marxist and liberalists (progressives)

by Guest Wed Apr 02, 2014 8:54 pm

First topic message reminder :

the unstated marxist agenda, well understood and approved of by the liberalists (progressives), in lieu of anything intelligent of their own

The creation of racism offences yup, done
Continual change to create confusion yup, done
The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children yup, done
The undermining of schools' and teachers' authority yup, done by 1973
Huge immigration to destroy identity well on its way
The promotion of excessive drinking yup, another one ticked off
Emptying of churches we are getting there
An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime yup, done
Dependency on the state or state benefits yup, done but its costing too much, so we will demonise the poor instead
Control and dumbing down of media achieved years ago, but increasing
Encouraging the breakdown of the family[1] we are getting there

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 04, 2014 11:25 am

victorisnotamused wrote:the unstated marxist agenda, well understood and approved of by the liberalists (progressives), in lieu of anything intelligent of their own

The creation of racism offences yup, done
Continual change to create confusion yup, done
The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children yup, done
The undermining of schools' and teachers' authority yup, done by 1973
Huge immigration to destroy identity well on its way
The promotion of excessive drinking yup, another one ticked off
Emptying of churches we are getting there
An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime yup, done
Dependency on the state or state benefits yup, done but its costing too much, so we will demonise the poor instead
Control and dumbing down of media achieved years ago, but increasing
Encouraging the breakdown of the family[1] we are getting there

What is Marxist about this list? That's a genuine question - I think you need to explain the point you're making.

by Eilzel Fri Apr 04, 2014 11:50 am

There is no point. I like Vic, I consider him a friend and we get on great even if we do disagree on a lot.

But this is nothing more than an old fashioned grumble at the terrible 'modern world'. While attempting to make it look like an utterly unrelated list of modern developments in society are in fact the workings of some malevolent ideologues out to break down society- apparently the very noble causes of equality fought for by millions world wide for instance are in fact just a sinister agenda by sine power mad Marxists (who was obviously repulsed by equality... Wait what?...)

I think it relates to the Frankfurt school of bullshit and paranoia Smile

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 04, 2014 11:58 am

Eilzel wrote:There is no point. I like Vic, I consider him a friend and we get on great even if we do disagree on a lot.

But this is nothing more than an old fashioned grumble at the terrible 'modern world'. While attempting to make it look like an utterly unrelated list of modern developments in society are in fact the workings of some malevolent ideologues out to break down society- apparently the very noble causes of equality fought for by millions world wide for instance are in fact just a sinister agenda by sine power mad Marxists (who was obviously repulsed by equality... Wait what?...)

I think it relates to the Frankfurt school of bullshit and paranoia

I agreed with you previous post, and I think this list is a bit of a hotch potch. That's why I'm asking Victor what the point of it is, and what is the Marxist agenda. Is it to do with controlling the masses?

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 11:59 am

Joy Division wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:go on JD ...what is "racist" on that list???

Identify it...clearly and explain why it is so....I dare you

dont do a didge...and post nothing but rhetoric.....but a cogent reasoning why....

THEN go on and explain i the same way, why anything in my comments is against the poor and benefits claiment....

BUT ....I suggest you read my reasoning reply to EIL......FIRST....

or I'll eat you....

You can start with the creation of racial offences...

So you believe Muslims , blacks and others don't deserve to be protected form racism?or acts of racial violence?...

What the hell is wrong with you man?

Now ...Lets look at this....

do we or do we not have laws that protect (supposedly) people against assault (of all degrees)?

are they or are they not "sufficient" (personally i think not in general...for EVERYONE)

NOW...what does making an assault "racially aggravated" actually achieve??

what ACTUALLY constitutes "racially aggravated" ???

two blokes of "different races" (note the inverted commas didge) get into a fight....

one calls the other a f**King (whatever) does that make it racially aggravated...the law certainly seems to think so....and the law is wrong.

why....because the aim of insult in a fight is to enrage your opponent to the point he fights less well....It doesnt imply that you think less well of ALL in his "group"

I mean...I might call a white guy an ugly fat bstard...does that imply I "hate" all ugly or fat people....ell I aint no oil painting mesself, and I'm a bit tubby....so?????? No I say it to "wind him up till he explodes".....hes then easier to deal with....(not btw that I get "into it" these days...a few years back...different story, but even then only in defence)

get that??

