Can the Left's 'Long March' Taking Over Western Institutions Ever Be Reversed?

[DOTR]

Reactionary is a valid term, and it today applies directly on the GOP (and its fellow travelers like Fox News, and the NRA). They fear change, they reject equal rights and equal opportunities for all, exactly what defines Progressives, and the reactionary right seeks control over We the People, using fear mongering to restrict universal suffrage and wedge issues to divide the people. Today's GOP is exactly the form of governance which created the need for the American Revolution.

Thankfully, the sea change is coming in November. The GOP, much like the Democratic Party in 1968, has gone to far away from Main St. America, and needs to decide if it wants to remain viable and attractive to a new generation of Americans who come of age in 2018 and beyond. At the moment, they have lost the vast majority of these young men and women, who are aware of the attacks on them by people who should know better.

All that effort to avoid my point. Good.

And by the way, I do agree: You Regressives will ultimately win this, and we'll be living under a far more authoritarian environment.

And I know you're not going to be gracious winners.
.

You have failed to account for the astoundingly authoritarian nature of the "conservative", really right wing, movement. Ask women who want unhindered reproductive rights, ask women who want the freedom to choose their own religion, ask LGBTs who want to live in peace in this society. Ask Muslims the same thing. Ask people with darker skin tones if they want to be able to walk down the street in peace. Those who call themselves "conservatives" want to force their way into every intimate aspect of Americans' lives. They desire authoritarian rule.

It's a shame that so many "conservatives" confuse, with a ridiculous amount of ignorance, marxism with the desire to obtain and preserve freedom for all persons.

As I point out all the time, and as I clearly point out in my sig, the two ends of the spectrum can be very, very similar in their behaviors.

I just personally hate seeing what the Regressive Left - illiberal leftist authoritarians - are doing to the Democratic Party and to liberalism in general.

Thanks for helping me prove my larger point.
.

But you continue to neglect to comment on regressive Republican/right wing authoritarian excesses and what they have done to the Republican Party.

Because I don't care about the Republican Party. I lean left. I voted for Hillary.

I just know what's coming, and I hate to see it.
.

Hillary is one of the shrillest Marxists out there. By voting for her you did try to advance what you are decrying.

 

[Mac1958]

All that effort to avoid my point. Good.

And by the way, I do agree: You Regressives will ultimately win this, and we'll be living under a far more authoritarian environment.

And I know you're not going to be gracious winners.
.

You have failed to account for the astoundingly authoritarian nature of the "conservative", really right wing, movement. Ask women who want unhindered reproductive rights, ask women who want the freedom to choose their own religion, ask LGBTs who want to live in peace in this society. Ask Muslims the same thing. Ask people with darker skin tones if they want to be able to walk down the street in peace. Those who call themselves "conservatives" want to force their way into every intimate aspect of Americans' lives. They desire authoritarian rule.

It's a shame that so many "conservatives" confuse, with a ridiculous amount of ignorance, marxism with the desire to obtain and preserve freedom for all persons.

As I point out all the time, and as I clearly point out in my sig, the two ends of the spectrum can be very, very similar in their behaviors.

I just personally hate seeing what the Regressive Left - illiberal leftist authoritarians - are doing to the Democratic Party and to liberalism in general.

Thanks for helping me prove my larger point.
.

But you continue to neglect to comment on regressive Republican/right wing authoritarian excesses and what they have done to the Republican Party.

Because I don't care about the Republican Party. I lean left. I voted for Hillary.

I just know what's coming, and I hate to see it.
.

Hillary is one of the shrillest Marxists out there. By voting for her you did try to advance what you are decrying.

Hillary is what she is. I realize you're trained to believe she's a Marxist.

Either way, I think even less of Trump. That's why I voted against him.
.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

What I don`t like is stupidity and the dumbing down of people with phrases like regressive left. Keep using it and you`ll reach the peak of Mt. Stupidity some day in the near future.

Regressive left is spot-on. It's about bringing the culture backward to 1960's culture.
See, some of us paid attention to the answers to the questions raised in the 1960's but the left didn't.
The left, through academia and media, are now bringing another generation back to the 1960's to accompany them and their ignorance, hence, regressives.

The key is that Regressives are not liberals. They are illiberal leftist authoritarians.

They have succeeded in taking over a party, but that doesn't change what they are.
.

The key is this. You`re not making the slightest bit of sense talking like Glenn Beck.

No, he’s exactly correct. Apparently you can’t refute it.

They never can, so they go after me personally.

Even though I never, ever, have to name names.

