The Unspoken New World Order - Cultural Marxism

Originally posted by Cythraul
With respect, did you read my OP? I presented evidence of an organisation called 'The Frankfurt School' who were comprised of Marxist revolutionaries attempting to find a way to bring about an entirely new social, political, economic structure. When they realised this could not be done by force or by open declaration, they developed a list of suggestions for how society could be subverted over time in order to achieve their goal. The key is that for a complete global revolution to take place, the 'old' system must be made to seem COMPLETELY broken. Only then would people accept Global Marxism.

i did read your OP, i just think there's a disconnect. in some ways, there has been a social revolution, equality, feminism and so on. these elements may well be linked to cultural marxist theory but at the same time, economically, the ideas of free market capitalists have reigned supreme.

the system broke when the natural conclusion of unregulated free market capitalism was reached.

Through their influence, you take policemen off the streets, allowing crime to become rife;

police numbers and incarceration levels have multiplied beyond reason since the 20's, a combination of population explosion and the war on drugs in the last 25 years has created the law and order problems we see today.

you implode the economy to make Capitalism seem broken and corrupt;

market corrections are an expected part of free market capitalism, the economy is behaving as a free market capitalist market is supposed to. the economy doesn't seem broken, it is broken by definition.

you encourage mass-immigration to fracture communities and destroy native traditions;

ease of travel facilitates mass-immigration. no encouragement needs be offered other than the ease of travel which is the result of healthy competition in the travel industries. again, free market capitalism.

you demonise Christianity (I'm not pro-Christian btw);

in a way, TV evangelists have done most of that. can't blame the communists for that.

you dumb down the education system;

i would have said that it was consumerism that has led to the dumbing down of youth, which mitigates the best efforts of educators that arer underpaid and overwhelmed by large class sizes.

you undermine the integrity of healthy food production;

the drive to reduce cost and aid competition, again, capitalism.

you make the health system inept

longer lifespans say this hasn't happened.

Though we have seen the rise of Socialism in the banker bailouts,

that fascism

in excessive foreign aid,

no such thing

and as Skyfloating said, in filesharing.

what does the radio represent then?

High-quality education - we've lost the great thinkers, writers and inventors of previous centuries. Pick up a book from a century ago and compare the quality of wording to a modern novel;

pick up better modern novels. it used to be that the bestsellers pandered to the top 20% of the intellectual scale because they were the only ones with the funds to buy books and the ability to read them. now most people can read so pulp fiction is more popular. modern literature is the equal to past in every way.

Tradition - indigenous languages and cultures are becoming extinct the world over;

that's always happened. that's what history is all about.

i can't be bothered to go on, i think i've picked enough holes and this probably won't be read anyway.

Originally posted by pieman
police numbers and incarceration levels have multiplied beyond reason since the 20's, a combination of population explosion and the war on drugs in the last 25 years has created the law and order problems we see today.

market corrections are an expected part of free market capitalism, the economy is behaving as a free market capitalist market is supposed to. the economy doesn't seem broken, it is broken by definition.

ease of travel facilitates mass-immigration. no encouragement needs be offered other than the ease of travel which is the result of healthy competition in the travel industries. again, free market capitalism.

in a way, TV evangelists have done most of that. can't blame the communists for that.

i would have said that it was consumerism that has led to the dumbing down of youth, which mitigates the best efforts of educators that arer underpaid and overwhelmed by large class sizes.

the drive to reduce cost and aid competition, again, capitalism.

The explanations you give, above, for these problems are completely correct in most peoples' eyes. That problems in our society are the natural result of 'the modern world' - that ambiguous phrase which can so-often be used to halt further investigation into the causes of injustice - is the standard, popularly-accepted reason for our ills. Yet how does 'Capitalism' stand as the explanation for mass-surveillance, for ID Cards, and for the anti-democratic practices of our governments? Capitalism may explain these things, but only if we accept the outrageous concept that Capitalism has gone so far that our own governments are themselves Capitalist corporations. This, as you will know, is one of the definitions of 'Fascism'. Furthermore, this state of affairs gives the corporate government power to crush all opposition in the free-market and to suppress businesses and individuals who are acquiring money that the corporate government should be acquiring.