What do you achieve with tagging an assault as "racially aggravated" (and dont missunderstand...I KNOW there are pillocks out there who DO attack people simply because they are "different" I.E hate crimes....)

I dont see that actually achieves much...ok you might "molify" the aggrieved party, but I dont really think so...you WILL certainly serve to confirm to the "hater" that his twisted view is actually right....instead...just lock the nasty sod up for 30 years.....

Of course SOME offences are PURELY "hate" crimes and are of sufficient severity as to involve "peopleS" as opposed to "people"....(bombings, race riots etc)but these should be dealt with distinctly from "racism" and on an equal footing regardless of which group is the perpetrator....

The problem of course is the PERCEPTION of these laws....they are Not applied evenly, they are by their very nature "positive discrimination" and there should be NO discrimination...

the Law allows these "racial offences" to be misused and hence have a "chilling effect" on open debate and disagreement (which is what the "progressives" want)
The law should protect everyone...equally, without favour.

therein lies the problem...

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:00 pm

Eilzel wrote:There is no point. I like Vic, I consider him a friend and we get on great even if we do disagree on a lot.

But this is nothing more than an old fashioned grumble at the terrible 'modern world'. While attempting to make it look like an utterly unrelated list of modern developments in society are in fact the workings of some malevolent ideologues out to break down society- apparently the very noble causes of equality fought for by millions world wide for instance are in fact just a sinister agenda by sine power mad Marxists (who was obviously repulsed by equality... Wait what?...)

I think it relates to the Frankfurt school of bullshit and paranoia

:::grouch:: :::grouch::

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:01 pm

If this is a debate about the need to add the racially aggravated bit onto the crime of assault, I understand what Victor is saying. What I don't know is what it has to do with Marxism.

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:12 pm

Victor ..I've read your post..and I do see what you mean.

When you said for instance,mod one had been called a fat ugly bastard and so on, yes..that is abuse, but no more than that..

Now say you have a white lad, sees three shops, two of which are run by white people and the other is run by a Pakistani family..the white lad chooses to go into the Pakistani shop and cause havoc by knocking things off shelves and shouting racist derogatory remarks because this family are Pakistani...

This is racist behavior surely not Victor?

The singling out of ethnic minorities...

And I also say this....if it were the other way around an a young Asian lad went into a shop where white people run the shop and chose to behave in exactly the same way...that would ALSO be racist behavior..
But you said that the laws are basically not applied evenly or fairly?...

Do you think that if the latte happened Victor, that the authorities would not act?..and that the Asian lad would not be charged?..

Im interested to see your opinion of the latter in particular Vic.

I'm sorry I called you assholes or whatever, but can you see why I would think that?

We both said not very nice things Victor, I've always known you to be one of the good guys.

But I get the impression you think our laws suit ethnic minorities and foreigners above our own people?

As for hate crimes, well so many thing s can come under that category...

If say a fat Pakistani lad was called a fat bastard, and only that...then there should be no charges of racism brought forward...but should there be a derogatory term just after the word fat, like p**i bastard, then that does change it.

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:24 pm

Why isn't singling out someone for being ugly or fat not as bad though?

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:27 pm

Joy Division wrote:Victor ..I've read your post..and I do see what you mean.

When you said for instance,mod one had been called a fat ugly bastard and so on, yes..that is abuse, but no more than that..

Now say you have a white lad, sees three shops, two of which are run by white people and the other is run by a Pakistani family..the white lad chooses to go into the Pakistani shop and cause havoc by knocking things off shelves and shouting racist derogatory remarks because this family are Pakistani...

This is racist behavior surely not Victor?

The singling out of ethnic minorities...

And I also say this....if it were the other way around an a young Asian lad went into a shop where white people run the shop and chose to behave in exactly the same way...that would ALSO be racist behavior..
But you said that the laws are basically not applied evenly or fairly?...

