from their legal ownership of something, those below them on the hierarchy who really are working hard begin to resent it.
The French Revolution was a sort of Marxist uprising – the lower classes rising up against the aristocrats and killing them. Marx believed that same model would happen again on a much broader scale.
Philosophically and ideologically, then, serious Marxists have a lot in common with 19th century abolitionists who viewed the enslavement of people with a sort of moral horror.
Now, all this is coming from someone who viscerally hates Marxism, but not because of its purist ideological undertones. The fatal flaw in Marx’s thinking, and Marxists in general, is shown in Orwell’s “Animal Farm.” The Proletariat and the underclasses do not dislike the system itself, they only dislike the position they have in it. If they are able to shuffle the positions, they end up behaving exactly like the people they displaced.
Anyone who preaches robbing from Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul’s support.
Yeah, the issue with Marxism is that it depends on an arcangelic goverment that issue all the money and rights fairly. LOLOLOLOL. The simple possibility is way too much funny. That amount of power cannot be hold for a human being because it corrupts him. That’s simply human nature.
And the simple thought that everybody deserves having the same pay and living in the same conditions….yeah right. That is an insult to the aspects of self-improvement and ambition, who had impulsed humanity though history.
So we got a goverment system that appeals to the worst aspects of the elite and is set up against the best aspects of everybody else…that just doesn’t work. Capitalism, a semi-Darwinian system, although not perfect, is the only one that has proved to be able to improve the life of most of is citizens.
Marxism, on the other hand, has been a failure in every single country that has tried to adopt that system. It always devolves into tyranny. Such is human nature.
Basically, Capitalism is the only system that has proved capable to keep humanity of killing themselves. Is not perfect, but is the best that we got and in this point in history, no responsible goverment has a choice in the matter. Note that I said responsible, not bunch of scumbags in a power trip.
Another point, Capitalism is based on Christianity both as a moral compass that has proved to be reliable (unlike many others) and as providing the brick that sustain it, the nuclear family. Every Marxist goverment has attacked the Church or used a twisted version of it. And the nuclear family is an enemy to all the leftist feminazis.
The sad part of it is that they won’t realize that they are being used until they (literally) open their legs for the Marxists when they corrupt to damnation all the Capitalist countries. The latter is something that we, as males cannot allow to happen.
Robert-Arthur: Menards latest video.
Part1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8AF6OQUaIw
Globalman’s links interest me. I think Globalman either needs to get a contributor slot here or else get his own website where he can permanently archive his links.
Note that Globalman’s allegations of an actual conspiracy contradict the original article’s allegations of no actual conspiracy, just an unspoken confluence of interests between people who never meet.
If it can be shown that the social networks of the Far Left intersect with the social networks of the rich-men-in-power, I think Globalman’s allegation of actual conspiracy would be proven.
I note that Western bankers funded Communist rebels in Russia. If that’s not conspiracy, what is?
Allow me to supply the counter-opinion of saying it sounds like paranoid, incoherent fear mongering, and that it would be greatly damaging to the reputation of this site as objective and fact-based.
I downloaded that “How I clobbered every bureaucracy known to man” by Croft, but I don;t completely understand it.
Could someone provide a more succinct explanation for the author’s position?
Good post, Novaseeker. But the following passage, though more true than not, doesn’t quite get to the root of the matter:
“Of course, due to the “structural power” of men in the highest echelons of society, none of this cultural and legal change could have taken place without their collaboration. So, why did they collaborate? The main reason is that the “men-in-power” at the top of any given society have always regarded the larger mass of men with a mixture of contempt and fear.”
It isn’t just high-status men who have collaborated. Women’s suffrage, for example, could never have passed without the support of average men. The same goes for later milestones in the march toward “equal” rights for women. What explains this support? Men’s natural desire to please women, operating at the collective rather than the individual level. In the past, at the individual level, this solicitude for women made sense, since it was appreciated and reciprocated by women. Acting from a position of dominance, men—even average men—could afford to be kind without coming across as needy or wimpy. Indeed, their kindness was seen as magnanimity. With the coming of equal rights for women, however, this same kindness increasingly came to be seen as supplication, as a sign of weakness.
