Category Archives: Cultural Marxism

The Great Dr. Gottfried On Our Deformed ‘Democratic’ Discourse

Conservatism, Cultural Marxism, Democracy, Political Correctness, Political Philosophy

Writes Paul (read his archive on Barely A Blog) who is easily the most learned, ignored scholar dealing with the history of the European and American Right.

What amazes me is the naive belief that social questions are somehow resolved “democratically,” something that may happen in an alternative reality but not in the Western world during my lifetime.

Social and most political questions are resolved by powerful, well-placed elites, who control public administration, public education and the cultural industry. [The prevalent] view of how democracy functions may fit a nineteenth-century local government in Vermont, in which citizens could actually make existential decisions in a culture they themselves determined.

Of course that model would no longer be seen as “democratic” because it didn’t make room for feminists, homosexuals and racial minorities. Please excuse my irritation! But I get sick to my stomach when I hear house conservatives lavish praise on our functioning “democracy” and pretending that “we citizens” can actually settle divisive issues on the basis of our independent, non-coerced judgments.

~ Paul Gottfried

UPDATED (9/12): Looting: Who Are You Going To Believe, TV’s Talkers Or Your Own Lyin’ Eyes?

Crime, Cultural Marxism, Private Property, Race, Republicans, The West

Looting is unrelated to race, insist Tucker Carlson and Dan Bongino. All these well-dressed looters in post-Irma Florida just happen to be black. It could have been you and me out there.

That’s typical Republican sophistry: they point out the looting to sound truthful and gritty. They even go as far as to spell-out the salient feature of the looting. Then Republicans deny that what they said has any significance at all.

Republican self-serving denial about the reality of crime is not as bad as the Left’s Cultural Marxism—BBC News conflated looting post-storm with desperation, disparity and … slavery. Still, Republican bafflegab about race and crime is dishonest obfuscation.

UPDATE (9/12): DON’T MENTION THE COLOR OF LOOTING. Or the Color of The Help. To describe reality is racist:

Via the Daily Mail: “Terrified tourists on the Dutch-French island of St. Martin have described cowering in their hotel rooms amid reports up to 600 looters are running riot.”

French police give chase on St. Martin after the Hurricane.“British troops delivering fresh water during disaster relief in Tortola on the British Virgin Islands, where soldiers were deployed to restore order.” (Visuals.)

The color of The Help. “Troops are being called in to stop looters armed with guns and machetes on hurricane-ravaged St Martin with food, water and medicine running low, it has emerged. Soldiers from the Netherlands are pictured patrolling the streets on the Dutch side of the island.” (Daily Mail visuals.)

Comments Off on UPDATED (9/12): Looting: Who Are You Going To Believe, TV’s Talkers Or Your Own Lyin’ Eyes?

Written by on

UPDATED: Why Did Steve Bannon Use The Neo-Confederate Smear?

Bush, Cultural Marxism, Donald Trump, Education, History, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Neoconservatism, Republicans, States' Rights

Historian of the South Dr. Clyde Wilson comments on the Steve Bannon “60 Minutes” interview:

Did you all notice that Stephen Bannon in the TV interview equated “neo-Confederates” with neo-Nazis and the KKK? There is no such thing as a neo-Confederate. It is a leftist smear term for anyone who challenges their interpretation of history or thinks that the federal government is too big.

Differing interpretations of history are natural to free and civilized societies, which the U.S. is not. Hundreds of thousands of people, all of whom voted for Donald Trump, might be slandered as “neo-Confederates.” For that matter, it is very likely that the Nazis and KKK at Charlottesville were paid plants.

Why has Trump failed to expose and prosecute antifa? These are the same people who attacked his own rallies and inauguration. It would be a great opportunity to educate the people. Alas, like so much else inexplicable, the president is showing the usual Republican policy of never fighting back but always appearing “respectable.”