Do you think that if the latte happened Victor, that the authorities would not act?..and that the Asian lad would not be charged?..

Yes he would, but , and heres the rub....it would be with the simple charge of criminal damage...It is MOST unlikely he would be charged with racially aggravated criminal damage...AND THAT stands up to scrutiny ....

Im interested to see your opinion of the latter in particular Vic.

I'm sorry I called you assholes or whatever, but can you see why I would think that?

We both said not very nice things Victor, I've always known you to be one of the good guys.

But I get the impression you think our laws suit ethnic minorities and foreigners above our own people?

Not all....and many times the "plain law" (as opposed to race law) is used unfairly the other way

As for hate crimes, well so many thing s can come under that category...

If say a fat Pakistani lad was called a fat bastard, and only that...then there should be no charges of racism brought forward...but should there be a derogatory term just after the word fat, like p**i bastard, then that does change it.

Why? both are factually true...and your aim in conflict is to hurt your opponents feelings...so......I dont beleive (in the majority of such "simple" conflicts) there IS a racist intent

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:28 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Why isn't singling out someone for being ugly or fat not as bad though?

depends on the context....which the law often doesnt take notice of....which then makes things worse

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:32 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Joy Division wrote:Victor ..I've read your post..and I do see what you mean.

When you said for instance,mod one had been called a fat ugly bastard and so on, yes..that is abuse, but no more than that..

Now say you have a white lad, sees three shops, two of which are run by white people and the other is run by a Pakistani family..the white lad chooses to go into the Pakistani shop and cause havoc by knocking things off shelves and shouting racist derogatory remarks because this family are Pakistani...

This is racist behavior surely not Victor?

The singling out of ethnic minorities...

And I also say this....if it were the other way around an a young Asian lad went into a shop where white people run the shop and chose to behave in exactly the same way...that would ALSO be racist behavior..
But you said that the laws are basically not applied evenly or fairly?...

Do you think that if the latte happened Victor, that the authorities would not act?..and that the Asian lad would not be charged?..

Yes he would, but , and heres the rub....it would be with the simple charge of criminal damage...It is MOST unlikely he would be charged with racially aggravated criminal damage...AND THAT stands up to scrutiny ....

Im interested to see your opinion of the latter in particular Vic.

I'm sorry I called you assholes or whatever, but can you see why I would think that?

We both said not very nice things Victor, I've always known you to be one of the good guys.

But I get the impression you think our laws suit ethnic minorities and foreigners above our own people?

Not all....and many times the "plain law" (as opposed to race law) is used unfairly the other way

As for hate crimes, well so many thing s can come under that category...

If say a fat Pakistani lad was called a fat bastard, and only that...then there should be no charges of racism brought forward...but should there be a derogatory term just after the word fat, like p**i bastard, then that does change it.

Why? both are factually true...and your aim in conflict is to hurt your opponents feelings...so......I dont beleive (in the majority of such "simple" conflicts) there IS a racist intent

I hear you about race laws only applying one way Victor...

But what about the cops involved in the Stephen Lawrence murder?, some of them were racist would you agree?..they were genuinely racist in that they tried to say it was not the guys who killed him,when all along it was.

They were trying to cover it up were they not?

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:34 pm

Victor I get the impression that you think that our laws only favour black people?

I don't mean anything bad by that btw, I just think you seem pissed off with our laws as they favour others?

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:37 pm

Joy Division wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:go on JD ...what is "racist" on that list???

Identify it...clearly and explain why it is so....I dare you

dont do a didge...and post nothing but rhetoric.....but a cogent reasoning why....

THEN go on and explain i the same way, why anything in my comments is against the poor and benefits claiment....

BUT ....I suggest you read my reasoning reply to EIL......FIRST....

or I'll eat you....

You can start with the creation of racial offences...

So you believe Muslims , blacks and others don't deserve to be protected form racism?or acts of racial violence?...

What the hell is wrong with you man?

Don't forget white people - they deserve to be protected from racism and acts of racial violence too don't they?

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:39 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

You can start with the creation of racial offences...