I say "Regressive Left", and they just jump in to self-identify for me.

Damn near every freakin' day.
.

Defeated lefties are pretty dense and admit as much by deploying the funny button or disparaging non-responses. And they have the nerve to believe that by toeing the left wing line they are somehow intellectually superior when it’s just the opposite.

 

[DOTR]

And by the way, I do agree: You Regressives will ultimately win this, and we'll be living under a far more authoritarian environment.

And I know you're not going to be gracious winners.
.

Perhaps it is necessary? Without seeing them in action who would believe what they are capable of?

 

[bodecea]

Can the Left's 'Long March' Taking Over Western Institutions Ever Be Reversed?

Through the currently employed politeness and compromise? No.

Not through politeness and compromise alone, but these are valid and useful tools to slowing it down and reversing it along with First and Second Amendment rights.

You're kidding yourself. The Progressives (or whatever they happen to call themselves at any given moment) mean to alter the United States into something alien to its foundations, and they will do so by whatever means are at their disposal.

They succeed by incremental steps. Keep compromising with them, and it will happen.

Progressives/Liberals of the 1700s CREATED this country. The Con-servatives were the Tories......just as they were the con-federates of a century later.

 

[jillian]

I think it will happen as other issues sweep the current crop ofwhining victim mongers into the ash heap of history, but who knows?

The Left's long march will be hard to stop

Because the Left has politicised so much of public life, particularly in areas that affect mass opinion, such as the broadcasting media and education, the dismantling of that process itself becomes a political act: appointments that might once have been non-partisan and politically neutral must now be part of a campaign to counteract a deliberate manipulation of public influence. Having created the problem, Labour then gets mileage out of its opponents’ need to unravel it.

But let’s leave that aside. Michael Gove can fight the small battle of who will be the chairman of Ofsted with his usual unblinking determination. Deciding who is to be head of this, and director of that, is the least of the problems that his department, and any Conservative government that truly wants to change social attitudes, has to face. By far the more insidious – and more intractable – power-grab of the past generation was by the hard, not the soft, Left, and it was quite independent of any government direction. It was, in fact, a phenomenon about which New Labour was deeply ambivalent.​

Faith and Freedom Daily: Marxism and the "Long March Through American Institutions"

Sometimes the indoctrination in public education is so blatant, it makes it into the news cycle, but for the most part the indoctrination continues quietly and daily. It is subtle and powerful. And it has changed our culture.

How did it happen?

It didn't just happen, in fact there has been a very deliberate well thought out agenda that has followed a plan. And it didn't begin in the 1960's.

William S. Lind is a highly respected historian, author and lecturer and recognized authority on the history and impact of Marxism.

I am using his extensive research for the following overview.

What has happened to American traditional culture, which had grown up over generations from our Western, Judeo-Christian roots, is it has been swept aside by an ideology.

We know the ideology best as "Political Correctness" and "Multiculturalism."

Lind says it is really "Cultural Marxism" taken from failed Marxist economic ideas and integrated with new cultural ideas.

It goes back not to the 1960's, but back to World War I.

Before World War I, Marxist theory said that if Europe ever erupted into war, the working class in every European country would rise in revolt, overthrow their government and create a new Communist Europe.

However, when war broke out in 1914, it didn't happen as the Marxists had thought. Marx had miscalculated.

Instead workers in European countries lined up by the millions to fight for their country.

After the war, Marxist leaders asked themselves what had gone wrong. They regrouped.

They concluded a Marxist Communist revolution would likely not be possible in the West because of the Western culture and the Christian religion that dominated it.

They concluded both should be destroyed.

Antonio Gramsci and George Lukacs carried the torch and created a strategy for destroying both Christian influence and the Western culture itself.

Instead of calling for a communist revolution, as they had in Russia, they decided they should seize political power last, after what they called "A Long March Through The Institutions" of the West.

This march would include the schools, the media, even the churches---every institution that could influence the culture.

They began the long march with little fanfare---no press releases. Years of hard work and complete dedication to the task would follow. This commitment was born out of their hatred toward the West.

Although Mussolini had recognized the danger Gramsci posed and jailed him, Gramsci's writings had been discovered and were circulated, particularly the "Prison Notebooks".

Gramsci, Lukacs, Felix Weil, a multi-millionaire, and others worked tirelessly to advance their cause.

They established a "think tank" at Frankfort University in Germany. Although it was originally called "Institute for Marxism," they soon decided that was not a good name and called it the "Institute for Social Research," then later, "Frankfurt School."

