Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Avatar Samantha Ai

Cultural Marxism term used by the intolerant

114 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Recently the term "cultural Marxism" has been introduced on this forum. It is not a brand new concept but one many might not be familiar with due to it lacking any acaemic cache, that it is only used among certain circles, and unless you were visiting certain websites you might have never heard about it.

We can explore this term and which groups use it, how they use, and why.

This use is popular among some right-wing English-speaking political pundits, who see themselves in a cultural war with Marxists they assume to have subverted Western institutions like schools, universities, media, entertainment industry and most mainline churches

http://en.wikipedia....ultural_Marxism

We can clearly see that it is not scholars who use this word, instead it is pundits (and others:see below) and they believe our schools have been subverted.

Their mistrust for academia is the epitome of anti-intellectualism. They do not favor the scholar but instead rely on pundits and others to derive their worldview.

Here is how one blog commenter defined the term:

See here for one definition. Or, if you’d prefer a version not written by a frothing racist, it’s basically the old “long march through the institutions” thing, tinged with a hefty dose of paranoia and conspiracy theory — the idea is that political correctness and liberal ideas expressed in pop culture are not just wrong, but part of a deliberate and organized attempt to undermine the culture.

“Cultural Marxism” is the new epithet of choice

Definitely entering the land of CT.

And in case you did not click on the link within the quote above below is the definiton offered by the described "frothing racist" (make up your mind if you beleive the term is apt judging their own words) who begins by calling it "the greatest cancer in the Western world", so off the bat we can see their worldview is based on fear. Those whose worldview is not based on fear have the advantage of looking toward the positive unless they are neutral.

The positive are of the mind to look for the greatest hope in the world: progressivism. The alarmists and reactionaries just want to turn the clock back. Read on for the defintion given by one of them.

Cultural Marxism has been dubbed "the greatest cancer in the Western world" but few even know what it is.

Definition of Cultural Marxism*:

Cultural Marxism: An offshoot of Marxism that gave birth to political correctness, multiculturalism and "anti-racism." Cultural Marxism maintains that all human behavior is a result of culture (not heredity / race) and thus malleable. While traditional Marxists focused on class identity in racially homogenous countries (with poor results during WWI), Cultural Marxists facilitated the racial organization of non-whites, while simultaneously asserting that "race does not exist" for white people. Cultural Marxists typically support race-based affirmative action, the proposition state (as opposed to a nation rooted in common ancestry), elevating non-Western religions above Western religions, globalization, speech codes and censorship, multiculturalism, diversity training, anti-Western education curricula, maladaptive sexual norms, the dispossession of white people, and mass Third World immigration into Western countries. Cultural Marxists have promoted idea that white people, instead of birthing white babies, should interracially marry or adopt non-white children. Samuel P. Huntington maintained that Cultural Marxism is an anti-white ideolog

Destroy Cultural Marxism

Now for a more thorough explanation of that term:

Right-wing ideologues, racists and other extremists have jazzed up political correctness and repackaged it — in its most virulent form, as an anti-Semitic theory that identifies Jews in general and several Jewish intellectuals in particular as nefarious, communistic destroyers. These supposed originators of "cultural Marxism" are seen as conspiratorial plotters intent on making Americans feel guilty and thus subverting their Christian culture.

In a nutshell, the theory posits that a tiny group of Jewish philosophers who fled Germany in the 1930s and set up shop at Columbia University in New York City devised an unorthodox form of "Marxism" that took aim at American society's culture, rather than its economic system.

The theory holds that these self-interested Jews — the so-called "Frankfurt School" of philosophers — planned to try to convince mainstream Americans that white ethnic pride is bad, that sexual liberation is good, and that supposedly traditional American values — Christianity, "family values," and so on — are reactionary and bigoted. With their core values thus subverted, the theory goes, Americans would be quick to sign on to the ideas of the far left.

The very term, "cultural Marxism," is clearly intended to conjure up xenophobic anxieties. But can a theory like this, built on the words of long-dead intellectuals who have little discernible relevance to normal Americans' lives, really fly? As bizarre as it might sound, there is some evidence that it may. Certainly, those who are pushing the theory seem to believe that it is an important one.

‘Cultural Marxism’ Catching On

And who are the persons who developed this term or engage in the politics behind these ideas? And what groups they are opposed to?

