I am deeply concerned about current events. It has become clear to me that Marxist ideals have become more strongly embedded, embraced and applied than I suspected possible. I don’t think this a conspiracy and I’ll explain why and how. I am sorry that this is long, but if you care about liberty, I think this is very important to consider.
I am not talking specifically about an overt push for hammer and sickle Leninism. Although I suppose that’s what some would like to see. What I am talking about is much more insidious and subversive.
I want to be clear that I am an independent. I consider myself more libertarian leaning than anything. Some of the resources I use in this write up are definitively conservative in nature. This is really because it’s mostly conservatives calling out the ridiculousness of all of this. However, there are some liberals defending reason, such as Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker and the two academics talking with Joe Rogan I cite below.
Awhile back, during an interview, U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez criticized people for being more concerned about being "factually correct" than "morally right.” Most rational people thought this was absurd. Some people thought she was being stupid. But she isn’t saying this stuff because she’s dumb. She’s saying it because these are the ideals she was taught and the lens through which she sees the world. Truth is subjective. Morality is relative.
Greg Gutfeld touched on the impact of Marxist ideas during a recent monologue. What’s right or wrong isn’t determined by objective truth or firm moral principles; it’s established by who believe they are the most aggrieved. The ultimate result when these ideas go unchecked is the justification and proliferation of widespread destruction and violence.
Now, those who have been paying any attention at all to current events over the past several years have probably seen this sort of mentality demonstrated by young people, especially in college. Students need their “safe spaces,” because they feel marginalized, oppressed and, well, unsafe. They feel it’s a requirement - a right - to be insulated from ideas and actions they disagree with or cause them distress.
Not surprisingly, this has occurred in tandem with the promotion of the idea of “microaggressions.” Essentially, the idea is that words and subtle actions are “aggressive” or even “violent.”
Microaggression is a term used for brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioural, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative prejudicial slights and insults toward any group, particularly culturally marginalized groups
Microaggressions are experienced by most stigmatized individuals and occur on a regular basis. These can be particularly stressful for people on the receiving end as they are easily denied by those committing them. They are also harder to detect by members of the dominant culture, as they are often unaware they are causing harm.
Most rational people, after learning about these ideas, probably think, “How is it even possible others believe this stuff? It makes no sense.” It really doesn’t make any sense. But the reason these ideas are taught, embedded, embraced and applied has to do with Marxist theory and its influence.
I actually have two graduate degrees. I think the pursuit of higher knowledge is a great thing. Unfortunately, the institutions that teenagers and young adults attend to get taught this higher knowledge have, in many ways, been highjacked with Marxist thinking. This used to be hyperbole. But research has shown it is absolutely true.
More than 25 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the onset of market-economy practices in China, “The Communist Manifesto” still ranks among the three most frequently assigned texts at American universities
When I was in undergrad 15 years ago, what I saw wasn’t quite that pervasive. I mean, I was assigned books like The Jungle by socialist Upton Sinclair and fed certain related narratives, but it wasn’t so bad. Now it’s out of control.
I won’t claim to be an expert on any of these ideas. But I think I know enough about them to understand they are nonsense. I include links and videos so you can learn more about them yourself. These ideas and theories are widely taught and embedded in sociology, philosophy, history and English departments at universities across the country.
One of the first theories that is important to understand is that of postmodernism. It is important because this theory is literally the rejection of truth, reason, evidence and science. Truth is “subjective.”
Postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection toward what it describes as the grand narratives and ideologies associated with modernism, often criticizing Enlightenment rationality and focusing on the role of ideology in maintaining political or economic power. Postmodern thinkers frequently describe knowledge claims and value systems as contingent or socially-conditioned, describing them as products of political, historical, or cultural discourses and hierarchies. Common targets of postmodern criticism include universalist ideas of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, science, language, and social progress. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to self-consciousness, self-referentiality, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, and irreverence.
Next, is the idea of “intersectionality.” Broadly, it’s the idea that people should not be looked at as individuals. Instead, they should be viewed through the lens of how people are “oppressed” by others who have “power over them.”
