Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

NJT123

The Birth Of Cultural Marxism: How The "Frankfurt School" Changed America (& The West)

Recommended Posts

The 1950s were a simple, romantic, and golden time in America.

California beaches, suburbia, and style. Atlas Shrugged was published, NASA was formed, and Elvis rocked the nation. Every year from 1950–1959 saw over 4 million babies born. The nation stood atop the world in every field.

It was an era of great economic prosperity in The Land of the Free.

Image_1_20160812_TPP.jpg

 

So, what happened to the American traits of confidence, pride, and accountability?

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-12/birth-cultural-marxism-how-frankfurt-school-changed-america

 

 

Great read - and check the video:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It reads like the ravings of a nutter.

More constructively it makes leaps which are not explained.

"This led to that". How did it do that?

It reminds me of the Voyager episode where Seven of Nine sees conspiracies in everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Things that seem like good ideas or nice are often not.

Assuming reciprocity where there will be none is a losing proposition.

Distinguishing what is  and what ought.

What ought to be cannot be educated or legislated into reality. Denying reality rarely has the intended effects.

 

Think of every social good programme, did it solve the problem completely? If not, why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DTMark said:

It reads like the ravings of a nutter.

More constructively it makes leaps which are not explained.

"This led to that". How did it do that?

It reminds me of the Voyager episode where Seven of Nine sees conspiracies in everything.

Anything in particular? It didn't seem that far off the mark to me. Follow the trail of most 20C "progressive" social movements and they lead back to Frankfurt Alumni, their students or their admirers. Free love, 60s New-Ageism, Feminism, Identity Politics, PC, radical environmentalism, post-normal science, the journalism of Attachment, Militant Atheism ... you name it. And reading the published works of the likes of Gramsci, Adorno et al. From the 30s on makes clear that much of this was explicitly theorised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, how can you be falling for this blatant propaganda designed to 'divide and conquer', especially when posted from a HPC Newbie who's clearly on a mission here.

Even more so when the opening post of this thread is itself a complete fantasy, 50s America was anything but a golden time, except for the few, just like present day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Eagle said:

Guys, how can you be falling for this blatant propaganda designed to 'divide and conquer', especially when posted from a HPC Newbie who's clearly on a mission here.

Even more so when the opening post of this thread is itself a complete fantasy, 50s America was anything but a golden time, except for the few, just like present day.

The share of wealth held by the top 1% fell continuously between the 1920s and the mid 70s. Meanwhile the working and middle classes took up an increasing proportion of a growing economic pie.

The elites felt they were missing out and decided the way to solve the problem was to destroy labour via globalisation, mass migration and the dissolution of the nation state. PC was used to criminalise anyone who objected to the process. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, whitevanman said:

The share of wealth held by the top 1% fell continuously between the 1920s and the mid 70s. Meanwhile the working and middle classes took up an increasing proportion of a growing economic pie.

The elites felt they were missing out and decided the way to solve the problem was to destroy labour via globalisation, mass migration and the dissolution of the nation state. PC was used to criminalise anyone who objected to the process. 

 

 

Forgive me for seemingly coming at this from some sort of "on high" position. I like conspiracy theories as much as anyone else. And this topic, despite how it might appear, genuinely interests me.

However you have to cite evidence. The originally quoted article reads like propaganda. "This caused that", "this led to that". There is no citation, no evidence.

If I were to say something like "The questionable legality of the Iraq war led to a complete disconnection between voters and politicians, and is what led to the election of the Conservative Party and Brexit": this might, in part, be true. However it is not the whole truth, is it? I haven't advanced an argument -  I have led the reader to a conclusion, as rags like The Daily Mail tend to do.

The post I've quoted above gives a much more realistic explanation to my mind than "a group of people set out to deliberately destroy society". But even so, it doesn't consider alternatives. The big one being "to stave off the collapse of the monetary system in the richest Western counties such as the UK".

Actually, I did expand on this at some length in the now-deleted "Alt-Right" topic however after several glasses of wine and a number of vodkas and at 01:43 in the morning, I'm not going to type it all out again.

That sounds pious. As though I've already decided on the right answer and so nobody has anything to offer. No, I'm interested. But there's a difference between "the basis for an argument" and "an argument". And I don't want a relatively new poster who may change my mind to feel as though they have been extricated.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You have to be willing to take a few sledgehammer hits to the head to understand Cultural Marxism and the war that never stopped. 

Communism was invented to destroy Western nations.

National Socialism was in response to Communism's success. For example, the Communist party of Germany had 500,000 members when Hitler joined the Nazi party.

The Jewish Bolsheviks took over Russia - 62 million dead.

Wherever the Commie's went the mass deaths followed. That was intended.

So the first hurdle you need to get over is the Nazi's weren't the bad guys- - they were defending Europe. However, in the end they weren't the good guys either. But neither were the Brits - what we did bombing Dresden and Berlin was inhumane - nothing to be proud of.

Classical Communism was then abandoned - it wasn't going to work and completely destroy Western Nations. Cultural Marxism was then introduced and you can see White countries and White people now becoming the minority across the planet and in traditional homelands. 

The war isn't fought with guns and tanks it is now fought with TV sets and language. And only one side has been fighting for the last 70 years.

History didn't stop in the 1940's.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, NJT123 said:

 

The war isn't fought with guns and tanks it is now fought with TV sets and language. And only one side has been fighting for the last 70 years.

History didn't stop in the 1940's.