As a result, women no longer feel the combination of respect and gratitude that once inspired them to reciprocate. And even if they did feel like reciprocating, how could they do this collectively? Women are not, after all, going to dispense their sexual favors to any and every man—though that seemed to be the deal implicit in the sexual revolution, far-fetched as it now appears in retrospect.
The higher the status of a man, the less he has to lose from the empowerment of women, and therefore the less he is threatened by it. A man near the top of the hierarchy can afford to be indifferent to the overall loss of male status, and may indeed revel in the increase in status it gives him relative to other men, all the while flattering himself that his own privileged position and the diminished position of his lesser brothers are both well deserved. While there’s a strong element of contempt in this attitude, I think a better description would be vanity.
For a man lower on the totem pole, to complain of his lot is in effect to admit to lower status; he thus has an incentive to deny, even to himself, the truth of his plight, lest he appear as a loser and make his situation even worse than it already is. In his need to identify with those above him in the hierarchy, he unwittingly adopts their pro-feminist values, to his own detriment.
Of course, women have now achieved such status relative to men that very few men are left with high enough status to merit their respect (in their eyes). It is thus no longer possible for men to continue to delude themselves—though some will no doubt try their hardest.
Reinholt October 16, 2009 at 7:32 pm
“Allow me to supply the counter-opinion of saying it sounds like paranoid, incoherent fear mongering, and that it would be greatly damaging to the reputation of this site as objective and fact-based.”
Reinholt, this is why I am posting links to such noted researchers as Henry Makow and Eustice Mullins etc. At first the proposal that the Illuminati is in control and has been for 6,000+ years seems fanciful. But if one keeps reading and puts together all the links it becomes ‘extremely obvious’. The bad guys rely on denial to remain ‘hidden in plain view’..
Marius October 16, 2009 at 7:25 pm
“If it can be shown that the social networks of the Far Left intersect with the social networks of the rich-men-in-power, I think Globalman’s allegation of actual conspiracy would be proven.”
Marius, Henry Makow http://www.henrymakow.com has proven this stuff beyond all question. And there are whole books on the relationships between the people at the very top. Try http://www.scribd.com/doc/3302722/The-Atlantean-Conspiracy (authors web site here: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com ).
David Icke has similarly traced the blood lines and demonstrated that the people at the very top are pretty much all from the same 13 families. They then use people in front of them to do their work for them. David Icke has some pretty bold theories about why exactly these guys try and intermarry and keep their blood lines as pure as possible which many find challenging to say the least! LOL!
In short, ALL the US presidents to ‘win’ election have been from the same bloodlines and have always been the closest candidate to the european aristocracy. The US didn’t win the revolution, Britain installed their men and their men ‘won’ the revolution. The British Monarcy (who are really Germans) claim to be direct descendents from King David.
Some Examples? John Kerry admitted to being a member of the Skull and Bones as was George Bush and skull and bones was set up by the Illuminati. Bill Clinton came out of Little Rock Arkansaw as does Wal Mart. It is a little known fact one of the rockefeller brothers moved to Little Rock years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winthrop_Rockefeller and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winthrop_Paul_Rockefeller). There is no proof Clinton is related to Winthrop as far as I know…..but it is beyond doubt that the donors to all recent presidential campaigns are the same crowd.
Obama even introduced Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski) as his ‘great mentor’ at a speech. Brezinski has also been photographed with one Osama Bin Laden in the 80s in Afgahnistan when the republicans were supporting the Afgahnistan ‘freedom fighters’ against the Russians. Brzezinski pretty much documented what was going to happen this decade in his book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. This book has been picked apart and presented by Mike Rupert who is an ex cop (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7726031384917866364#)
In his wikipedia entry you can see Brzezinskis association with Carter etc. What people don’t know is he continued to work in the ‘intelligence community’ all through the Regan/Bush years as well. He is on record as saying “It is now easier to kill one million people than to control one million people.” You have guys like Kissinger coming out of the woodwork talking about now being a good time for Obama to lead the introduction of a new world order. Through his mother Obama is also related to many other presidents and back to aristocracy.