Intersectionality is a qualitative analytic framework developed in the late 20th century that identifies how interlocking systems of power affect those who are most marginalized in society and takes these relationships into account when working to promote social and political equity. Intersectionality opposes analytical systems that treat each oppressive factor in isolation…
The last theory I’ll point out is called critical theory. This one is especially important to be aware of because it expressly supports using violence and suppression towards and of opposing groups. The idea is basically that society is in a constant power struggle and that the oppressed must fight against their oppressors.
Critical theory is the reflective assessment and critique of society and culture to reveal and challenge power structures. It argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors. Critical theory has origins in sociology and also in literary criticism. The sociologist Max Horkheimer described a theory as critical insofar as it seeks "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them.”
As a side note, I do not necessarily represent or endorse Quillette. Nor did I learn about these ideas from them. But I found the articles to be some of the best at explaining these ideas a little further.
These are all things that college students are taught. Worse, however, is that these ideas are embedded in other, larger lessons. The reimagining of history, etc. They continue to be seeded and embedded.
These theories have manifested themselves in other theories and calls to action. Two somewhat intertwined ideas are those of unconscious racism and institutional racism. No longer is racism objective, observable and measurable. Now it’s an invisible boogeyman all people are born with for which we have to continually repent and apologize for. Any discrepancy in success or prowess can only be explained by racism, discrimination and oppression. The best part is, because it’s unconscious, unintentional and systemic (as opposed to individual), no one can successfully prove they aren’t racist. Add on top of it the accepted notion that reality, facts and logic are subjective, and you are literally never going to win. It doesn’t matter what evidence or reason you present, you can never substantially prove you aren’t racist. Keep in mind that facts and data actually don’t support these things. But it doesn’t matter.
There are some academics out there who have pushed back against this garbage. One is Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker. He’s a liberal, but he defends the ideas of reason and science.
The struggle has continued ever since, with the Enlightenment being blamed for racism, imperialism and Nazi eugenics by critics from the left, and by the right for the moral void of atheism and materialism that found its murderous apogee in the Soviet Union and communist China. More recently, postmodernists have looked upon the Enlightenment as yet another false grand narrative, in which humanism, science and reason are just more belief systems, no more nor less valid than any others.
Pinker rejects all three positions. Far from sanctioning racism or nazism, he says, the Enlightenment laid the philosophical groundwork for universalism, the belief in equal rights for all, which ultimately triumphed over fascism and imperialism. Pinker argues that the inspiration for Nazi ideology should be more appropriately traced to Friedrich Nietzsche, who attacked the Enlightenment’s dependence on reason and argued for a “will to power” and the idea of “übermensch”, or superman. Nietzsche’s supporters won’t take that lying down.
Others include Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay.
Two years ago, Andrew Sullivan reported on the proliferation of these ideas on college campuses and how they were spilling out into the real world.
And, sure enough, the whole concept of an individual who exists apart from group identity is slipping from the discourse. The idea of individual merit — as opposed to various forms of unearned “privilege” — is increasingly suspect. The Enlightenment principles that formed the bedrock of the American experiment — untrammeled free speech, due process, individual (rather than group) rights — are now routinely understood as mere masks for “white male” power, code words for the oppression of women and nonwhites. Any differences in outcome for various groups must always be a function of “hate,” rather than a function of nature or choice or freedom or individual agency. And anyone who questions these assertions is obviously a white supremacist himself.
Personally, I started to realize all of this was at play in a larger sense when the rioting took off across the country. Many reasonable people supported the idea of protesting, but condemned the destruction, theft and violence. But I started noticing people who lauded those things. I was astonished. When I saw people point out the insanity, they were told that, unless they were black, they cannot comment. They are unable to understand, because they have privilege and power. They have not been oppressed. And violence and destruction is how the oppressed must voice themselves. Additionally, no one can say that destruction and violence is objectively wrong. There is no objective truth. Everyone has their own truth. I was seeing these responses from people I know and from random people on social media.
