All Watched over by Machines of Loving Grace

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 juli 2011 21:17 schreef Hoppahoppa het volgende:

[..]

Zie mijn post hierboven, waarmee ik hun niet wil beledigen, maar het is nogal een complex opgezet onderwerp. Misschien moet je de vragen die je aan hun hebt iets concreter maken.

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 juli 2011 21:42 schreef Lambiekje het volgende:

[..]

Ik heb de 3 docus bekeken. Nu heeft alles doorlezen hier.

quote:

Why did it happen?
Over the last fifty years, Western Europe has been conquered by the same force that
earlier took over Russia, China, Germany and Italy. That force is ideology. Here, as
elsewhere, ideology has inflicted enormous damage on the traditional culture it came to
dominate, fracturing it everywhere and sweeping much of it away. In its place came fear,
and ruin. Russia will take a generation or more to recover from Communism, if it ever
can.
The ideology that has taken over Western Europe goes most commonly by the name of
“Political Correctness.” Some people see it as a joke. It is not. It is deadly serious. It
seeks to alter virtually all the rules, formal and informal, that govern relations among
people and institutions. It wants to change behaviour, thought, even the words we use.

To a significant extent, it already has. Whoever or whatever controls language also
controls thought. Who dares to speak of “ladies” now?
Just what is “Political Correctness?” Political Correctness is in fact cultural Marxism
(Cultural Communism) – Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. The
effort to translate Marxism from economics into culture did not begin with the student
rebellion of the 1960s. It goes back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian
Communist Antonio Gramsci. In 1923, in Germany, a group of Marxists founded an
institute devoted to making the transition, the Institute of Social Research (later known
as the Frankfurt School). One of its founders, George Lukacs, stated its purpose as
answering the question, “Who shall save us from Western Civilisation?” The Frankfurt
School gained profound influence in European and American universities after many of its
leading lights fled and spread all over Europe and even to the United States in the 1930s
to escape National Socialism in Germany. In Western Europe it gained influence in
universities from 1945.
The Frankfurt School blended Marx with Freud, and later influences (some Fascist as well
as Marxist) added linguistics to create “Critical Theory” and “deconstruction.” These in
turn greatly influenced education theory, and through institutions of higher education
gave birth to what we now call “Political Correctness.” The lineage is clear, and it is
traceable right back to Karl Marx.
The parallels between the old, economic Marxism and cultural Marxism are evident.
Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, shares with classical Marxism the vision of a
“classless society,” i.e., a society not merely of equal opportunity, but equal condition.
Since that vision contradicts human nature – because people are different, they end up
unequal, regardless of the starting point – society will not accord with it unless forced.
So, under both variants of Marxism, it is forced. This is the first major parallel between
classical and cultural Marxism: both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of
Political Correctness can be seen on campuses where “PC” has taken over the college:
freedom of speech, of the press, and even of thought are all eliminated.
The second major parallel is that both classical, economic Marxism and cultural Marxism
have single-factor explanations of history. Classical Marxism argues that all of history was
determined by ownership of the means of production. Cultural Marxism says that history
is wholly explained by which groups – defined by sex, race, religion and sexual normality
or abnormality – have power over which other groups.
The third parallel is that both varieties of Marxism declare certain groups virtuous and
others evil a priori, that is, without regard for the actual behaviour of individuals.
Classical Marxism defines workers and peasants as virtuous and the bourgeoisie (the
middle class) and other owners of capital as evil. Cultural Marxism defines all minorities,
what they see as the victims; Muslims, Feminist women, homosexuals and some
additional minority groups as virtuous and they view ethnic Christian European men as
evil. (Cultural Marxism does not recognise the existence of non-Feminist women, and
defines Muslims, Asians and Africans who reject Political Correctness as evil, just like
