The Unspoken New World Order - Cultural Marxism, page 2


Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 19 times


reply posted on 20-12-2009 @ 07:20 AM by Cythraul
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Unfortuntely we embrace some of it without even realizing it. "Filesharing" under the motto "Sharing is Caring" is embraced by 80% of the youth, they grow up thinking nothing of it. You try to question it in these Forums and you will get hoards of enraged people shouting at you defending their "civil right" to disregard legal property.

Filesharing - what an excellent allegory for wider Communism ideology. Thanks for that. I'm a musician myself and I've suffered severely due to filesharing. I made an album and set up my own tiny record label to distribute it. When I've googled the name of my album, I find it being not only sold, illegally, by websites (usually Russian) but I find countless sites offering free download of my mp3s. Last time I counted, using sites that document the number of downloads these mp3s have had, I worked out that at least 10 times more people have downloaded my music for free than have paid for it. As a result, I've personally lost money. A perfect example of why the Marxist sense of entitlement to others' property is destructive.


Originally posted by infinite
The problem with the New World Order, is the far left describe it as fascist and an oligarchy style capitalist model and yet the far right label it Marxist.

It's neither.

Whilst I don't agree with some of your points, I gave you a star because you do raise a very important point (which I believe I touched upon near the top of the thread): is Marxism merely a tool used by higher forces which themselves are not genuinely Marxist?

I consider myself niether 'left' nor 'right' wing, so I do take exception to you claiming that those who blame Marxism are themselves right-wingers with an axe to grind. But I do agree with you that the elites at the very top will exploit whichever political ideology they believe will achieve their goals for them. Sometimes they use far-right fascism, sometimes Marxism. We must be able to see through this. BUT, and here's the crux of my point here, the CURRENT system is widely yet covertly Marxist. In the 30s they used the far-right Nazis (who ironically were Socialist - a leftist ideology). I think a more genuine right-wing regime would have been the USA under the Bush's - a pro-capitalist, conservative, traditionalist Christian system.

But it's always important to remember that the 'far-right' is not defined by Fascism. Fascism rears its ugly head in Marxist, far-left regimes as frequently - if not more so - as in far-right regimes. In reality, there's no left and right, only right and wrong - liberty and slavery. Both the far-left and the far-right can be used to enslave. Currently, Marxism can be seen to be the culprit. And as Skyfloating points out, it's VERY, VERY 'cool' and acceptable to call yourself 'left-wing' these days, whilst very reprehensible to call yourself 'right'wing'. There's a reason for this, our generation has been socially-engineered this way.

As for the Green Party being anti-EU, are you sure about that?


reply posted on 20-12-2009 @ 08:55 AM by jplotinus
Let's see if we can put Antonio Gramsci in the proper intellectual perspective for purposes of assessing his relationship to the current "change" dynamic, if there is one, in the world today.

Firstly, for those of you who cling to the notion that the change agents often designated as "THE NEW WORLD ORDER" represent an attempt to curtail freedom and to require conformity with a particular world view, be it CULTURAL MARXISM or otherwise, consider what happened to ANTONIO GRAMSCI. He was imprisoned in Italy and he was imprisoned because of his IDEAS. As such, he was a prisoner of conscience, as were many other 20th Century revolutionaries, including, by way of non-exhaustive example, LEON TROTSKY, with whom Gramsci is often compared and/or coupled.

So, indeed, for those who defend the status quo based on the perception of freedom, particularly the freedom of thought, doing so is clearly an illusion.

It is for precisely that reason that it is appropriate to engage in independent examination of exactly what ANTONIO GRAMSCI, not to mention LEON TROTSKY, stood for. Hear this: Basically, the issue is not actually that of cultural Marxism; rather, it is of CULTURAL RADICALISM which sought to AVOID the plight the world is currently in. A world that is characterized by oligarchic control of most of the wealth and resources into a tiny pocket of individuals and corporate entities. That control also extends to control of thought via cultural mores, norms and ways of carrying on everyday life. Gramsci and Trotsky realized the plight humanity was in; namely, that of being close on to becoming robots without freedom of thought. Accordingly, to overthrow the tyranny, including the control of human thought and the destruction of human free will, radical solutions need to be considered.