Television commentator Pat Buchanan says it is being used to "de-Christianize" America. Washington heavyweight William Lind claims it is turning U.S. college campuses into "ivy-covered North Koreas." Retired naval commander Gerald Atkinson fears it has invaded the nation's military academies. Immigration activist John Vinson suggests it aims "to distort and destroy" our country.

<snip>

Although he didn't use the words "cultural Marxism," white nationalist Pat Buchanan (see description of The American Cause), helped frame the debate as a "culture war" in his inflammatory speech in support of the first President Bush's nomination for reelection at the 1992 GOP convention in Houston.

"There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America," Buchanan said in his nationally televised address. "It is a cultural war, as critical to the nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself."

But it may be William Lind, who has long worked at the Free Congress Foundation that his ally Paul Weyrich founded, who has done the most to define the enemies who make up the so-called "cultural Marxists." Ultimately, this enemy has come to embody a whole host of Lind's bête noiresfeminists, LGBT people, secular humanists, multiculturalists, sex educators, environmentalists, immigrants, black nationalists, the ACLU and the hated Frankfurt School philosophers.

In July 1998, Lind told a conference of the right-wing watchdog group Accuracy in Academia that political correctness and cultural Marxism were "totalitarian ideologies" that were turning American campuses into "small ivy-covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted 'victims' groups that revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble."

At the core of the far right's concept of cultural Marxism are the Jews. Lind made this plain in June 2002, when he gave a speech on the subject to a Washington Holocaust denial conference hosted by the anti-Semitic journal, Barnes Review.

Although he told his audience that his Free Congress Foundation was "not among those who question whether the Holocaust occurred," he went on to lay out just who the cultural conspirators were: "These guys," he explained, "were all Jewish."

‘Cultural Marxism’ Catching On

For a more thorough explanation read the whole 3 page essay at the link above. You will read about Kevin McDonald, who testified on behalf of a Holocaust denier at a libel trial, and who wrote, "Jewish behavior is at least partly responsible for anti-Semitism and the Holocaust."

McDonald rationalizes the creation of Nazism when stating, "National Socialism developed as a cohesive gentile group strategy in opposition to Judaism,"

Of course one of his strategies is to claim he is not against all Jews, or that not all Jews are responsible. "MacDonald says that while all Jews are not guilty, the movements he attacks are indeed "Jewishly motivated."

That statement above is eerily reminiscent of those who claim they are not against all Muslims, that they understand not all Muslims are extremists, but turn around and blame all of Islam. They claim moderate Muslims do not speak out against terrorism or are too afraid ignoring the fact our media ignores the vast majority who do and only focus on the slim minority who do support terror.

Lind, earlier mentioned, "wrote a "futuristic fantasy" in which the United States, after developing "the stench of a Third World country," opts correctly to break up into racial mini-states. In now all-white New England, Lind wrote, "the majority had taken back the culture. Civilization had recovered its nerve."

Weyrich, "helped fund the Heritage Foundation, now one of the most powerful think tanks in Washington. He is a founder of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-sponsored association of hundreds of conservative lawmakers. And he helped establish two key conservative coalitions: The Rev. Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority in the 1970s, and Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition a decade later."

Weyrich e-mailed others, "declaring that "Christ was crucified by the Jews"

The white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens produced a video — most of it a carbon copy of the FCF video on the same topic — called "Political Correctness: The Frankfurt School Story."

"Racism, sexism and chauvinism are powerful weapons in the Marxist psychological warfare against traditional American values," it said. "Political correctness, the product of critical theory, is really treason against the U.S. Constitution and against America."

Some "pro-South" hate groups have adapted the theory for their own purposes. Franklin Sanders, writing recently on the League of the South's Web page, did not use the words "cultural Marxism." But he did say that "Marxists," by calling slavery the worst evil known to man, were twisting reality to attack the South. And, Sanders warned darkly, "If the South goes, civilization goes with it."

By early 2002, F.C. Blahut, a writer for the anti-Semitic American Free Press, wrote that cultural communists, motivated by a "hatred of the West," were wrecking Western civilization. They were, he said, "parasitic Freudian Talmudists."

‘Cultural Marxism’ Catching On

I think they are just making up groups to hate now. What is a Freudian Talmudist?

Sounds like they just want a license to continue their racism, sexism, and chauvinism unchecked. Can't believe some still think slavery was ever a good thing.

Now watch as some come, who want to use the term, "cultural Marxism", knowing its origins, knowing who uses it, and what they stand for, turn around and claim they do no represent or agree with any of those things yet still cling on to their right to use such a horrible term. Closet racism folks!

