Showing posts with label Multiculturalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Multiculturalism. Show all posts

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Eric Raymond, 'Gramscian Damage'

Glenn Reynolds links to this post every now and then, and since I've been blogging about cultural Marxism today, now's as good a time as any to post it. At Raymond's "Armed and Dangerous" blog, "Gramscian Damage":
Americans have never really understood ideological warfare. Our gut-level assumption is that everybody in the world really wants the same comfortable material success we have. We use “extremist” as a negative epithet. Even the few fanatics and revolutionary idealists we have, whatever their political flavor, expect everybody else to behave like a bourgeois.

We don’t expect ideas to matter — or, when they do, we expect them to matter only because people have been flipped into a vulnerable mode by repression or poverty. Thus all our divagation about the “root causes” of Islamic terrorism, as if the terrorists’ very clear and very ideological account of their own theory and motivations is somehow not to be believed.

By contrast, ideological and memetic warfare has been a favored tactic for all of America’s three great adversaries of the last hundred years — Nazis, Communists, and Islamists. All three put substantial effort into cultivating American proxies to influence U.S. domestic policy and foreign policy in favorable directions. Yes, the Nazis did this, through organizations like the “German-American Bund” that was outlawed when World War II went hot. Today, the Islamists are having some success at manipulating our politics through fairly transparent front organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

But it was the Soviet Union, in its day, that was the master of this game. They made dezinformatsiya (disinformation) a central weapon of their war against “the main adversary”, the U.S. They conducted memetic subversion against the U.S. on many levels at a scale that is only now becoming clear as historians burrow through their archives and ex-KGB officers sell their memoirs.


The Soviets had an entire “active measures” department devoted to churning out anti-American dezinformatsiya. A classic example is the rumor that AIDS was the result of research aimed at building a ‘race bomb’ that would selectively kill black people.

On a different level, in the 1930s members of CPUSA (the Communist Party of the USA) got instructions from Moscow to promote non-representational art so that the US’s public spaces would become arid and ugly.

Americans hearing that last one tend to laugh. But the Soviets, following the lead of Marxist theoreticians like Antonio Gramsci, took very seriously the idea that by blighting the U.S.’s intellectual and esthetic life, they could sap Americans’ will to resist Communist ideology and an eventual Communist takeover. The explicit goal was to erode the confidence of America’s ruling class and create an ideological vacuum to be filled by Marxism-Leninism.

Accordingly, the Soviet espionage apparat actually ran two different kinds of network: one of spies, and one of agents of influence. The agents of influence had the minor function of recruiting spies (as, for example, when Kim Philby was brought in by one of his tutors at Cambridge), but their major function was to spread dezinformatsiya, to launch memetic weapons that would damage and weaken the West.

In a previous post on Suicidalism, I identified some of the most important of the Soviet Union’s memetic weapons. Here is that list again:
* There is no truth, only competing agendas.
* All Western (and especially American) claims to moral superiority over Communism/Fascism/Islam are vitiated by the West’s history of racism and colonialism.
* There are no objective standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. Anyone who claims that there are such standards is an evil oppressor.
* The prosperity of the West is built on ruthless exploitation of the Third World; therefore Westerners actually deserve to be impoverished and miserable.
* Crime is the fault of society, not the individual criminal. Poor criminals are entitled to what they take. Submitting to criminal predation is more virtuous than resisting it.
* The poor are victims. Criminals are victims. And only victims are virtuous. Therefore only the poor and criminals are virtuous. (Rich people can borrow some virtue by identifying with poor people and criminals.)
* For a virtuous person, violence and war are never justified. It is always better to be a victim than to fight, or even to defend oneself. But ‘oppressed’ people are allowed to use violence anyway; they are merely reflecting the evil of their oppressors.
* When confronted with terror, the only moral course for a Westerner is to apologize for past sins, understand the terrorist’s point of view, and make concessions...
Keep reading.

PREVIOUSLY: "How Deep is the Left's System of Ideological Indoctrination?", and "Linda Kimball, 'Exposing America's Enemies: The Social Justice Seeking Communist Left'."

How Deep is the Left's System of Ideological Indoctrination?

