Of Racists and Cultural-Marxists

Originally posted by semperfortis
Is to be taken as correct, then when does it become politically incorrect to desire a culture to remain "pure"?

Thats an interesting point. In my book race-mixing merely adds to the diversity.

Using color as analogy there is pure blue, pure red and then there is purple, a mixture of both. All three are beautiful parts of the Diversity that this Planet is.

Some will insist to keep their own family pure blue. Thats not really necessary imo, because a red getting together with a blue can still create a pure blue (by genetic events mysterious to me). And if not, then purple is created, which is fine too. But the person trying to hassle the pure-blue-ist for wanting pure-blue is adding to the conflict.

If it is good that we are different, then it would also follow that it is good to keep us different. Is this not a true statement?

Diversity happens by nature, all by itself. Artificially enforcing either Diversity (Racist) or Sameness (Cultural-Marxist) can cause problems because nature is being meddled with.

Yet when someone speaks out against multicultural relationships, they are immediately deemed as racist. Is this also not true?

Person A should have the right to keep his family pure, person B should have the right to mix his family. You then have the purist and the mix-ist living side by side.

Problems always arise when the far-right and the far-left come in trying to tell others how to live their lives...

"You should not mix!!!"

"You should not not mix!!!"

In our society the bads of the racist are already widely known, thanks to the likes of Hitler.

What is less known are the bads of a certain type of "anti-racist" who wishes to enforce multi-culturalism.

By pushing multi-culturalism to a society that is not yet ready for it, the "anti-racist" provokes racist sentiment.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by xpert11
The view that differnt races exist leads some people down the road of such things as the Nazi ideology .

Nonsense. Appreciation of Diversity leads to an enriched understanding of other people.

It is not perception of Difference but hatred that leads to Nazi-Ideology.

You have already fallen for the false-dichotomy.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by ANOK


But having said that SO WHAT? You make it sound so like it's an evil thing.

Trying to dictate how others should think is always an evil thing.

Wow what a bunch of twisted confusion...

I fail to understand your mind set, it's so full of media hype garbage that doesn't make sense because it's not coming from anything real, just media misused and abused labels.

What "media" are you referring to here? My observations on racists and "anti-racists" stem from reading ATS-Threads, mostly.

Where do get the assumption that political correctness is 'left wing'?

Explained in a previous reply on page 1.

I see what your saying and even agree, however the contradiction still exists...

Our cultures are precious to us, and rightfully so; yet protecting them is more and more considered racist.

Just take the current BNP position in the United Kingdom in reference to the attempts at adopting Islamic Law.

England has a rich and wonderful culture that they should be proud of, yet defending that culture is being considered racist.

(I accept that the BNP may be a bad example, but it is recent and exemplifies what I am trying to convey)

Would not "Mixing" eventually destroy all culture?

Semper

I'm probably what you might call a leftist and happen to think Political Correctness on the whole has been a positive thing. Certainly improved the life of ethnic minorities, women, homosexuals and the disabled. At very worst its institutionalised politeness.

reply to post by Skyfloating


You have just demonstrated the underlying hypercritical nature of your argument . People are only buying into the false-dichotomy when its not you . The racial hated is tacked onto perceived differences if you like . But according to you since differnt races exist there have to be actual differences . Your arguing against proven facts much like the crazy right wingers did when it came to the topic of Rumsfeld when I first joined ATS . Don't take this personally but your just some other idealogical warrior who claims otherwise under the guise conspiracy .

If we are all honest with ourselves we have a place on the political spectrum including those who spew anti establishment dribble and would never admit such a thing . To clarify somewhat the anti establishment crowd can be just as idealogical as the left and right wingers they claim to dislike .
A problem only exits when ideology gets in the way of a firm grounding . To try and claim that the so called idealogical spectrum doesnt exist would have to be skewed as being Cultural-Marxist for its sameness .