They also believe a religious war is going on...

What century are these guys from again?

Edited by Leave Britney alone!
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds rather like the product of one of those random conspiracy generators. Cultural Marxist? No, i can better that: Freudian Talmudist, ha! Well, take that, Wittegensteinian Jihadist!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stalin needs a shave methinks

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How dare the conservatives find fault with the utopia the left has fashioned for us... :w00t:

Balderdash. Any fool can see we are MUCH better off in every area of society than we were, oh, 50 years ago, right? Am I right? :no:

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

How dare the conservatives find fault with the utopia the left has fashioned for us... :w00t:

Balderdash. Any fool can see we are MUCH better off in every area of society than we were, oh, 50 years ago, right? Am I right? :no:

Its funny that, you should see the worlds we live in as a leftist one. I see the world we live in as an expression of neo-liberalism with a bit of liberal window dressing to make it tolerable to the majority who haven't raked in the cash.

Funny how the mind works.

The problem I see with right wingers all the time is if a new piece of information comes their way and it contradicts their world view - they deny its validity rather than re-examining the flaw in their world view. This leaves them in the inevitable position that they will attempt to deny the findings of academia whenever they differ from the conservative world view. Examples been Climate Change which questions their economic model, and the Biological basis of homosexuality which questions their view of the traditional family.

It has got to the stage now where the conservative right are attempting to subvert the academic process rather than having to deal with the wholesale assault on their conservative views. They have moved to this position because they know that in a fair fact based argument they will always lose on these belief based views they hold. Hence the Republican party has taken an anti-science platform and an anti-intellectual platform.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No point re-inventing the wheel, someone else has already commented on this;

"The SPLC’s unusual attack on the word is distasteful, especially because it never thoroughly argued against the accuracy of the word. Instead it just tried to smear people who use it in speech and writing."

People that oppose cultural Marxism are not anti-intellectual or racist, nor are they anti-free speech, quite the contray, it's the pc crowd who want to shut down any opposing views on campus. Did you happen to watch that video I posted Indoctrinate U.? Did you not see the statistics on the number of left-wing academics there are in the U.S.?

Sounds like they just want a license to continue their racism, sexism, and chauvinism unchecked. Can't believe some still think slavery was ever a good thing.

Sounds like? Sounds like you haven't dug deep enough. Here let me help. Here's a video interview with David Horowitz, a former Marxist and former friend of Bill Ayers the militant (Weather Underground founder) who inspired President Obama.

[media=]

[/media]
Now watch as some come, who want to use the term, "cultural Marxism", knowing its origins, knowing who uses it, and what they stand for, turn around and claim they do no represent or agree with any of those things yet still cling on to their right to use such a horrible term. Closet racism folks!

Baloney. "Cling to" As in clinging to their guns and Bible? What are the chances of President Obama ever describing Islamic fanatics as "clinging to their guns and Qur'an"?

They also believe a religious war is going on...

Well, that's the definition of Jihad, no?

What century are these guys from again?

Instead of just spitting out epitaphs like the SPLC, why don't you refute the origin of cultural Marxism, and tell us all where Horowitz is wrong, and describe where political correctness came from then?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The problem I see with right wingers all the time is if a new piece of information comes their way and it contradicts their world view - they deny its validity rather than re-examining the flaw in their world view. This leaves them in the inevitable position that they will attempt to deny the findings of academia whenever they differ from the conservative world view. Examples been Climate Change which questions their economic model, and the Biological basis of homosexuality which questions their view of the traditional family.

There is no homogenous right-wing or left-wing. Looking at the Venn diagram the OP posted on another thread, I see I am a crunchy-con/libertarian. I argue on the UM board with other conservatives who refuse to see DDT as something harmful, global warming is just a natural cycle, etc. And don't get me started on animal welfare and human overpopulation. So, in some senses I am a left-wing revolutionary. In other words, it's complicated. But the social construct of gender is just plain silly.

It has got to the stage now where the conservative right are attempting to subvert the academic process rather than having to deal with the wholesale assault on their conservative views.

How are they trying to subvert the academic process, by asking for free speech?

They have moved to this position because they know that in a fair fact based argument they will always lose on these belief based views they hold. Hence the Republican party has taken an anti-science platform and an anti-intellectual platform.

Granted, the Republicans seem hell bent on exploiting every last natural resources for sake of the GDP and taxes. But that's economics, political correctness is aimed at the culture of the West.