I agree with that portion of this thread that downplays the difference between so-called "right-wing" and so-called "left-wing." The age of strict adherence to ideologies is long past. I, for instance, am progressive; yet, I find myself aligned, very frequently, with libertarian opposition to things like war and corporatism and bailouts, for instance.

I think we can find agreement with one another and common cause in seeking to overthrow the yoke of corporatism, which appears to be the last gasp of capitalism.

Where we may differ is that true socialism has been saying this for a long time. Posters here could benefit, I think, by a closer review of what Gramsci and Trotsky actually stood for; rather than merely continue with the regurgitation of what the capitalist system wanted us to think about 20th Century revolutionaries. It was they, afterall, stood against the capitalist system of oppression long before any of us did and they did so based on tremendous personal sacrifice. Gramsci is a figure of true historical signficance.

See:

www.jstor.org...



reply posted on 20-12-2009 @ 09:16 AM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by jplotinus


It is telling that you would declare freedom an illusion and merely a perception that is in reality non existent in order to sell your ideas of socialism. "True socialism" or any other form of it can not work while freedom is working. That "true socialists" were imprisoned is not evidence that freedom doesn't exist and since you have declared both Gramsci and Trotsky people imprisoned for their ideas the evidence then supports the existence of freedom and not its non existence. Neither Gramsci nor Trotsky ever recanted their ideas and imprisoned or not continued to believe in them and no one was able to stop them from holding those beliefs. This was their freedom and this remains the power of freedom.

It is further telling that you take one economic model in the corporate structure and declare it a the very same as a different economic model in the capitalist structure. Corporatism is not nor has it ever been capitalism and it is only the proponents of socialism and communism who attempt to equate corporatism with capitalism. The cobbler, the book seller, the mom and pop cafe are usually not incorporated and have nothing at all to do with corporatism and instead have everything to do with capitalism. Corporations, on the other hand, have nothing at all to do with capitalism and are as eager to defeat that economic structure as the socialists are and both work in alliance, either knowingly or tacitly, to do so.


reply posted on 20-12-2009 @ 10:27 AM by jplotinus
reply to post by Skyfloating


So, indeed, your post is highly consistent with Gramsci's thought and writing. As the originating post in this thread references Gramsci, it is appropriate, I think, to recall that his most renowned concept and that which permeated is voluminous and highly influential work was that of HEGEMONY.

Those reading this thread might (or might not) detect in the post to which this one replies a hint of just that; namely, hegemonic thinking.

However, for sake of double-checking for accuracy, let me inquire of skyfloating whether s/he thinks that capitalism is the best system of economics yet invented by humanity, such that it is useless to even think about replacing capitalism?

Option:

The question re capitalism being the best economic system ever can be answered either with or without reference to the current global meltdown. You choose.


reply posted on 20-12-2009 @ 10:31 AM by jplotinus
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


To hold that Gramsci and Trotsky, each of whom either died in prison or got assassinated, were 'free' to believe as they chose strikes me as indicative of that sort of mind control entailed in capitalism. That is all I need say about Jean Paul Zodeaux's post. Here, we simply have a rather different perception of the type that Gramsci indicated would need to be challenged from the ground up.


reply posted on 20-12-2009 @ 10:42 AM by Clearskies
reply to post by jplotinus


I cannot believe you love Trotsky:
markhumphrys.com...
Some people think Lenin and Trotsky were "not as bad" as Stalin, that the 1917 revolution was not criminal from the start, but only became criminal later. This is one of the greatest lies in history. Lenin and Trotsky killed 4 million people - men, women and children - by mass executions, death camps, and state-caused famine. See [The Black Book of Communism] for a good introduction to their genocide, which started as soon as they got into power in 1917.

Red Army Timeline



[edit on 20-12-2009 by Clearskies]


reply posted on 20-12-2009 @ 11:14 AM by jplotinus
reply to post by Clearskies


There is no historical basis for lumping Lenin and Trotsky with Stalin. This is simply a matter of having a competent understanding of historical facts and circumstances. That there is no valid linking of what Lenin wanted to see accomplished and what Trotsky was prevented, by Stalinist forces, from achieving, is easily understood and digestable from such commonplace sources as, say, wikipedia, for goodness sake.