So, I can accept your points - but only in the sense that the NWO itself is wholly Capitalist, whilst projecting Marxism onto the rest of society in order to reserve all Capitalist benefits for themselves. But then we land back at square one - which is that Marxism is always corrupted by the state. Rarely, if ever, throughout history has the State within a Marxist regime themselves been equally subject to the full limits of a Marxist system. Which Marxist leaders have ever not owned property and been socially and economically on par with their public?

In short, I'd agree with you that the governments themselves are abusing people for gain. But that does not mean that the wider public are better off with Communism, or even Socialism. Those systems still require government (more so than ever) and that government will still abuse its power in the same way it currently does.

Originally posted by pieman

you make the health system inept

longer lifespans say this hasn't happened.

Medicine works (mostly), but the Socialised health system we have in the UK does not.

Originally posted by pieman

Though we have seen the rise of Socialism in the banker bailouts,

that fascism

in excessive foreign aid,

no such thing

and as Skyfloating said, in filesharing.

what does the radio represent then?

I agree that's fascism, but in my opinion this 'fascism' we've seen in the banker bailouts is just a taster of what the reality of worldwide Socialism would really be like - the elites will still look after themselves at the expense of the masses. And yes, there is such thing as extensive foreign aid, but in your Socialist worldview perhaps not. My country is bankrupt and yet we still insist on handing £billions out to the third world. This will result in all nations being as third world nations. How does that help anyone? If we hold onto the fruits of our labour, grow strong again and become a prosperous nation once again then we'll be far better positioned to genuinely help the third world in the future.

As for file-sharing... what does the radio have to do with it? Radio is promotion, unless you record from the radio rather than purchase music in which case the radio is as bad as file-sharing. But recording from the radio, I believe, is still technically illegal. Like I said earlier, when someone feels they have the right to own copies of my music for free, it hurts small artists like myself financially. All it means is that music will eventually die. What person can afford to dedicate their life to making art when they have no prospect of making a living from it? A very rare type of priveleged person - that's who.

Originally posted by pieman
i can't be bothered to go on, i think i've picked enough holes and this probably won't be read anyway.

What's with the victim attitude? Everytime you and I debate you always seem to insist on creating an air of hostility. What suggests your post won't get read? I'm more than willing to hold a mature discussion based on mutual respect.

Although I have not linked this post to prior ones, I will say that I have been favorably impressed with the ones that precede this one.

It may be that we are seeing a progressive versus libertarian dichotomy, in a context where neither progressives nor libertarians have much representation in public office holding in America.

I agree with libertarian opposition to things like warring, bank bailouts and Federal Reserve control of money. That said, I depart from libertarians on issues centering on social interaction and cooperative living. Healthcare and education should be equally available to all citizens of a proper, post-modern society, imho. Hence, the progressive expression.

I also agree that too much adherence to ideology, of whatever stripe or kind, is passe.

Still, I do not think that socialist and communist regimes can be singled out with the "disaster" label any moreso than capitalist regimes can be so labeled. After all, we are currently living through the death throes of a capitalistic regime that could be helped if there were an adequate base of progressive opposition that could muster some political courage to take progressive remedial measures. Alas, there is none.

Excuse me, but I don't see any Marxism anywhere. In Europe, policies are dictated by the European Central Bank, and there is tremendous pressure to open up the job market to the "flexicurity" work model, i.e. abolishment of the syndicates and unions of workers' and companies having the right to fire workers at any time without any compensation.

That's hardly Marxism; I say it's exactly the opposite, i.e. extreme liberalism.