Br Cornelius

says the Marxist revolutionary Chimp :)

Edited by redhen
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A rather heavy-handed, certainly a long-winded and pretentious attack on a straw man. The best I was able to make of it is that cultural Marxism is a left-wing tag for right-wing racists and know-nothings. It is not Marxist.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its funny that, you should see the worlds we live in as a leftist one. I see the world we live in as an expression of neo-liberalism with a bit of liberal window dressing to make it tolerable to the majority who haven't raked in the cash.

Funny how the mind works.

The problem I see with right wingers all the time is if a new piece of information comes their way and it contradicts their world view - they deny its validity rather than re-examining the flaw in their world view. This leaves them in the inevitable position that they will attempt to deny the findings of academia whenever they differ from the conservative world view. Examples been Climate Change which questions their economic model, and the Biological basis of homosexuality which questions their view of the traditional family.

It has got to the stage now where the conservative right are attempting to subvert the academic process rather than having to deal with the wholesale assault on their conservative views. They have moved to this position because they know that in a fair fact based argument they will always lose on these belief based views they hold. Hence the Republican party has taken an anti-science platform and an anti-intellectual platform.

Br Cornelius

That is just a natural feature of conservatism, to hold on to tradition, even if those traditions are wildly backwards in a postmodern world.

People that oppose cultural Marxism are not anti-intellectual or racist

I will correct the above statement to the following: People who use the term cultural Marxism defiintely appear anti-intellectual and racist.

"Cling to" As in clinging to their guns and Bible?

Indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I though everything comes in all shapes and sizes ?

and colors too ...post-108562-0-57720900-1367162135.gif

Edited by third_eye
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There is no homogenous right-wing or left-wing. Looking at the Venn diagram the OP posted on another thread, I see I am a crunchy-con/libertarian. I argue on the UM board with other conservatives who refuse to see DDT as something harmful, global warming is just a natural cycle, etc. And don't get me started on animal welfare and human overpopulation. So, in some senses I am a left-wing revolutionary. In other words, it's complicated. But the social construct of gender is just plain silly.

How are they trying to subvert the academic process, by asking for free speech?

Granted, the Republicans seem hell bent on exploiting every last natural resources for sake of the GDP and taxes. But that's economics, political correctness is aimed at the culture of the West.

says the Marxist revolutionary Chimp :)

Seeking the right to teach creationism, the unnaturalness of homosexuality and deny AGW in the classroom, is an example of attempting to subvert the academic process. It has almost nothing to do with free speech, it is about been able to express a belief as a fact without any evidence and have the state condone it.

As for the Marxist chimp - ever heard of irony. Despite what most people may imagine I am in no way a Marxist, my views are far to radically ecologically based to fit into any Marxist mould.

For those right wingers who imagine that environmentalism is a Marxist plot - dumbasses your've just proved my point !!!

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That is just a natural feature of conservatism, to hold on to tradition, even if those traditions are wildly backwards in a postmodern world.

The unfortunate reality is that by definition most conservative are reactionary and anti-intellectual, its part of the package.

The only strange thing is that for most, if there is a promise of a profit in the products of intellectualism in the form of technology they become suddenly supportive of radical new ideas.

I personally think that many Conservatives are fundamentally dishonest in their approach to information.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its funny that, you should see the worlds we live in as a leftist one. I see the world we live in as an expression of neo-liberalism with a bit of liberal window dressing to make it tolerable to the majority who haven't raked in the cash.

Funny how the mind works.

The problem I see with right wingers all the time is if a new piece of information comes their way and it contradicts their world view - they deny its validity rather than re-examining the flaw in their world view. This leaves them in the inevitable position that they will attempt to deny the findings of academia whenever they differ from the conservative world view. Examples been Climate Change which questions their economic model, and the Biological basis of homosexuality which questions their view of the traditional family.

It has got to the stage now where the conservative right are attempting to subvert the academic process rather than having to deal with the wholesale assault on their conservative views. They have moved to this position because they know that in a fair fact based argument they will always lose on these belief based views they hold. Hence the Republican party has taken an anti-science platform and an anti-intellectual platform.