native Christian or even atheist Europeans.).
The fourth parallel is in means: expropriation. Economic Marxists, where they obtained
power, expropriated the property of the bourgeoisie and handed it to the state, as the
“representative” of the workers and the peasants. Cultural Marxists, when they gain
power (including through our own government), lay penalties on native European men
and others who disagree with them and give privileges to the ”victim” groups they favour.
Affirmative action is an example.
Finally, both varieties of Marxists employ a method of analysis designed to show the
correctness of their ideology in every situation. For classical Marxists, the analysis is economic. For cultural Marxists, the analysis is linguistic: deconstruction. Deconstruction
“proves” that any “text,” past or present, illustrates the oppression of Muslims, women,
homosexuals, etc. by reading that meaning into words of the text (regardless of their
actual meaning). Both methods are, of course, phony analyses that twist the evidence to
fit preordained conclusions, but they lend a ‘scientific” air to the ideology.
These parallels are neither remarkable nor coincidental. They exist because Political
Correctness is directly derived from classical Marxism, and is in fact a variant of Marxism.
Through most of the history of Marxism, cultural Marxists were “read out” of the
movement by classical, economic Marxists. Today, with economic Marxism dead, cultural
Marxism has filled its shoes. The medium has changed, but the message is the same: a
society of radical egalitarianism enforced by the power of the state.
Political Correctness now looms over Western European society like a colossus. It has
taken over both political wings, left and right. Among so called Western European
”conservative” parties the actual cultural conservatives are shown the door because being
a cultural conservative opposes the very essence of political correctness. It controls the
most powerful element in our culture, the media and entertainment industry. It
dominates both public and higher education: many a college campus is a small, ivycovered
North Korea. It has even captured the higher clergy in many Christian churches.
Anyone in the Establishment who departs from its dictates swiftly ceases to be a member
of the Establishment.
The most vital question is: how can Western Europeans combat Political Correctness and
retake their society from the cultural Marxists?
It is not sufficient just to criticise Political Correctness. It tolerates a certain amount of
criticism, even gentle mocking. It does so through no genuine tolerance for other points
of view, but in order to disarm its opponents, to let itself seem less menacing than it is.
The cultural Marxists do not yet have total power, and they are too wise to appear
totalitarian until their victory is assured.
Rather, those who would defeat cultural Marxism must defy it. They must use words it
forbids, and refuse to use the words it mandates; remember, sex is better than gender.
They must shout from the housetops the realities it seeks to suppress, such as our
opposition to Sharia on a national and local level, the Islamisation of our countries, the
facts that violent crime is disproportionately committed by Muslims and that most cases
of AIDS are voluntary, i.e., acquired from immoral sexual acts. They must refuse to turn
their children over to public schools.
Above all, those who would defy Political Correctness must behave according to the old
rules of our culture, not the new rules the cultural Marxists lay down. Ladies should be
wives and homemakers, not cops or soldiers, and men should still hold doors open for
ladies. Children should not be born out of wedlock. Glorification of homosexuality should
be shunned. Jurors should not accept Islam as an excuse for murder.
Defiance spreads. When other Western Europeans see one person defy Political
Correctness and survive – and you still can, for now – they are emboldened. They are
tempted to defy it, too, and some do. The ripples from a single act of defiance, of one
instance of walking up to the clay idol and breaking off its nose, can range far. There is
nothing the Politically Correct fear more than open defiance, and for good reason; it is
their chief vulnerability. That should lead cultural conservatives to defy cultural Marxism
at every turn.
While the hour is late, the battle is not decided. Very few Western Europeans realise that
Political Correctness is in fact Marxism in a different set of clothes. As that realisation
spreads, defiance will spread with it. At present, Political Correctness prospers by