EDIT:

I'd like to add the it's only recently that European banks were given a tremendous amount of Euros in order to cope with the crisis. That's extreme capitalism, with Marxism nowhere in sight.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by masterp]

I found this entry in Wikipedia regarding Gramsci and Cultural Marxism:

The analysis of hegemony (or "rule") was formulated by Antonio Gramsci to explain why predicted communist revolutions had not occurred where they were most expected, in industrialized Europe.
[...]
Gramsci therefore argued for a strategic distinction between a "war of position" and a "war of movement". The war of position is a culture war in which anti-capitalist elements seek to gain a dominant voice in mass media, mass organizations, and educational institutions to heighten class consciousness, teach revolutionary analysis and theory, and inspire revolutionary organization. Following the success of the war of position, communist leaders would be empowered to begin the war of movement, the actual insurrection against capitalism, with mass support....

Gramsci did not contend that hegemony was either monolithic or unified. Instead, hegemony was portrayed as a complex layering of social structures. Each of these structures have their own “mission” and internal logic that allows its members to behave in a way that is different from those in different structures. Yet, as with an army, each of these structures assumes the existence of other structures and by virtue of their differing missions, is able to coalesce and produce a larger structure that has a larger overall mission....

Cultural Hegemony

In short, this backs up the need and existence for Cultural Marxism. Even renowned Marxist thinkers such as Gramsci admitted that Marxism first had to win cultural dominance by overthrowing 'old' traditional values so that the West and its Capitalism could fall.

[edit on 22/12/2009 by Cythraul]

Originally posted by masterp
Excuse me, but I don't see any Marxism anywhere.

You won't as such. Cultural Marxism is covert and preceeds overt Marxism. That's what this thread is about - the subversion necessary to destabilise society so that the masses will accept open Marxism. We've not reached that stage yet.

Originally posted by Cythraul
What's with the victim attitude?

i'll start with this, i was feeling cold and whiney just the way i'm built. sorry 'bout that. today my outlook is different.

Marxism is always corrupted by the state. Rarely, if ever, throughout history has the State within a Marxist regime themselves been equally subject to the full limits of a Marxist system. Which Marxist leaders have ever not owned property and been socially and economically on par with their public?

this is very true, to date, it hasn't happened but the inclination of the state to abuse power and become corrupt is not uniquely marxist. i still don't see any reason to believe this scheme or ideology, which, generally, you describe quite accurately, is marxist.

part of facisim is the idea that the individual should sacrifice themselves for the good of the country and, as the good of the country rests on a health of the ecconomy, they must do their patriotic duty to the ecconomy.

lately, i've noticed that we are hearing politicians saying something similar quite often, "everybody will need to take their share of the burden for the good of the economy" or similar. this sounds like socialism or marxism on the surface but it shouldn't be confused. it is actually politicians serving the interests of corporations over the good of the people.

But that does not mean that the wider public are better off with Communism, or even Socialism. Those systems still require government (more so than ever) and that government will still abuse its power in the same way it currently does.

i disagree, the people are better off with well run socialism, all governments might abuse power, left or right, but a socialist government has to do some small service to the people and abuse power while a corporatist government does some small service to the corporations and then abuses power. on the whole, the people are better off with the former as they get some net benifit.

Originally posted by pieman
Medicine works (mostly), but the Socialised health system we have in the UK does not.

in what respect? it's a big issue, but overall the UK healthcare is quite good for what it costs.

I agree that's fascism, but in my opinion this 'fascism' we've seen in the banker bailouts is just a taster of what the reality of worldwide Socialism would really be like - the elites will still look after themselves at the expense of the masses.

worldwide socialism would really be fascism? okay, i can live with that.

And yes, there is such thing as extensive foreign aid, but in your Socialist worldview perhaps not. My country is bankrupt and yet we still insist on handing £billions out to the third world.

the idea that a country is bankrupt is fairly facist in itself. the UK has no less resources or production capability than it did 5 years ago.

but never mind, i'm actually talking about foregin aid from the perspective of a healthy global market economy. where the UK gives foreign aid to a third world country, it can expect benefit in two ways. the first is increased market size and the secound is increased global stability.

a more stable and prosperous third world means a more stable and prosperous first world.

in effect, on a cost benefit analysis, government directed foreign aid is more beneficial to the aider than the aided. there is no such thing as to much foreign aid.

