Thread: The Frankfurt School - roots of radical feminism and political correctness and bent on destruction

I have read some of the School of Frankfurt authors in my early twenties and I really loved them, especially "Loving - an Art" by Erich Fromm (I don't know the exact english title). I was impressed and overwhelmed by the positivity and the love for humanity which was expressed in this writings. Maybe that's what the authors of this essay linked in your post didn't like and consider as a destruction of society.

I don't know much about PC straightjacket in other countries. In Germany I cannot remember that I have worn any. Or maybe I just moved to little so I was not able to feel my bonds.

Thanks for responding Emo. I don't know a lot about any of this - as I said, I only recently started hearing about it and haven't read any of the authors. A quick check of the wiki page on Eric Fromm reveals several interesting things:

"Herbert Marcuse is critical of Fromm: in the beginning he was a radical theorist, but later he turned to conformity." - so meaning what - that Fromm wasn't radical enough for the other Frankfurt School intellectuals? Possibly what you read was one of his later non-radical works? I don't know.

Another thing to keep in mind - if as you say there's no PC culture in Germany, then I guess you wouldn't know what I'm talking about - you'd really have to experience it to understand its insidious power. Or possibly you're a progressive yourself, in which case I would expect you to be in favor of cultural Marxism. But even if that's the case, it's hard for me to understand how anybody can condone such vile behavior - literally getting together and scheming up ways to turn huge segments of the population against each other in hatred to accomplish their political goal of overthrowing capitalism. They believe the ends justify the means, and that any underhanded tactic is okay as long as it brings about the revolution they want - which I guess is the way revolutionaries all think.

But another possibility - you need to keep in mind that these were extremely intelligent political agitators, and they had studied psychology - they knew how to present their ideas in ways that sound innocent and deeply appealing, sneaking the evil medicine in with lots of sugar so people don't notice the bad taste. So it's entirely possible that you were brainwashed by their glowing prose and shining idealism and don't even know it. That's the way it was designed to operate remember - to infiltrate the minds of ordinary people so they'll spread the ideas of communism/socialism without realizing that's what they're doing - especially young people who tend to think in revolutionary terms and to be against the ways of their parents (the old world order), so they respond strongly to rhetoric of this type.

A few more suspect passages from the wiki page:

"Fromm pointed out that being able to distinguish between good and evil is generally considered to be a virtue, and that biblical scholars generally consider Adam and Eve to have sinned by disobeying God and eating from the Tree of Knowledge. However, departing from traditional religious orthodoxy on this, Fromm extolled the virtues of humans taking independent action and using reason to establish moral values rather than adhering to authoritarian moral values."

Hmmm - so, he's advocating against "authority", in particular of the Christian church? Not that I'm religious myself mind you, but I'm just saying that this is deconstruction of the Bible and of the very idea of the church and Christianity. Apparently the idea was that if they could destroy the church, family, and marriage, institutions that bolster people and give them support and comfort in times of crisis and a sense of society and belonging at all times, then people would have no choice but to turn to government - thereby making the government the ultimate authority (funny, how they dislike authority except for that of their own big daddy government).

"The "individualized man" referenced by Fromm is man bereft of the "primary ties" of belonging (i.e. nature, family, etc.)"

"Freedom" from family? What, really??!! So he believes that family is some kind of evil authoritarian system that must be escaped from or destroyed? He wants people "bereft of primary ties of belonging"??!! Somehow this doesn't really sound like the philosophy of a loving person to me, it sounds more like destructive radical ideology.

"Fromm contended that Freud was one of the "architects of the modern age", alongside Albert Einstein and Karl Marx, but emphasized that he considered Marx both far more historically important than Freud and a finer thinker."

.. And he idolizes Marx. I think maybe you need to take another, more critical look at his writing - it seems like there's some poison hidden in those passages dwelling on love and bliss. Hey, I know I read a lot of things in my early 20's that later turned out to be something other than what I naively thought they were when I first encountered them. I was hardly a well developed critical thinker then, though of course I thought I was (as all early 20-somethings do, though admittedly some actually already are at that age).

Originally Posted by EmoScreamo

I was impressed and overwhelmed by the positivity and the love for humanity which was expressed in this writings. Maybe that's what the authors of this essay linked in your post didn't like and consider as a destruction of society.

It's not that the authors of the article "consider" Frankfurt School ideology destruction of society, that was actually their explicit and clearly stated purpose!!

if as you say there's no PC culture in Germany, then I guess you wouldn't know what I'm talking about…. Or possibly you're a progressive yourself, in which case I would expect you to be in favor of cultural Marxism.

