• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

From the Frankfurt school to Obama

Why do we have a feeling that something just isn’t quite right, but we’re unable to put our finger on it?
Why doesn’t it matter who you vote for, nothing seems to change?
Why did the old slogans of ‘Power to the People’ and ‘Workers of the World Unite’ disappear?

Those looking for communists revolutionaries with red flags standing on the barricades will remain disappointed. The communists became progressives, minority interests replaced those of the workers and equality, diversity and multiculturalism is the new, ‘Quiet cultural revolution.’ (Horkheimer).

Cultural Marxism: Old new ideas
A repudiation of Marxist economic based philosophy (political) that argues if culture is a social construction, then it can also be deconstructed (cultural). Following the failure of the Bolshevik revolution across Europe the Institute for Social Research was set up in Germany (1923), by Jewish Marxist theorists and sociologists, commonly known as the Frankfurt school. If the workers wouldn’t rise up and destroy the existing order, then they must be dumbed down and the order which they favoured destroyed to enable that uprising. Gramsci termed this, ‘The long march through the institutions’- traditional cultural destruction through change, not a short sharp violent revolution. This was proposed by deconstructing western societies, using critical theory.
Some of the main proposals:

1) The creation of racism offences.
2) Continual change to create confusion.
3) The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children.
4) The undermining of schools' and teachers' authority.
5) Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6) The promotion of excessive drinking.
7) Emptying of churches.
8) An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime.
9) Dependency on the state or state benefits.
10) Control and dumbing down of media.
11) Encouraging the breakdown of the family.

Gay rights and sexual promiscuity, using Freud’s theory of pansexualism to create a type of unisex society.
The family,
as objects and products of the State (government dependency)
Education, Common Core. ‘When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.’ Russell, B, ‘The Impact of Science on Society’, 1951
State dependency: "Economists agree that unemployment benefits remain one of the best ways to grow the economy in a very immediate way . . . For every dollar spent on unemployment benefits, the economy grows by, according to one estimate, $1.52; by others, $2 . . .’ Nancy Pelosi.

Critical theory: The subjectivity of morality and beliefs
Critical theory doesn’t provide a replacement; rather it destroys what is and leaves it with whatever comes out of it. The reason a basic grasp of critical theory is so important is that it leads us into the present era of subjective morality in which there is no right or wrong.
Simplified, critical theory proposes that what we see and perceive isn’t fact, but a distortion based on moral relativism and social norms. In other words, when we see a cup, it’s only a cup because we’ve been told it is and to someone else it might be a flowerpot. This reverses objectivity and the need for science and reduces perception to that of each individual’s subjectivity. Each person’s opinion then replaces the consensus of what is, becoming what each thinks it is, or should be.

Political correctness: Changing thought to reflect a political ideology
Contrary to popular opinion, political correctness (PC) doesn’t just restrict free speech, it redefines speech, which in turn produces a consensus view in which both thought and speech reflect a universal belief, using legislation, peer pressure and the labelling theory to force consent. If critical theory were an ideology, subjective morality would be its manifesto and PC its voting system.

We live in an age of regression to the pre-enlighten period, in which opinions replace facts and become facts themselves if ‘verified’ by another’s opinion. PC is the modern day equivalent of witch trials and the inquisition. It is no coincidence that communists have self-criticism ‘struggle sessions’ and purges of those who deviate from prescribed thought.

From radical feminism, sexual rights, minority rights, victimology . . . Women’s studies, African studies, gay studies . . . all these are part of critical theory, minority cultural groupings.

A simplified practical explanation of cultural Marxism.

[video=youtube;hnugQQ1ya8Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnugQQ1ya8Y [/video] (15.39 minutes)

A Primer to Cultural Marxism.’
* The video places too much emphasis on Christianity alone in cultural change.
**Not mentioned; Engels (attributed to Marx) in ‘Anti-Dühring’, believed that the State would eventually wither away of its own accord and come to resemble Proudhon’s proposal of anarchism.

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/921_frankfurt.html
http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/
 
An interesting little read.
 
joG;bt3137 said:
An interesting little read.
Glad you like it :)

I’m just putting together a small series of easy to read explanatory articles that try to explain what’s happening in society and dispel commonly held myths of political terminologies as they arise. Don’t know whether there’s a need for it, but it’s something to dip into for those interested.
 
DifferentDrummr;bt3139 said:
Sounds like you'd prefer a "Christian" version of Iran.

No thanks. :thumbdown

Sorry, you've lost me. Christianity, Iran?
 
Last edited:
Very informative John, thanks for taking the time to post this.
 
@ Differentdrummr.
The op does not concern Iran or theocracy. Your latest dumb/distraction comment and future similar ones will be removed.
 
We live in an age of regression to the pre-enlighten period, in which opinions replace facts and become facts themselves if ‘verified’ by another’s opinion.

That could be the summary description of this article. I present the following examples of statements from it that demonstrate the substitution of opinion (propaganda) for fact:

1. The creation of racism offences.
2. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children.
3. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
4. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime.
5. Encouraging the breakdown of the family.

These statements as well as the general theme of this article are all familiar rightwing tropes. They are not in any way statements of fact but just the familiar talking points of a fairly extreme viewpoint. In other words, opinions dressed up as facts. And this is a rather telling passage:

Following the failure of the Bolshevik revolution across Europe the Institute for Social Research was set up in Germany (1923), by Jewish Marxist theorists and sociologists, commonly known as the Frankfurt school.

While it is true that the Frankfurt School's founders were mostly jewish (I don't capitalize any religious labels) it's later post-war adherents are overwhelmingly non-jewish Germans. And, not being very familiar with this school, I did a bit of research and found this description of the school's founders:

"While critical theorists have been frequently defined as Marxist intellectuals,[4] their tendency to denounce some Marxist concepts and to combine Marxian analysis with other sociological and philosophical traditions has resulted in accusations of revisionism by Classical, Orthodox, and Analytical Marxists, and by Marxist-Leninist philosophers."

So it seems our author of this piece has adopted a particular rightwing slant (or a particular version of "political correctness) in describing this school. His very "politically correct" (from a rightwing viewpoint) description of Critical Theory is also obvious.

I've run across many examples of this type of "analysis" over the years. It strains to try to appear erudite and authoritative but it's really just polemics.
 
John V;bt3144 said:
Sorry, you've lost me. Christianity, Iran?

It's really not that difficult of an analogy to follow. We have elements of "christianity" in this country which do to our government what the imams of Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan have done to theirs. It would be very "p.c." (conservative style) not to see this.
 
Back
Top Bottom