Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Cultural Marxism term used by the intolerant


Clarakore

Recommended Posts

Cuba seems to be doing ok.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what this proves more than anything else is what utter nonsense, and how utterly pointless, all this silly "Left/Right", "Lib/Conservative", "Repub/Commie Marxist Socialist" drivel is. None of it makes the slightest difference, and that's why people spend so much time squabbling about silliness, because they know that, whichever party's logo they have on a little pin on their epaulette, it makes no difference at all, and none of their precious, defend-ed-to-the-death Parties have the ability to make the slightest difference at all.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick question Frank, in Vietnam (or any Communist country) were or are there any academic programs with names like; feminist studies or aboriginal studies or hate studies? Just curious.

I would say you get a huge dose of all those things under the label of "Dialectic Materialism," which is not at all what it sounds like, since things like the Western "evils" of sexism and homophobia and racism and, most especially, discrimination based on social or economic class, so on are the main topics. The idea of a "hate crime" is new to me. A crime is a crime, and what may have been the motivation is not really relevant here in how it is treated. (These courses, by the way, in most colleges, can be skipped if you pass a rather cursory test showing that you are already aware).I would add that the homophobia part is new and a reversal. It use to be that the existence of homosexuality was either denied or just ignored. Now the traditional Vietnamese tolerance of this behavior has been noted and picked up as a positive. I've seen hints on that subject in the press about Uncle Ho himself, although of course who could possibly know?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me add a few things to what I just said

First, the government has always had an ongoing problem about non-Vietnamese "hill country" people -- I think our equivalent of aboriginals. The old efforts to force Vietnamese on them in school are largely abandoned, and they are now taught in their native tongues, with English and Vietnamese taught those tagged for academic futures. Still, there continues to be problems here because often the natives' interests and the development plans of the central planners are in conflict, especially with respect to the growing of coffee, which I take it requires large operations to be efficient, and the natives want to keep their small landholdings. When it comes down to it, my reaction here is that while I feel the natives should be fully compensated, they have no more of a special right to hold up progress than does anyone else. This whole thing is a subject of ongoing lively debate.

There is of course no effort here to teach anything other than Darwinian evolution. None of the major religions (Buddhists, Catholics, Caodaists, etc.) has any problem admitting we are apes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cuba seems to be doing ok.

Seems a lot of Cuba's hardship is because a lot other people is not 'ok' with Cuba being 'ok'

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cuba's only real problem in my opinion is that the leadership entrenched itself, unlike other Communist countries like Vietnam and China, where a regular turnover in the leadership is now assured. New leaders are needed periodically for new ideas and so old ideas that didn't work can be abandoned without loss of face.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cuba's only real problem in my opinion is that the leadership entrenched itself, unlike other Communist countries like Vietnam and China, where a regular turnover in the leadership is now assured. New leaders are needed periodically for new ideas and so old ideas that didn't work can be abandoned without loss of face.

And funnily enough, "Democratic" countries are far less likely to try any new ideas, because all they can think about is the short term, and the next election, and so the only things they think about are "might there be votes in it for me or my nominated successor at the next election?". Really, "Democracy" is the most inefficient possible system.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Britny...people like you...the masters of divisiveness, the creators of conflict.

I see Republicans that are just as bad, but they don't claim they simply want everyone to get along without fear, like you do.

Edited by Michelle
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Britny...people like you...the masters of divisiveness, the creators of conflict.

I see Republicans that are just as bad, but they don't claim they simply want everyone to get along without fear, like you do.

And george W. "For us or against us" Bush wasn't a creator of divisiveness or Conflict, was he. Although no, to be fair, he certainly didn't try to claim he wanted everyone to get along. He wasn't worried who he antagonised.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And george W. "For us or against us" Bush wasn't a creator of divisiveness or Conflict, was he. Although no, to be fair, he certainly didn't try to claim he wanted everyone to get along. He wasn't worried who he antagonised.

Absolutely right. He is divisive, but in that sense he is no hypocrite. In threads pertaining to Muslims Brit claims divisiveness and fear are what is keeping them in a bad light and we should be more accepting of them and other people in general. Then she proceeds to start these inflammatory threads about half of the people in the US. In my opinion, this is certainly an odd way to promote unity.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The primary tool of the right is to scapegoat the other, blame the internal problems of the state on some external or internal divisive element. It is a convenient way of avoiding facing the reality that some of their ideas have caused social division and conflict and even poverty. A belief system which relies so heavily on ideology cannot counternance the possibility that their treasured ideas might be flawed and so they look for someone to blame other than themselves.

The fundamental difference that the liberal has in approaching problems is first to attempt to understand the drivers before formulating the solution. They may and do get it wrong, but their approach is at least self correcting in that it attempts to analyze its own flaws.

As such the scapegoating of the Muslims and other minorities is a dangerous diversion from what is really wrong, which is an economic system which is fundamentally built on flawed axioms which have eventual failure built in. Better to face that reality and attemp[t to formulate a solution rather than blaming terrorists, gays, liberals etc etc etc for all that has gone wrong with society.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the scapegoat of the left is to cry racism when confronted with facts. Ask Bill Cosby. He has been ostracized by a great deal of the black community because he tried to tell it like it is without sugar coating it.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference between analysis and racism, the problem is that the right has always had a natural tendency to attract racists. To my mind they need confronting for what they are - racists.