Other Marxist progressive elites joined the effort.

Simply stated, these young intellectual Marxists redefined Marxism before they redefined Western culture. Instead of the old Marxism, they designed a new Marxism that was intellectually based and directed toward a psychological conditioning campaign.​

Antonio Gramsci: Take over the Institutions!

In his own day, Gramsci didn't believe that the working class had a collective will, unlike the capitalists. Instead that collective had to be created by middle-class Marxists such as himself. However, despite the abstract reality of the working class, it is still made up of a “plurality of demands, political initiatives, traditions and cultural institutions” (Ernesto Laclau). That plurality is inherently unstable from a Marxist perspective. And, again, this is where Gramsci and the Gramscians step in. It is up to them to provide a sense of stability to that plurality by creating a determinate class-consciousness -- or a new hegemon -- for the working class. And, in Gramsci's case, that could only be done by “taking over the institutions” (or “becoming State”), not through the classical violent (Marxist) revolution.​

However, traditional Marxists believed that such a hegemonic consciousness (or class consciousness) would come naturally to the working class as capitalism inevitably led to the increasing polarization of society. The more polarized, or poor, the working class became, the more class-conscious they would become. But, of course, that didn't happen. There was no necessarily increased polarization. Thus the working class didn't become more class-conscious, hegemonic, or revolutionary.

This is where the Gramscians, again, stepped in.

If economic alienation and polarization didn't automatically make the working class more class-conscious (or if Marx's prophesy of “pauperization” didn't occur), then Gramsci and other middle-class Marxists would make the workers class-conscious. As I said, according to Marx's “natural laws of capitalism”, the failures of capitalism would inevitably raise the consciousness off the working class and turn them into revolutionaries. That didn't happen.

In other words, middle-class Marxists had to provide the “hegemonic articulation” of what was best for the working class. Capitalism itself, or its increased polarization, didn't do that.

This means that the Gramscian position effectively turned the Marxist base-superstructure model on its head. Instead of the “modes of production” generating human consciousness (or class-consciousness), here we have Gramscians attempting to generate consciousness (or ideology) instead. In a sense, Gramsci had returned to Hegel's position; which, of course, Marx himself had inverted.

Now how best to create a new working-class -- or Muslim today -- consciousness? Simple: take over the institutions in which ideas/ideologies -- rather than “material conditions” -- are primary. Or, alternatively, only by “becoming the State” -- not by violently seizing the state (as in a revolution) -- could the consciousness of the working class -- or Muslims today -- be changed in the ways middle-class Leftists wanted it to change.



The left has been wildly successful, but in large part that has been due to most being focused on the militant Marxism that was threatening our extermination.

As the public grows more aware of the Marxist core to Multiculturalism and Identity Politics, this is likely to be reversed.

But will the Deep State cooperate with us or fight us having already been taken over by the Marxists?

desegretation
marriage equality
women voting
social security
medicare
Medicaid


check, check, check, check, check, check. all good things. unlike white trash alt right vileness.

I'd add the EPA and environmental regs, but that was Richard Nixon.

 

[jillian]

First of all you use the term Regressive Leftists, a term which you do not define except in the most egregious words. That said, the terms is a made up pejorative which does not exist in any lexicon on politics I could find, see:

Let me help. Here are some real liberals who use the term regularly.

The first is a liberal Muslim Brit named Maajid Nawaz - the man who actually coined the term.

More here, for your research (ha ha): regressive left - YouTube

Oh, and: regressive left - Google Search





Now you know. You're welcome.

I know this, you protest too much, and one data point or several which echo each other is not what I consider probative.

Of course not, because you don't like the premise.

You pretended that the term was some figment of my imagination, and I shoved that notion right back down your throat.

I get this game from Regressives all the time, and I'm always ready for it. No problem.
.

Reactionary is a valid term, and it today applies directly on the GOP (and its fellow travelers like Fox News, and the NRA). They fear change, they reject equal rights and equal opportunities for all, exactly what defines Progressives, and the reactionary right seeks control over We the People, using fear mongering to restrict universal suffrage and wedge issues to divide the people. Today's GOP is exactly the form of governance which created the need for the American Revolution.

Thankfully, the sea change is coming in November. The GOP, much like the Democratic Party in 1968, has gone to far away from Main St. America, and needs to decide if it wants to remain viable and attractive to a new generation of Americans who come of age in 2018 and beyond. At the moment, they have lost the vast majority of these young men and women, who are aware of the attacks on them by people who should know better.

All that effort to avoid my point. Good.