What Bannon said:

Bannon: “What he was trying to say is that people that support the monument staying there peacefully and people that oppose that, that’s the normal course of — of First Amendment. But he’s talking about the Neo-Nazis and Neo-Confederates and the Klan, who, by the way, are absolutely awful — there’s no room in American politics for that. There’s no room in American society for that. … And all Donald Trump was saying is, “Where does it end? Does it end in taking down the Washington Monument? Does it end in taking down Mount Rushmore? Does it end at taking Churchill’s bust out of the Oval Office?” My problem — my problem, and I told General Kelly this — when you side with a man, you side with him. I was proud to come out and try to defend President Trump in the media that day.”

MORE of Steve Bannon on 60 Minutes.

UPDATE: Best of Steve Bannon: “I hold these people in contempt, total and complete.” “George W. Bush and his entire national security apparatus, which included people like Condi Rice, Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell and Dick Cheney.”

“I hold these people in contempt, total and complete contempt,” Bannon told Rose, adding that the former Bush administration officials get him riled up with anger like nothing else. “They’re idiots, and they’ve gotten us in this situation, and they question a good man like Donald Trump.”
Bannon blasted “the geniuses in the Bush administration that let China in the W.T.O.,” and reminded Rose that the “genius in the Bush administration told us, ‘Hey, they’re going to be a liberal democracy. They’re going to be free-market capitalism.’ The same geniuses that got us into Iraq.”

MORE.

Military Goes From Gender Neutrality To Gender Fluidity

Cultural Marxism, Feminism, Gender, History, Military

Leave a reply

IN A NEW ESSAY, I argue that the entire debate about LGBTQ (“Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning”) in the military is a fig leaf, camouflaging that the Army was neutered in the 1990s. The military is now making the transition from gender neutrality to gender fluidity. It’s a Brave New World.

The backdrop to these ideas is in “An X-Rated Conversation About LGBTQ & XX (Women) In The Military.” It’s on The Unz Review, America’s smartest webzine. An excerpt:

PREDICTABLY, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have already pooh-poohed President Trump’s July 26th LGBTQ directives, banning the politicized transgender production from the theater of war. …

… LGBTQ is a political program why? Central to the concept of “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning” in the military is the idea of a group whose members have chosen to identify not as Private X or Private Y, but as a party to a political fraternity that promises and delivers an aggressive, noisy, sexual identity politics.

Evangelizing for the cause is implicit in the introduction of this political production into the military. Ditto payment for drastic elective medical procedures and the attendant hormonal maintenance. In other words, LGBTQ in the military isn’t about enhancing a fighting force, it’s about introducing another state-driven reformation program. Egalitarian access here aims, inadvertently (as always), to grow an arm of government and, at the same time, “re-educate” the country.

Moreover, LGBTQ in the military is but another “Draconian social policy [enforced] without showing any interest in—and in many cases actively suppressing—good-faith information about how those policies [are] playing out at ground level,” in the prescient words of Stephanie Gutmann, author of “The Kinder, Gentler Military: Can America’s Gender-Neutral Fighting Force Still Win Wars?”

Girls: It was about their presence in the military that Gutmann was warning, circa 2000, not “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning.” As trailblazing as Ms. Gutmann’s shoe-leather investigation was, back then, into the way women had transformed the military, its morale and readiness—never could this author have imagined that from gender neutrality, the military would move into the even Braver New World of gender fluidity.

Gutmann saddled “Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton, Secretaries of Defense Richard Cheney, Les Aspin, and William Cohen, the Congresses who wrote and passed the bills they signed, and the Pentagon leadership who just grinned nervously and sat on their hands while all of this was going on.”

What were the fatal conceits of these leaders and their legislation?

“One of the projects mesmerizing the brass throughout the nineties was the integration of women. … [T]he nineties were a decade in which the brass handed over their soldiers to social planners in love with an unworkable (and in many senses undesirable) vision of a politically correct utopia, one in which men and women toil side by side, equally good at the same tasks, interchangeable, and, of course, utterly undistracted by sexual interest.”

…  READ THE REST.  “An X-Rated Conversation About LGBTQ & XX (Women) In The Military” is on The Unz Review.

This column can generally be read also on Townhall.com, Daily Caller, American Thinker, and others, where The Mercer Column usually appears. And it’s always posted, eventually, on IlanaMercer.com, under Articles.

Share it.