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

[Mac1958]

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?

She had no choice but to court them. She's definitely to the right of the Regressive Left, the illiberal leftist authoritarians who have taken over the party. I think she's significantly more pragmatic than she lets on, but he has to keep the crazies happy. I don't like her, and I didn't like her when I voted for her, any more than a Republican liked Mitt Romney but still voted for him. Frankly I would have voted third party if I were not so horrified by Trump.

Had Jim Webb run, I would have both contributed and volunteered. If a sane Democrat runs in 2020, I may do that as well.
.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It`s strawman stuff and it`s indeed stupid no matter who coined it and/or uses it.

Of course a Regressive wouldn't like it. That mirror can be ugly.

Not my problem.
.

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.

This is silly ^^^. I wonder how old the author was during the 1960's. For me it began when I was 12 and not yet in the 7th grade, and ended when I finished my active duty as part of the USNR. In between I graduated from high school and completed the first two years at the U. of CA; Ike was President in 1960, and Nixon in 1969. During those years many of us took 50-mile hikes and saw men walk on the moon, all of which during combat in S.E. Asia and a civil war on civil rights right here in America.

To claim what the author writes is ridiculous and absurd on its base. My guess, he was born to late to have personally experienced the 60's, which for me were the best of times, and for a while, the worst of times.

It’s my perspective having lived through those times, too, that gives Frankfurt School theory more credence. You have to step back and ask how so much social upheaval could have happened so quickly without having been given a push.

Growing up very near the Haight Asbury (I went to the Boy's club on Page St. one block from Haight and two blocks from Stanyan St.) and entering the Navy in 1967 after being schooled at CAL for two years (I later returned and graduated) gives me a unique perspective on the 60's.

We may have been of the same era, put my perspective is rather unique. I carried the coffins of three of my classmates (one my next door neighbor) whose last breath was taken in S. Vietnam.

There is no simple explanation for the New Left which arose in the very early 60's, the movement of disaffected youth to the Haight in the late 60's, the riots when then as today black kids were killed by police, and MLK and RFK met the same fate as did Bobby's brother earlier in the decade.

As I said, it was the best of times for me, and some of the worst of times. Philosophy doesn't explain it, nor advise us as to how to come to grips with Trump and the neo fascism of this day.

Certainly putting a label on it - regressive - doesn't, and in fact exacerbates the divide.

 

[DOTR]

So she paid court to crazies in order to get their support. That empowers them. You can call it “pragmatic” or you can call it whoring to the powerful elites. At best.
So were the Democrat party leaders, who The Clinton’s have worked with and moved to positions of power for thirty years, just being pragmatic as well when they chose her?
I have watched democrats claim to not really be democrats for my entire life. It gets old.

 

[DOTR]

Of course a Regressive wouldn't like it. That mirror can be ugly.

Not my problem.
.

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.

This is silly ^^^. I wonder how old the author was during the 1960's. For me it began when I was 12 and not yet in the 7th grade, and ended when I finished my active duty as part of the USNR. In between I graduated from high school and completed the first two years at the U. of CA; Ike was President in 1960, and Nixon in 1969. During those years many of us took 50-mile hikes and saw men walk on the moon, all of which during combat in S.E. Asia and a civil war on civil rights right here in America.

To claim what the author writes is ridiculous and absurd on its base. My guess, he was born to late to have personally experienced the 60's, which for me were the best of times, and for a while, the worst of times.

It’s my perspective having lived through those times, too, that gives Frankfurt School theory more credence. You have to step back and ask how so much social upheaval could have happened so quickly without having been given a push.

Growing up very near the Haight Asbury (I went to the Boy's club on Page St. one block from Haight and two blocks from Stanyan St.) and entering the Navy in 1967 after being schooled at CAL for two years (I later returned and graduated) gives me a unique perspective on the 60's.

We may have been of the same era, put my perspective is rather unique. I carried the coffins of three of my classmates (one my next door neighbor) whose last breath was taken in S. Vietnam.

There is no simple explanation for the New Left which arose in the very early 60's, the movement of disaffected youth to the Haight in the late 60's, the riots when then as today black kids were killed by police, and MLK and RFK met the same fate as did Bobby's brother earlier in the decade.

As I said, it was the best of times for me, and some of the worst of times. Philosophy doesn't explain it, nor advise us as to how to come to grips with Trump and the neo fascism of this day.