My dad was, and probably still is a passive racist, he found it very challenging when I brought home an Indian girlfriend - but I think it did him good to confront his prejudice and realize that when you scratch the skin we are all red underneath.

I will freely admit that the situation is usually far more complex than it appears on the surface, but most people operate from instinctive predjudice and I think we are a better people when we confront those thoughtless mindforms for what they are. There has been an active campaign within America to demonize Muslims and Muslim nations for politically expedient objectives and I believe we should be confronting that for what it is - cynical manipulation. if for nothing else, I praise Obama for attempting to rain in the hate that the Bush Jr. gifted to the American people.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference between analysis and racism, the problem is that the right has always had a natural tendency to attract racists. To my mind they need confronting for what they are - racists.

My dad was, and probably still is a passive racist, he found it very challenging when I brought home an Indian girlfriend - but I think it did him good to confront his prejudice and realize that when you scratch the skin we are all red underneath.

Br Cornelius

To think Republicans are all racists is a fallacy and is no better than thinking all blacks are in a gang. It's perfectly acceptable to sterotype a very large group of people because they are mostly white. It's still bigotry.

I was estranged from my very outspoken racist mother when I started working for Arabs, who became my surrogate family at seventeen. After several years of hearing how good they were to me, she had to admit they aren't what she had believed them to be. She had no interest in politics at all, had no policital affiliation and was Christian in name only, but she was still a bigot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The right has and does use race as a political tool. It does so to attract a constituency. That's not anything other than a description of history and what Bush Jr. did to the middle east.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The right has and does use race as a political tool. It does so to attract a constituency. That's not anything other than a description of history and what Bush Jr. did to the middle east.

Br Cornelius

The left doesn't? Obama and his press have been getting people geared up to invade Iran for years. I don't understand people not being able to see he has fallen right into Bush's footsteps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The left doesn't? Obama and his press have been getting people geared up to invade Iran for years. I don't understand people not being able to see he has fallen right into Bush's footsteps.

Let me put it this way, Bush or his Republican replacement would already have invaded Iran. Obama has not and is unlikely to invade Iran in his term in office. He has a bellicose military industrial complex biting at his heels and advisers from the CIA urging him to go to war. the fact that he has not, and is unlikely to invade Iran, should tell you a lot.

I think this represents something of the Liberal pragmatism over the ideological drive to dominate.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me put it this way, Bush or his Republican replacement would already have invaded Iran. Obama has not and is unlikely to invade Iran in his term in office. He has a bellicose military industrial complex biting at his heels and advisers from the CIA urging him to go to war. the fact that he has not, and is unlikely to invade Iran, should tell you a lot.

I think this represents something of the Liberal pragmatism over the ideological drive to dominate.

Br Cornelius

Try googling where the US military are currently deployed and get back to me on our "pacifist" pres. Of course, I already know your answer because you have been watching the news he bought and paid for, but they aren't humanitarian missions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try googling where the US military are currently deployed and get back to me on our "pacifist" pres. Of course, I already know your answer because you have been watching the news he bought and paid for, but they aren't humanitarian missions.

The US military have been deployed on the borders of Iran since the Iraq war. I heard this from the horses mouth from a British Military security expert who was serving in Iraq. It has been the defacto sitaution for the best part of a decade by now.

Obama has at least stopped them crossing that border.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US military have been deployed on the borders of Iran since the Iraq war. I heard this from the horses mouth from a British Military security expert who was serving in Iraq. It has been the defacto sitaution for the best part of a decade by now.

Obama has at least stopped them crossing that border.

Br Cornelius

I'm not going to continue to go around and around with someone that doesn't even know we have troops in Africa and Egypt. A CNN reporter is coming out about how she was told not to report the truth she saw and filmed while she was in Egypt. Take off the blinders...I'm outta here.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to continue to go around and around with someone that doesn't even know we have troops in Africa and Egypt. A CNN reporter is coming out about how she was told not to report the truth she saw and filmed while she was in Egypt. Take off the blinders...I'm outta here.

Everytime certain parties face themselves with views they cannot adequately counter with actual knowledge (the kind that has academic consensus) they begin to focus on the person (poster) instead of the views.

Show proof from an unbiased and academic source to counter another view if you can, if you want to be taken seriously.

A term like cultural Marxism, which is not a word with academic cache but is used by those who want to attack academia, scholarship, and science, and whenever that term is used offers insight into the worldview of the person using it.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everytime certain parties face themselves with views they cannot adequately counter with actual knowledge (the kind that has academic consensus) they begin to focus on the person (poster) instead of the views.

I gave him the facts so if he had the wherewithal to check them out he could. What I will not do is continue to try and change another's point of view by discussing something endlessly that we will never agree on.

You can waste your time if you like, but I won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Offer proof if you have it.

Speaking negatively of or toward fellow posters on a personal level is a weak tactic.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Offer proof if you have it.

Speaking negatively of or toward fellow posters on a personal level is a weak tactic.

:w00t: The things I mentioned have even been reported in the Huffington Post except for the CNN reporter blowing the whistle. Surely even you can find evidence without me holding your hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.