But recording from the radio, I believe, is still technically illegal.

as is file sharing.

All it means is that music will eventually die.

for a start, most musicians play because they want to, not to make money. most don't ever make a living from playing. music will not die.

for most of mans time on earth, musicians have made their living from playing live. this is still the case. record sales make money for the record companies.

think about it this way, most of the people who downloaded your music probably wouldn't have paid to hear it before they heard it for free. now that they have heard it, you might get a chunk of those people to pay an extra £5 cover charge on the door to a gig they wouldn't have bothered attending if they hadn't ever heard your music.

and if money is that important, once you're well known enough, you can sell out and sell your music and image to advetise stuff and make a fortune.

swings and roundabouts. file-sharing can be used for promotion if you're smart about it.

[edit on 22/12/09 by pieman]

OP, I am sorry but I think your OP is biased and does not consider many facts and truths that would better illuminate our problems as a whole.

The Elite have become elite, by using the extent of the capitalistic system to amass capital. Further more the Elite use very basic capitalistic tenets to mass more capital.

The media glorifies, products, status, possessions, self (lipstick, clothing waxing,
facelifts, weight loss, tanning, teeth whitening, penile enlargement, breast augmentation ) and good old consumerism.


after typing this I can only laugh at the assertion that socialism is being used as bait.

We can stack up the socialist commercials and the me first, look at me, check out MY rack, MY CAR, MY SPARKLING TEETH...

come on

you wanna go toe to toe with the stuff the elite put on the TV - to sell - for profit- to make more CAPITAL.

I have yet to see a commercial advertising the merits of cheap unified dress,

Uncle Pertrikovs BROWN SMOCK collection

really the more I type -

Originally posted by Cythraul

Originally posted by masterp
Excuse me, but I don't see any Marxism anywhere.

You won't as such. Cultural Marxism is covert and preceeds overt Marxism. That's what this thread is about - the subversion necessary to destabilise society so that the masses will accept open Marxism. We've not reached that stage yet.

And we won't -

watch the COMMERCIALS on TV funded by you know who

This is a ludicrous theory when you hold it next to the light of AMERICAN IDOL and THE BIGGEST LOSER

The push is for Narcism not collectivism - (NOT SYNONYMOUS)

Be realistic

Originally posted by Janky Red
I have yet to see a commercial advertising the merits of cheap unified dress,

just as you mention that, it occurs to me that although each designer brand tries to promote itself as different to it's competitors, they also all look very similar (this seasons colours or cut or whatever) and the clothes are all made with the minimum cost.

they could be said to be advertising cheap unified dress, except they pretend it isn't cheap and it isn't unified. it's the 1984 concept of double-think, it's the same but it's also different.

just a thought.

reply to post by Cythraul

In short, this backs up the need and existence for Cultural Marxism. Even renowned Marxist thinkers such as Gramsci admitted that Marxism first had to win cultural dominance by overthrowing 'old' traditional values so that the West and its Capitalism could fall.

The above excerpt as well as the butchery of what Gramsci actually said, and let alone meant, by cultural hegemony, serves the purpose of giving dialectical discussion a bad name.

The excerpt comes very close to falsification which can be easily ascertained by anyone who reads even so much as the wikepedia article on the subject of cultural hegemony. Keep in mind, too, that wikipedia, like almost all other information sources that originate in the English language and first published in either the US or the UK contain an inherent bias against anything that has to do with socialism or communism or Marxism or Trotskyism, to name some of the socialist genres that are thusly treated.

And, therein lies the actual meaning of cultural hegemony.

Explanations about Marxist thought are simply falsified in English in order to impute onto socialism that which is actually being done in a capitalistic framework.

