Stefan Molyneux:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIAvljZnZhs

One explanation!

Political correctness is political way of “winning” an argument, not on the merits or logic or facts, but by forceful scorning and criticism.

Molyneux ‘s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIAvljZnZhs

covers the why for some political correctness.

The biggest problem with our society is self-interest. The public is easy to influence because they become excited about one thing at a time. The media has taught the public to listen to them. If you have a disaster or a trial all you must do to is put your best reporters, give them front and center coverage,the bulk of the reporting space, and public opinion will be on your side. Unfortunately despots like Joseph Goebbels who was the propaganda minister for Adolf Hitler, dragged humanity into World War 11 because they understood this. DT

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/07/a-wrinkle-in-time-is-a-disastrous-adaptation-of-lengles-book/

The mayor of Oakland needs to be charged criminally, in federal court……for aiding and abetting criminals.

That would bankrupt her and send a message to Californian swamp critters.

Mueller did it to Flynn…..fair’s fair on a turnaround.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/06/trump-doj-sues-california-over-interference-with-immigration-enforcement.html

Good morning Al, I appreciate your response.

So these links leave one wondering, is Cultural Marxism anything more than ‘fake news’ from the fevered imagination of the ‘alt-Right’?

Fair enough. I was left puzzling over it When I came across the term. The best exploration of the topic I have read is the link I have posted several times of William Lind’s ‘Who Stole our Culture?’
http://www.wnd.com/2007/05/41737/

So what are we to make of the culture wars the US has been going through for the past 50 years (surely these, at least, are not a figment of my imagination)? Are they some sort of organic evolution in our society, coming from the broader culture? Or are they a top-down phenomenon for the purpose of social engineering that promotes the interest of a select few at the expense of the many?

Did the decision in my small town in the American West to start teaching kindergartners that homosexuality is a normal, healthy option reflect the values and desires of the people in the town in general, or was it sneakily imposed on them?

Did ‘racist’ white America get bored with itself in the sixties and decide that the immigration quotas needed to be dramatically shifted in order to create a multi-cultural society? Or was this underhandedly imposed on them? Look into the identity of the politicians that sponsored this reform.

Is feminism a broad movement of women that promotes female interests? And if so, is it achieving its goal? If so, why are 25% of US women aged 40-60 on anti-depressants? Or is feminism an attack on feminine?

Who ever anticipated that feminism and ‘gay pride’ would evolve into the deconstruction of the very concept of gender? How is it that a very small deviant ‘gender dissident’ minority gets such a megaphone from the mass media?

Did we men come up with the terms ‘male privelege’ and ‘toxic masculinity’? If not, and we are so powerful and domineering, why do we permit those we ‘consider our inferiors’ to challenge us?

Circling back to ‘family values’, why are 2/3 of marriages ended by women? Is it toxic masculinity? Or is that women have been given the advantage in the courts so that if they don’t get their way, they have the option of leaving with the kids and collecting a check from the dismissed, indenture father? So has the institution of marriage just fallen into disrepair? Or has it been attacked?

How do these developments relate to the demographic issues in the Western world that have become so extreme that, for instance, if present trends continue Italians will be a minority in Italy by 2080?

Or, to sum it up, has the US just ‘gone insane’ or has it been ‘driven insane’? Both hypotheses ought to be entertained and put to the test, but obviously I have already concluded the latter.

My sense is the resistance to the latter hypothesis is that it leads to conclusions that we have been heavily conditioned to consider unacceptable. Because if there is a deliberate attack on traditional, white American culture, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that the Jewish-controlled mass media is not heavily involved in it, at the very least as accomplices. If you can conceive of any other possibility, please let me know.

Consider your own reaction to our discussion the other day Al, in which you misunderstood and misconstrued what we said to be Anti-jewish, and concluded by exhorting us to be more open-minded! No offense, but you need to take your own advice. I was the same. The first time someone in real life expressed similar ideas to me, I laughed at him. I hadn’t done any independent inquiry, but was sure that what I had been taught was right, and he was crazy. That was me being the opposite of open-minded.

In fact, the very point of the conversation was to clarify that while there is a very problematic gang of people who identify as ‘Jews’ running many key institutions and sectors of society for their own selfish advantage, they are not representative of all Jewry. Nor are they even Jewish in the sense we conceive of it, with roots in Israel, but rather are of central Asian extraction and converted to Judaism about 1200 years ago.

Why is it so hard to put this info on the table, explore it, and try to separate facts from disinformation? Why does it automatically provoke accusations of racism?

I’ve gone on more than long enough, but I’ll end by coming at it from a different angle.