Trotsky is, in point of fact, the founder of The Red Army and he used it during the October (1917) revolution to solidify the overthrow of czarism that had kept Russia in a state of abject feudalism and slavery for centuries. For that, the October Revolution is much heralded as one of the single most important human achievements of the 20th Century all over the world, with a few notable exceptions. Chances are, if you live in a country whose primary language is English, then, in that event, you probably have not got the foggiest idea what happened in the October Revolution and, try as you might, you can't differentiate Bolshevism from Menshivism if your life depended on it.

Such is the hegemonistic outcome of english language education as Gramsci would have no doubt described it.

By the way, it is generally understood that the Red Army was a response to the czarist slaughter taking place in 1905, not to mention the centuries of oppression that preceded the revolution of 1905. And, the Red Army was also the outcome of the collapse of the Russian Army brought on by its participation in WWI. You disagree?



[edit on 20-12-2009 by jplotinus]

[edit on 20-12-2009 by jplotinus]


reply posted on 20-12-2009 @ 11:43 AM by pieman
reply to post by Cythraul


i'm really not seeing your angle at all.

the biggest issue i have is that there seems to be no marxism in this cultural marxist conspiracy. care to cite an example of the marxism?

the other issue i have with what you seem to be saying is that i honestly don't
see where the value is in retaining the elements of early 20th century european society that we've allowed to fall away.

what have we lost that you'ld have back?


reply posted on 20-12-2009 @ 11:58 AM by Clearskies
Originally posted by jplotinus
reply to post by Clearskies


There is no historical basis for lumping Lenin and Trotsky with Stalin. This is simply a matter of having a competent understanding of historical facts and circumstances. That there is no valid linking of what Lenin wanted to see accomplished and what Trotsky was prevented, by Stalinist forces, from achieving, is easily understood and digestable from such commonplace sources as, say, wikipedia, for goodness sake.


Give me some links on that, then plz!
I don't give a rats ** what Trotsky might have thought, I care about what he said and did.

Trotsky is, in point of fact, the founder of The Red Army and he used it during the October (1917) revolution to solidify the overthrow of czarism that had kept Russia in a state of abject feudalism and slavery for centuries. For that, the October Revolution is much heralded as one of the single most important human achievements of the 20th Century all over the world, with a few notable exceptions.


Yeah, he killed the czar, his wife and children as well as civilians.......(Yay, for that?)
I guess communist countries heralded that as a great accomplishment.

Chances are, if you live in a country whose primary language is English, then, in that event, you probably have not got the foggiest idea what happened in the October Revolution and, try as you might, you can't differentiate Bolshevism from Menshivism if your life depended on it.


Fill me in if I have it wrong. ??????
Trotsky wasn't a Menshivist, so...........doesn't matter does it?


By the way, it is generally understood that the Red Army was a response to the czarist slaughter taking place in 1905,


Slaughter.
The troops guarding the Winter Palace who thought the demonstrators had come to take over opened fire on them, which resulted in more than 1000 deaths.


Seems like the guards thought they were being attacked (so self-defense), NOT a SLAUGHTER.

BTW, communist labor-unions are well known to use poor, factory-workers as 'tools' to get power!!!

not to mention the centuries of oppression that preceded the revolution of 1905. And, the Red Army was also the outcome of the collapse of the Russian Army brought on by its participation in WWI. You disagree?


Yes, I disagree.
I think the red army was formulated by Trotsky and Lenin to consolidate power for themselves and also to confiscate more money.
the origins of communism
Leon Trotsky (whose real name was Lev Davidovich Bronstein, 1879-1940, the son of wealthy Jewish parents), who was exiled from Russia because of his part in the aborted revolution in 1905, was a reporter for Novy Mir, a communist paper in New York, from 1916-17. He had an expensive apartment and traveled around town in a chauffeur-driven limousine. He sometimes stayed at the Krupp mansion, and had been seen going in and out of Schiff's New York mansion. Trotsky was given $20 million in Jacob Schiff gold to help finance the revolution, which was deposited in a Warburg bank, then transferred to the Nya Banken in Stockholm, Sweden. According to the Knickerbocker Column in the New York Journal American on February 3, 1949: "Today it is estimated by Jacob's grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about $20,000,000 for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia."