Certainly putting a label on it - regressive - doesn't, and in fact exacerbates the divide.

Then those kindergarten socialists grew up, took power and did this

San Francisco's downtown area is more contaminated with drug needles, garbage, and feces than some of the world's poorest slums

 

[DOTR]

The areas of the country which voted Hillary are slumlike. In fact the worse the slum the higher the Hillary vote.

 

[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.

This is about Democrats, not liberals.

In the US, the Democratic Party is the voice of liberals. There was a time when there were liberal republicans but that's pretty much a thing of the past.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

This is silly ^^^. I wonder how old the author was during the 1960's. For me it began when I was 12 and not yet in the 7th grade, and ended when I finished my active duty as part of the USNR. In between I graduated from high school and completed the first two years at the U. of CA; Ike was President in 1960, and Nixon in 1969. During those years many of us took 50-mile hikes and saw men walk on the moon, all of which during combat in S.E. Asia and a civil war on civil rights right here in America.

To claim what the author writes is ridiculous and absurd on its base. My guess, he was born to late to have personally experienced the 60's, which for me were the best of times, and for a while, the worst of times.

It’s my perspective having lived through those times, too, that gives Frankfurt School theory more credence. You have to step back and ask how so much social upheaval could have happened so quickly without having been given a push.

Growing up very near the Haight Asbury (I went to the Boy's club on Page St. one block from Haight and two blocks from Stanyan St.) and entering the Navy in 1967 after being schooled at CAL for two years (I later returned and graduated) gives me a unique perspective on the 60's.

We may have been of the same era, put my perspective is rather unique. I carried the coffins of three of my classmates (one my next door neighbor) whose last breath was taken in S. Vietnam.

There is no simple explanation for the New Left which arose in the very early 60's, the movement of disaffected youth to the Haight in the late 60's, the riots when then as today black kids were killed by police, and MLK and RFK met the same fate as did Bobby's brother earlier in the decade.

As I said, it was the best of times for me, and some of the worst of times. Philosophy doesn't explain it, nor advise us as to how to come to grips with Trump and the neo fascism of this day.

Certainly putting a label on it - regressive - doesn't, and in fact exacerbates the divide.

Then those kindergarten socialists grew up, took power and did this

San Francisco's downtown area is more contaminated with drug needles, garbage, and feces than some of the world's poorest slums

Guess where those homeless come from? The same areas where the disaffected did in 1968. Then they went to the Haight-Ashbury, today to the Tenderloin. a drug invested neighborhood of low income properties well past their prime.

Why did they come from homes in the South and Midwest to San Francisco? Because here they are tolerated and accepted. Most started out as runaways, from homes where they were beaten or molested, many have turned to prostitution and petty crimes. The weather is moderate and social services adequate. We have our share of Callous Conservatives, but the bulk of haters don't live in SF or the Bay Area - they live where most of the homeless have runaway from.

Our governors and mayors have never been callous and hunted down these runaways. While they are not welcome, they are not turned away. That explains why SF and the Bay is a sanctuary for these in need, even those who don't want help.

It is the Christian thing to do!

 

[Flopper]

Of course a Regressive wouldn't like it. That mirror can be ugly.

Not my problem.
.

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.

This is silly ^^^. I wonder how old the author was during the 1960's. For me it began when I was 12 and not yet in the 7th grade, and ended when I finished my active duty as part of the USNR. In between I graduated from high school and completed the first two years at the U. of CA; Ike was President in 1960, and Nixon in 1969. During those years many of us took 50-mile hikes and saw men walk on the moon, all of which during combat in S.E. Asia and a civil war on civil rights right here in America.

To claim what the author writes is ridiculous and absurd on its base. My guess, he was born to late to have personally experienced the 60's, which for me were the best of times, and for a while, the worst of times.

It’s my perspective having lived through those times, too, that gives Frankfurt School theory more credence. You have to step back and ask how so much social upheaval could have happened so quickly without having been given a push.

Growing up very near the Haight Asbury (I went to the Boy's club on Page St. one block from Haight and two blocks from Stanyan St.) and entering the Navy in 1967 after being schooled at CAL for two years (I later returned and graduated) gives me a unique perspective on the 60's.

We may have been of the same era, put my perspective is rather unique. I carried the coffins of three of my classmates (one my next door neighbor) whose last breath was taken in S. Vietnam.