Br Cornelius

So the left/right conflict remains fully engaged while our civilization is destroyed. Gotcha'. Having other humans around who have differing opinions about what is correct - that are just as deeply held - puts a real damper on one's agenda.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, another coom ba ya, why can't we all live in harmony thread...unless you are a Rebublican. Then they won't tolerate you. Every sterotype ever put out there applies to all of them with no exceptions, unlike Muslims, who liberals will fight tooth and nail to defend at any given moment. Did you ever think the press, you are so fond of when it comes to the bashing of Republicans, are the same ones spreading misinformation about Muslims?

Those of us in the middle really get sick of you people constantly bickering and putting the blame on the other party. They are one in the same and just as culpable as the other.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the left/right conflict remains fully engaged while our civilization is destroyed. Gotcha'. Having other humans around who have differing opinions about what is correct - that are just as deeply held - puts a real damper on one's agenda.

The only ones intolerant of others and creating conflict are conservatives. Having other humans around who have differing opinions is a threat to the right and their intolerance begins to shine.

Ah, another coom ba ya, why can't we all live in harmony thread...unless you are a Rebublican. Then they won't tolerate you. Every sterotype ever put out there applies to all of them with no exceptions, unlike Muslims, who liberals will fight tooth and nail to defend at any given moment. Did you ever think the press, you are so fond of when it comes to the bashing of Republicans, are the same ones spreading misinformation about Muslims?

Those of us in the middle really get sick of you people constantly bickering and putting the blame on the other party. They are one in the same and just as culpable as the other.

How can someone claim to be in the middle if all they ever do is attack the left and support the right? Conservatives disingenuously claiming moderate positions is akin to racists claiming they are not intolerant yet everything they say is an understated claim to their intolerance even if they are cowards who cannot come out and simply state their honest positions.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay thanks for that; now I think I got it. I had the reference kinda upside down. Cultural marxism is a racist and creationist and know-nothing shorthand for efforts to prevent the forcing of the teaching of their perception of truth rather than accepted doctrine in academic circles. I would think "cultural fascism" would work better -- they were the experts at forcing schools to teach absurdities, especially of the homophobic and racist types. Marx tended to be rather favorable to academic freedom, although of course most Communist states are not, at least in practice (there does not exist a Communist constitution that does not guarantee academic freedom, something the American framers missed). Why Marx was chosen, though, is not hard to imagine. Old traditions die hard.

I have to say my instincts are anti-Republican most of the time, except stupid Democratic economics (what of it can be said to really exist). It seems mainly a vote-buying apparatus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeking the right to teach creationism, the unnaturalness of homosexuality and deny AGW in the classroom, is an example of attempting to subvert the academic process.

None of those desires are an attempt to stifle free speech. Political correctness does put and end to free speech, notably in the form of hate crime legislation for something you might say or print in a book. That's thought police and it happens in the West now. Did any of you watch the Indoctrinate U video?

It has almost nothing to do with free speech, it is about been able to express a belief as a fact without any evidence and have the state condone it.

You are talking about a vocal few. Creationists I suppose are conservative, but the courts have shut down attempts to teach it. It's just not science. Sexuality and global warming are debatable.

As for the Marxist chimp - ever heard of irony.
yup, hence my smiley face.
Despite what most people may imagine I am in no way a Marxist, my views are far to radically ecologically based to fit into any Marxist mould.

Yes, I think we're on the same page there.

For those right wingers who imagine that environmentalism is a Marxist plot - dumbasses your've just proved my point !!!

Sadly there are some here on UM. I keep asking myself what on earth conservatives are conserving. All this political debate is probably moot.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can someone claim to be in the middle if all they ever do is attack the left and support the right? Conservatives disingenuously claiming moderate positions is akin to racists claiming they are not intolerant yet everything they say is an understated claim to their intolerance even if they are cowards who cannot come out and simply state their honest positions.

I have made it quite clear that I am a right leaning Libertarian. People like you claim they are open minded and accept everyone, unless it's the right wing. You are the one claiming racism when people are simply stating facts. I have relatives of all colors, religions and *gasp* even gay. My surrogate family are Arabs and they understand, better than you, what is going on in the world from a less one sided view.

But, let us not forget the mantra of the true racists, akin to Jesse Jackson, looking for racism in even the slightest hint somebody doesn't agree with someone of a different race or color. "If they claim to have friends or family of a different color that is a sure sign they are a racist." :rolleyes:

I don't like hypocrites and you've shown your true colors...while proclaiming you want equality and fairness without fear for all...except for Republicans or the Christian right. I've not attacked you in any way. All I've done is challenge your logic and I haven't been given a satisfactory responce. People like you don't seem to understand you are as big a bigot as any member of the KKK.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay thanks for that; now I think I got it. I had the reference kinda upside down. Cultural marxism is a racist and creationist ... >snip

no, still wrong. go back to post #6 and watch the short interview with David Horowitz for a definition or just check the wiki entry, it's fairly accurate.