disguising itself. Through defiance, and through education on our own part (which should
be part of every act of defiance), we can strip away its camouflage and reveal the
Marxism beneath the window-dressing of “sensitivity,” “tolerance,” and “multiculturalism.”
Who dares, wins.
The Historical Roots of “Political Correctness”
Western Europe is today dominated by an alien system of beliefs, attitudes and values
that we have come to know as “Political Correctness.” Political Correctness seeks to
impose a uniformity of thought and behaviour on all Europeans and is therefore
totalitarian in nature. Its roots lie in a version of Marxism which seeks a radical inversion
of the traditional culture in order to create a social revolution.
Social revolution has a long history, conceivably going as far back as Plato’s Republic. But
it was the French Revolution of 1789 that inspired Karl Marx to develop his theories in the
nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, the success of the Bolshevik Revolution of
1917 in Russia set off a wave of optimistic expectation among the Marxist forces in
Europe and America that the new proletarian world of equality was finally coming into
being. Russia, as the first communist nation in the world, would lead the revolutionary
forces to victory.
The Marxist revolutionary forces in Europe leaped at this opportunity. Following the end
of World War I, there was a Communist “Spartacist” uprising in Berlin, Germany led by
Rosa Luxemburg; the creation of a “Soviet” in Bavaria led by Kurt Eisner; and a
Hungarian communist republic established by Bela Kun in 1919. At the time, there was
great concern that all of Europe might fall under the banner of Bolshevism. This sense of
impending doom was given vivid life by Trotsky’s Red Army invasion of Poland in 1919.
However, the Red Army was defeated by Polish forces at the battle of the Vistula in 1920.
The Spartacist, Bavarian Soviet and Bela Kun governments all failed to gain widespread
support from the workers and after a brief time they were all overthrown. These events
created a quandary for the Marxist revolutionaries in Europe. Under Marxist economic
theory, the oppressed workers were supposed to be the beneficiaries of a social
revolution that would place them on top of the power structure. When these
revolutionary opportunities presented themselves, however, the workers did not respond.
The Marxist revolutionaries did not blame their theory for these failures. They blamed the
workers.

quote:

Op zaterdag 30 juli 2011 00:11 schreef Fledderjon het volgende:
Je maakt het me erg lastig Hoppa - Het manifest van Breivik is enerzijds een samenraapsel van hole frase en ondeugdelijke assumpties aangaande Marx en zijn denken, maar anderzijds, door termen te gebruiken als 'cultureel Marxisme' en 'ideologie v/d politieke correctheid', lijkt het zowaar doordacht en wekt het de schijn van een coherent intellectueel relaas. Helaas ligt het allemaal niet zo simpel.

Wil ik echter mijn afkeer van dit manifest duidelijk en helder aan jou uitleggen, ben ik welhaast gedwongen iedere foute aannamen en elke drogreden uit de doeken te doen. Dit betekent een uitgebreide uiteenzetting van elke denkrichting/school die Breivik hier aanhaalt en het aandragen van primaire quotes. Hoewel mijn bibliotheek dit laatste wel toelaat, gaat daar uren werk in zitten.

Dat zal ik dus niet gaan doen, maar later zal ik deze post wat verder uitbreiden en zo kort en bondig mogelijk laten zien waar de gevaren van dit manifest precies liggen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 juli 2011 23:11 schreef Hoppahoppa het volgende:
Over ideology en Marxisme. Mogelijk interessant voor dit topic, om het te plaatsen in de huidige gebeurtenissen. De komende passage kwam ik tegen in het Manifest van Breivik.

Hij schrijft hiervoor dat ideologie (en dan met name de sociaal democratische/marxistische ideologie) de oorzaak is van islamisering. Vervolgens gaat hij daar op door:

[..]

edit: shit, dat is meer tekst dan ik dacht.

quote:

Rather, those who would defeat cultural Marxism must defy it. They must use words it
forbids, and refuse to use the words it mandates; remember, sex is better than gender.
They must shout from the housetops the realities it seeks to suppress, such as our
opposition to Sharia on a national and local level, the Islamisation of our countries, the
facts that violent crime is disproportionately committed by Muslims and that most cases
of AIDS are voluntary, i.e., acquired from immoral sexual acts. They must refuse to turn
their children over to public schools.
Above all, those who would defy Political Correctness must behave according to the old
rules of our culture, not the new rules the cultural Marxists lay down. Ladies should be
wives and homemakers, not cops or soldiers, and men should still hold doors open for
ladies. Children should not be born out of wedlock. Glorification of homosexuality should
be shunned. Jurors should not accept Islam as an excuse for murder.