And by the way, I do agree: You Regressives will ultimately win this, and we'll be living under a far more authoritarian environment.

And I know you're not going to be gracious winners.
.

tell us again how "moderate" you are.

you can pretend all you want. every time you fail to use actual vocabulary, you give yourself up.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Can the Left's 'Long March' Taking Over Western Institutions Ever Be Reversed?

Through the currently employed politeness and compromise? No.

Not through politeness and compromise alone, but these are valid and useful tools to slowing it down and reversing it along with First and Second Amendment rights.

You're kidding yourself. The Progressives (or whatever they happen to call themselves at any given moment) mean to alter the United States into something alien to its foundations, and they will do so by whatever means are at their disposal.

They succeed by incremental steps. Keep compromising with them, and it will happen.

Progressives/Liberals of the 1700s CREATED this country. The Con-servatives were the Tories......just as they were the con-federates of a century later.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

 

[Mac1958]

tell us again how "moderate" you are.
you can pretend all you want. every time you fail to use actual vocabulary, you give yourself up.

I wonder how many times I've directed you to the second line of my sig.

It was made for liars like you.

Are you afraid to read it?
.

 

[Mac1958]

Regressive left is spot-on. It's about bringing the culture backward to 1960's culture.
See, some of us paid attention to the answers to the questions raised in the 1960's but the left didn't.
The left, through academia and media, are now bringing another generation back to the 1960's to accompany them and their ignorance, hence, regressives.

The key is that Regressives are not liberals. They are illiberal leftist authoritarians.

They have succeeded in taking over a party, but that doesn't change what they are.
.

The key is this. You`re not making the slightest bit of sense talking like Glenn Beck.

No, he’s exactly correct. Apparently you can’t refute it.

They never can, so they go after me personally.

Even though I never, ever, have to name names.

I say "Regressive Left", and they just jump in to self-identify for me.

Damn near every freakin' day.
.

Defeated lefties are pretty dense and admit as much by deploying the funny button or disparaging non-responses. And they have the nerve to believe that by toeing the left wing line they are somehow intellectually superior when it’s just the opposite.

I don't think they're dense, I think they're just fundamentally dishonest.

They refuse to admit what they really are.
.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Can the Left's 'Long March' Taking Over Western Institutions Ever Be Reversed?

Through the currently employed politeness and compromise? No.

Not through politeness and compromise alone, but these are valid and useful tools to slowing it down and reversing it along with First and Second Amendment rights.

You're kidding yourself. The Progressives (or whatever they happen to call themselves at any given moment) mean to alter the United States into something alien to its foundations, and they will do so by whatever means are at their disposal.

They succeed by incremental steps. Keep compromising with them, and it will happen.

Progressives/Liberals of the 1700s CREATED this country.

You're not fooling anyone. They were nothing like you people.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The key is that Regressives are not liberals. They are illiberal leftist authoritarians.

They have succeeded in taking over a party, but that doesn't change what they are.
.

The key is this. You`re not making the slightest bit of sense talking like Glenn Beck.

No, he’s exactly correct. Apparently you can’t refute it.

They never can, so they go after me personally.

Even though I never, ever, have to name names.

I say "Regressive Left", and they just jump in to self-identify for me.

Damn near every freakin' day.
.

Defeated lefties are pretty dense and admit as much by deploying the funny button or disparaging non-responses. And they have the nerve to believe that by toeing the left wing line they are somehow intellectually superior when it’s just the opposite.

I don't think they're dense, I think they're just fundamentally dishonest.

They refuse to admit what they really are.
.

It’s both. Some really are dense.

 

[Flopper]

I think it will happen as other issues sweep the current crop ofwhining victim mongers into the ash heap of history, but who knows?

The Left's long march will be hard to stop

Because the Left has politicised so much of public life, particularly in areas that affect mass opinion, such as the broadcasting media and education, the dismantling of that process itself becomes a political act: appointments that might once have been non-partisan and politically neutral must now be part of a campaign to counteract a deliberate manipulation of public influence. Having created the problem, Labour then gets mileage out of its opponents’ need to unravel it.

But let’s leave that aside. Michael Gove can fight the small battle of who will be the chairman of Ofsted with his usual unblinking determination. Deciding who is to be head of this, and director of that, is the least of the problems that his department, and any Conservative government that truly wants to change social attitudes, has to face. By far the more insidious – and more intractable – power-grab of the past generation was by the hard, not the soft, Left, and it was quite independent of any government direction. It was, in fact, a phenomenon about which New Labour was deeply ambivalent.​

Faith and Freedom Daily: Marxism and the "Long March Through American Institutions"

Sometimes the indoctrination in public education is so blatant, it makes it into the news cycle, but for the most part the indoctrination continues quietly and daily. It is subtle and powerful. And it has changed our culture.