Note: We are currently in the midst of a deepening economic crisis that could yet result in total collapse of the capitalistic financial system. That is not the fault of socialism nor could it be. After all, capitalism is the hegemon here. It is the capitalist system that is crashing and burning and it is capitalist reactionary force that is seeking to euphemize the situation, change the subject, blame cultural Marxism and so on.

Even though it is not possible here to overthrow the cultural hegemony that has been imposed upon us down to the cellular level, it is possible to call attention to subtle attempts to blame Marxism for that which is solely the normal and natural effect of the deeply flawed capitalist approach to social organization.



[edit on 22-12-2009 by jplotinus]

I'm not sure everyone who's posting is quite grasping the key premise of this thread/expose:

- Cultural Marxism is not Marxism. If Cultural Marxism is in operation within our society we will not be able to see it as open Socialism or Communism. Cultural Marxism is the means of silently altering a society over the course of years, decades or centuries in order to prime society for the acceptance of an entirely new system. Marxism is so radical that it cannot come about without first destroying the old system. Cultural Marxism is deliberately destroying our 'old' system.

- Some of you seem to believe that the powers-that-be are pro-Capitalist and that Marxism is the answer. That's fine, but I believe the opposite. My assertion is that the elites at the very top (the New World Order operatives, if you will) are beyond politics. All they want is power and they'll use left or right ideology - whichever suits them at the time. But just beneath them, the positions of power in our everyday society are currently being assumed by Marxists. Look at those in the Labour party - half of them are ex-Communists.

- Cultural Marxism can masquerade as Capitalism. In a sense, the most effective form of Cultural Marxism would be to villify Capitalism to the greatest extremes possible. True Cultural Marxists would carry Capitalism to an exaggerated level - so that it's so bloated and arrogant that the entire world learns to hate it. This, I believe, is what the recent economic imploson was about. Problem, reaction, solution - to quote David Icke.

Originally posted by pieman
i'll start with this, i was feeling cold and whiney

just the way i'm built. sorry 'bout that. today my outlook is different.

That's alright. We all have bad days.

Originally posted by pieman
this is very true, to date, it hasn't happened but the inclination of the state to abuse power and become corrupt is not uniquely marxist.

I agree. It's not uniquely Marxist. I keep having to repeat that Marxism is almost definitely being exploited as a tool by the NWO.

Originally posted by pieman
in what respect? it's a big issue, but overall the UK healthcare is quite good for what it costs.

My girlfriend has had terrible treatment. Waiting almost a year for an operation, being fobbed off with drugs etc. Others might have had better experience.

Originally posted by pieman
now that they have heard it, you might get a chunk of those people to pay an extra £5 cover charge on the door to a gig they wouldn't have bothered attending if they hadn't ever heard your music.

and if money is that important, once you're well known enough, you can sell out and sell your music and image to advetise stuff and make a fortune.

In most cases you're right, but my music is non-performance. It's actually not possible to perform live as I'm the sole musician. There are plenty of acts in a similar position and file-sharing as a means of promotion does not benefit us, it hinders. I'm not interested in making money - I'm not a professional musician. But I've lost about £1000. I think an artist should at least be able to break even. I just don't understand why people think they have the right to own music for free.

Originally posted by pieman
they could be said to be advertising cheap unified dress, except they pretend it isn't cheap and it isn't unified. it's the 1984 concept of double-think, it's the same but it's also different.

Interesting observation!

Originally posted by jplotinus
Keep in mind, too, that wikipedia, like almost all other information sources that originate in the English language and first published in either the US or the UK contain an inherent bias against anything that has to do with socialism or communism or Marxism or Trotskyism, to name some of the socialist genres that are thusly treated.

I disagree. Wikipedia and most information sources are becoming more and more openly leftist.

If I'm so wrong about Gramsci, please correct me. I fully admit I know little about him and his writings. I did some quick research (not just Wikipedia) to get up to speed. My summary of him is based on the general impression I get of him when glancing upon a few websites. Was he not anti-capitalist? Did he not believe Marxism must establish itself culturally before it can assert its position politically?