Blogging about cultural Marxism today, prompted by Robert Stacy McCain, had me reading around and following links. I came across this old interview with David Horowitz at Newsmax, reposted at FrontaPage Magazine, "How Marxism Dominates the Left":
The Democratic party has never been such a left wing party and I think that comes directly out of the campuses. The whole Howard Dean campaign is what shifted the Democratic party to the far left. You had three Democratic front-runners - Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt - who were all supporters of the war until the Deaniacs came along. And who were the Deaniacs? They were the campus Communists.

The reason you have a blacklist and the reason you have indoctrination, which you've never had before on such a scale, is that you have the generation of the 1960s radicals who to avoid the draft and keep organizing against the war stayed in school and got student deferments and went on to became professors.

They are not academics, they're political activists. Do you think the woman who invited Susan Rosenberg, a convicted bomber, to be a visiting professor at Hamilton and followed that by inviting Ward Churchill – the closest thing to a campus terrorist guerilla – is an academic? Do you think she's a scholar? She's actually the daughter of a Communist lawyer, Victor Rabinowitz, whose closest friend is Leonard Boudin, another Communist whose daughter Cathy was a Weather Underground terrorist.

These people have infiltrated the academic world and converted it and largely captured the Democratic party in the process...
More.

Plus, at Amazon, David Horowtiz, The Black Book of the American Left Volume 7 — The Left in Power: Clinton to Obama.

Rise of the 'Dirtbag Left'

I just posted on Angela Nagle's, Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars From 4Chan and Tumblr to Trump and the Alt-Right.

I first read about the book at this interesting piece, at Maclean's, "The rise of the internet's 'dirtbag left'."

Roger Kimball, The Long March

Following-up on my previous entry, I've got Kimball's book on order.

Get yours at Amazon, Roger Kimball, The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America.

Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks

Robert Stacy McCain got me going on posting all this Marxist and Marxist-related literature. (See, "It All Comes Back to Hungary: Soros, Cultural Marxism, Lukacs and Bela Kun.")

I expect to keep reading a lot on the origins of World War One, and I'm well caught up on contemporary communism and related genres. But I've never read Gramsci.

That might change soon.

At Amazon, Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks.

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Marine Le Pen Wins Seat in French National Assembly

Media outlets are playing down the victories of the National Front, but Marine Le Pen can now claim she's got governing experience. This seat is a platform for her national aspirations.

At France 24, "Le Pen wins parliamentary seat but French far-right party stalls."

Also at Astute Bloggers, "MARINE LE PEN WINS 1ST PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION."

 photo fd7d3e4f-1325-4c01-abe0-5d7363db650e_zpsc401d40b.jpg

Sunday, December 4, 2016

Donald Trump Can Remake the Courts

One of the most exciting things for the coming year: what's going to happen at the Supreme Court, to say nothing of the lower federal courts.

I've been attending meetings on campus, and far-leftists in the sociology department are freaking out over the Supreme Court's threat to Roe vs. Wade, "marriage equality" (as if the Court's going to roll back not one but two recent decisions guaranteeing same-sex marriage), and homosexuals ("electroshock conversion therapy").

I mean really, they've gone hysterical. It's a serious problem on my campus, and around the nation as a whole.

In any case, at the Hill, "Trump gets chance to remake the courts":
President-elect Donald Trump has a chance to stack the courts with conservative judges, thrilling Republicans who suddenly have the opportunity to remake the judicial system.

Conservatives watched with dismay as Congress confirmed 327 of President Obama’s judicial nominees, fearing it would further entrench liberal control of the courts.

Now the tables have turned.

Trump could come into office with around 117 judicial vacancies to fill, and unlike Obama in his first term, will need only 51 votes in the Senate to confirm his nominees.

Democrats eliminated filibusters for most federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments in 2013. Now only a simple majority, rather than 60 votes, is required to advance a nominee.

It was a power play that helped Democrats confirm Obama’s court picks when they held the majority. Now Republicans stand to benefit from the rule change, as there will be little Senate Democrats can do in the minority to stop Trump’s nominees.

“What goes around comes around,” Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) told The Hill this week.

“When you’re short-sighted and you think your majority is going to continue forever then you’re bound to be surprised when voters put you in the minority, so it counsels prudence and a longer view rather than short-term gratification.”

Republicans say Democrats only have Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to thank for the situation they will soon find themselves in.

“Here’s the irony of it: He changed the rules and we don’t want to break the rules to change the rules unlike what he did,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.).

“He put us in this position, and I’m sure he thought a lot about it before he did it.”