A recent Wall Street Journal article highlighted some parallels between current events and the first Russian revolution, which set the stage for communism.
The answer to these things, of course, is complete and widespread transformation of our society and economy. Top down, centrally planned. Light socialism at best, communism at worst.
We’re seeing this with groups like Antifa. If you don’t know who Antifa is, they’re an extremist and violent far left group whose supposed aim is to fight fascism. But, as we’ve learned, there is no objective truth. So they can label whomever they want as racist and fascist. And, again, as we learned, they’re justified in using violence against those people however they see fit.
The current political climate increases the chances of violent confrontations at protests and rallies. Antifa have expanded their definition of fascist/fascism to include not just white supremacists and other extremists, but also many conservatives and supporters of President Trump. In Berkeley, for example, some antifa were captured on video harassing Trump supporters with no known extremist connections. Antifa have also falsely characterized some recent right wing rallies as “Nazi” events, even though they were not actually white supremacist in nature.
I think members of Antifa are more widespread than previously thought. Trump just classified them as a terrorist group. There are images and video of them taking place in riots and protests across the county.
Three people have been arrested for looting, burglarizing and damaging property at an Austin Target store, according to the FBI.
The three individuals are known members of the anti-government group ANTIFA, FBI officials said.
Antifa generally presents as a sad group of young, professionally unsuccessful basement dwellers. However, the tactics and behavior they engage in aren’t limited to that demographic. In New York, two lawyers who graduated from prestigious universities were arrested for throwing Molotov cocktails at police. While they haven’t been explicitly linked to Antifa, the similarities of their ideals and actions is striking.
The pair took to the streets on May 29 with thousands of New Yorkers who were voicing their outrage over Mr. Floyd’s death. But after midnight, police officers spotted them in a tan minivan driving through the Fort Greene neighborhood of Brooklyn. At one point, Ms. Rahman climbed out, walked toward an empty police patrol car and threw a Molotov cocktail through its broken window, prosecutors said.
But to be honest, I don’t think they are the main threat. I think the main threat is that increasingly more average people are starting to believe in and defend applications of these Marxist ideas. They may not perpetrate the violence, but they excuse and defend it.
That’s why wanton destruction and violence is OK. It’s permitted to shoot police in the back of the head, blow them up with IED’s and throw Molotov cocktails at them.
Furthermore, what I find to be most frightening is that, as indicated in the Joe Rogan interview, these ideas reflect a strict, extremist religious fundamentalism. They reject reason and science. There is no logical rebuttal.
That’s why, when questioned about the ramifications of defunding the police, we’re not given an answer. We’re told we have privilege and we just have to accept our homes being broken into.
These leftists think that they're going to be living in a Socialist Utopia once they elect a deep state democrat who passes their wanted policies. They're basically handing their unalienable rights over: Don't want free speech, don't want guns, don't want right to private property, don't want right to practice certain religions, specifically christianity.
The powers that be are just hypnotizing them with unrealistic Socialist idealism.
Once they're in power it will be a police state.
I'm more concerned about when the pendulum comes the other way...
more and more we are being told that we are different from another. rather than focusing on what we have in common, the opposite is accentuated.
we are going to see a new era of racial Nationalist groups.
We are going to be more Balkanized and separated than ever.
I edited the topic to add some additional detail and to clarify my comment about religiosity. A friend told me that it sounded somewhat anti-religious and that was not my intent.
What concerns me is the left wing hate fueled derangement has led to domestic terrorism and they don't care. The Democrat party has become a real threat to the country
What concerns me is the left wing hate fueled derangement has led to domestic terrorism and they don't care. The Democrat party has become a real threat to the country
I am deeply concerned about current events. It has become clear to me that Marxist ideals have become more strongly embedded, embraced and applied than I suspected possible. I don’t think this a conspiracy and I’ll explain why and how. I am sorry that this is long, but if you care about liberty, I think this is very important to consider.