You disagree?


reply posted on 20-12-2009 @ 04:28 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Originally posted by jplotinus
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


To hold that Gramsci and Trotsky, each of whom either died in prison or got assassinated, were 'free' to believe as they chose strikes me as indicative of that sort of mind control entailed in capitalism. That is all I need say about Jean Paul Zodeaux's post. Here, we simply have a rather different perception of the type that Gramsci indicated would need to be challenged from the ground up.



Indeed, and like a good little soldier you attempt to challenge, not by addressing any of the so called "flaws" of capitalism directly but indirectly through the most insidious of propaganda. It is not any conspiracy of capitalists that seek to engage in mind control as there is no gain from it, any gain from mind control can only arise from the ambition of tyrants. Communism, socialism, Marxism or Cultural Marxism have nothing to gain by praising the justice and ethics of freedom for every individual as their ideology is rooted in collectivism and not individualism.

It is telling once again, that you would spout off empty rhetoric and declare these shallow words as enough and "all you have to say". Empty rhetoric is, of course, all you have to offer as you are not advocating any freedom but instead advocating submission to the state with an empty promise of equality disguised as freedom. Free people believe what they want regardless of the actions of those tyrants who would endeavor to imprison or kill them. It is in their own insistence that their mind is their own to control that they first come to know freedom and regardless of the tyranny imposed upon them they will continue to believe what they choose to believe. Choice is the operative word there, as having that choice is an element of freedom.

Capitalism offers choice as a means to an economic system, socialism, communism, and Marxism have no interest in choice but would instead define freedom as being an equality of income that can only be achieved by eliminating choice by way of a gargantuan state that would impose an economic ideology upon the people with empty promises of a "stateless" society to follow. As if any gargantuan state would just voluntarily disappear once their efforts to impose economic equality were achieved, as if economic equality would ever be achieved.

At its best all socialism can offer is the promise of the "workers" ownership of the means of production through the elimination of private property which can only be achieved by tyranny. In stark contrast, what capitalism offers is the freedom to choose who a person will do business with and the ability to seek out the best possible quality of product at the best possible price. It is a one on one situation that can't be beat because, in the end, people tend to enjoy the freedom to choose more than they enjoy the promise of being taken care of. Freedom to choose denotes independence while a reliance upon someone else to facilitate equality in economics denotes dependency.

Where capitalism advocates a free and unregulated market place where people can buy and sell goods without any interference, the ideologies of communism and socialism and even corporatism advocate a highly regulated market where people are not at all free to choose who they can buy and sell goods to and from. Where capitalism advocates massive competition, again communism, socialism and corporatism advocate an elimination of competition. Where capitalism advocates a strong currency backed by wealth whereby people can agree on that value, in Das Kapital Marx made clear that the only way to beat the capitalist system was by undermining their currency because even Marx was smart enough to know that a one on one situation can't be beat.

How ironic it is then, that so much of the worlds currency has been undermined by a handful of elites not at all interested in the tenets of capitalism and instead interested in global domination and fiat money, i.e. worthless currency, has been imposed upon people who have no hopes of amassing any wealth through the use of this worthless currency and all they can do to keep the economy strong is continue to purchase goods at a regulated price through currency also regulated.

The advocates of communism, socialism and Marxism will declare themselves intellectuals and engage in academic snobbery in a lame attempt to elevate their own ideology over that of freedom. These advocates of these ideologies can only promise a temporary tyranny in exchange for economic equality that just doesn't exist and never will. Any person willing to challenge the efficacy of temporary tyrannies is roundly dismissed as uneducated and the product of mind control, while they who dismiss these skeptics pretend to possess some undeniable genius and mystical understanding of knowledge not belonging to the masses they pretend to stand for.

The Utopia these advocates of Marxist ideology offer is predicated on the belief that they know what is best for everyone else. They must necessarily elevate themselves above those they pretend to want to help and are forced to engage in propaganda tactics in an attempt to convince individuals who would rather look after themselves that they are the product of mind control and will huff and puff and bluster and insist that those individuals who insist they are free to make their own choices without interference from another, are just too stupid to understand the "true" freedom they are offering in exchange for their tyranny.