Maybe it’s a mix of both. I hear voices in Germany who complain about a “Gesinnungspolizei” (attitude police) but I never gave much attention to it. I indeed feel free to express my opinion in word and speech. Of course there are legal restrictions: Doing the Sieg Heil will be charged with 5000$ and may result to being fired if you are working in public service.
There are books published regularly about restricting immigration and returning to classical family values. They reach bestselling sales. But it’s also the right of free speech to express the opposite opinion.
What exactly are you talking about when you say “vile behavior”?

So it's entirely possible that you were brainwashed by their glowing prose and shining idealism and don't even know it

Maybe. Maybe it’s possible that conservatives were brainwashed. How can we define the difference between education and brainwashing? Everybody will think that he is completely rational. How can we define right or wrong? How do we get our moral values? Empiric Science? Peer reviewed sociological publishing? Parents? Friends? Peer groups? How did our parents get their moral values? Were we or they indoctrinated by priests and conservative authorities? If I remember my childhood I definitely felt indoctrinated by this institutions.

. Apparently the idea was that if they could destroy the church, family, and marriage, institutions that bolster people and give them support and comfort in times of crisis and a sense of society and belonging at all times, then people would have no choice but to turn to government - thereby making the government the ultimate authority (funny, how they dislike authority except for that of their own big daddy government).

That’s not the kind of philosophy I got. Maybe that’s the fear of [I don’t know the exact word as I am not living in the USA] Republicans that pops out as soon as they hear the word “Socialism”: Government. Soviet Union. The philosophy of these “socialists” was not to regulate everything by government. It was to unite as a society of free people.

"Freedom" from family? What, really??!! So he believes that family is some kind of evil authoritarian system that must be escaped from or destroyed?

It was not the thing to say: Separate children from the family and hate your father! No! The idea of an adult person who gets his feeling of identity not because he belongs to a certain clan, family, nation, peer group, race… or because he has so many things… but a person who lives at this planet and is able to get in contact with his fellow humans. You can see this good in Fromm’s book “The sane society”.

And he idolizes Marx

Marx is not Stalin. Marx was a philosopher. USSR definitely was not in his mind. Especially in Europe Marx is still very present in Social Democracy which is the second largest party in Germany and many other European Countries. Social Democracy developed from Marxist reformism. Maybe it’s a thing of looking at two sides of the medal. If some people hear “socialism” they immediately think about dictator regimes (I think there has never been a non-dictatory socialist country maybe except some quite big experiments (e.g. Libertarian Socialism during the Spanish Civil War 1936). Especially Fromm was also influenced by libertarian socialist like Proudhon (you can find some hints to Proudhon in some Robert A. Wilson books).

You may just for fun or for practicing your critical skills read one of the books, maybe Adorno or Fromm. To get a good overview maybe “About Disobedience” by Fromm would do fine.

You make a lot of very good points, and I'm glad we can discuss this rationally rather than arguing. I completely agree that conservatives are also brainwashed - personally I don't subscribe to any political belief system, so I can see problems with all of them. What I meant by vile behavior, and my criticism of the Frankfurt school, is the fact that they were radicals who wanted to overthrow an existing government through destruction - not by physical violence, but through insidious treachery. They believed the ends justify the means, and since they believed they were trying to create a utopia, they thought it was alright to do so by making huge groups of people hate each other and create social unrest that can be manipulated by politicians to achieve those goals. Divide and conquer. Such as for instance telling women through radical feminism that they were always oppressed by men - oversimplifying the realities in which the vast majority of men didn't fare any better than the average woman, it was actually then as now the upper class - the 1% - who oppressed everybody else. So now a great many women and quite a few male feminists as well have utter contempt for men.

And it's not only their revolutionary ideas I object to, the willingness to destroy an existing government in hopes of installing a utopia (have those ever worked?), but the fact that it wasn't even their OWN government!! They were planning the downfall of America and other countries - though of course they did emigrate here, so it became their country. But the gall - to move to a new country and immediately begin plotting to bring it toppling down through treachery! Pitting women against men and minorities against the majority - telling everyone it's the white man who's the root of all evil and has done nothing but oppress everyone else!