How did it happen?

It didn't just happen, in fact there has been a very deliberate well thought out agenda that has followed a plan. And it didn't begin in the 1960's.

William S. Lind is a highly respected historian, author and lecturer and recognized authority on the history and impact of Marxism.

I am using his extensive research for the following overview.

What has happened to American traditional culture, which had grown up over generations from our Western, Judeo-Christian roots, is it has been swept aside by an ideology.

We know the ideology best as "Political Correctness" and "Multiculturalism."

Lind says it is really "Cultural Marxism" taken from failed Marxist economic ideas and integrated with new cultural ideas.

It goes back not to the 1960's, but back to World War I.

Before World War I, Marxist theory said that if Europe ever erupted into war, the working class in every European country would rise in revolt, overthrow their government and create a new Communist Europe.

However, when war broke out in 1914, it didn't happen as the Marxists had thought. Marx had miscalculated.

Instead workers in European countries lined up by the millions to fight for their country.

After the war, Marxist leaders asked themselves what had gone wrong. They regrouped.

They concluded a Marxist Communist revolution would likely not be possible in the West because of the Western culture and the Christian religion that dominated it.

They concluded both should be destroyed.

Antonio Gramsci and George Lukacs carried the torch and created a strategy for destroying both Christian influence and the Western culture itself.

Instead of calling for a communist revolution, as they had in Russia, they decided they should seize political power last, after what they called "A Long March Through The Institutions" of the West.

This march would include the schools, the media, even the churches---every institution that could influence the culture.

They began the long march with little fanfare---no press releases. Years of hard work and complete dedication to the task would follow. This commitment was born out of their hatred toward the West.

Although Mussolini had recognized the danger Gramsci posed and jailed him, Gramsci's writings had been discovered and were circulated, particularly the "Prison Notebooks".

Gramsci, Lukacs, Felix Weil, a multi-millionaire, and others worked tirelessly to advance their cause.

They established a "think tank" at Frankfort University in Germany. Although it was originally called "Institute for Marxism," they soon decided that was not a good name and called it the "Institute for Social Research," then later, "Frankfurt School."

Other Marxist progressive elites joined the effort.

Simply stated, these young intellectual Marxists redefined Marxism before they redefined Western culture. Instead of the old Marxism, they designed a new Marxism that was intellectually based and directed toward a psychological conditioning campaign.​

Antonio Gramsci: Take over the Institutions!

In his own day, Gramsci didn't believe that the working class had a collective will, unlike the capitalists. Instead that collective had to be created by middle-class Marxists such as himself. However, despite the abstract reality of the working class, it is still made up of a “plurality of demands, political initiatives, traditions and cultural institutions” (Ernesto Laclau). That plurality is inherently unstable from a Marxist perspective. And, again, this is where Gramsci and the Gramscians step in. It is up to them to provide a sense of stability to that plurality by creating a determinate class-consciousness -- or a new hegemon -- for the working class. And, in Gramsci's case, that could only be done by “taking over the institutions” (or “becoming State”), not through the classical violent (Marxist) revolution.​

However, traditional Marxists believed that such a hegemonic consciousness (or class consciousness) would come naturally to the working class as capitalism inevitably led to the increasing polarization of society. The more polarized, or poor, the working class became, the more class-conscious they would become. But, of course, that didn't happen. There was no necessarily increased polarization. Thus the working class didn't become more class-conscious, hegemonic, or revolutionary.

This is where the Gramscians, again, stepped in.

If economic alienation and polarization didn't automatically make the working class more class-conscious (or if Marx's prophesy of “pauperization” didn't occur), then Gramsci and other middle-class Marxists would make the workers class-conscious. As I said, according to Marx's “natural laws of capitalism”, the failures of capitalism would inevitably raise the consciousness off the working class and turn them into revolutionaries. That didn't happen.

In other words, middle-class Marxists had to provide the “hegemonic articulation” of what was best for the working class. Capitalism itself, or its increased polarization, didn't do that.

This means that the Gramscian position effectively turned the Marxist base-superstructure model on its head. Instead of the “modes of production” generating human consciousness (or class-consciousness), here we have Gramscians attempting to generate consciousness (or ideology) instead. In a sense, Gramsci had returned to Hegel's position; which, of course, Marx himself had inverted.