Add to this other ‘coincidences’ such as Adolf Hitlers grandmother becoming pregnant while in the employ of Baron de Rothchild in Vienna. Now, sure, a lowly peasant was named as father. But what are the chances of the grandchild of a woman who became pregnant while in the employ rising to become tarred and feathered as one of the greatest criminals in all of history? What are the odds of that happening? Or is it more likely he was a Rothchild descendent and was used as a dupe?
Eustice Mullins, a prodegy of Ezra Pound who was incarcerated for 12 years for pointing out that the Illuminati ran america, has been talking about this and writing about this for 50 years. Try watching his video. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7644857907453201814&ei=xs_ZSr6BO9TF-Aa9q9CZCg&q=eustuce+mullins&hl=en#
This video is also excellent. I recommend anyone who really wants to know about what is going on watches this:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5851104821474981851&ei=QNDZSov3NpDJ-AaH9rGvCg&q=eustuce+mullins&hl=en#
You can also watch ‘Murder by Injection’. He is very amusing in this one despite the importance of the content.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6229689573281687331&ei=xs_ZSr6BO9TF-Aa9q9CZCg&q=eustuce+mullins&hl=en#
So, if you go through these books/links etc you will find all the evidence you need. I don’t need to create a blog site or something like that. I did create one but what I found was that evidence was abundant. The best site on the web for links has gone off air in the last two weeks. (http://www.softsphereconsulting.com/gselzler/Default.aspx) If it was still on air I would be pointing people here to it.
Truth October 16, 2009 at 9:45 pm
“Could someone provide a more succinct explanation for the author’s position?”
Truth, it is very difficult to be ’succint’ (by which I believe you mean brief) on topics that are this well hidden and this complicated. So I will be brief, but in the end you will likely not believe me.
When we are ‘registered’ and are given a ‘berth certificate’ legal ownership of us transfers to the guvment. This is what Houses comment was all about. The government creates a bond and YOU are the surity for that bond. That bond has a value which is equated to the lifetime labour of the person. These bonds are traded. In various countries, like Canada, if you look on the back of your birth certificate you will find a number ‘revenue receipt’. This is the Treasury Account used to track your value in THEIR system. Ok? With me? So you were ’sold’ into slavery without consideration and your value is measured in economic output of a lifetime.
But…WHO owns that bond? YOU DO. You are the surity so you have a higher legal claim on it than the guvment. If you never make that claim, well, the guvment administers your treasury account for you and you are none the wiser. Ok? So you own your bond but since you don’t know that they ‘administer’ it for you like the kind and generous souls they are. What do you think they are doing? They are putting THEIR hand in YOUR cookie jar. With me?
Next. There is no money. There are only promisory notes or debt notes or ‘legal tender’ and numbers on computers in ‘accounts’. Since you are a slave you can’t actually own anything. But they don’t want you to know you are a slave so they fake you out by brainwashing you that the name of the company created by the birth certificate is YOUR name and every time they put a form in front of you they ask you to sign your NAME. Look at ANY form from ANY guvment department (and that includes all banks and insurance companies). They all ask you to sign your NAME. But it’s not your name. It is the name of THEIR company. So what does signing your name on a credit card receipt really mean? It means you authorise the transfer of some fake ‘money’ from one government owned account to another government owned account. YOU? You own nothing. You can’t, you are a slave of the credit money system. It is all a complete ‘fake out’ to keep people ‘earning a living’…LOL!!