One last thing from your friendly ATS member its OK to have thoughts that are inconsistent in your mind how fast you processes these ideas into a logical thought process depends on the person , some people never do . The only problem is that these incomplete thoughts do make for rational arguments !
For the record I am not singling(SP?) you out I am sure I have fallen into the same trap of presenting a flawed ideology argument at some stage . After all we are all the same human beings .

Sky,

I always thought racism was the expression or harboring of hate or distrust based upon hate.

Somehow you have penned a dissertation turning a fairly simple concept into a hedgerow of complexity. Then you assign this to a group of people based upon what evidence exactly? Logically you are attempting to assign to a group of people YOUR theory, which is a truly fascinating thing to attempt.

So practical evidence would be nice

Why don't you list some liberal bastions that had to do away with segregation?

Or lets go way back, I assume Frisco, Philly, NYC, Chicago and L.A had to emancipate a copious number of slaves way back when? Lets see those stats?

Or modern... Please provide us some evidence of a wave of racist activity infesting the nests of these cultural socialists.

You can't, because you created ALL of this to explain something to be in line with your
ideology. Racism is not complicated, you cannot just wave a wand and infect people with it. Yet it seems you think this is reasonable to do so... Unfortunately you are equating an actionable bias to an ethereal construct of man which is a complete logical fallacy.

I am going S+F this thread so hopefully it can expose the fanatical, unfounded level of POLITICAL hatred this country is experiencing. It is a fairly low thing to use this concept
as a tool to demonize a political rivalry, gutter low IMHO.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Our cultures are precious to us, and rightfully so; yet protecting them is more and more considered racist.

When tolerance for other cultures turns into hatred of ones own culture there are some strange side-effects...

England has a rich and wonderful culture that they should be proud of, yet defending that culture is being considered racist.

Yes. Those "multiculturalists" will be OK with granting muslims their culture in the UK, but not OK with granting the English theirs. Thats whats become of PC-ness.

(I accept that the BNP may be a bad example, but it is recent and exemplifies what I am trying to convey)

BNP is a bad example, yes

Its a bad example because there are a lot of genuine hate-mongers among that crowd.

Would not "Mixing" eventually destroy all culture?

I can appreciate why some would think so, but I disagree.

When neither mixing nor "staying pure" are enforced and things are left to nature, you`ll end up with some mixed cultures and some pure cultures.

So the "anti-racist" should leave those who want to protect their cultural integrity alone, and the "racist" should leave those who wish to mix alone.

Not mixing but the enforcing of mixing (multiculturalism) on the basis of political ideology is the problem imo.

Be sure to say how you see it though so that I learn another way of seeing it.




[edit on 2-1-2010 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
I'm probably what you might call a leftist and happen to think Political Correctness on the whole has been a positive thing. Certainly improved the life of ethnic minorities, women, homosexuals and the disabled. At very worst its institutionalised politeness.

Assuming that if I hold open a door for a woman I am "degrading her", rather than simply being nice to a person, no matter their gender, is pretty sick.

Such an event between a Feminist and another Person was witnessed by me a few years ago. You should have seen the fuss she caused over something that innocent.

On that day I learned a hell of a lot about Cultural Marxism and "Political Correctness".

There once was a young person named Little Red Riding Hood who lived on the edge of a large forest full of endangered owls and rare plants that would probably provide a cure for cancer if only someone took the time to study them.
Red Riding Hood lived with a nurture giver whom she sometimes referred to as "mother", although she didn't mean to imply by this term that she would have thought less of the person if a close biological link did not in fact exist.

Nor did she intend to denigrate the equal value of nontraditional households, although she was sorry if this was the impression conveyed.

One day her mother asked her to take a basket of organically grown fruit and mineral water to her grandmother's house.

"But mother, won't this be stealing work from the unionized people who have struggled for years to earn the right to carry all packages between various people in the woods?"

Red Riding Hood's mother assured her that she had called the union boss and gotten a special compassionate mission exemption form.