 

Yes, yes. This. 

I was trying to explain this to a friend at work, the look on his face when the penny dropped was a picture. He was going on about conspiracy theory and I put it to him like this: At school, in history you're taught about all kinds of wars and power struggles - both open and convert (i.e. conspiracies). Did someone just sit up in 1945 and think 'you know what, I'm not really that interested in controlling Europe anymore, let's just get along, for the good of everyone'?

No, of course they didn't! Dismissing 'conspiracy theory' is akin to dismissing history. Conspiracy is what people who want power do, does anyone think that people stopped wanting power?

I have absolutely no doubt that what we're seeing right now is the end-game in a covert war to destroy Western Society. For instance - do you ever hear Merkel banging banging on about only trading with China if the Chinese PM explains himself over his views on human rights abuses in his country? No. Donald Trump says a few choice words about illegal immigration and she calls him out on it. We'll only be friendly if you explain yourself. Why the double standards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DTMark said:

Forgive me for seemingly coming at this from some sort of "on high" position. I like conspiracy theories as much as anyone else. And this topic, despite how it might appear, genuinely interests me.

However you have to cite evidence. The originally quoted article reads like propaganda. "This caused that", "this led to that". There is no citation, no evidence.

If I were to say something like "The questionable legality of the Iraq war led to a complete disconnection between voters and politicians, and is what led to the election of the Conservative Party and Brexit": this might, in part, be true. However it is not the whole truth, is it? I haven't advanced an argument -  I have led the reader to a conclusion, as rags like The Daily Mail tend to do.

The post I've quoted above gives a much more realistic explanation to my mind than "a group of people set out to deliberately destroy society". But even so, it doesn't consider alternatives. The big one being "to stave off the collapse of the monetary system in the richest Western counties such as the UK".

Actually, I did expand on this at some length in the now-deleted "Alt-Right" topic however after several glasses of wine and a number of vodkas and at 01:43 in the morning, I'm not going to type it all out again.

That sounds pious. As though I've already decided on the right answer and so nobody has anything to offer. No, I'm interested. But there's a difference between "the basis for an argument" and "an argument". And I don't want a relatively new poster who may change my mind to feel as though they have been extricated.

 

Sorry DT, but that's holding the forum to an impossibly high standard. You can't expect someone to set out a fully researched discourse on the history of cultural Marxism on HPC OT. I find Youtube videos like this are good for perking my interest in something, then I can do more research/reading if neccessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DTMark said:

Forgive me for seemingly coming at this from some sort of "on high" position. I like conspiracy theories as much as anyone else. And this topic, despite how it might appear, genuinely interests me.

However you have to cite evidence. The originally quoted article reads like propaganda. "This caused that", "this led to that". There is no citation, no evidence.

If I were to say something like "The questionable legality of the Iraq war led to a complete disconnection between voters and politicians, and is what led to the election of the Conservative Party and Brexit": this might, in part, be true. However it is not the whole truth, is it? I haven't advanced an argument -  I have led the reader to a conclusion, as rags like The Daily Mail tend to do.

The post I've quoted above gives a much more realistic explanation to my mind than "a group of people set out to deliberately destroy society". But even so, it doesn't consider alternatives. The big one being "to stave off the collapse of the monetary system in the richest Western counties such as the UK".

Actually, I did expand on this at some length in the now-deleted "Alt-Right" topic however after several glasses of wine and a number of vodkas and at 01:43 in the morning, I'm not going to type it all out again.

That sounds pious. As though I've already decided on the right answer and so nobody has anything to offer. No, I'm interested. But there's a difference between "the basis for an argument" and "an argument". And I don't want a relatively new poster who may change my mind to feel as though they have been extricated.

 

PC is an elitist tool. It came out of the universities not from the grassroots. Think about where PC is pushed most strongly: mass media, Hollywood, NGOs, the UN, education, the EU. These are elite, money backed institutions. What we are seeing is the totalitarianism of business and finance.

On the other hand, nationalist movements all come from ordinary citizens forming groups to oppose what is being imposed on their societies. Universally, they are attacked, smeared and persecuted by the above institutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, frozen_out said:

Sorry DT, but that's holding the forum to an impossibly high standard. You can't expect someone to set out a fully researched discourse on the history of cultural Marxism on HPC OT. I find Youtube videos like this are good for perking my interest in something, then I can do more research/reading if neccessary.

If you're going to advance a conspiracy theory you need to be able to back it up.

"The development of Stealth aircraft and similar technologies came about because of the capture and study of the alien craft that crashed in Roswell in 1947".

Plausible.. perhaps. But, fact or fiction?

Advancing a conspiracy theory when there are simpler explanations requires a higher standard of proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DTMark said:

If you're going to advance a conspiracy theory you need to be able to back it up.

"The development of Stealth aircraft and similar technologies came about because of the capture and study of the alien craft that crashed in Roswell in 1947".

Plausible.. perhaps. But, fact or fiction?

Advancing a conspiracy theory when there are simpler explanations requires a higher standard of proof.

A simpler explanation of what? And what is the simpler explanation?

To be fair to the OP, this isn't a learned journal and the likelihood is that were any evidence to be offered you're probably not qualified to peer review it. So we're all just sat here chewing the fat and offering opinions. If every thread was held to the same standard nobody would ever talk about anything. For example: why are you not in the time travel thread asking people to provide evidence to back up their theories on the evolution of prokaryotes and life on other planets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   35 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.