So you believe Muslims , blacks and others don't deserve to be protected form racism?or acts of racial violence?...

What the hell is wrong with you man?

Don't forget white people - they deserve to be protected from racism and acts of racial violence too don't they?

..I never said they didn't , if you look back at one of my posts ..I say just that!

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:41 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

You can start with the creation of racial offences...

So you believe Muslims , blacks and others don't deserve to be protected form racism?or acts of racial violence?...

What the hell is wrong with you man?

Don't forget white people - they deserve to be protected from racism and acts of racial violence too don't they?

..just a shame your Christianity only extends to white people Raggy Rolling Eyes

..you seem to dislike non whites sadly. Sad

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:42 pm

Joy Division wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

I hear you about race laws only applying one way Victor...

But what about the cops involved in the Stephen Lawrence murder?, some of them were racist would you agree?..they were genuinely racist in that they tried to say it was not the guys who killed him,when all along it was.

They were trying to cover it up were they not?

That's a whole new topic in itself. I'm not convinced the police were racist. I think it all went wrong at the start with the decision to put those boys under surveillance, which then went wrong. However, it will have to wait as I have to go out soon.

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:43 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Don't forget white people - they deserve to be protected from racism and acts of racial violence too don't they?

..just a shame your Christianity only extends to white people Raggy

It doesn't, it's just that you forgot to mention white people, which suggests that you think they don't deserve equal protection to non-white people. Is that the case, or do you think that only white people can be racist?

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:44 pm

Joy Division wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

I hear you about race laws only applying one way Victor...

But what about the cops involved in the Stephen Lawrence murder?, some of them were racist would you agree?..they were genuinely racist in that they tried to say it was not the guys who killed him,when all along it was.

They were trying to cover it up were they not?

Yes they wer guilty of wrong doing...they attempted "for whatever reason...to cover up a crime...to deliberately mis investigate a crime....

NOW should they get a heavier sentence in court than the ones who did EXACTLY the same at hilsborough ???? simply because the victim was a black individual...??????

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:45 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

I hear you about race laws only applying one way Victor...

But what about the cops involved in the Stephen Lawrence murder?, some of them were racist would you agree?..they were genuinely racist in that they tried to say it was not the guys who killed him,when all along it was.

They were trying to cover it up were they not?

That's a whole new topic in itself. I'm not convinced the police were racist. I think it all went wrong at the start with the decision to put those boys under surveillance, which then went wrong. However, it will have to wait as I have to go out soon.

Ah fuck off Raggy..tour not convinced the police were racist...

You would say that, different the other way around though...
See that's what pisses me off, people who see only what they want to see..one way like you know.

This should be riveting ..do hurry back if you can.

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:46 pm

Joy Division wrote:Victor I get the impression that you think that our laws only favour black people?

I don't mean anything bad by that btw, I just think you seem pissed off with our laws as they favour others?

they shouldnt favour anyone.....All should be equal before the law....its just that some are more equal.....

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:47 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

That's a whole new topic in itself. I'm not convinced the police were racist. I think it all went wrong at the start with the decision to put those boys under surveillance, which then went wrong. However, it will have to wait as I have to go out soon.

Ah fuck off Raggy..tour not convinced the police were racist...

You would say that, different the other way around though...
See that's what pisses me off, people who see only what they want to see..one way like you know.

This should be riveting ..do hurry back if you can.

I've read the MacPherson report. Have you? I see what I see in that report, whereas you just see what you were told to see.

There's some interesting stuff in it involving another "gang" which were apparently in the area at the time.

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:48 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

I hear you about race laws only applying one way Victor...

But what about the cops involved in the Stephen Lawrence murder?, some of them were racist would you agree?..they were genuinely racist in that they tried to say it was not the guys who killed him,when all along it was.

They were trying to cover it up were they not?

Yes they wer guilty of wrong doing...they attempted "for whatever reason...to cover up a crime...to deliberately mis investigate a crime....

NOW should they get a heavier sentence in court than the ones who did EXACTLY the same at hilsborough ???? simply because the victim was a black individual...??????