quote:

Op vrijdag 5 augustus 2011 14:15 schreef dadgad het volgende:
Ik trap deze super-op even omhoog.

quote:

Op vrijdag 5 augustus 2011 14:41 schreef Hoppahoppa het volgende:

[..]

Top! Ik hoop wel dat fledder nog terugkomt en de hoop op een intellectueel BNW-topic niet heeft opgegeven.

quote:

Op vrijdag 5 augustus 2011 14:58 schreef dadgad het volgende:

[..]

Ik ook, ik ook.

Wat denk jij trouwens, komt er een moslim-genocide hier in Nederland?

quote:

Op vrijdag 5 augustus 2011 15:17 schreef Hoppahoppa het volgende:

[..]

In ¨āʾ Allāh (ik hoop dat ik het goed schrijf...)?

Laten we vooral hopen van niet. Geeft zo'n rotzooi.

quote:

Op vrijdag 5 augustus 2011 16:19 schreef dadgad het volgende:

[..]

ach, dat kunnen de polen dan weer opruimen toch

quote:

Op vrijdag 5 augustus 2011 16:34 schreef Hoppahoppa het volgende:
Trouwens, ik denk niet dat dit topic ooit storm gaat lopen. Ik vrees dat 90% van BNW helemaal niet op dit topic zit te wachten. Dat blijkt ook wel, want op jouw reacties na is vrijwel alles wat hier gepost is off-topic. Jammer, want zoals Fledderjon al aangaf, het zou interessant zijn om ook de 'vaste BNW-mensen' hier in de discussie te zien.

Maar goed, ik denk dat het te hoog gegrepen is voor het merendeel.

quote:

Op zaterdag 6 augustus 2011 00:38 schreef dadgad het volgende:

[..]

tja, ik vrees van wel. BNW is een beetje een sensatie-forum lijkt het wel. Massa-genocides enzo

quote:

Op zaterdag 6 augustus 2011 06:36 schreef Fledderjon het volgende:

Ik krijg daarbij sterk het gevoel dat deze des-illusie of misschien wel desinteresse, de voornaamste drijfveer is achter vrijwel iedere allesomvattende BNW theorie. Altijd komt er een deus ex machina om de hoek kijken - disclaimer; nee ik lees niet alleen de MSM en ja, ik ben bekent met de praktijken van de o.a. de Cia - waarmee dus nooit iets wordt opgelost.

quote:

Op maandag 8 augustus 2011 23:46 schreef Fledderjon het volgende:
Tsjah.. je hebt wel gelijk natuurlijk. Ik baal een beetje; aan het begin van de avond met een vrij uitgebreide reactie op Hoppa begonnen - met behoorlijk wat theoretische uiteenzetting, bronnen en aangehaalde citaten van o.a. Isaiah Berlin - maar helaas.. één verkeerde beweging en alles was weg. Ben voor vandaag wel even uitgedacht

Het probleem is ook dat het meeste waar ik over zou willen discussiëren enige theoretische achtergrond/onderbouwing vraagt, wat leid tot post die misschien meer thuis horen in Fil of Pol.

Terwijl het evengoed BNW gerelateerd blijft - en ik natuurlijk juist over dat gedeelte zou willen praten..

Laat dit topic anders simpelweg een vrije associatie verzamelplaats zijn, en mocht je denken - dit wil ik er persoonlijk uit pikken! - maak er een topic over desnoods met verwijzing in de OP naar dit topic. Zelf heb ik ook nog wat ideeën voor topics, maar ik moet even de tijd vinden om een degelijke OP ervoor te maken. Komt wel goed!