Of the 99 current judicial vacancies, 13 are openings on courts of appeals and 85 are on district courts, according to the Alliance for Justice, which is tracking the data...
Keep reading.

And see, "Trump says he'll announce Supreme Court pick 'very soon'," and "Pence details Trump’s ambitious agenda for first 100 days."

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Two Americas

At LAT, "Clinton and Trump supporters come from two Americas":
Samantha Miller, a 47-year-old paralegal, stood in the back of a rally in Virginia Beach last month, worried that America had become preoccupied with going “to third-world countries” to fight wars and aid others and needed to “take care of ourself” first.

“No one is here to help us,” she said.

Trump seized on that anxiety with nostalgia for a version of a post-World War II America, when overseas victories and the path to economic security for working-class whites were more clear-cut than they are in a modern world, with messy foreign clashes and fewer paths to economic prosperity for those without a college education.

He said repeatedly that his election represented a “last chance” to reclaim past greatness, and declared in his acceptance speech: “The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.”
RTWT.

Here's Why Trump Won

A great post from AoSHQ, "One Anecdote That Helps Explain the 'Rage' Our Liberal Masters Don't Understand."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Congratulates Donald Trump

I love Netanyahu.

And I love Donald Trump.

It's morning in America.


Protesting Democracy

At Instapundit:
HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Virginia University Offers ‘Healing Space’ for Distraught #NeverTrump Students.

Related: “This chick’s unbelievable meltdown because Trump won is a perfect capper on the day’s election blogs.”
More.

Earlier: "From New York to Seattle: Protests Across the U.S. (VIDEO)."

Young Progressives Shocked to Find Out That Old White People Vote Republican

Heh.

See the inimitable Robert Stacy McCain, at the Other McCain, "Exit Polls: Hillary Clinton Defeated by Homophobic White Racist Patriarchy."

How Donald Trump Put Together Such a Strong Showing

At LAT:
The polls, prediction markets and political experts all counted on a win for Hillary Clinton, whether they simply acknowledged Democrats’ many paths to the White House or predicted a sweeping victory that would shift the electoral map.

Donald Trump and the thousands of people at his rallies were just as certain those same experts — the very establishment they were running against — were all wrong.

There was too much appetite for change, Trump and his supporters said. Clinton, in public life for four decades, was too polarizing to capture a divided nation by acclamation, they insisted. The media had become too disconnected to detect the signals, they warned.

“As I’ve said from the beginning, ours was not a campaign,” Trump said in accepting victory early Wednesday after Clinton called to concede, “but rather an incredible and great movement.”

The nature of the race may have come as a surprise to political analysts from both parties, but the signs were there all along. Trump’s defiance of political convention began on the the day he announced his presidential campaign and never stopped.

Trump spoke often of the June referendum in Britain, where a majority voted to leave the European Union. “Brexit times five!” Trump said at a rally in Pennsylvania. But while a popular notion has taken hold that the polls did not predict that vote, that is not true; several predicted the outcome but were ignored by the betting markets and pundits who played up their preferred outcome.

The similarities were clear. Both movements were fueled by working-class whites, who felt left behind amid cultural and economic changes.

Experts warned of dire consequences, to the economy and to national standing, if voters in Britain chose to leave Europe or voters in the U.S. chose Trump. The same experts were sure that voters would follow their lead.

Yet these voters scoffed at those elites as they raged against globalization and immigration, deciding it was worth the gamble to disrupt a system they saw as corrupt.

“He has stood up for the people that don’t have a say,” said Tammy Tavalsky, a 50-year-old who owns a printing company with her husband and attended an especially raucous rally in Johnstown, Pa...
More.

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

From New York to Seattle: Protests Across the U.S. (VIDEO)

Los Angeles too.

At LAT, "Trump win sparks student walkouts and angry protests across California."

And at BuzzFeed, "Protests Spark In US Cities After Shocking Trump Victory."

More, at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "5 wounded, 1 critically, in downtown Seattle shooting."



Donald Trump's 'Fascist Win'

Following-up, "David Remnick: 'An American Tragedy'."

Here's another leftist screed, from Sarah Kendzior, at Toronto's Globe and Mail, "A fascist’s win, America’s moral loss":
For over a year, after it became clear to me that Donald Trump had a real chance at victory, I have lived life in retrospect. “Be thankful for the present,” I tweeted on Nov. 26, 2015. “We may spend next Thanksgiving in a post-Trump victory. Be thankful for the present, and fight the future.”