I'm not saying that Victor, but the murder of the black lad was intentional, whereas Hillsborough was not a intended mass killing spree, but the police still lied and tried to cover it up, so of course that is still wrong and punishable ...

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:50 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Ah fuck off Raggy..tour not convinced the police were racist...

You would say that, different the other way around though...
See that's what pisses me off, people who see only what they want to see..one way like you know.

This should be riveting ..do hurry back if you can.

I've read the MacPherson report. Have you? I see what I see in that report, whereas you just see what you were told to see.

There's some interesting stuff in it involving another "gang" which were apparently in the area at the time.

The media coverage was enough for me, nobody twisted they lads arms to murder that black lad, and if you can't see that then what's the pint in arguing over it?..

You're bordering on justifying the actions of the police as well as those who killed him.

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:53 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I've read the MacPherson report. Have you? I see what I see in that report, whereas you just see what you were told to see.

There's some interesting stuff in it involving another "gang" which were apparently in the area at the time.

The media coverage was enough for me, nobody twisted they lads arms to murder that black lad, and if you can't see that then what's the pint in arguing over it?..

You're bordering on justifying the actions of the police as well as those who killed him.

Ah, media coverage. I thought you were a free thinker JD, not the sort of person who relied on the biased press.

I didn't say the perpetrators weren't racist.

If you fancy debating it, go and read the MacPherson report and then we can chat. It could take some time though, and you probably wouldn't be able to concentrate for long enough.

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:54 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Ah fuck off Raggy..tour not convinced the police were racist...

You would say that, different the other way around though...
See that's what pisses me off, people who see only what they want to see..one way like you know.

This should be riveting ..do hurry back if you can.

I've read the MacPherson report. Have you? I see what I see in that report, whereas you just see what you were told to see.

There's some interesting stuff in it involving another "gang" which were apparently in the area at the time.

How can you not just admit like Victor did that the police tried to cover up this murder as they were racist?

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:58 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

The media coverage was enough for me, nobody twisted they lads arms to murder that black lad, and if you can't see that then what's the pint in arguing over it?..

You're bordering on justifying the actions of the police as well as those who killed him.

Ah, media coverage. I thought you were a free thinker JD, not the sort of person who relied on the biased press.

I didn't say the perpetrators weren't racist.

If you fancy debating it, go and read the MacPherson report and then we can chat. It could take some time though, and you probably wouldn't be able to concentrate for long enough.

I am free thinker Raggy, combined with weighing up what a credible source puts out...

Only so much of the press is biased , like your fave daily mail, do you also admit the police were racist?

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:58 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I've read the MacPherson report. Have you? I see what I see in that report, whereas you just see what you were told to see.

There's some interesting stuff in it involving another "gang" which were apparently in the area at the time.

How can you not just admit like Victor did that the police tried to cover up this murder as they were racist?

Just to please you? I don't think so.

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:59 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Ah, media coverage. I thought you were a free thinker JD, not the sort of person who relied on the biased press.

I didn't say the perpetrators weren't racist.

If you fancy debating it, go and read the MacPherson report and then we can chat. It could take some time though, and you probably wouldn't be able to concentrate for long enough.

I am free thinker Raggy, combined with weighing up what a credible source puts out...

Only so much of the press is biased , like your fave daily mail, do you also admit the police were racist?

And yet you haven't read the actual report. You may speak to me about it when you've done so.

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:04 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

I am free thinker Raggy, combined with weighing up what a credible source puts out...

Only so much of the press is biased , like your fave daily mail, do you also admit the police were racist?

And yet you haven't read the actual report. You may speak to me about it when you've done so.

So the BBC, Sky and police investigations are all wrong then?

It's not to please me btw, it just shows how bitter and racist you are by not admitting police racism and cover ups....I dinny need to read any report to know that.

You would probably feel that by admitting that you had lost some kind of ridiculous game Rolling Eyes

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:04 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

I am free thinker Raggy, combined with weighing up what a credible source puts out...

Only so much of the press is biased , like your fave daily mail, do you also admit the police were racist?

And yet you haven't read the actual report. You may speak to me about it when you've done so.