"But mother, aren't you oppressing me by ordering me to do this?"

Red Riding Hood's mother pointed out that it was impossible for womyn to oppress each other, since all womyn were equally oppressed until all womyn were free.

"But mother, then shouldn't you have my brother carry the basket, since he's an oppressor, and should learn what it's like to be oppressed?"

And Red Riding Hood's mother explained that her brother was attending a special rally for animal rights, and besides, this wasn't stereotypical womyn's work, but an empowering deed that would help engender a feeling of community.

"But won't I be oppressing Grandma, by implying that she's sick and hence unable to independently further her own selfhood?"

But Red Riding Hood's mother explained that her grandmother wasn't actually sick or incapacitated or mentally handicapped in any way, although that was not to imply that any of these conditions were inferior to what some people called "health".

Thus Red Riding Hood felt that she could get behind the idea of delivering the basket to her grandmother, and so she set off.

Many people believed that the forest was a foreboding and dangerous place, but Red Riding Hood knew that this was an irrational fear based on cultural paradigms instilled by a patriarchal society that regarded the natural world as an exploitable resource, and hence believed that natural predators were in fact intolerable competitors.

Other people avoided the woods for fear of thieves and deviants, but Red Riding Hood felt that in a truly classless society all marginalized peoples would be able to "come out" of the woods and be accepted as valid lifestyle role models.

On her way to Grandma's house, Red Riding Hood passed a woodchopper, and wandered off the path, in order to examine some flowers.

She was startled to find herself standing before a Wolf, who asked her what was in her basket.

Red Riding Hood's teacher had warned her never to talk to strangers, but she was confident in taking control of her own budding sexuality, and chose to dialogue with the Wolf.

She replied, "I am taking my Grandmother some healthful snacks in a gesture of solidarity."

The Wolf said, "You know, my dear, it isn't safe for a little girl to walk through these woods alone."

Red Riding Hood said, "I find your sexist remark offensive in the extreme, but I will ignore it because of your traditional status as an outcast from society, the stress of which has caused you to develop an alternative and yet entirely valid worldview. Now, if you'll excuse me, I would prefer to be on my way."

Red Riding Hood returned to the main path, and proceeded towards her Grandmother's house.

But because his status outside society had freed him from slavish adherence to linear, Western-style thought, the Wolf knew of a quicker route to Grandma's house.

He burst into the house and ate Grandma, a course of action affirmative of his nature as a predator.

Then, unhampered by rigid, traditionalist gender role notions, he put on Grandma's nightclothes, crawled under the bedclothes, and awaited developments.

Red Riding Hood entered the cottage and said,

"Grandma, I have brought you some cruelty free snacks to salute you in your role of wise and nurturing matriarch."

The Wolf said softly "Come closer, child, so that I might see you."

Red Riding Hood said, "Goddess! Grandma, what big eyes you have!"

"You forget that I am optically challenged."

"And Grandma, what an enormous, what a fine nose you have."

"Naturally, I could have had it fixed to help my acting career, but I didn't give in to such societal pressures, my child."

"And Grandma, what very big, sharp teeth you have!"

The Wolf could not take any more of these specist slurs, and, in a reaction appropriate for his accustomed milieu, he leaped out of bed, grabbed Little Red Riding Hood, and opened his jaws so wide that she could see her poor Grandmother cowering in his belly.

"Aren't you forgetting something?" Red Riding Hood bravely shouted. "You must request my permission before proceeding to a new level of intimacy!"

The Wolf was so startled by this statement that he loosened his grasp on her.

At the same time, the woodchopper burst into the cottage, brandishing an ax.

"Hands off!" cried the woodchopper.

"And what do you think you're doing?" cried Little Red Riding Hood. "If I let you help me now, I would be expressing a lack of confidence in my own abilities, which would lead to poor self esteem and lower achievement scores on college entrance exams."