It doesn't take a genius to understand that A is A and up is up and down is down. No matter how hard these Cultural Marxists will try in their endeavors to convince people they are products of mind control, those who have not fallen prey to this mind control still know that A is A and up is up and down is down and no amount of intellectual blather will convince them that it is otherwise.


reply posted on 20-12-2009 @ 05:11 PM by jplotinus
Originally posted by Clearskies
Originally posted by jplotinus
reply to post by Clearskies






Give me some links on that, then plz


What? I told you to use wikipedia. Just look up Antonio Gramsci.

Yeah, he killed the czar, his wife and children as well as civilians.......(Yay, for that?)
I guess communist countries heralded that as a great accomplishment.


Do you on the one hand lament the overthrow of the czar in Russia, while simultaneously celebrating the 4th of July, on the other? If so, you appear to be engaging in a contradiction with one slight exception. The US patriots did not kill George III and, for that matter, they didn't really kill all that many British soldiers as the US patriots were rather ineffectual as warriors. Were it not for the French Fleet, it is highly doubtful the US would have attained its independence. But, hey, these are just details; right?



Fill me in if I have it wrong. ??????
Trotsky wasn't a Menshivist, so...........doesn't matter does it?


Yes, you are wrong. But that is understandable. US education does not extend to teaching people about American history very much; let alone world history; still less communist history and don't even mention historical materialism.

By the way, it is generally understood that the Red Army was a response to the czarist slaughter taking place in 1905,



Slaughter.
The troops guarding the Winter Palace who thought the demonstrators had come to take over opened fire on them, which resulted in more than 1000 deaths.

Seems like the guards thought they were being attacked (so self-defense), NOT a SLAUGHTER.



Shouldn't you have ended that segment with Long live the czar? Your apology for czarist slaughter is revealing, I think.



BTW, communist labor-unions are well known to use poor, factory-workers as 'tools' to get power!!!


Communism centers on attaining power for the working class; does it not?


Yes, I disagree.
I think the red army was formulated by Trotsky and Lenin to consolidate power for themselves and also to confiscate more money.
the origins of communism
Leon Trotsky (whose real name was Lev Davidovich Bronstein, 1879-1940, the son of wealthy Jewish parents), who was exiled from Russia because of his part in the aborted revolution in 1905, was a reporter for Novy Mir, a communist paper in New York, from 1916-17. He had an expensive apartment and traveled around town in a chauffeur-driven limousine. He sometimes stayed at the Krupp mansion, and had been seen going in and out of Schiff's New York mansion. Trotsky was given $20 million in Jacob Schiff gold to help finance the revolution, which was deposited in a Warburg bank, then transferred to the Nya Banken in Stockholm, Sweden. According to the Knickerbocker Column in the New York Journal American on February 3, 1949: "Today it is estimated by Jacob's grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about $20,000,000 for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia."

You disagree?


You have relied on sources of information about Trotsky that are nothing but spin. Your information seeks to falsify history. While I could take the position that your quoted propaganda is not worthy of response, I will make an exception here due to my newness to this board.

The only thing you have correctly stated about Trotsky is his name/lifespan. His parents were not wealthy Jews. Instead, they were working class to start with, but did have some upward mobility. In Czarist Russia (in or about the 1880s) Jews were not allowed to acquire property. This is a conspiracy thread and the remaining claims in your post are just that: conspiracy utterances.


reply posted on 21-12-2009 @ 06:24 AM by Cythraul
With all due respect to those discussing Trotsky and Socialist/Marxist ideology in general, I'm going to focus specifically on debating this ideology as a means of bringing about a new world order.


Originally posted by masterp
Europe is not socialist. It is sociodemocracy, mostly.

Our communities are not destroyed by multiculturalism and marxism, they are destroyed by the relentless pursuit of profit.

Greed is what is destroying our communities, not marxism.

I think you're missing the point a bit. Greed, by a few super-powerful people at the very top, is absolutely destroying our world. Their greed knows no bounds, whereas the greed that the rest of us have (some of us try to suppress this human nature, others don't) is usually bound by varying amounts of ethics and morals.