There is no simple explanation for the New Left which arose in the very early 60's, the movement of disaffected youth to the Haight in the late 60's, the riots when then as today black kids were killed by police, and MLK and RFK met the same fate as did Bobby's brother earlier in the decade.

As I said, it was the best of times for me, and some of the worst of times. Philosophy doesn't explain it, nor advise us as to how to come to grips with Trump and the neo fascism of this day.

Certainly putting a label on it - regressive - doesn't, and in fact exacerbates the divide.

You speak of the new left. What is the difference between the new left and old left? I don't see much different in the philosophy of the left today than 60 years ago.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

In the US, the Democratic Party is the voice of liberals. There was a time when there were liberal republicans but that's pretty much a thing of the past.

What they are defies definition, but they are not liberal at all in the classic sense. They have become, in fact, its opposite.

There was a time when there were Democrats possessed of logic, common sense and a grasp of American foundational thought, but that's entirely a thing of the past.

 

[Flopper]

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.

This is silly ^^^. I wonder how old the author was during the 1960's. For me it began when I was 12 and not yet in the 7th grade, and ended when I finished my active duty as part of the USNR. In between I graduated from high school and completed the first two years at the U. of CA; Ike was President in 1960, and Nixon in 1969. During those years many of us took 50-mile hikes and saw men walk on the moon, all of which during combat in S.E. Asia and a civil war on civil rights right here in America.

To claim what the author writes is ridiculous and absurd on its base. My guess, he was born to late to have personally experienced the 60's, which for me were the best of times, and for a while, the worst of times.

It’s my perspective having lived through those times, too, that gives Frankfurt School theory more credence. You have to step back and ask how so much social upheaval could have happened so quickly without having been given a push.

Growing up very near the Haight Asbury (I went to the Boy's club on Page St. one block from Haight and two blocks from Stanyan St.) and entering the Navy in 1967 after being schooled at CAL for two years (I later returned and graduated) gives me a unique perspective on the 60's.

We may have been of the same era, put my perspective is rather unique. I carried the coffins of three of my classmates (one my next door neighbor) whose last breath was taken in S. Vietnam.

There is no simple explanation for the New Left which arose in the very early 60's, the movement of disaffected youth to the Haight in the late 60's, the riots when then as today black kids were killed by police, and MLK and RFK met the same fate as did Bobby's brother earlier in the decade.

As I said, it was the best of times for me, and some of the worst of times. Philosophy doesn't explain it, nor advise us as to how to come to grips with Trump and the neo fascism of this day.

Certainly putting a label on it - regressive - doesn't, and in fact exacerbates the divide.

Then those kindergarten socialists grew up, took power and did this

San Francisco's downtown area is more contaminated with drug needles, garbage, and feces than some of the world's poorest slums

Guess where those homeless come from? The same areas where the disaffected did in 1968. Then they went to the Haight-Ashbury, today to the Tenderloin. a drug invested neighborhood of low income properties well past their prime.

Why did they come from homes in the South and Midwest to San Francisco? Because here they are tolerated and accepted. Most started out as runaways, from homes where they were beaten or molested, many have turned to prostitution and petty crimes. The weather is moderate and social services adequate. We have our share of Callous Conservatives, but the bulk of haters don't live in SF or the Bay Area - they live where most of the homeless have runaway from.

Our governors and mayors have never been callous and hunted down these runaways. While they are not welcome, they are not turned away. That explains why SF and the Bay is a sanctuary for these in need, even those who don't want help.

It is the Christian thing to do!

I have no idea where the homeless came from in 1968. Address studies today indicate that, contrary to popular believe, most homeless people rarely travel across across country. In fact it is rare for them travel more than a hundred miles. A study in LA found that 93% had been there more than a year and 70% had been there 5 years or longer.

Other studies have found a similar pattern in cities across the country. The homeless tend to stay in one place because it's very difficult to get established in a new city. If you are homeless there are lots of things you have to know if you're going to survive in the city with little or no money. For example, where and when food is available at food banks and food kitchens, where's it safe to sleep, how do use public transportation, where and how to apply for any benefits available to the homeless and how long do you have to wait for them, where can you receive mail, and most important are there friends or relatives in area that will help me? These and thousand other problems face the homeless in a new city. For most people, it is better to stay where you are than move to a new city.

 

[jillian]

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.
.

it's more that you pretend to be one thing but are another. so that's why people don't buy what you're selling. and I say that as someone who used to enjoy the odd discussion with you

 

[Flopper]

In the US, the Democratic Party is the voice of liberals. There was a time when there were liberal republicans but that's pretty much a thing of the past.