If you learned that our mass media and financial system were controlled by people from a group who constitute only 2% of population–ethnic Russians, let’s say. Would it concern you at all? What if they controlled 4/9 of the Supreme court as well? What if they owned Youtube and started shutting down alternative information sources, some of which you had found to be very valuable? What if ethnic Russians were funding many hundreds of different think tanks and NGOs all with the purpose of influencing American political policies and culture? What if all American presidential candidates went to ‘ARPAC–the American Russian Political Action Committee’ to pay their respects, and Putin came to address the US congress and they gave him dozens of standing ovations? What if ethnic Russian Americans were 8x as likely to be admitted to the Ivy League as white or asian american applicants with the same qualifications? What if all the wars we had fought for the past 30 years had Russian instigators and redounded to the benefit of Russia more than the US itself? What if the Russian owned mass media made all these abuses possible through distorted coverage of them?

Would you be okay with that? Would it be off-limits to refer to the fact that they are Russian? Would pointing out that maybe half of the ‘criminals in suits’ were of this Russian mob be construed as anti-Russianism? Russophobia?

Bottom line, there are heinous abuses and crimes being committed by Jews, but people fear to state the truth because they will be viciously attacked with accusations of anti-semitism and racism. It’s time to stop giving these criminals that free pass.

Hmm..I didn’t wrap that up too well. Again:

…anti-Russianism? Russophobia?

What if you learned that there were a powerful, century-plus-year-old academic movement, spearheaded by ethnic Russian Americans, that had devoloped so many of the concepts that have roiled American society since WW2? Might you conclude that they were fomenting chaos in order to be able to continue their criminal rackets, and expand them?

Bottom line, there are heinous abuses and crimes being committed by Jews, but people fear to state the truth because they will be viciously attacked with accusations of anti-semitism and racism. It’s time to stop giving these criminals that free pass.

A couple more, more radical, but factual as far as I know.

What if the same small cultural group that was hugely disproportionately represented in the Bolshevik regime that slaughtered many millions of white Russian Christians, also holds hugely disproportionate power in the US, and is in the forefront of advocating gun control?

What if the Jewish media controls the national dialogue on race and uses their position to smear whites with collective guilt for slavery. but one looks into the history of the slave trade and finds that, as in most areas of commerce, Jews were dominant? What if they were responsible for a holocaust against Africans, but are covering up their responsibility and pawning it off on us? Can we talk about that, at least enough to figure out the truth of the matter? Or is that beyond the pale, and white Americans should forever submit when the race card is played?

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/03/05/exclusive-conservative-parkland-survivor-n2457366?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=

Final thought.

What if I’m right? The mind balks at the implications of what I say. But I do the best to follow where evidence leads me. I try to identify genuine puzzle pieces, lay them out on the table, and figure out what is the picture coming into view.

There is the term ‘red-pill rage’ for when the blinders come off. Many people would be in a lynching mood if they understood how heinous are the crimes of the so-called ‘elite’. So I understand the hesitance of many to touch this theme with a ten-foot pole.

Personally, I agree with Robert Steele’s view that the path ahead is something like a truth and reconciliation process. Because if I’m right, theses folks have caused World Wars in the past and would more than likely cause another if figuratively (or not-so) cornered by a lynch mob. It can certainly be argued that they are already waging a ‘next-gen WW3’. By ‘they’ I mean the whole corrupt lot of ‘elites’ playing masters of the universe, not just the subset of that crowd that you are reluctant to believe plays key roles.

Sorry if I hurt anyone’s sensibilities. What’s the alternative? Silently sinking into a homogenized, genderless multi-cultural-yet-mono-mass-media-cultural gumbo in a global melting pot? Trans-humanism next on the menu, perhaps via Elon Musk’s project to build a brain-chip interface? And, of course, RFIDs, to track us and carry our bitmoney?

It’s a Brave New 1984 World.

Einstein also said:
” Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.

The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.”

2 0 There is no one kind of science. Different scientific paradigms exist and their validity is contextual. Marxism is open to interpretation and change in constructive ways, and so is all science. But the question is not whether Marxism is a science. Rather than look at Marxism as a science” as we commonly know, it will make sense to see it as a scientific way of looking at humanity. That is why Marxists talk of scientific socialism” as opposed to utopian socialism”. * Social context changes constantly and it is scientific to update one”s understanding, develop theory to match reality and adopt practice accordingly not quite the way the LSSP adapted itself to rising narrow nationalism in 1963. * Prof. AKD is not bringing much credit to Marxism by reference to Carlo F”s definition. AKD may have forgotten the time, not very long ago, when Carlo F expressed rather irrational belief in rebirth etc.

Al, I must admit that I am confused by your conclusions about Cultural Marxism (CM). If I understand you correctly, what I am calling CM, you think is just the opportunism of capitalism?

Where does the factual history of the Frankfurt School fit in? It does exist, and it deals with pushing multiculturalism, radical feminism, transgenderism, gay marriage and adoption, hate speech legislation, etc. What on Earth do these things have to do with capitalism???

The label ‘Marxism’ is because, as economic Marxism seeks to impose economic equality on everyone, CM seeks to impose ‘equality’ by identifying ‘disadvantaged’ ‘victim groups’ and then agitating politically and culturally to erase (or reverse) the offending inequality. Such high-mindedness! Or is it a vicious, backhanded attack by an ambitious minority group on the existing power structure, which they wish to co-opt and dominate?