As his popularity rose, and his threats became more inflammatory, his policies more alarming, I warned that he could really win. I warned of the hardship in my part of the country – an economic pain, it should be noted, that is not unique to whites, but shared by non-whites who still managed to not vote for a fascist. I warned that most of the U.S. never truly recovered from the recession, and that the denial of this reality can lead to the embrace of a populist demagogue who lies about numbers in a way that feels true. I warned, and eventually begged, a financially desperate and morally bankrupt media to stop promoting Mr. Trump, stop cowering to Mr. Trump, and protect the public from his persecutory plans.

I begged because the hardest hit will be those who are already the most vulnerable – blacks, Latinos, Muslims, immigrants. I begged because the historic victims of brutality are likely to become the future victims of an even worse brutality, one abetted not by a white supremacist movement lurking in the shadows, but dominating at centre stage.

I asked people to see the worst in our country so that we could preserve the best of it. American exceptionalism was never real. It was a myth of hubris, and a deep denial of the past. We are a country founded on slave labour and stolen land. We are a country where white mobs lynched blacks for entertainment, and white parents told their children to gather around and cheer.

Children are taught in school that these injustices are exceptions, but they are the rule. The willful blindness to injustice is the real American exceptionalism. We deny our worst instincts. And now we may have elected them.

The sheer number of Americans who voted for a cruel, vengeful bigot who has repeatedly threatened masses of the population means that we, as a country, have lost. When he is president, the depths of that loss will be counted in money and in bodies, as markets crash and violence – sanctioned and unsanctioned – erupts.

But the moral loss cuts deeper. In every tragedy there is a before and an after, and we have been living in the after since Mr. Trump launched his campaign with threats against Mexicans and people rationalized it or laughed it off. His campaign should have ended when it began, but instead the media made his bigotry lucrative, with every revelation of his corruption, brutality and ignorance marketed as tabloid fodder, condoned by the Republican party and by much of the public.

I warned that his behaviour resembled that of the dictators in authoritarian regimes that I have studied for over a decade. I wrote that the motto of dictatorship is, “It can’t happen here.”

It can happen here. So I began living life in retrospect, treasuring small moments: the last Christmas, the last first day of school, the last changing of the seasons. It felt fragile then, and it feels broken now...
More.

At this point it's like an apocalyptic pathology. It's just an election. There'll be another one in four years. Get ready for it. Mobilize. Protest. Do whatever. The world's not coming to an end. It's not pleasant? Sure, I get it. How do you think the last 8 years have been? Start a blog like I did. Get active. But for crying out loud stop with the end-of-the-world whining.

Sheesh.

Donald Trump's Mandate for Change

CNN's awesome exit polling showed that 83 percent thought Donald Trump was the candidate most likely to "bring change."

And political scientists, Larry Sabato in particular, spoke about a possible Trump victory signaling the electorate's demands for change --- and thus, 2016 was a change election.

See the Wall Street Journal for more on that, "Donald Trump Captured Desire for Change":

Win or lose, this was always going to be the campaign of Donald Trump, candidate, strategist and sole star.

He ran a campaign that was frequently unscripted, controversial and off-message. It was a style that shocked the establishment and appalled many in his own Republican party. Yet, it endeared him to millions of fiercely loyal followers, and they turned out with passion.

That’s because the billionaire businessman, with his brash talk and celebrity zeitgeist, tapped into a yearning for change among a significant swath of the American public. That change message was the most powerful force of 2016.

The Republican nominee, in an interview in the final hours before election day, said he was most gratified that his message of change resonated across the country. “Nobody understood the message but me. The elites never got it,” Mr. Trump said. “The American public did.”

His populist campaign overwhelmed his Republican foes and finally his more experienced and better-funded Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. The self-styled “outsider” who challenged the political establishment and mainstream media will take over a deeply divided country that he brought into sharp contrast in his successful bid for the White House.

“I’m going to celebrate for about an hour,” Mr. Trump said in the interview ahead of the vote. “Then I’ll get up Wednesday morning and start working so hard immediately. Saving the United States is so important.”

Even though Mr. Trump proved to be a flawed messenger who often spent long stretches on defense talking about himself, his message consistently hit his change mantra.