Awa n' cash you're Giro.

by Tommy Monk Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:16 pm

See this has now been diverted to the saint Lawrence......

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:38 pm

Not really Tommy, Its to do with something far more important, JD finally gets it...i think

Its to do with the way "multicultural" issues are handled...not with individual rights and wrongs.

didge STILL cant grasp the idea that a concept may be flawed, even when its founding principles are good and noble, by its presentation and implementation and the interests of various parties with vested interests...

and he STILL cant grasp that calling folks nazis for disagreeing with his air headed solutionless "ideals" aint gaining any support....

and he STILL aint learned to read what is writ, rather than reading what he thinks is there"

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:42 pm

Joy Division wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

Yes they wer guilty of wrong doing...they attempted "for whatever reason...to cover up a crime...to deliberately mis investigate a crime....

NOW should they get a heavier sentence in court than the ones who did EXACTLY the same at hilsborough ???? simply because the victim was a black individual...??????

I'm not saying that Victor, but the murder of the black lad was intentional, whereas Hillsborough was not a intended mass killing spree, but the police still lied and tried to cover it up, so of course that is still wrong and punishable ...

the events are actually remote to the police.in the case of young Mr Lawrence, THEY didnt kill him....but they mis investigated and then covered up......
the events at Hillsborough however ARE DOWN TO THE POLICE....not murder admittedly, but increasingly looks like negligent homicide.........and they covered up

why is one different to the other, which is more severe...i say neither, both are disgusting in a supposedly "impartial "without fear or favour" police force....and both should be severely punished...to the same degree...

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:46 pm

Dear me, so again Victor has no answer, why is it that the Jews were once seen as incompatible with western ways and lives, when a substantial amount of Jews lived in Europe and for years they were persecuted and yet today, why has this view greatly changed?

Because in any faith many people are progressive and with Islam this is starting to happen also with many Muslims even more so in the west, but again people like Victor used out dated and old prejudice arguments because they live by fear and hate of others.

Our society and cultures has been and is continually changing and to claim it is eroding over an influx of new immigrants is abusrd, even more so when Muslims have been actually year for over 300 years. Again the fear arguments are played off those who do extremist actions to then club the rest together with fear, again an absurd argument one again used by the Nazi's onto the Jews.

This is one Victor has no argument he is a cultural pessimist.

I CULTURAL PESSIMISM AND THE ‘ISLAMISATION’ MYTH

Cultural pessimism has a long history and is perhaps most clearly represented today in the ‘Islamisation’ myth. A good example of contemporary cultural pessimism is found in the work of
Melanie Phillips. Phillips writes of a ‘world turned upside down’, the West ‘taking leave of its senses’ and an ‘age of irrationality’
in which the West is ‘sleepwalking into Islamisation’. She,
and other writers with a similar outlook, are self-styled ‘defenders of national identity and traditional morality’; voices crying in the wilderness of a civilisation in decline.

Such narratives of doom are persuasive because they offer easy explanations for the very real problems we face in modern society, yet they do so not by laying out a positive vision for the improvement of Western civilisation, but rather through a relentless condemnation of modernity as a degenerate negation of an imagined ideal culture of old. Such doom-laden assessments of the world have always been popular. Pessimism sells, and always has done. It is almost as though human beings thrive on fear and despair. As nothing is new about this, contemporary narratives of
‘Islamisation’ and Western decay have many historical antecedents. In the early Twentieth Century, Oswald Spengler wrote his influential text on ‘The Decline of the West’; today, Patrick Buchanan writes of ‘The Death of West’ and ‘How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Culture’.

In a CATO policy report paper, Tyler Cowen offers the following brief history of cultural
pessimism:

Cultural pessimism has been around as long as culture. Pessimistic attacks have been leveled for centuries, although the target has changed frequently. Many moralists and philosophers, including Plato, criticized theater and poetry for their corrupting influence. Books became a target after the onset of publishing. Eighteenth-century pessimists accused novels of preventing readers from thinking, preaching disobedience to parents (note the contradictory charges), undermining women’s sense of subservience, breaking down class distinctions, and making readers sick. Libraries, especially privately run circulating libraries, were another target.
Edward Mangin remarked in 1808, ‘There is scarcely a street of the metropolis, or a village in the country, in which a circulating library may not be found: nor is there a corner of the empire, where the English language is understood, that has not suffered from the effects of this institution’.