Now..there must be a remedy legally because slavery was ‘outlawed’. The remedy is this. Once you know your revenue receipt number from your birth certificate when someone sends you a BILL (which you can not pay because there is no money) you can ‘Accept For Value’ this Bill and send it back to whoever sent it to you and tell them to get the ‘money’ from the Treasury Account. Whola! No more bills to pay!! This is what Mary means by ‘You are supposed to live free’. The thing is, the ‘guvment’ siezed everything on behalf of the bankers during the depression. We have been living in a totalitarian communist global banking cartel since the great depression. Then they introduced ’social security’ and everyone who signs up waives all rights and in return gets ‘benefits’ and ‘privileges’. So, we have no rights and no money if we want THEIR benefits. And THEIR benefits are pitiful by comparison to what you give up. But lots of people want them. Unemployment, medical etc.
What are the implications? Well, some people are simply ‘Accepting For Value’ their guvment bills like council taxes, water, power, waste etc and sending the bill back. That is considered ‘paid’. I posted yesterday exactly how this is done in canada in the video by Robert Menard. Some others don’t even bother with that. Like me. We just refuse to pay our income taxes. Once you don’t pay income taxes you have so much extra money there hardly seems any point arguing about paying the utilities bills. Right? And all the ‘money’ is worthless anyway. They control the ‘value’ of it. Has the USD really lost 50% of it’s value in the last 7 years compared to the EUR? Of course not. It is all a ‘fake’. They are BOTH worthless..LOL!!
If you have a mortgage you can also clear your mortgage with an ‘Accept for Value’ or simply challenge the legality of the mortgage (because it is not legal) and get it cleared. http://www.theclassifiedfiles.com first book has the detailed instructions on how to clear you mortgage and not pay income taxes in Australia. Mary notes the specific forms to complete in the US to reclaim all you income taxes each year. In Australia I believe we are past the 100 mark for people clearing their mortgages. Not eveyone is saying when they have done it. Not bad. Obviously this is ‘new’ and the banks don’t want anyone to know they can clear their mortgages. Some guys are being ‘adventurous’. One guy is trying to buy a new pickup for USD55,000 from a dealer in the US with an A4V. He’s still in the process. I am going to buy a few houses and clear the mortgage and sell them again. Beats working for a living.
So, what am I saying? We all work for nothing. We never get ‘paid’. We only get ‘promisory/debt notes’ or ‘legal tender’. We don’t really have to pay our bills, they are all pre-paid. We don’t need to pay income taxes, child support, alimony etc. We are all wealthy beyond all need. We do need to learn how to get the robots in our guvment departments to also realise this so they will not harass us for ‘payment’. Rob Menard tells a story of an officer for the tax office who, when he realised this, killed himself. So we need to be a little sympathetic to the people in these guvment departments who are as shocked as anyone else to find out we are all conned.
This is, as briefly as possible, what Mary is talking about. I know it’s hard to believe. This is why, when people say ‘there can not possibly be a global conspiracy’ people like me just shake our head and wish we could get through more easily. The only way the monetary system works is if there IS a global conspiracy between the banking cartel and the governments. Remember, it is the guvment who sieze your house through the courts if you do not pay your unlawful mortgage. That ties together, immediately, banks, guvments, courts and police. And that’s just for a mortgage! Once you realise mortgages are fraudulent and you look who is involved in persecuting/prosecuting people who don’t ‘pay’ them the ‘consiracy’ is obvious. Do you guys have any idea what it is like to be outside the ‘fish bowl’ looking in and saying to the other fish “Guys, you are in a fish bowl” and having you answer back “There is no fish bowl, you are crazy”. Many days I feel like giving up. I really do. But there are many inspirational men around so I keep going. That is why I am in places like this. Guys like Rob don’t have time to come to places like this and wake up one man at a time. If we could just wake up the ‘mens movement’ to this con it would be AWSOME.
Notice how the men at the top never allowed anything to come close to killing the golden goose, our (relatively) free market economic system, but have gotten on board with just about everything else the left has peddled.