Then if you have some time watch the

video to see cultural Marxism, also known as political correctness, in practice.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have made it quite clear that I am a right leaning Libertarian. People like you claim they are open minded and accept everyone, unless it's the right wing. You are the one claiming racism when people are simply stating facts. I have relatives of all colors, religions and *gasp* even gay. My surrogate family are Arabs and they understand, better than you, what is going on in the world from a less one sided view.

But, let us not forget the mantra of the true racists, akin to Jesse Jackson, looking for racism in even the slightest hint somebody doesn't agree with someone of a different race or color. "If they claim to have friends or family of a different color that is a sure sign they are a racist." :rolleyes:

I don't like hypocrites and you've shown your true colors...while proclaiming you want equality and fairness without fear for all...except for Republicans or the Christian right. I've not attacked you in any way. All I've done is challenge your logic and I haven't been given a satisfactory responce. People like you don't seem to understand you are as big a bigot as any member of the KKK.

...

no, still wrong. go back to post #6 and watch the short interview with David Horowitz for a definition or just check the wiki entry, it's fairly accurate.

Then if you have some time watch the

video to see cultural Marxism, also known as political correctness, in practice.

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.

That is not how it really works on a forum. You can post video links but it is not appreciated if one keeps asking others to view them. Instead one should simply provide a script or transcribe any relevant portions they want to bring to our attention. Only then will some comment. You cannot expect anything more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
431845_593047617372887_252230522_n.jpg
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

Is that one of those questions where there is no any right or wrong answer?

If so and I can safely answer I will have to say it was 9-11 when ignorance became a point of view or maybe January 20, 1981?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Instead one should simply provide a script or transcribe any relevant portions they want to bring to our attention. Only then will some comment. You cannot expect anything more.

The documentary takes a look at the overwhelming left wing demographics of today's academia and admin. It follows the repercussions of not towing the party line and subsequent court vindications.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE is interviewed in this doc and they also admit the overwhelming number of cases brought to them by "conservative" students.

"The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America's colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity."

You can peruse all their caseshere to see for yourself.

Here's an example;

"June 1, 2009California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), which has already once been on the losing side of a free speech lawsuit, has suspended an unconstitutional program targeting professors and students whose speech is "biased" or not "politically correct." The program even planned to let students report complaints anonymously, meaning that those deemed "politically incorrect" might never have known whom they had offended or why. Under pressure from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Cal Poly has promised that any future CARE-Net program (short for Community Advocating REspect) "will not function to suppress controversial, offensive, or any other kind of protected speech."

Edited by redhen
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently the term "cultural Marxism" has been introduced on this forum. It is not a brand new concept but one many might not be familiar with due to it lacking any acaemic cache, that it is only used among certain circles, and unless you were visiting certain websites you might have never heard about it.

We can explore this term and which groups use it, how they use, and why.

http://en.wikipedia....ultural_Marxism

We can clearly see that it is not scholars who use this word, instead it is pundits (and others:see below) and they believe our schools have been subverted.

Their mistrust for academia is the epitome of anti-intellectualism. They do not favor the scholar but instead rely on pundits and others to derive their worldview.

Do you think always blindly trusting "academia" is the epitome of intellectualism? Do you think something as emotionally based as a political world view has any place in academia? You have some incredibly baseless assertions and some strange associations that I doubt you could actually argue without resorting to circular logic and assumptions. I wouldn't mind a response instead of just "liking" my posts. Sorry if these questions are offensive or hard to answer, but lies rarely last forever. Anyways, the cultural marxism line is a bit extreme but its really not hard to see the parallels to political correctness. Not everything "progressives" dont want to here is actually offensive or intolerant, its justs makes it easier for them to "win" an argument if they can show outrage at anything that challenges their beliefs, rather than actually arguing their points using logical argumentation. How "intellectual" is that really?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the left/right conflict remains fully engaged while our civilization is destroyed. Gotcha'. Having other humans around who have differing opinions about what is correct - that are just as deeply held - puts a real damper on one's agenda.

I don't care how different people views are from my own if they argue from an honest basis of evidence - ie verifiable facts.

Br Cornelius

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.