In the 18th and 19th centuries the targets included epistolary romances, newspapers, opera, the music hall, photography, and instrumental virtuosi, such as Liszt and Paganini. The 20th
century brought the scapegoats of radio, movies, modern art, professional sports, the automobile, television, rhythm and blues, rock ‘n’ roll, comic books, MTV music videos, and rap music. Each new medium or genre has been accused of corrupting youth and promoting excess sensuality, political subversion, and moral relativism.

Narratives of national and civilisational decline were widespread in the Nineteenth Century, as the rapid changes brought about by industrialisation and the growth of democracy invoked fears that a
traditional, morally and culturally pure order was under attack.

http://libcom.org/files/IslamisationMyth.pdf

by Tommy Monk Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:00 pm

More Didge waffle.....

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:01 pm

Bless another irrelevant counter from Tommy, no surpise there

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:18 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

And yet you haven't read the actual report. You may speak to me about it when you've done so.

So the BBC, Sky and police investigations are all wrong then?

It's not to please me btw, it just shows how bitter and racist you are by not admitting police racism and cover ups....I dinny need to read any report to know that.

You would probably feel that by admitting that you had lost some kind of ridiculous game

It's racist to question whether or not someone else is racist?

I think you're clutching at straws there JD. Twisted Evil

You made a decision without reading the report, which makes you a bit daft. You just went along with the majority - as usual.

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:18 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

And yet you haven't read the actual report. You may speak to me about it when you've done so.

Awa n' cash you're Giro.

I don't claim benefits - unlike you ....

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:25 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:More Didge waffle.....

wouldnt know...his irrelevant squirmings dont make my screen........

"This post was made by Didge who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post."

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 11:33 pm

Bless how to learn to copout from difficult debate in one lesson from Victor, run away!

by Tommy Monk Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:26 pm

Didge wrote:Bless how to learn to copout from difficult debate in one lesson from Victor, run away!

Debate with you is only difficult because you talk so much bullshit, dodge the issues and twist all over the place with irrelevant waffle!

by Guest Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:29 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge wrote:Bless how to learn to copout from difficult debate in one lesson from Victor, run away!

Debate with you is only difficult because you talk so much bullshit, dodge the issues and twist all over the place with irrelevant waffle!

Hilarious, this coming from the poster who says we will make up our own rulings on EU trade laws, thus destroying our nation.

If you have nothing of worth to say, then be a good chap and run along, your waffle and babble posts are boring

by Tommy Monk Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:40 pm

This from the man who thinks the sky will fall in if we leave the EU.....

by Guest Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:44 pm

Nope I do not think that, I think some UKIP supporters though have no understand of what happens when we do leave, like for example, the fact is if we do leave, to trade within the EU, we would still have to apply to EU trading laws, which means every business that resides here also has to.
So no points on the topic at hand then

by Tommy Monk Sat Apr 05, 2014 2:13 pm

Waffle!

by Guest Sat Apr 05, 2014 2:24 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Waffle!

Yes your last few posts have been and nothing about the thread, run along chap

::D::

by Tommy Monk Sat Apr 05, 2014 2:42 pm

You started it with your waffle.

This thread is about cultural marxism.

by Eilzel Sat Apr 05, 2014 2:58 pm

There is nothing to do with Marxism in this- even if it was an actual reflection of reality- the more you pervert the word 'Marxism' the you discredit your claims to knowledge of anything to do with politics.

by Tommy Monk Sat Apr 05, 2014 3:14 pm

Have you never heard of 'cultural marxism' or the Frankfurt school?

by Eilzel Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:43 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Have you never heard of 'cultural marxism' or the Frankfurt school?

I have heard of the Frankfurt school, victor directed us to it a few years ago. The fact is though is the attachment of the term 'Marxism' to anything conservatives don't like is purely a shallow attempt at using 'bogey man' labels to make something out of nothing.

by Sponsored content