The best analysis I’ve read, on the collusion between the cultural left and the managerial elite, is in James Kalb’s “The Tyranny of Liberalism”; and online, Strakon at The Last Ditch has talked extensively about “Red Guards” and “Dark Suits”; his analysis is quite perceptive, too. (And TLD also has several essays by F. Roger Devlin, who as many of you know has much insight on contemporary relations between the sexes, and the cluelessness of SoCons.)
As for how mechanism whereby divergent interests like the Red Guards and the Dark Suits find commonality, and seem to work together without central coordination (obviously, no single smoke-filled boardroom somewhere, a la conspiracy-theory), I’ve always found Joe Sobran’s concept of “The Hive” to be intriguing; if one sees the elites as behaving as bees in a beehive do, one can observe patterns that don’t require central control, to occur. Sobran has written several essays on the subject at his website.
I felt this old blog post would be relevant.
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2008/02/questionators-should-women-have-right.html
As far as I can see, the best solution for men is to write themselves off society.
Men should take all the benefits they can, offer nothing in return and make sure to not reproduce.
If we can do that, it will help collapse the government by starving it from revenue. The government is 100% responsible for this state of affairs. It must be taken down.
Things will get from bad to worse if we do nothing. Words are useless. The only way out is to reformat and start over again from scratch. This stinking society does not function and must be torpedoed. There is no other fix. We will NEVER be able to fix what was broken. A hard choice to make, but a necessary one.
We can talk until hell freezes over.. to no avail.
We have two choices:
1-to live as slaves in an affluent society in which we have no say,
2-to live in a brankrupt society where we have power.
My choice is made…
That’s the road to freedom.
Rebel
I agree with most of what you say but take exception with not reproducing. You must perpetuate but strategically= strategic reproduction.
1. the body of knowledge you will impart to your progeny.
2. health regimen
3. staff/people needed to implement your program
4. financing needed to implement your program
5. identify potential obstructions and counter-measures
You have to be like a contractor on a construction project.
There is ONE thing that all online activists can do to combat Cultural Marxism… and it is soooooo easy for us to do.
We can control our use of language.
And, as keyboard warriors, what is it, exactly, that is our weapon? It is our words. Our words control thoughts. If there is no word for something, that something does not exist in many people’s mind. If you could go back 50 years in time and talk to someone about “date-rape”, they would look at you as if you had been sniffing glue. But, by putting a name to something, you expand concepts in people’s minds that were not previously there.
That is very powerful. Jack Kammer talks about this in his online book, http://www.deltabravo.net/files/ifmenhav.pdf , in regard to the words “misogyny” vs. “misandry.” Why do so many people think there is no such thing as “man hatred”? Because there simply is no word for it. There is a word for “jaywalking” to indicate the illegal crossing of a street… but, there is no similar word for crossing the street… it is simply, “crossing the street.”
Marxists battle for YOUR MIND. That is what “the personal is the political” is all about. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the populace was soooooooo screwed in the head, they could scarcely even comprehend how to live their lives anymore… they wanted the old way back.
It is often noted by people who lived under Communism/Marxism that it was not actually the totalitarianism or the threats that go along with it which they found the most distasteful. Nope. What they say was the worst was all the LIES.
Basically, controlling language is controlling other’s thoughts.
Think of this one simple example: Why did the word “gender” get introduced into the language?
We already had a word to indicate this concept: “Sex”
On my birth certificate, from 1970, it says “Sex: M”
However, “sex” is a very narrow concept. It only allows for “Male” and “Female.”
Up until recently, “gender” was a word solely used to describe masculine and feminine in language – as anyone who has studied a romance language, such as French, will understand. “Le” is masculine, and “La” is feminine. This was the meaning of the word “gender” until the Cultural Marxists co-opted it for their own purposes.
What happened when they co-opted the word “gender”?
Well, they expanded it. “Gender” is now a term used to describe Male, Female, Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered etc. They expanded the concepts of sexuality beyond what was previously there, and in doing so, introduced concepts into the minds of the populace… even into the minds of those who really couldn’t give a crap about what they are talking about.