What they are defies definition, but they are not liberal at all in the classic sense. They have become, in fact, its opposite.

There was a time when there were Democrats possessed of logic, common sense and a grasp of American foundational thought, but that's entirely a thing of the past.

Social Liberals.

 

[DOTR]

The left ruin everything they touch. And then say “it’s the fault of Texas that San Francisco has been ruined”.
The truth is liberals are third worldish. And their fiefdoms show it. A super rich set of amoral anti Christian elites, an imported surf class to cut their hedges and clean their houses and a large population of mentally ill living in boxes who can be rounded up to vote for a pack of cigarettes every two years.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

In the US, the Democratic Party is the voice of liberals. There was a time when there were liberal republicans but that's pretty much a thing of the past.

What they are defies definition, but they are not liberal at all in the classic sense. They have become, in fact, its opposite.

There was a time when there were Democrats possessed of logic, common sense and a grasp of American foundational thought, but that's entirely a thing of the past.

Social Liberals.

Mere word play. You people have slipped so far off the American cracker as to be undefinable. Essentially, the Democratic Party is an amorphous blob presenting whichever face it conjures for a given issue, subject to change depending on the audience and the needs of the media message.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Of course a Regressive wouldn't like it. That mirror can be ugly.

Not my problem.
.

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.

This is silly ^^^. I wonder how old the author was during the 1960's. For me it began when I was 12 and not yet in the 7th grade, and ended when I finished my active duty as part of the USNR. In between I graduated from high school and completed the first two years at the U. of CA; Ike was President in 1960, and Nixon in 1969. During those years many of us took 50-mile hikes and saw men walk on the moon, all of which during combat in S.E. Asia and a civil war on civil rights right here in America.

To claim what the author writes is ridiculous and absurd on its base. My guess, he was born to late to have personally experienced the 60's, which for me were the best of times, and for a while, the worst of times.

It’s my perspective having lived through those times, too, that gives Frankfurt School theory more credence. You have to step back and ask how so much social upheaval could have happened so quickly without having been given a push.

Growing up very near the Haight Asbury (I went to the Boy's club on Page St. one block from Haight and two blocks from Stanyan St.) and entering the Navy in 1967 after being schooled at CAL for two years (I later returned and graduated) gives me a unique perspective on the 60's.

We may have been of the same era, put my perspective is rather unique. I carried the coffins of three of my classmates (one my next door neighbor) whose last breath was taken in S. Vietnam.

There is no simple explanation for the New Left which arose in the very early 60's, the movement of disaffected youth to the Haight in the late 60's, the riots when then as today black kids were killed by police, and MLK and RFK met the same fate as did Bobby's brother earlier in the decade.

As I said, it was the best of times for me, and some of the worst of times. Philosophy doesn't explain it, nor advise us as to how to come to grips with Trump and the neo fascism of this day.

Certainly putting a label on it - regressive - doesn't, and in fact exacerbates the divide.

Regressive isn't a label, it's a description. Your comparison of black kids killed by police today as then illustrates that. Disaffected youth and rampant drug use and intoxication is part of Frankfurt strategy. The upheaval of the 1960's got a push and is now being propagated to another generation of regressive youth.

 

[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.

In the US, the Democratic Party is the voice of liberals. There was a time when there were liberal republicans but that's pretty much a thing of the past.

The democrats currently are neocon, Marxist regressives.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

This is silly ^^^. I wonder how old the author was during the 1960's. For me it began when I was 12 and not yet in the 7th grade, and ended when I finished my active duty as part of the USNR. In between I graduated from high school and completed the first two years at the U. of CA; Ike was President in 1960, and Nixon in 1969. During those years many of us took 50-mile hikes and saw men walk on the moon, all of which during combat in S.E. Asia and a civil war on civil rights right here in America.

To claim what the author writes is ridiculous and absurd on its base. My guess, he was born to late to have personally experienced the 60's, which for me were the best of times, and for a while, the worst of times.

It’s my perspective having lived through those times, too, that gives Frankfurt School theory more credence. You have to step back and ask how so much social upheaval could have happened so quickly without having been given a push.

Growing up very near the Haight Asbury (I went to the Boy's club on Page St. one block from Haight and two blocks from Stanyan St.) and entering the Navy in 1967 after being schooled at CAL for two years (I later returned and graduated) gives me a unique perspective on the 60's.