“Donald had the right message and the unique ability to drive that message to the average American,” said Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, an early Trump supporter. “His ups and downs came because he wasn’t the normal smooth politician, but he stayed the course to become a better candidate who looked more presidential every day.”

In winning the presidency, Mr. Trump imposes a significant makeover of the Republican party into more of a populist, America-first bastion. As the GOP standard-bearer, he was a kind of one-man wrecking ball whose positions on immigration, trade and keeping jobs at home prevailed over the party’s historic emphasis on social conservatism, free markets and small government.

Mr. Trump, in the interview, said the GOP should accept his policy changes and his new Republican converts. “We’ve brought millions and millions of people into the party…the forgotten men and women of America, who really built the country in a true sense,” he said.

From start to its finish, Mr. Trump seldom mentioned the word “Republican.” Indeed, his GOP challengers during the primaries attempted to paint him as a Democrat in Republican clothing. Mr. Trump preferred to characterize his campaign another way: “This is a movement, folks, like they’ve never seen before,” he repeatedly told crowds.

At the same time, his closest advisers weren’t traditional Republicans. Stephen Bannon, who took a leave as the chairman of Breitbart News to join the campaign as chief executive in August, is an arch conservative who made films about the rise of the tea party and advised Sarah Palin. He urged the candidate to give full voice to the populist and nationalist message that appeals to his base.

Jared Kushner, a successful real-estate developer, is married to Mr. Trump’s daughter Ivanka. They are fixtures on Manhattan’s mostly liberal social scene. He quietly set up key headquarters functions including social media, data, scheduling, policy and online fundraising. He served as the intermediary in dealings with GOP factions including the Republican National Committee, wealthy donors and foreign leaders.

As the race tightened in the campaign’s final days, Mr. Trump finally appealed to more traditional Republicans by sticking to his prepared remarks on a teleprompter on the GOP favorite topics of Obamacare and Clinton corruption. He succeeded in “bringing home” some GOP lawmakers to support him publicly, even as some, including former presidents and some rivals, refused to unify behind him...
Still more.

Italian Model Claudia Romani Gets Political on Election Day

Well, practically the whole world is against Donald Trump, so throwing in a bodacious Italian bikini model can't do too much more damage, heh.

At WWTDD, "Foreign Models Call the Election":
There are no more prescient pollsters in this world than hungry vaguely international models. They can read the prevailing winds like Frank Luntz with a magical vagina. Does that dude have real money or is that Lambo rented? Will ten thousand drachma pay my rent? Why is there no exchange rate for former European Union currencies?


David Remnick: 'An American Tragedy'

I've been reading leftist responses to Donald Trump's "stunning" election triumph last night ("stunning" is by far the most frequently used adjective describing the results). I even tweeted earlier:


I'm still taking it all in, but David Remnick's piece, at the New Yorker, is so over-the-top you'd think we're facing the biblical apocalypse (but then, Trump is the apocalypse for the revolting progs, which makes his election that much more satisfying).

Here's the first couple of paragraphs, but read the whole thing (via Memeorandum):
The election of Donald Trump to the Presidency is nothing less than a tragedy for the American republic, a tragedy for the Constitution, and a triumph for the forces, at home and abroad, of nativism, authoritarianism, misogyny, and racism. Trump’s shocking victory, his ascension to the Presidency, is a sickening event in the history of the United States and liberal democracy. On January 20, 2017, we will bid farewell to the first African-American President—a man of integrity, dignity, and generous spirit—and witness the inauguration of a con who did little to spurn endorsement by forces of xenophobia and white supremacy. It is impossible to react to this moment with anything less than revulsion and profound anxiety.

There are, inevitably, miseries to come: an increasingly reactionary Supreme Court; an emboldened right-wing Congress; a President whose disdain for women and minorities, civil liberties and scientific fact, to say nothing of simple decency, has been repeatedly demonstrated. Trump is vulgarity unbounded, a knowledge-free national leader who will not only set markets tumbling but will strike fear into the hearts of the vulnerable, the weak, and, above all, the many varieties of Other whom he has so deeply insulted. The African-American Other. The Hispanic Other. The female Other. The Jewish and Muslim Other. The most hopeful way to look at this grievous event—and it’s a stretch—is that this election and the years to follow will be a test of the strength, or the fragility, of American institutions. It will be a test of our seriousness and resolve...