“Partner” instead of “Husband or Wife” does the same thing.
“Traditional Family,” by virtue of even having to define it as “traditional”, indicates that there are indeed “other” kinds of families… now the push is on, here in Canada anyways, to have all families declared “equal.” What rubbish. Single Mother Households are broken families, they are not “equal” in any way whatsoever. Not from income nor in ability. A gay marriage “family” is not equal, because there is no ability to reproduce – except through State Totalitarianism methods which are now being applied (favouring gays over straights for adoptions & foster care service etc).
Tell someone from 100 years ago that you stand for the “Traditional Family” and they would look funny at you. Wtf, “traditional?” There is only one kind of family. The defenders of “traditional family values” have ALREADY LOST by saying that they defend “traditional.” They are loading the enemy’s guns for them, because they are already acknowledging there ARE other types of families than the traditional.
It really doesn’t take as long as you think.
I remember about 4 or 5 years ago, the whole MRA-sphere was up in arms about the term “anti-feminist” and the negative connotations that went along with it… lol, except for me. I was damned proud to be anti-feminist.
At any rate, this is when the word “misandry” started being used often by online activists.
It is now 4 or 5 years later… and guess what? The word “misandry” is being used more and more and more… even getting into mainstream articles often. In another 5 years, I predict misandry will be as commonly understood as misogyny. Way to go MRA’s! And you didn’t even have to win an argument! All you did was say “misandry” over and over and OVER and OVER again, in all your articles and comments!
Authors of articles and blogs, could easily do such things. It is not all that difficult to type in a different word, or to omit certain words.
Get back to saying “sex” instead of gender. Take that shit back from them!
Make a readily identifiable word of our own, perhaps to describe “fake rape” or “attention rape” and in a few years time, the notion that women manipulate the “rape system” will begin to permeate into society.
It is the back door approach – but, it casts its nets far and wide, because after a while, even those not directly interested in the issue WILL get exposed to the word, and begin to subconsciously understand the concept behind it.
It was done to us… we should do it back.
We are language warriors, after all.
I wrote a series of articles about how to fight Marxism, and put them all together here:
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/09/achilles-heel.html
There is ONE thing that all online activists can do to combat Cultural Marxism… and it is soooooo easy for us to do.
We can control our use of language.
And, as keyboard warriors, what is it, exactly, that is our weapon? It is our words. Our words control thoughts. If there is no word for something, that something does not exist in many people’s mind. If you could go back 50 years in time and talk to someone about “date-rape”, they would look at you as if you had been sniffing glue. But, by putting a name to something, you expand concepts in people’s minds that were not previously there.
That is very powerful. Jack Kammer talks about this in his online book, http://www.deltabravo.net/files/ifmenhav.pdf , in regard to the words “misogyny” vs. “misandry.” Why do so many people think there is no such thing as “man hatred”? Because there simply is no word for it. There is a word for “jaywalking” to indicate the illegal crossing of a street… but, there is no similar word for legally crossing the street… it is simply, “crossing the street.”
Marxists battle for YOUR MIND. That is what “the personal is the political” is all about. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the populace was soooooooo screwed in the head, they could scarcely even comprehend how to live their lives anymore… they wanted the old way back.
It is often noted by people who lived under Communism/Marxism that it was not actually the totalitarianism or the threats that go along with it which they found the most distasteful. Nope. What they say was the worst was all the LIES.
Basically, controlling language is controlling other’s thoughts.
Think of this one simple example: Why did the word “gender” get introduced into the language?
We already had a word to indicate this concept: “Sex”
On my birth certificate, from 1970, it says “Sex: M”
However, “sex” is a very narrow concept. It only allows for “Male” and “Female.”
Up until recently, “gender” was a word solely used to describe masculine and feminine in language – as anyone who has studied a romance language, such as French, will understand. “Le” is masculine, and “La” is feminine. This was the meaning of the word “gender” until the Cultural Marxists co-opted it for their own purposes.