We may have been of the same era, put my perspective is rather unique. I carried the coffins of three of my classmates (one my next door neighbor) whose last breath was taken in S. Vietnam.

There is no simple explanation for the New Left which arose in the very early 60's, the movement of disaffected youth to the Haight in the late 60's, the riots when then as today black kids were killed by police, and MLK and RFK met the same fate as did Bobby's brother earlier in the decade.

As I said, it was the best of times for me, and some of the worst of times. Philosophy doesn't explain it, nor advise us as to how to come to grips with Trump and the neo fascism of this day.

Certainly putting a label on it - regressive - doesn't, and in fact exacerbates the divide.

Then those kindergarten socialists grew up, took power and did this

San Francisco's downtown area is more contaminated with drug needles, garbage, and feces than some of the world's poorest slums

Guess where those homeless come from? The same areas where the disaffected did in 1968. Then they went to the Haight-Ashbury, today to the Tenderloin. a drug invested neighborhood of low income properties well past their prime.

Why did they come from homes in the South and Midwest to San Francisco? Because here they are tolerated and accepted. Most started out as runaways, from homes where they were beaten or molested, many have turned to prostitution and petty crimes. The weather is moderate and social services adequate. We have our share of Callous Conservatives, but the bulk of haters don't live in SF or the Bay Area - they live where most of the homeless have runaway from.

Our governors and mayors have never been callous and hunted down these runaways. While they are not welcome, they are not turned away. That explains why SF and the Bay is a sanctuary for these in need, even those who don't want help.

It is the Christian thing to do!

The homeless are mainly addicts, an exacerbated residual of the Frankfurt strategy of encouraging intoxication which manifested itself in the 1960's.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.
.

it's more that you pretend to be one thing but are another. so that's why people don't buy what you're selling. and I say that as someone who used to enjoy the odd discussion with you

You can't refuse anything either, you ditz.

 

[Flopper]

In the US, the Democratic Party is the voice of liberals. There was a time when there were liberal republicans but that's pretty much a thing of the past.

What they are defies definition, but they are not liberal at all in the classic sense. They have become, in fact, its opposite.

There was a time when there were Democrats possessed of logic, common sense and a grasp of American foundational thought, but that's entirely a thing of the past.

Social Liberals.

Mere word play. You people have slipped so far off the American cracker as to be undefinable. Essentially, the Democratic Party is an amorphous blob presenting whichever face it conjures for a given issue, subject to change depending on the audience and the needs of the media message.

Take a look at the 1952 Democratic Party Platform. You will seen much of the same philosophy that Democrats have today, environmental protection, support for labor unions, healthcare, civil rights, protection of migrant workers, enhancement of Social Security, improving the safety nets for workers, support of the UN and a Unified Europe, and rejection of isolationist policies, etc. The major change in the political landscape have not been Democratic philosophy. It remains much the same as it has 75 years.

Strong support for Labor
Social Welfare
Strong Support for United Nations
Protection of Minorities
Increased Federal Aid for State and Local Governments
Rejection of Isolationism
Encouraging European Unity
Support for Oppression Abroad
Strengthening Bonds Between US Mexico, and other Latin American Countries
Expanding World Trade
Progressive Immigration Policies
Aid to Refugees and Displace People
Federal Rent Control
Support for Excess Profit Tax
Closing Tax Loopholes Enjoyed By Corporations and Special Interest Groups
Protection of National Resources including protection watershed, clean air and clean water, upstream flood protection, and increased protection of national forest.
Federal Price Supports for Farmers
Increased Funding for Research
Rural Electrification
A Fair Deal for All Workers which increases wages for the poorest workers
Additional Support for Collective Bargainning
Repeal of Taft-Harley Act
Support for the Fair Labor Standards Act
Equal Pay for Equal Work Regardless of Sex
Improvement of the Employment Conditions for Migrant Workers
Improving Small Independent Business Opportunity by attacking Monopolies
Increased Enforcement of Ant-trust laws
Development of a National Transportation System
Increased Research to Conserve our National Fisheries
Preservation, Restoration and Increase of the Bird, Animal and Fish Life
Extending and Improving Social Security
Improving Unemployment Insurance
Further improvements in public assistance programs for the blind, the disabled, the aged and children in order to help our less fortunate citizens meet the needs of daily living.
Improvements in Old Age and Survivors Insurance
More Research Funds for Cause and Prevention of Disease
Programs to Reduce the Cost of Serious Illness
Support for public low-rent housing, slum clearance, urban redevelopment
Additional Federal Support for Higher Education, Vocational Education, and increased educational opportunity irrespective of color, national origin, economic status or place of residence
National Policy for Child Health and Welfare Services
Enlargement of the School Lunch Program
Encourage the development of day care centers
Strengthen Federal Civil Service
Endorsement of an Equal Rights Amendment
Support for Civil Rights Legislation

 

[DOTR]

In the US, the Democratic Party is the voice of liberals. There was a time when there were liberal republicans but that's pretty much a thing of the past.