Cultural Marxism, as has been mentioned, is a tool exploited by the greedy elites. I'm sure most Marxists genuinely wish to 'fix' this world, but the problem I have with it is their covert methods of doing so. Cultural Marxism is covert, because the masses would never accept post-traditional, Communist ideology openly. Multiculturalism is, I'm afraid to say, one of the methods being used by the Cultural Marxists to 'destroy the old world'. Some of us don't think the old world needs destroying, but rather fixing. It worked well once upon a time. Greed will not be eradicated by Global Socialism. In fact, it's most likely to impoverish all of us rather than raise up the worst-off among us.


Originally posted by pieman
i'm really not seeing your angle at all.

the biggest issue i have is that there seems to be no marxism in this cultural marxist conspiracy. care to cite an example of the marxism?

With respect, did you read my OP? I presented evidence of an organisation called 'The Frankfurt School' who were comprised of Marxist revolutionaries attempting to find a way to bring about an entirely new social, political, economic structure. When they realised this could not be done by force or by open declaration, they developed a list of suggestions for how society could be subverted over time in order to achieve their goal. The key is that for a complete global revolution to take place, the 'old' system must be made to seem COMPLETELY broken. Only then would people accept Global Marxism.

These methods of making society seem (or actually be) completely broken fall under the banner 'Cultural Marxism', or sometimes 'Frankfurt School Subversion'. In order to break a system, you plant revolutionaries into various positions of power - this is where Common Purpose comes in. Through their influence, you take policemen off the streets, allowing crime to become rife; you implode the economy to make Capitalism seem broken and corrupt; you encourage mass-immigration to fracture communities and destroy native traditions; you demonise Christianity (I'm not pro-Christian btw); you dumb down the education system; you undermine the integrity of healthy food production; you make the health system inept etc etc.

The Marxism itself can't happen without the Subversion that preceeds it in order to destroy the old system. Though we have seen the rise of Socialism in the banker bailouts, in excessive foreign aid, and as Skyfloating said, in filesharing.

Originally posted by pieman
the other issue i have with what you seem to be saying is that i honestly don't
see where the value is in retaining the elements of early 20th century european society that we've allowed to fall away.

what have we lost that you'ld have back?

High-quality education - we've lost the great thinkers, writers and inventors of previous centuries. Pick up a book from a century ago and compare the quality of wording to a modern novel; Order and community - people can't even aid or verbally repremand a neighborhood child anymore without fear of reprisal from the law, the child's family or indeed the child themself; Tradition - indigenous languages and cultures are becoming extinct the world over; Liberty - hundreds of new laws are created each year, surveillance cameras are put up everywhere, and yet we're no safer or happier than we were 50 years ago, just more paranoid, cowering and bitter; Impartial media; Excessive bureaucracy and the 'nanny state' - no process is simple anymore, everything is over-complicated. In short, nothing works and the power to do things ourselves has all but been taken out of our hands; Patriotism - the want for a better, freer nation has been made synomynous with racism and imperialism when it in fact means neither of those things. Patriotism has been turned into a dirty word. Plenty more examples but these are the main ones that spring to mind right now.

I'd like to point out that I was once a young, far-left anti-capitalist with sympathies for the Communist Manifesto so I understand both sides' mindset.


reply posted on 21-12-2009 @ 07:08 AM by jplotinus
reply to post by Cythraul


Cythraul,

Thanks for a thought-provoking (for me anyway) post.

I cannot help but wonder, however, why you presume that people, or, 'the masses' if you will, would object to marxist, right-sharing of resources if they had sufficient grasp of what marxism entails?

We know that prior to the epoch resulting in capitalistis domination, or, as Gramsci called it "cultural hegemony" people thought and acted in accordance with a recognition of "the commons" meaning common usage of land that was not owned by private individuals. In fact, "the commons" was a metaphor for the opposition to "private" ownership, which begets greed and which adopted a euphemistic sounding label of "free enterprise."

Capitalism has a history of doing whatever it takes to secure its hegemonistic monopoly on thought and on what passes for 'common sense.' In America, the 'natural' way of thinking is to resolve in favor of capitalistic doctrine.

Let us consider, however, the effect of the internet. If you merely consider this thread and the 400 or so people who are logged into it at any given time, this is a tool that capitalism must now deal with. Keep in mind that the posts in this one thread alone have disclosed more information about marxist thought than 99% of Americans have ever, in their whole lives, been exposed to.