Now how best to create a new working-class -- or Muslim today -- consciousness? Simple: take over the institutions in which ideas/ideologies -- rather than “material conditions” -- are primary. Or, alternatively, only by “becoming the State” -- not by violently seizing the state (as in a revolution) -- could the consciousness of the working class -- or Muslims today -- be changed in the ways middle-class Leftists wanted it to change.



The left has been wildly successful, but in large part that has been due to most being focused on the militant Marxism that was threatening our extermination.

As the public grows more aware of the Marxist core to Multiculturalism and Identity Politics, this is likely to be reversed.

But will the Deep State cooperate with us or fight us having already been taken over by the Marxists?

I certainly agree that liberals are going to continue to gain ground on conservatives but not for the reasons you list.

Technological developments, particular in automation will eliminated nearly 80 million jobs, half of all jobs in the US by 2030 but there is some good news. New jobs will be created but those jobs will not make up for the loss in low wage jobs. Income disparity will increase creating a need for more government assistance. Developments in artificial intelligence will replace people doing even creative work by the end of the century. We can expect compulsory job sharing programs and lots of government funded community service jobs.

 

[DOTR]

Thankfully, the sea change is coming in November. The GOP, much like the Democratic Party in 1968, has gone to far away from Main St. America, and needs to decide if it wants to remain viable and attractive to a new generation of Americans who come of age in 2018 and beyond. At the moment, they have lost the vast majority of these young men and women, who are aware of the attacks on them by people who should know better.

Always just around the corner I enjoy the fact that being crushed doesnt kill you. It just leaves you alive for the next blow.

Trump may win a few Red States but he has no chance to reach the level of 270 electoral votes.

The Electors have the final say, and there is a real possibility some of these Electors, though chosen by the Establishment Republican Party, will put our country first....It will take real courage (for they are sure to have a target put on their collective backs) if they do so and HRC is awarded the prize.

US Green Party raises enough funds for Wisconsin recount
And more money collected will look at the votes in PA and Michigan.

“The miserable have no other medicine, but only hope.” – William Shakespeare

 

[DOTR]

Hillary is what she is. I realize you're trained to believe she's a Marxist.

Either way, I think even less of Trump. That's why I voted against him.
.

Yes she is what she is...a Marxist. That isnt a relative term like "more liberal". It is where her philosophy comes from.

Have you noticed the trouble you have on this forum with them? You cant discuss anything because they immediately play with words. They play "gotcha" and "but you said". How long will you spend arguing that the word "regressive" does exist with people who dont really care except that it bogs down the exchange of ideas?

This isnt political. You are dealing with evil which expresses itself politically when it must.

Whoever these "regressives" are that you complain of deep down you have to know they worked with and for Hillary Clinton. You voted to empower them unless you can name a few she would have ejected?

 

[Mac1958]

Hillary is what she is. I realize you're trained to believe she's a Marxist.

Either way, I think even less of Trump. That's why I voted against him.
.

Yes she is what she is...a Marxist. That isnt a relative term like "more liberal". It is where her philosophy comes from.

Have you noticed the trouble you have on this forum with them? You cant discuss anything because they immediately play with words. They play "gotcha" and "but you said". How long will you spend arguing that the word "regressive" does exist with people who dont really care except that it bogs down the exchange of ideas?

This isnt political. You are dealing with evil which expresses itself politically when it must.

Whoever these "regressives" are that you complain of deep down you have to know they worked with and for Hillary Clinton. You voted to empower them unless you can name a few she would have ejected?

I don't believe she's either a Marxist or evil.

I do believe that cartoonish hyperbole is counter-productive.
.

 

[DOTR]

Hillary is what she is. I realize you're trained to believe she's a Marxist.

Either way, I think even less of Trump. That's why I voted against him.
.

Yes she is what she is...a Marxist. That isnt a relative term like "more liberal". It is where her philosophy comes from.

Have you noticed the trouble you have on this forum with them? You cant discuss anything because they immediately play with words. They play "gotcha" and "but you said". How long will you spend arguing that the word "regressive" does exist with people who dont really care except that it bogs down the exchange of ideas?

This isnt political. You are dealing with evil which expresses itself politically when it must.

Whoever these "regressives" are that you complain of deep down you have to know they worked with and for Hillary Clinton. You voted to empower them unless you can name a few she would have ejected?

I don't believe she's either a Marxist or evil.

I do believe that cartoonish hyperbole is counter-productive.
.