"Last chance, sister! Get your hands off that endangered species! This is an FBI sting!" screamed the woodchopper, and when Little Red Riding Hood nonetheless made a sudden motion, he sliced off her head.

"Thank goodness you got here in time," said the Wolf. "The brat and her grandmother lured me in here. I thought I was a goner."

"No, I think I'm the real victim, here," said the woodchopper. "I've been dealing with my anger ever since I saw her picking those protected flowers earlier. And now I'm going to have such a trauma. Do you have any aspirin?"

"Sure," said the Wolf.

"Thanks."

"I feel your pain," said the Wolf, and he patted the woodchopper on his firm, well padded back, gave a little belch, and said "Do you have any Maalox?"

[edit on 2-1-2010 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by xpert11
You have just demonstrated the underlying hypercritical nature of your argument . People are only buying into the false-dichotomy when its not you . The racial hated is tacked onto perceived differences if you like . But according to you since differnt races exist there have to be actual differences .

Yes, Im saying there are differences. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying so. And it is not racist at all to appreciate differences.

Your arguing against proven facts much like the crazy right wingers did when it came to the topic of Rumsfeld when I first joined ATS . Don't take this personally but your just some other idealogical warrior who claims otherwise under the guise conspiracy .

I know, I know, Ive been told many times what a radical and crazy racist I am for being able to discern between Blue, Red and Purple.

If we are all honest with ourselves we have a place on the political spectrum including those who spew anti establishment dribble and would never admit such a thing . To clarify somewhat the anti establishment crowd can be just as idealogical as the left and right wingers they claim to dislike .

To clarify: Im not one of those anti-establishment people. I revere the US Presidency, including Bush and Obama.

To try and claim that the so called idealogical spectrum doesnt exist would have to be skewed as being Cultural-Marxist for its sameness .

I havent claimed that they dont exist as pointed out in two posts on page one where I said "they are not illusory, they are inadequate"

Originally posted by Janky Red
I always thought racism was the expression or harboring of hate or distrust based upon hate.

Yeah, thats what I said on page one. Thats pretty obvious, no?

Somehow you have penned a dissertation turning a fairly simple concept into a hedgerow of complexity.

Would you deem a worldview that does not see things either left or right, black or white, "complex"?

I am going S+F this thread so hopefully it can expose the fanatical, unfounded level of POLITICAL hatred this country is experiencing. It is a fairly low thing to use this concept as a tool to demonize a political rivalry, gutter low IMHO.

I dont hate anyone. Why would I hate anyone? I do feel compelled to expose those who hate though.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by Skyfloating]

Just a little reminder that the American Civil-Rights movement does not come from the far-left:

The Republican Party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the Democratic Party. Founded by anti-slavery expansion activists in 1854...

1

reply to post by Skyfloating

Just a little reminder that the American Civil-Rights movement does not come from the far-left

Yes, but it would be foolish to not acknowledge the role of the far-left in the Civil Rights movements in the late sixties.

reply to post by Skyfloating

The horrors of Marxism come about because it projects these workers as not-responsible for their decisions, as "victims" rather than people who agreed to work in bad conditions.

Have you read the Manifesto at all? Any actual Communist writings or sociological studies relating to Marxism? Do you have any real knowledge of the working conditions of the Industrial Revolution, or perhaps the conditions for workers in this country at the turn of the century (if you haven't read it before, The Jungle by Upton Sinclair is a great look at this!). Conditions in the mining towns in American were also especially sordid, being described by Bill Haywood is these words:

The people of the mining camp breathed copper, ate copper, wore copper, and were thoroughly saturated with copper. The smoke, the fumes and dust penetrated everywhere and settled on everything. Many of the miners were suffering from rankling copper sores, caused by the poisonous water... human life was the cheapest by-product of this great copper camp.

Then we have the case of the modern Third World. Are sweat shops doing a service because they give provide employment? What of the African shipyard where there are no rules or regulations on safely taking apart ships? Perhaps the cancer victims in that town would have something to say about victim hood.