What happened when they co-opted the word “gender”?
Well, they expanded it. “Gender” is now a term used to describe Male, Female, Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered etc. They expanded the concepts of sexuality beyond what was previously there, and in doing so, introduced concepts into the minds of the populace… even into the minds of those who really couldn’t give a crap about what they are talking about.
“Partner” instead of “Husband or Wife” does the same thing.
“Traditional Family,” by virtue of even having to define it as “traditional”, indicates that there are indeed “other” kinds of families… now the push is on, here in Canada anyways, to have all families declared “equal.” What rubbish. Single Mother Households are broken families, they are not “equal” in any way whatsoever. Not from income nor in ability. A gay marriage “family” is not equal, because there is no ability to reproduce – except through State Totalitarianism methods which are now being applied (favouring gays over straights for adoptions & foster care service etc).
Tell someone from 100 years ago that you stand for the “Traditional Family” and they would look funny at you. Wtf, “traditional?” There is only one kind of family. The defenders of “traditional family values” have ALREADY LOST by saying that they defend “traditional.” They are loading the enemy’s guns for them, because they are already acknowledging there ARE other types of families than the traditional.
It really doesn’t take as long as you think.
I remember about 4 or 5 years ago, the whole MRA-sphere was up in arms about the term “anti-feminist” and the negative connotations that went along with it… lol, except for me. I was damned proud to be anti-feminist.
At any rate, this is when the word “misandry” started being used often by online activists.
It is now 4 or 5 years later… and guess what? The word “misandry” is being used more and more and more… even getting into mainstream articles often. In another 5 years, I predict misandry will be as commonly understood as misogyny. Way to go MRA’s! And you didn’t even have to win an argument! All you did was say “misandry” over and over and OVER and OVER again, in all your articles and comments!
Authors of articles and blogs, could easily do such things. It is not all that difficult to type in a different word, or to omit certain words.
Get back to saying “sex” instead of gender. Take that shit back from them!
Make a readily identifiable word of our own, perhaps to describe “fake rape” or “attention rape” and in a few years time, the notion that women manipulate the “rape system” will begin to permeate into society.
It is the back door approach – but, it casts its nets far and wide, because after a while, even those not directly interested in the issue WILL get exposed to the word, and begin to subconsciously understand the concept behind it.
It was done to us… we should do it back.
We are language warriors, after all.
I wrote a series of articles about how to fight Marxism, and put them all together here:
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/09/achilles-heel.html
fedrz=archived.
Sorry about that, posts with two or more links are automatically held up to avoid spam.
Thanks for this post, Nova. I feel like I got a refresher of social theory 501–applied to feminism from the MALE perspective.
Conspiracies cannot exist? Explain religion.
- Mythology based on a kernel of truth
- Emotionally-charged beliefs that cannot be questioned lest you be branded a heretic
- Inculcated via mass-repetition upon the population across time
- Relics and sites held up as prima facie evidence (independent examination or skepticism met with violent emotional response)
- An official version of Truth (scriptures), often replete with ‘miracles’
- Attraction fed by wallowing narcissism (victimology, guilt, or similar ego masturbation)
Secular religions (aka conspiracies) use the same mechanics.
I enjoy sociology as much as the next man, but in the interests of the reality check I ask:
How many would-be analysts of elite power actually know anybody in the elite? There’s an unreality to much social theorizing, especially when it is reduced to concepts of power and control.
I second the recommendation for Jim Kalb’s The Tyranny of Liberalism. As a Yale grad, he has some experience of the elite. He also focuses on explicit ideology rather than analysis of what “really” happens.
Has Paul Gottfried come up on this site before? He has much training in the culturally Marxist Frankfurt School, but is very much a man of the bourgeois Right.
I think it’s impossible to understand what has really happened in the West since 1960 without understanding the underlying cultural Marxist basis.