But you still avoided the point. You voted for the people you bemoan here. Or can you explain which part of the left she would have opposed? They all supported her.

 

[Mac1958]

Hillary is what she is. I realize you're trained to believe she's a Marxist.

Either way, I think even less of Trump. That's why I voted against him.
.

Yes she is what she is...a Marxist. That isnt a relative term like "more liberal". It is where her philosophy comes from.

Have you noticed the trouble you have on this forum with them? You cant discuss anything because they immediately play with words. They play "gotcha" and "but you said". How long will you spend arguing that the word "regressive" does exist with people who dont really care except that it bogs down the exchange of ideas?

This isnt political. You are dealing with evil which expresses itself politically when it must.

Whoever these "regressives" are that you complain of deep down you have to know they worked with and for Hillary Clinton. You voted to empower them unless you can name a few she would have ejected?

I don't believe she's either a Marxist or evil.

I do believe that cartoonish hyperbole is counter-productive.
.

But you still avoided the point. You voted for the people you bemoan here. Or can you explain which part of the left she would have opposed? They all supported her.

They supported her simply because she was the Dem nominee, just as those who supported Trump did so because he was the GOP nominee.

I make the same point regularly: The Democratic Party has been taken over by illiberal leftist authoritarians, just as the GOP has been taken over by Talk Radio Trumpists. The lunatics are running the asylum, and they're the primary reason we're so divided.

I'm a left-leaning Independent, and that is evidenced by my stands on the issues, found in the link at the end of the second line of my sig. I make it quite clear, even if I do have to keep saying it over and over and over.
.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I think it will happen as other issues sweep the current crop ofwhining victim mongers into the ash heap of history, but who knows?

The Left's long march will be hard to stop

Because the Left has politicised so much of public life, particularly in areas that affect mass opinion, such as the broadcasting media and education, the dismantling of that process itself becomes a political act: appointments that might once have been non-partisan and politically neutral must now be part of a campaign to counteract a deliberate manipulation of public influence. Having created the problem, Labour then gets mileage out of its opponents’ need to unravel it.

But let’s leave that aside. Michael Gove can fight the small battle of who will be the chairman of Ofsted with his usual unblinking determination. Deciding who is to be head of this, and director of that, is the least of the problems that his department, and any Conservative government that truly wants to change social attitudes, has to face. By far the more insidious – and more intractable – power-grab of the past generation was by the hard, not the soft, Left, and it was quite independent of any government direction. It was, in fact, a phenomenon about which New Labour was deeply ambivalent.​

Faith and Freedom Daily: Marxism and the "Long March Through American Institutions"

Sometimes the indoctrination in public education is so blatant, it makes it into the news cycle, but for the most part the indoctrination continues quietly and daily. It is subtle and powerful. And it has changed our culture.

How did it happen?

It didn't just happen, in fact there has been a very deliberate well thought out agenda that has followed a plan. And it didn't begin in the 1960's.

William S. Lind is a highly respected historian, author and lecturer and recognized authority on the history and impact of Marxism.

I am using his extensive research for the following overview.

What has happened to American traditional culture, which had grown up over generations from our Western, Judeo-Christian roots, is it has been swept aside by an ideology.

We know the ideology best as "Political Correctness" and "Multiculturalism."

Lind says it is really "Cultural Marxism" taken from failed Marxist economic ideas and integrated with new cultural ideas.

It goes back not to the 1960's, but back to World War I.

Before World War I, Marxist theory said that if Europe ever erupted into war, the working class in every European country would rise in revolt, overthrow their government and create a new Communist Europe.

However, when war broke out in 1914, it didn't happen as the Marxists had thought. Marx had miscalculated.

Instead workers in European countries lined up by the millions to fight for their country.

After the war, Marxist leaders asked themselves what had gone wrong. They regrouped.

They concluded a Marxist Communist revolution would likely not be possible in the West because of the Western culture and the Christian religion that dominated it.

They concluded both should be destroyed.

Antonio Gramsci and George Lukacs carried the torch and created a strategy for destroying both Christian influence and the Western culture itself.

Instead of calling for a communist revolution, as they had in Russia, they decided they should seize political power last, after what they called "A Long March Through The Institutions" of the West.

This march would include the schools, the media, even the churches---every institution that could influence the culture.

They began the long march with little fanfare---no press releases. Years of hard work and complete dedication to the task would follow. This commitment was born out of their hatred toward the West.

Although Mussolini had recognized the danger Gramsci posed and jailed him, Gramsci's writings had been discovered and were circulated, particularly the "Prison Notebooks".