I realize Marx was not Stalin. I don't know exactly what kind of socialism the Frankfurt writers had in mind to replace capitalism, but it's just the very idea that they wanted to see my country destroyed. From what I've heard, and I freely admit again I don't know a lot about it (this may well be the beginning of a lot of research for me, and who knows, I may come out of it a flag-waving socialist!) socialism can save a country on the verge of bankruptcy (Hello America!!) - but a socialist country will always be poor and can never achieve wealth the way a capitalist country can. I need to look into the differences between old-school socialism/communism and modern democratic socialism.

Hah!

I really appreciate our conversation. I am always happy to share point of views.

socialism can save a country on the verge of bankruptcy (Hello America!!) - but a socialist country will always be poor and can never achieve wealth the way a capitalist country can.

I think about the new deal of Keynes. I think that would be very close to what social democrats would favor. Looking back at that times it even from an European point of view these steps look quite left-wing. But as far as I am informed the steps were very powerful to stabilize the situation and to create huge market growth and wealth.

If you look at Sweden it may look quite socialist from an American point of view. They have quite high taxes but for me it looks very attractive because they have a very high living standard for everybody. They have great schools, many free education programs (free music lessons), very good health insurance for everybody and so on. I think they are living quite a lot of the Frankfurt School Agenda: One year parenting time for males is quite common and they have a lot of female bosses. Sexual Education starts quite early at school and of course there is a hell of premarital sex.

I definitely agree that there would be huge problems with a planned economy. I wonder if there is another way to produce and share goods, totally different from socialism and capitalism that would be even more useful for the humankind and environment.

but the fact that it wasn't even their OWN government!! They were planning the downfall of America and other countries - though of course they did emigrate here, so it became their country.

Yes, many of the Frankfurt school intellectuals had to emigrate. Like Einstein, many of them were Jews and had to leave Germany.
As far as I interpreted the “destruction” it would be no destruction or downfall in the direct meaning of the word. Maybe you could use the word “transformation”. That’s how I understood the writings.
I never felt incited against a certain group of people (white men) but I have heard that feminist are quite often blamed for doing that. R. A. Wilson even called them FemiNazis.

Another good article covering much of the same, but with better explanations of some things.

And on a somewhat related note, I mentioned Obama's connection to radical agitator Saul Alinski recently on another thread that I don't want to derail, so I'll post this here instead: Obama/Alinsky connection

It actually does fit this thread, since Alinsky is another radical postmodernist agitator along the Frankfurt School lines, teacing how to destabilize a society.

Today we continue or examination of cultural Marxism by focusing on one of its chief weapons - Postmodernism. Everybody has heard of it but there's a lot of confusion about what it really is. Essentially it's an assault on meaning, on logic, on history, on morals, and on coherent discourse. It undermines all these vital elements (necessary to hold a civilization together) and attempts to replace them with subjectivism, with irony and sarcasm, and basically with meaningless gibberish that sounds vaguely like intelligent criticism.

Here's an article focusing on Postmodernism in the arts; one of the areas where it completely dominates discourse now (along with in education and the mass media):

The Postmodern Assault


Excerpt:

What would there be to deconstruct if the subject of the Drunken Silenus really was taken to be a drunken Silenus? In the lexicon of postmodernist causes, alcohol abuse—unlike buggery, for example—has never enjoyed much of a priority. It just isn’t sufficiently sexy in itself, and lavishing scrutiny on excessive insobriety would in any case risk being seen to support conventional bourgeois morality, which it is also the purpose of postmodernism to deconstruct. So the subject of the Drunken Silenus had to be reinvented to qualify as a suitably sexy object of postmodernist hermeneutics.

So it seems Postmodernism is designed to appeal to the public through a sort of Reality TV aesthetic.

Oh trust me, I am NOT an advocate for the right wing either!! At least I *THINK* that was your point in posting that video, to show that the right is no better. I totally agree - I wish the extremists could somehow be kept out of power, but unfortunately it's the extreme left that's been holding power in the white house for 6 years now.

But I'm getting off topic here - really the point of this thread is to expose a couple of very important facts that I don't think are well known at all - especially the Franfurt School which is largely the cause of so many of today's problems but that most people have never heard of. Knowing about them and their evil plot helps so many things click together that inform today's world.