Really? I think it’s impossible to understand what’s happened in “the West,” and indeed, the World, without talking about the economic and political crises of capitalism. But I’m a classical Marxist, not a “cultural Marxist” (whatever that is).
Your summary of the history of the Frankfurt School is not incorrect in the broader strokes. Much of it does have to do with the rejection of the international working class in favor of “other” forces, most notably student radicals and third world revolutionary groups. However, I would say that this rejection makes it a rather un-Marxist movement.
Essentially, it was necessary to rewrite history from the perspective of viewing almost everyone as having been ruthlessly oppressed by straight, white men for all of history, and reduce our understanding both of all of the past and the present structures in society to a vision which views the entire narrative as one extended campaign of white male rape and domination of everyone and everything else.
I fail to understand the relationship between this view of the world and Marxism. Nor do I think that you make a compelling case that the two are connected. To turn your statement about activists and radicals who do not realize they are “Marxists” around, I would posit that not everyone who says they are a Marxist is one. It’s not a question of being “more Marxist than thou.” Rather, it’s an attempt to point out that there are some core principles of Marxism (class struggle, the nature of the state, value theory of labor, and others) that, once abandoned, leave something perhaps influenced by Marxism, but certainly other than.
In other words, even those activists who would not admit that they were Marxist, or who would truthfully deny that they believed in Marxist ideas, nevertheless drew from a revisionist history which was, itself, thoroughly Marxist in content.
This is, in my opinion, where you fail to close the sale. You do a lot of talk about how the interpretations of certain middle class professional radicals is “Marxist” but you don’t really say how. Many criticisms of Marxism view it as excessively economically deterministic. Other criticisms of Marxism view it as unduly dismissive of racial, gender, and national questions. It is worth noting that Marx wrote nothing that I am aware of about homosexuality, and explicitly Marxist movements have a pretty bad track record on such issues.
there is a quite strong alignment of interests between the elites and the radicals, such that the entire society has been recast in ways that actually serve to preserve the power of the current elites by dividing the rest of the population against itself.
This is not an attempt at being cute, but this sounds rather (ahem) Marxist. Marxists (beginning with Marx, and continuing on with Lenin who basically spent a decade and a half writing poison pen letters to Kautsky) have long critiqued professional radicals of a middle class bent as being part and parcel of the capitalist system. Indeed, in a world where the capitalist order is breaking down, having some radicals around to deflect criticism (see Noam Chomsky) and /or divide people by non-essential categories (pick your favorite identity politics radicals) can be quite valuable in a revolutionary situation.
A pre-requisite for that is understanding this cultural Marxist apparatus that has been set up to screw us, and the fact that the social conservatives are collaborating with it.
Despite your protests to the contrary, this seems rather conspiratorial. Assuming that the rest of your argument is correct- and it should be obvious that I don’t- wouldn’t a more reasonable proposition be that men getting screwed is just the situation getting played out to its logical end?
The step beyond that is true male liberation.
Which is what precisely? And more to the point, does this include stepping on other people? And if it does, who and why?
I would like to finally add in passing that the history of the Marxist movement is largely made up of men who were trying to do something which on the surface seems rather manly. Specifically I mean fighting for a better future for themselves, their children, and their families. The writer of this article, however, has precious little to say about this. I am curious to know what, if anything, he would have to say about the literally millions of men both in the United States and internationally who subscribed to Marxian socialist politics. Before you attack your beta male straw man, I suggest you look into the biographies of people like “Big” Bill Haywood and Farrell Dobbs, to say nothing of the nameless, faceless men who fought and are not remembered by history books. The idea that they are weak and passive is laughable on its very face.
Nick, first, I’d like to let you know that your POV is welcome.
However, you Marxists have a hell of a lot to answer for where feminism is concerned. If feminism is your schtick, then own it. If not, then decades of feminist theory goes down the drain, and you’ve got to articulate that as well.
If you’re up for it, I’d publish your views on feminism — as a Marxist of course (featured guest). Let me know.