Gramsci, Lukacs, Felix Weil, a multi-millionaire, and others worked tirelessly to advance their cause.

They established a "think tank" at Frankfort University in Germany. Although it was originally called "Institute for Marxism," they soon decided that was not a good name and called it the "Institute for Social Research," then later, "Frankfurt School."

Other Marxist progressive elites joined the effort.

Simply stated, these young intellectual Marxists redefined Marxism before they redefined Western culture. Instead of the old Marxism, they designed a new Marxism that was intellectually based and directed toward a psychological conditioning campaign.​

Antonio Gramsci: Take over the Institutions!

In his own day, Gramsci didn't believe that the working class had a collective will, unlike the capitalists. Instead that collective had to be created by middle-class Marxists such as himself. However, despite the abstract reality of the working class, it is still made up of a “plurality of demands, political initiatives, traditions and cultural institutions” (Ernesto Laclau). That plurality is inherently unstable from a Marxist perspective. And, again, this is where Gramsci and the Gramscians step in. It is up to them to provide a sense of stability to that plurality by creating a determinate class-consciousness -- or a new hegemon -- for the working class. And, in Gramsci's case, that could only be done by “taking over the institutions” (or “becoming State”), not through the classical violent (Marxist) revolution.​

However, traditional Marxists believed that such a hegemonic consciousness (or class consciousness) would come naturally to the working class as capitalism inevitably led to the increasing polarization of society. The more polarized, or poor, the working class became, the more class-conscious they would become. But, of course, that didn't happen. There was no necessarily increased polarization. Thus the working class didn't become more class-conscious, hegemonic, or revolutionary.

This is where the Gramscians, again, stepped in.

If economic alienation and polarization didn't automatically make the working class more class-conscious (or if Marx's prophesy of “pauperization” didn't occur), then Gramsci and other middle-class Marxists would make the workers class-conscious. As I said, according to Marx's “natural laws of capitalism”, the failures of capitalism would inevitably raise the consciousness off the working class and turn them into revolutionaries. That didn't happen.

In other words, middle-class Marxists had to provide the “hegemonic articulation” of what was best for the working class. Capitalism itself, or its increased polarization, didn't do that.

This means that the Gramscian position effectively turned the Marxist base-superstructure model on its head. Instead of the “modes of production” generating human consciousness (or class-consciousness), here we have Gramscians attempting to generate consciousness (or ideology) instead. In a sense, Gramsci had returned to Hegel's position; which, of course, Marx himself had inverted.

Now how best to create a new working-class -- or Muslim today -- consciousness? Simple: take over the institutions in which ideas/ideologies -- rather than “material conditions” -- are primary. Or, alternatively, only by “becoming the State” -- not by violently seizing the state (as in a revolution) -- could the consciousness of the working class -- or Muslims today -- be changed in the ways middle-class Leftists wanted it to change.



The left has been wildly successful, but in large part that has been due to most being focused on the militant Marxism that was threatening our extermination.

As the public grows more aware of the Marxist core to Multiculturalism and Identity Politics, this is likely to be reversed.

But will the Deep State cooperate with us or fight us having already been taken over by the Marxists?

I certainly agree that liberals are going to continue to gain ground on conservatives but not for the reasons you list.

Technological developments, particular in automation will eliminated nearly 80 million jobs, half of all jobs in the US by 2030 but there is some good news. New jobs will be created but those jobs will not make up for the loss in low wage jobs. Income disparity will increase creating a need for more government assistance. Developments in artificial intelligence will replace people doing even creative work by the end of the century. We can expect compulsory job sharing programs and lots of government funded community service jobs.

This is about Democrats, not liberals.

 

[DOTR]

They supported her simply because she was the Dem nominee, just as those who supported Trump did so because he was the GOP nominee.

I make the same point regularly: The Democratic Party has been taken over by illiberal leftist authoritarians, just as the GOP has been taken over by Talk Radio Trumpists. The lunatics are running the asylum, and they're the primary reason we're so divided.

I'm a left-leaning Independent, and that is evidenced by my stands on the issues, found in the link at the end of the second line of my sig. I make it quite clear, even if I do have to keep saying it over and over and over.
.

I dont question your integrity. All I am saying is Hillary and her ilk ran the DNC and still do. It jumped at her command. It froze Bernie Sanders out for her. She isnt a victim of left wingers taking her party. She took her party with and for the rest of the loony left. The farther to the left the group or individual the bigger her smile when she courted them.
Was she to the right of any of these people you complain of?