And what is happening in America? The Patriot Act. The FEMA camps. The NorthCom, military command. In other words, so long as the hegemony of thought had no competitors, it was not necessary for capitalsit control to show its force side; instead, the fraud side was sufficient to maintain social control. Now, however, international communication, correspondence and the comparing of notes, along with the obvious decline in the way capitalist economics play out, has resulted in the possibility of a real challenge to the hegemony.

Thanks again for your post. I'm afraid, however, that it consists mostly in an expression of what the capitalist system wants and mandates for us to think favorably about. My suggestion is simply this: resist the thought control mechanism.


reply posted on 21-12-2009 @ 08:16 AM by Cythraul
Originally posted by jplotinus
I cannot help but wonder, however, why you presume that people, or, 'the masses' if you will, would object to marxist, right-sharing of resources if they had sufficient grasp of what marxism entails?

Because of history's Socialist and Communist regimes, almost all of which have been disasterous! See, Communism can be said to be good in theory - I thought so when I first read the manifesto. But history dictates that the extensive governmental forces necessary to facilitate Communism are always corrupted. Is it really any wonder that most freedom-loving people do not want Communism?

Originally posted by jplotinus
Capitalism has a history of doing whatever it takes to secure its hegemonistic monopoly on thought and on what passes for 'common sense.' In America, the 'natural' way of thinking is to resolve in favor of capitalistic doctrine... Keep in mind that the posts in this one thread alone have disclosed more information about marxist thought than 99% of Americans have ever, in their whole lives, been exposed to.

Yes, you're right. But as I pointed out a few posts back, the NWO flit back and forth between exploiting left-wing ideology and right-wing ideology in order to enact their goals. America, and most of the west, has grown up predominantly Capitalist. But times are changing and slowly, over the past few decades, Cultural Marxism has been quietly creeping in. In decades to come, the Marxist control we live under will become obvious.

Also, you say Americans know more about Capitalism than Communism, and yet which is a more acceptable label among the youth of America? 'Left-wing' or 'right-wing'? Here, it's infinitely more acceptable to identify as 'left-wing' and yet most of the same people know next-to-nothing about what Marxist ideology entails. What does that tell you? It tells me that the powers-that-be want us to accept Marxist ideology without knowing the reality of it.

Originally posted by jplotinus
And what is happening in America? The Patriot Act. The FEMA camps. The NorthCom, military command.

These are all symptoms of Cultural Marxism, and or institutions which are apolitical and above 'left' or 'right' ideology. As I said before, there's no right and left, only right and wrong - individual liberty and oppression.

Originally posted by jplotinus
Thanks again for your post. I'm afraid, however, that it consists mostly in an expression of what the capitalist system wants and mandates for us to think favorably about. My suggestion is simply this: resist the thought control mechanism.

You're welcome. Thanks for yours. But please pay particular attention to the fact that I USED to be pro-Marxist. For me, my transformation was from a young man conditioned to be Marxist/revolutionary, to a man who broke that 'thought control' through questiuoning both the status quo and also what the media and social-conditioning agents are trying to instill in us.

I can see that you believe we live under a right-wing system who want us to be right-wing, so to be left-wing is to be truly rebellious and free-thinking. I, on the other hand, as evidenced in this thread, believe we now live under a system which wants us to be left-wing and so to be right-wing is actually the true mode of rebellion and free-thinking.

Yet, I don't want to be right-wing - I want to be niether left nor right. I'm past that paradigm. All I'm interested in is liberty for all people... to follow the religion they want to follow, to uphold the traditions they want to uphold, to raise their family as they so choose, to own the product of their own labour, to be able to speak freely and to defend themselves from attack, theft or tyranny by whatever means necessary.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



Dumbing down reality
  Posted 5 days ago with 103 member flags
The 800 Pound Gorilla Everyone Ignores
  Posted 16 days ago with 67 member flags
The Illusion of Choice and Truth
  Posted 10 days ago with 52 member flags
A chronical of the BANKSTER WARS
  Posted 7 days ago with 42 member flags
Conspiracy Theory:The Lost Episode
  Posted 4 days ago with 39 member flags
666, NWO, Aliens and You!
  Posted 13 days ago with 36 member flags