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by Janky Red
I have yet to see a commercial advertising the merits of cheap unified dress,

just as you mention that, it occurs to me that although each designer brand tries to promote itself as different to it's competitors, they also all look very similar (this seasons colours or cut or whatever) and the clothes are all made with the minimum cost.

they could be said to be advertising cheap unified dress, except they pretend it isn't cheap and it isn't unified. it's the 1984 concept of double-think, it's the same but it's also different.

just a thought.

Good point really - seems the current swing is to make people think they can achieve
unique, timeless "beauty" and style through the right combination of products and acquired taste.

IMO this thread is oozing with double think

The cream of the crop capitalists are using socialism as a way to disarm the individual liber, by creating a self centered society of individuals crippled by consumer driven narcism?

One could go as far to say as this concept is an attempt to prevent any serious understanding or reflection in regards to the social environment in the first world.


I believe the GOAL is - nurture them all to be as deep as a tea cup, to know apathy well
and to be "happy" they are "alive" swimming in product and remedy.

reply to post by Cythraul

I disagree. Wikipedia and most information sources are becoming more and more openly leftist.

If I'm so wrong about Gramsci, please correct me. I fully admit I know little about him and his writings. I did some quick research (not just Wikipedia) to get up to speed. My summary of him is based on the general impression I get of him when glancing upon a few websites. Was he not anti-capitalist? Did he not believe Marxism must establish itself culturally before it can assert its position politically?

In responding to the above, I am simply seeking to avoid disengenuity whereever and whenever that tendency may be found. That which is quoted above has, as its frame of reference, an inherent starting position that sees the status quo, namely the capitalist epoch, as being under attack by an attempt to undermine capitalism culturally.

However, therein lies the rub.

The starting point for Gramsci's idea of hegemony is nowhere to be found in your quoted articulation. And, in the one prior to that your use of the Gramscian conceptualization of hegemony was twisted so as to make it seem as if the starting frame of reference was a desire to impose cultural marxism, which appeared to be a synonym for cultural hegemony.

What is missed in that spin is the already present, and one needs to say, the already omnipresent existence of capitalist cultural hegemony that results in the genuflection before anything having to do with defending capitalism. It is that genuflection that must be replaced. And, replacement is not considered arbitrary under Marxist thought. Rather, the issue here is simply that capitalism, like feudalism before it and out of which capitalism developed, has run its course and has shown its strength as well as its oppresive weakness.

There are various ways and means of describing the weakness(es) of capitalism. The current economic catastrophe that has been imposed upon planet earth by practices originating in America and which are crushing America is the most relevant descritor of that weakness. As we are currently living through the catastrophe, each poster is free to describe the effects of it as s/he sees fit.

As with any political perspective, one of the most difficult tasks is that of objectively reading or studying that which one opposes. The barriers to understanding are enormous and they center in the perceiver. Each of us is free to determine whether we would like objectively to understand what Gramsci stands for, or whether we'd prefer to engage in a strawman dialectic.

reply to post by jplotinus

Then what are some examples of the pre-existing "capitalist cultural hegemony"?

If it exists, and I in fact know it does or has, it is no doubt quite open and abvious. The Capitalist ideology is a strange concept in itself - I don't know of anyone who describes themselves, politically, as 'Capitalist'. Those who welcome Capitalism would probably more commonly identify as 'Libertarian' or 'Conservative'. But the Capitalist/Libertarian ideology, if it has and does try to win support from the masses, has probably not used subversion on a mass-scale in order to do so. If Marxist ideology was presented to us all openly and honestly, and if Communist political parties were to form, I'd have no problem whatsoever (this leaves me wondering - why are there so few prominent, successful Communist/Socialist parties in the west? There are no doubt many millions of pro-Marxist individuals. Are they asserting their beliefs in a less obvious way?