I am not talking specifically about an overt push for hammer and sickle Leninism. Although I suppose that’s what some would like to see. What I am talking about is much more insidious and subversive.
I want to be clear that I am an independent. I consider myself more libertarian leaning than anything. Some of the resources I use in this write up are definitively conservative in nature. This is really because it’s mostly conservatives calling out the ridiculousness of all of this. However, there are some liberals defending reason, such as Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker and the two academics talking with Joe Rogan I cite below.
Awhile back, during an interview, U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez criticized people for being more concerned about being "factually correct" than "morally right.” Most rational people thought this was absurd. Some people thought she was being stupid. But she isn’t saying this stuff because she’s dumb. She’s saying it because these are the ideals she was taught and the lens through which she sees the world. Truth is subjective. Morality is relative.
Greg Gutfeld touched on the impact of Marxist ideas during a recent monologue. What’s right or wrong isn’t determined by objective truth or firm moral principles; it’s established by who believe they are the most aggrieved. The ultimate result when these ideas go unchecked is the justification and proliferation of widespread destruction and violence.
Now, those who have been paying any attention at all to current events over the past several years have probably seen this sort of mentality demonstrated by young people, especially in college. Students need their “safe spaces,” because they feel marginalized, oppressed and, well, unsafe. They feel it’s a requirement - a right - to be insulated from ideas and actions they disagree with or cause them distress.
Not surprisingly, this has occurred in tandem with the promotion of the idea of “microaggressions.” Essentially, the idea is that words and subtle actions are “aggressive” or even “violent.”
Most rational people, after learning about these ideas, probably think, “How is it even possible others believe this stuff? It makes no sense.” It really doesn’t make any sense. But the reason these ideas are taught, embedded, embraced and applied has to do with Marxist theory and its influence.
I actually have two graduate degrees. I think the pursuit of higher knowledge is a great thing. Unfortunately, the institutions that teenagers and young adults attend to get taught this higher knowledge have, in many ways, been highjacked with Marxist thinking. This used to be hyperbole. But research has shown it is absolutely true.
When I was in undergrad 15 years ago, what I saw wasn’t quite that pervasive. I mean, I was assigned books like The Jungle by socialist Upton Sinclair and fed certain related narratives, but it wasn’t so bad. Now it’s out of control.
I won’t claim to be an expert on any of these ideas. But I think I know enough about them to understand they are nonsense. I include links and videos so you can learn more about them yourself. These ideas and theories are widely taught and embedded in sociology, philosophy, history and English departments at universities across the country.
One of the first theories that is important to understand is that of postmodernism. It is important because this theory is literally the rejection of truth, reason, evidence and science. Truth is “subjective.”
Next, is the idea of “intersectionality.” Broadly, it’s the idea that people should not be looked at as individuals. Instead, they should be viewed through the lens of how people are “oppressed” by others who have “power over them.”
It's an interesting read, although I admit to skimming sections of it (I mean it's fucking long, lol).
I would be inclined to agree with the general sentiment if the lens was properly attuned to society as a whole and not just to those groups advocating progressive change. Here's what I see, I see an increased push for individual group recognition. But I don't think that's happening in a vacuum. When I look at the corporate side of the ledger, we're seeing a greater and greater entrenchment of corporate interests and upper class interests in the economic and political fabric of our society. In response to this, there's a parallel increase in the marginalized groups attempting to have their status elevated and protected so that they are not economically and socially banished to the basement of the country.
A conversation about the left and intersectionality and discussions of race and all of that other stuff cannot happen in a vacuum that ignores the destruction of labor rights, the stagnation of the working wage, outsourcing, and other corporate driven initiatives that work to deprive the lower rungs of society of the same opportunity that the upper rungs enjoy.
And when the lower rungs bring up these inequities in the system, they are marginalized on the basis of race and gender. Of course, they're going to respond in the language of race and gender since it is the language through which the destruction of their opportunities is justified. If a person is told that they're not worthy of something because of some characteristic (race, gender, age, alienage, height, weight, etc.), they are going to respond in the context of that characteristic. It is inevitable.