The fact is, sometimes people have no choice where they work, but they do it simply to prevent from starving the death. This unfortunate fact held true completely during the Industrial Revolution, the sad legacy that everything today is built upon. Would you really expect for something like Marxism not to spring up?



[edit on 2-1-2010 by Someone336]

reply to post by Skyfloating


there is no race struggle,

there are culture struggle, there are class struggle
there are slaves, there are masters.
but no races.

buy a dictionary, a biology book and find an appropriate word for what you fail to point & get over it

there are no human races.

and that doesn't mean everybody is equal, it does only in your apparently unclear mind.

good luck with the rethought of your wording. it's a prerequisite for a writer to understand the meaning of words.

Once again, Skyfloating, an excellent post and I agree with you very nearly completely. I haven't read the rest of the thread yet.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Can you tell the difference between what is Racism and what is not?

I think I can tell the difference, yes. But like sexual harassment, racism CAN be thought of as in the eye of the "victim". A person may not intend any racism at all, but if, because of one's history, they perceive a certain action or statement as racism, is that to be discounted? If a white person, with a genuine curiosity, asks a black person if they like fried chicken and watermelon, and the black person becomes cautious or offended, can we say that racism didn't exist? How do we know the intent of the white person?

I just don't think it's a cut and dried situation.

Can you tell the difference between genuine Anti-Racism and Hidden-Agenda-Driven-Marxism?

Again, I think so. But I wouldn't always label it as Marxism. Simply because it isn't always Marxism that drives a person to anti-racism. Many times it's a genuine desire for equality. But yes, I have also witnessed the Marxist agenda you speak of. Not as often, I would say, as a genuine (if misled) desire for equality.

Can you see how Diversity can be a cause of Fun, Learning, Growth rather than armed conflict?

Oh, absolutely! It SHOULD be fun. But because of history and the pain of discrimination and racism, that is something that will have to wait until we can all get this sorted out and shed our guilt, anger, resentment and fear about the past.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Someone336
Then we have the case of the modern Third World. Are sweat shops doing a service because they give provide employment? What of the African shipyard where there are no rules or regulations on safely taking apart ships? Perhaps the cancer victims in that town would have something to say about victim hood.

Correct me if Im wrong, but the amount of sweatshops run by American Corporations is about 1%, no? And even within those 1% the workers voluntarily desire to have the job, no?

I know enough about Marxism to know that it takes the 1% and overblows it as if thats whats going on everywhere.

Reality-Distortion is exactly what makes Marxism so poisonous. Id be the first one to close down that sweatshop. But Im not about to vilify every legitimate Business Owner as an "Oppressor".

The fact is, sometimes people have no choice where they work, but they do it simply to prevent from starving the death

While some unethical employers do exploit the poor, those employers are not responsible for the poverty of the country.

Exploiting the poor is not the first thing that comes to mind when I open a Business. The first thing that comes to mind is helping those who dont have a job, to get a job.

This unfortunate fact held true completely during the Industrial Revolution, the sad legacy that everything today is built upon. Would you really expect for something like Marxism not to spring up?

You keep mentioning the Industrial Revolution as if it did not bring massive wealth and employment to the world - without which most of you would have no clothes to wear, no food to eat - not to mention that fancy computer and internet-set-up you are typing on.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If a white person, with a genuine curiosity, asks a black person if they like fried chicken and watermelon, and the black person becomes cautious or offended, can we say that racism didn't exist? How do we know the intent of the white person?

Good question. And I dont have an answer to it.

reply to post by Skyfloating

Correct me if Im wrong, but the amount of sweatshops run by American Corporations is about 1%, no?

I'm not sure the exact number, but if it is 1%, then it is 1% too much, no? I would say that it is more than that, given the amount of goods manufactured in China. And before you reply with "China is Communist!", please consider that China is an awful Capitalist/Communist hybrid, leaning rapidly to capitalism in full. I do know that the top offenders include are Nike, Gap, Guess, Levi Strauss, among others.