No, what I object to specifically is Cultural Marxism, which is covert by nature. It's all very well wanting a better world, but to secretly destroy someone else's world which they're quite happy with is unnacceptable. Or do the Marxists know better?

Capitalism is corruptable, clearly, but at least it emerged naturally within the western system, not by subverting an existing system to the point of destruction.

reply to post by jplotinus


the suggestion that capitalism is just an elaboration of feudalism doesn't really stack up. the roots of capitalism are fairly firmly planted in the social upheavals following the black death. in many ways, capitalism has done more than any other form of economic government to destroy feudal systems.

i also reject the idea that any reasonable successor to capitalism has yet been found or fully developed.

simple natural selection seems to have elevated the drive to control more resources than their neighbors to an instinctual level.

many people feel that capitalism is the fairest and most equitable system to allow man to fulfill this drive.

marxism and communism are good theories but they are difficult to actually implement because of this basic human drive. in the absence of a way in which man can equitably strive to amass resources, many believe they will be so corrupted that, regardless of its flaws, capitalism is a fairer system overall.

reply to post by Cythraul


capitalism fairly destroyed feudalism to gain it's legs. some lip service to the aristocracies was left but the actual feudal system itself was left fairly hollow by the end of the european agricultural and industrial revolutions.



[edit on 23/12/09 by pieman]

Originally posted by Cythraul

Originally posted by masterp
Excuse me, but I don't see any Marxism anywhere.

You won't as such. Cultural Marxism is covert and preceeds overt Marxism. That's what this thread is about - the subversion necessary to destabilise society so that the masses will accept open Marxism. We've not reached that stage yet.

If it is covert, how do you see it? I don't see it at all. Perhaps you are better than me...:-).

Seriously now, judging from your posts, you are a middle-class American born in some mid-western mostly white state, aren't you? it's only natural that you suspect things are going towards Marxism/Communism, because you have been brainwashed all the years of your life that Communism is evil.

Well, indeed, Communism is evil, but so is extreme Capitalism. Actually, they are both fueled by the same ingredient: greed. It's greed that causes the destabilization.

Originally posted by masterp
If it is covert, how do you see it? I don't see it at all. Perhaps you are better than me...:-).

Cultural Marxism, as explained in my original post, manifests itself in everything that seems to be destabilising society. Ever heard people say "nothing works anymore"? Well, nothing works because there are people in positions of power trying to ensure that nothing works.

Originally posted by masterp
Seriously now, judging from your posts, you are a middle-class American born in some mid-western mostly white state, aren't you? it's only natural that you suspect things are going towards Marxism/Communism, because you have been brainwashed all the years of your life that Communism is evil.

I'm English. And as I've stated at least twice in this thread, I WAS a pro-Communist/Socialist young man. I attended rallies and protests and thought Marx had it right. I was angry at the established system and Marxism was the answer. Since then I've done a lot of research and kept my eyes wide open and I now believe that the establishment itself is secretly pro-Marxist and so th problems I have with the established system are actually problems with both far-left ideology and far-right ideology.

Originally posted by masterp
Well, indeed, Communism is evil, but so is extreme Capitalism. Actually, they are both fueled by the same ingredient: greed. It's greed that causes the destabilization.

I agree.

Currently, Europe will morph into democratic Socialism. Within 10 years, when the current adolescent population of Europe becomes the main voters and taxpayers - Europe will federalise. The official statistics of the EU and national governments show the youth are significantly pro-European, multi-cultural and antagonist of traditional nationalism.

The premise of this thread, if correct, can suggest cultural Marxism is the result of this attitude shift and divide between generations in Europe.

Will it go global? I cannot make such a bold claim. North America needs to cultural change, significantly, for this to occur. With the powerful corporations - who financially back think tanks and lobby firms - will no doubt lead to significant cultural and political divides. Especially in the United States. ATS is evidence of it, look around, you notice the partisan fighting and hateful discussion. Notice Europeans not necessarily degrading debates into partisan bloodbaths.