Assault on family

At the bottom of this thread is a collection of links to related threads, and I just read one - Tell Me About Feminism (< that's a link - I feel I need to point that out because it can be hard to see links on this site). I was glad to see some well-reasoned and well-informed discussion there, but not once did anybody mention the Frankfurt School, who were essentially responsible for radicalizing feminism. By the end of the 60's first-wave feminism had accomplished many of its admirable and quite necessary goals, but somewhere in the early 70's along came radical feminism, not created directly by Frankfurt School intellectuals of course, but indirectly, as one of the movements meant to divide our society into warring factions They use the Frankfurt methodology - to flatter one group, to tell them all their problems are caused by the other group, who has always historically oppressed their ancestors, to demonize that other group, and foment hatred in the minds of young people who don't even realize they're being coerced by propaganda. THIS is why I think it's so important that people find out about the Frankfurt School, because they're behind so many of the powerful movements that have changed things drastically over the last half century. They have literally radicalized the feminist movement to the point that now the radical ideas are mingled inextricably with the sensible ideas. And unfortunately, the feminists who have attained power in political circles and in making public policy are of the radical variety. Some of them may understand that they're just furthering the cause of Marxist agitators, some may really be completely duped by the brainwashing into believing there's truth in the radical ideals they espouse.

But they've created a new environment that we all have to live in now - single parent households are epidemic in our time, as is divorce, and the new divorce laws (as well as rampant corruption in the divorce courts) has ensured that it's mostly men who are forced to pay exhorbitant alimony and child support to the families they no longer are a part of except financially. It's the radicalized part of feminism that fills the heads of young women with ideas about being strong and independent, plus the new no-fault divorce laws ensure that divorce is easy and painless now, at least on the woman. And then the state thugs step in and ensure the man pays up or goes to prison. Left-wing elements in government are constantly pushing to create taxpayer-funded free day care beginning at a ridiculously young age, to make it easier on women to have kids and then pretty much forget about them and have a career even without being married. This is largely destroying the nuclear family unit and creating a culture of singles with no sense of belonging.

And it's not just feminism, they've also radicalized race relations , creating a culture of what are known as race-baiters, like Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Spike Lee, and countless lesser-known names, who espouse powerfully charged spiteful rhetoric designed to demonize one race and make another feel oppressed and want to rise up in violence. Please understand - I am NOT saying there's no such thing as racism or that it's not a problem - but I just don't think the way to deal with it is through hatred and divisiveness.

Plus it's the left that's in charge of mass media and the education system - so they pretty much control the dialectic and can mold young minds with propaganda. How many shows these days feature a well-adjusted family or a happily married couple? Instead, even going back to the early 80's, you've got Friends, Married With Children, Two and a Half Men, etc. Singles cast adrift or families that can't get along. Or there's the dysfunctional families like in Everybody Loves Raymond, with a bungling incompetent dad and a spiteful wife and narcissistic parents. It's systematic contempt for family, normalizing the idea of living single or of hating the male in a household. Why? All because way back when, a bunch of really smart Marxists got together and decided their political goals would be well served if they could convince people to subvert their own society in order to 'destabilize' it and break down those foundations of society - family and church.

Erin Pizzey created the first women's shelter in England, a devoted feminist if there ever was, who speaks out against the radicalized variety, and demonstrates quite clearly that they were a Marxist group:



She even says straight out in one of her longer videos (and in her book This Way to the Revolution) that she attended feminist meetings in the early 70's, and that the speakers there were the exact same people who had always spoken at Marxist meetings through the 60's, and in fact that they were still giving essentially the same speeches, except they substituted the word Patriarchy for Capitalism, and Oppressed Women for Workers. One of the things she discovered upon opening her shelter was that the women taking refuge there freely admitted that they were just as violent as their husbands/partners, and that in fact it was often they who initiated violence, but when she tried to publicize this fact the feminist movement responded with violence and death threats, forcing her into exile as she mentions in the video above.

My point in posting all this is by way of demonstrating that in fact radical feminism is/was a Marxist invention - the radicalization of a formerly benign and positive movement.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

And it's not just feminism, they've also radicalized race relations , creating a culture of what are known as race-baiters, like Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Spike Lee, and countless lesser-known names, who espouse powerfully charged spiteful rhetoric designed to demonize one race and make another feel oppressed and want to rise up in violence. Please understand - I am NOT saying there's no such thing as racism or that it's not a problem - but I just don't think the way to deal with it is through hatred and divisiveness.

Plus it's the left that's in charge of mass media and the education system - so they pretty much control the dialectic and can mold young minds with propaganda. How many shows these days feature a well-adjusted family or a happily married couple? Instead, even going back to the early 80's, you've got Friends, Married With Children, Two and a Half Men, etc. Singles cast adrift or families that can't get along. Or there's the dysfunctional families like in Everybody Loves Raymond, with a bungling incompetent dad and a spiteful wife and narcissistic parents. It's systematic contempt for family, normalizing the idea of living single or of hating the male in a household. Why? All because way back when, a bunch of really smart Marxists got together and decided their political goals would be well served if they could convince people to subvert their own society in order to 'destabilize' it and break down those foundations of society - family and church.