Before moving on I would like to point out that the term "American Corporation" is obsolete. While many believe that 'globalization' is some giant lefty-pinko-commie plot, nothing could be further from the truth: globalization is the full integration on a global scale of capitalism, a world where corporations aren't bound by national identity and border, but a tied together in an elaborate web where money and goods and the balance of power can be altered in the blink of an eye.

And even within those 1% the workers voluntarily desire to have the job, no?

As I said above, this is because these people have no choice. These people have to choose between starving to death or working in such awful conditions. And in some cases, they are forced to work. So don't give me that "1% wants to work!" nonsense.

I know enough about Marxism to know that it takes the 1% and overblows it as if thats whats going on everywhere.

In the Industrial Revolution it was going on everywhere. Furthermore, if you knew about Marxism you would understand the central concept of wage-slavery, and you might also know that the original socialists (read - socialists, not Marxists) had proposed an idea to rid the working class of the oppressive hierarchy and wage slavery that dominates what is now referred to as capitalism: the worker co-operative. I've noticed that those on the 'Conservative' side of things refuse to even acknowledge the existence of the idea of the worker co-operative, much less the fact that it actually works.

You keep mentioning the Industrial Revolution as if it did not bring massive wealth and employment to the world - without which most of you would have no clothes to wear, no food to eat - not to mention that fancy computer and internet-set-up you are typing on.

I only mention the Industrial Revolution to illustrate why, in a historical context, an ideology such as Marxism sprung forth, and in doing so hope to differentiate between Marxism is - a movement designed to give power to the workers as opposed to the rulers - and what it isn't - a global conspiracy hellbent on making everybody politically correct robots. I never said that it shouldn't have happened, but that it was necessary for a force to bring change. Again, I'll use the example of the American Bill Haywood, whom I quoted in my previous post. His words illustrate the sub-sub-sub-standard living conditions that those who worked in the copper mines were forced to endure - but it's not like they could just throw down their shovels and pick axes and walk away. These men had families to support, mouths to feed. What was needed was a force to change things. They read Marx, they read Bakunin, and the by-product was the IWW, the International Workers of the World. While Haywood would fail, the labour movement would succeed in time.


[edit on 2-1-2010 by Someone336]

post by Skyfloating
Correct me if Im wrong, but the amount of sweatshops run by American Corporations is about 1%, no?

Nike...

Workers in Indonesia, Thailand and other countries have complained in the past of 77-hour weeks, and dangerous working conditions in which employees have lost limbs. The reports of physical abuse, sexual abuse, salary below minimum wage and debilitating quota systems are also confirmed by many non-profit and non-governmental organizations. Children abroad are being used for the globalization that is cheap labor. The reality for many children overseas is that they are working long arduous hours push pedaling for top conglomerates to further their profits. Many sweatshop workers don't have a voice or anyone looking out for their well being.

The GAP...

Across the pond a British newspaper reported that it found children as young as 10 making clothes in a sweatshop in New Delhi, India, that the Gap fashion chain planned to sell in the West.

Guess...

In 1992, Guess contractors faced litigation from the US Department of Labor (DOL) due to failure to pay their employees the minimum wage or adequate overtime. Rather than face a court case, $573,000 in back wages was paid to employees. Guess like many other clothing giants, are heavily criticized for its use of garments made in sweatshops.

Levi Strauss...

The company was accused of contracting to factories in Haiti and
Mexico where workers have been sacked for being union members, as well as using low wages to prop up profits. Levi's has been accused of using factories in Turkey and Mexico that severely exploited their workers. Labor behind the Label has reported that while Levi claims it supports a fair wage for workers, the company has not taken any noticeable steps to implement one.

www.associatedcontent.com...

This is just the tip of the iceberg, you should really research before making your wild unsubstantiated claims.

[edit on 1/2/2010 by ANOK]