These leftists think that they're going to be living in a Socialist Utopia once they elect a deep state democrat who passes their wanted policies. They're basically handing their unalienable rights over: Don't want free speech, don't want guns, don't want right to private property, don't want right to practice certain religions, specifically christianity.
The powers that be are just hypnotizing them with unrealistic Socialist idealism.
Once they're in power it will be a police state.
This is exactly the far right position I was talking about. You just said earlier you aren't against high taxes vs the rich and a strong social safety net. But here you are contradicting that.
I am deeply concerned about current events. It has become clear to me that Marxist ideals have become more strongly embedded, embraced and applied than I suspected possible. I don’t think this a conspiracy and I’ll explain why and how. I am sorry that this is long, but if you care about liberty, I think this is very important to consider.
I am not talking specifically about an overt push for hammer and sickle Leninism. Although I suppose that’s what some would like to see. What I am talking about is much more insidious and subversive.
I want to be clear that I am an independent. I consider myself more libertarian leaning than anything. Some of the resources I use in this write up are definitively conservative in nature. This is really because it’s mostly conservatives calling out the ridiculousness of all of this. However, there are some liberals defending reason, such as Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker and the two academics talking with Joe Rogan I cite below.
Awhile back, during an interview, U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez criticized people for being more concerned about being "factually correct" than "morally right.” Most rational people thought this was absurd. Some people thought she was being stupid. But she isn’t saying this stuff because she’s dumb. She’s saying it because these are the ideals she was taught and the lens through which she sees the world. Truth is subjective. Morality is relative.
Greg Gutfeld touched on the impact of Marxist ideas during a recent monologue. What’s right or wrong isn’t determined by objective truth or firm moral principles; it’s established by who believe they are the most aggrieved. The ultimate result when these ideas go unchecked is the justification and proliferation of widespread destruction and violence.
Now, those who have been paying any attention at all to current events over the past several years have probably seen this sort of mentality demonstrated by young people, especially in college. Students need their “safe spaces,” because they feel marginalized, oppressed and, well, unsafe. They feel it’s a requirement - a right - to be insulated from ideas and actions they disagree with or cause them distress.
Not surprisingly, this has occurred in tandem with the promotion of the idea of “microaggressions.” Essentially, the idea is that words and subtle actions are “aggressive” or even “violent.”
Most rational people, after learning about these ideas, probably think, “How is it even possible others believe this stuff? It makes no sense.” It really doesn’t make any sense. But the reason these ideas are taught, embedded, embraced and applied has to do with Marxist theory and its influence.
I actually have two graduate degrees. I think the pursuit of higher knowledge is a great thing. Unfortunately, the institutions that teenagers and young adults attend to get taught this higher knowledge have, in many ways, been highjacked with Marxist thinking. This used to be hyperbole. But research has shown it is absolutely true.
When I was in undergrad 15 years ago, what I saw wasn’t quite that pervasive. I mean, I was assigned books like The Jungle by socialist Upton Sinclair and fed certain related narratives, but it wasn’t so bad. Now it’s out of control.
I won’t claim to be an expert on any of these ideas. But I think I know enough about them to understand they are nonsense. I include links and videos so you can learn more about them yourself. These ideas and theories are widely taught and embedded in sociology, philosophy, history and English departments at universities across the country.
One of the first theories that is important to understand is that of postmodernism. It is important because this theory is literally the rejection of truth, reason, evidence and science. Truth is “subjective.”
Next, is the idea of “intersectionality.” Broadly, it’s the idea that people should not be looked at as individuals. Instead, they should be viewed through the lens of how people are “oppressed” by others who have “power over them.”
Rousseau, however, acknowledged that "natural inequality" existed as far as men's natural-born talents.
In that sense, I suppose, he was not necessarily for "equality of outcome" and more so just equality of opportunity. In any case, his arguments were quite outrageous for the time (Europe residing under the rule of "divine" monarchs as well as a strict aristocratic hierarchy).
Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