What they are defies definition, but they are not liberal at all in the classic sense. They have become, in fact, its opposite.

There was a time when there were Democrats possessed of logic, common sense and a grasp of American foundational thought, but that's entirely a thing of the past.

Social Liberals.

Mere word play. You people have slipped so far off the American cracker as to be undefinable. Essentially, the Democratic Party is an amorphous blob presenting whichever face it conjures for a given issue, subject to change depending on the audience and the needs of the media message.

Take a look at the 1952 Democratic Party Platform. You will seen much of the same philosophy that Democrats have today, environmental protection, support for labor unions, healthcare, civil rights, protection of migrant workers, enhancement of Social Security, improving the safety nets for workers, support of the UN and a Unified Europe, and rejection of isolationist policies, etc. The major change in the political landscape have not been Democratic philosophy. It remains much the same as it has 75 years.

Strong support for Labor
Social Welfare
Strong Support for United Nations
Protection of Minorities
Increased Federal Aid for State and Local Governments
Rejection of Isolationism
Encouraging European Unity
Support for Oppression Abroad
Strengthening Bonds Between US Mexico, and other Latin American Countries
Expanding World Trade
Progressive Immigration Policies
Aid to Refugees and Displace People
Federal Rent Control
Support for Excess Profit Tax
Closing Tax Loopholes Enjoyed By Corporations and Special Interest Groups
Protection of National Resources including protection watershed, clean air and clean water, upstream flood protection, and increased protection of national forest.
Federal Price Supports for Farmers
Increased Funding for Research
Rural Electrification
A Fair Deal for All Workers which increases wages for the poorest workers
Additional Support for Collective Bargainning
Repeal of Taft-Harley Act
Support for the Fair Labor Standards Act
Equal Pay for Equal Work Regardless of Sex
Improvement of the Employment Conditions for Migrant Workers
Improving Small Independent Business Opportunity by attacking Monopolies
Increased Enforcement of Ant-trust laws
Development of a National Transportation System
Increased Research to Conserve our National Fisheries
Preservation, Restoration and Increase of the Bird, Animal and Fish Life
Extending and Improving Social Security
Improving Unemployment Insurance
Further improvements in public assistance programs for the blind, the disabled, the aged and children in order to help our less fortunate citizens meet the needs of daily living.
Improvements in Old Age and Survivors Insurance
More Research Funds for Cause and Prevention of Disease
Programs to Reduce the Cost of Serious Illness
Support for public low-rent housing, slum clearance, urban redevelopment
Additional Federal Support for Higher Education, Vocational Education, and increased educational opportunity irrespective of color, national origin, economic status or place of residence
National Policy for Child Health and Welfare Services
Enlargement of the School Lunch Program
Encourage the development of day care centers
Strengthen Federal Civil Service
Endorsement of an Equal Rights Amendment
Support for Civil Rights Legislation

Comparing the 1952 to the 2016 you see that they were written by two different nations. non Americans wrote the latter.
The 52 version never mentions guns. 16 times in 2016.
The 1952 version never mentions homosexuals. By 2016 the platform demanded homosexual marriage.
The democrats in 1952 were horrified by abortion and didn’t mention it. By 2016 it was central to the their platform.
The 1952 platform speaks of controlled immigration from people being repressed by socialism and promises to keep out “subversives and undesirables”
The Democrats in their 1952 platform warned of “crushing and unnecessary taxation. In 2016 the democrats called for higher taxes 42 seperate times. .
The 1952 platform states “The Federal Government should not dictate nor control educational policy.” The 2016 platform devotes 17 paragraphs to a federal takeover of education.

The 1952 platform acknowledged “divine providence” “the divinity” and “the blessings of God. In 2016 Democrats booed from the floor the inclusion of God.



A different people wrote these two documents.