There's a fair bit of this I'd like to pick apart, but I'll have to do it later when I have more time. Do me a favor, Dark, let me know if I haven't responded in like two or three days time. Send me a PM or a visitor message or something.

Cool - looking forward to it. I would like to hear someone pick it apart. If there's something I'm missing I want to know what it is so I can stop being a nutbag doofus if I'm doing that.

I don't disagree that they're related, but I think it's far too much of an oversimplification to blame that all on the Marxists. The thread covers too much - Marxism, social conditioning/psychological warfare, feminism, race relations, etc - for us to have a reasonable discussion without first breaking down and discussing the individual parts.

I think this could be a fun little brain teaser, but I'd like to start with breakaway threads in ED before we take on this larger theory. Otherwise, I don't see this thread going anywhere, the discussion would be too clunky and we'd gloss over too many things. Take the bit about race relations for example - your ideas concerning that social issue may be worlds apart form mine, but we'll never be able to really get into the nitty-gritty of it all if we're also simultaneously throwing feminism, Marxism, and every-other-ism into the mix as well.

Personally, I think it'd be best if we start off by focusing on feminism first. It's a topic that almost everyone has an opinion on, and people may be more comfortable with joining in on that discussion than they would be with something like Marxism.

Of course you're right, each movement in itself is a huge subject, with a lot more to it than just a Marxist connection - but the focus of this thread is simply that - the common Marxist connection running through all these Leftist movements.

I don't mean to suggest that somehow it's all one huge plot, or that the Frankfurt authors planned it all and now it's all coming to pass. Its definitely only very loosely related, mostly because their ideas got dispersed through colleges across America and started influencing Left-leaners there, who then went on to other things and those ideas got spread. This thread might make it sound like I'm suggesting some kind of carefully planned conspiracy, but not at all!! I just think the Frankfurt School is a very important link that relates all these other movements together and relates them all to Marxism. That felt like a small revelation to me, and I just wanted to share!! I don't think most people have even heard of the Frankfurt School, or know that radical Feminism was allied so closely with Marxism.

I feel like I've basically said what I intended to with this thread - I never really intended it to become a big debate or discussion thread, more just me sharing a few things I've discovered that I thought were important to spread (that's why I didn't drop it in ED). Sort of like the thread where people drop nuggets about police misconduct etc. Of course that's not to say I'm not wrong about some parts, or missing some important facts - so I do welcome anything you've got to say, or anyone else for that matter.

But I agree - that shouldn't be on this thread - feel free to start one or several if you want to. I'm not promising I'll join in - right now my main interest in all this is like I said the Marxist connection and their plot to destroy family and the church. But if you get something interesting going I probably won't be able to resist joining in!

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Of course you're right, each movement in itself is a huge subject, with a lot more to it than just a Marxist connection - but the focus of this thread is simply that - the common Marxist connection running through all these Leftist movements.

I don't mean to suggest that somehow it's all one huge plot, or that the Frankfurt authors planned it all and now it's all coming to pass. Its definitely only very loosely related, mostly because their ideas got dispersed through colleges across America and started influencing Left-leaners there, who then went on to other things and those ideas got spread. This thread might make it sound like I'm suggesting some kind of carefully planned conspiracy, but not at all!! I just think the Frankfurt School is a very important link that relates all these other movements together and relates them all to Marxism. That felt like a small revelation to me, and I just wanted to share!!

Ohhhhhh, ok I got you. Fair enough.

The part about feminism, families, and race relations that I quoted earlier was what I took issue with, not the Frankfurt School. When it comes to feminism in particular, I find that there's a growing tendency in North American men to adopt the victim mentality and blame their problems on feminists. There's definitely a behavioral sink going on with North American men, I don't deny that, but I think it has more to do with men* themselves (or, more accurately, the culture of men) rather "the other team." That sort of weak-mindedness has been bugging me a lot recently, especially since armchair-intellectuals have been having a heyday with it as of late. But I guess that's a discussion for another thread. As soon as this hypomanic episode ends (I tend to think in images and sounds, rather than words, when manic), I'll try to piece together this theory of mine and post it.

*or at least guys that like to think of themselves as "men"

Ah, you talking about the 'Manosphere'? I've seen a lot of the videos, and I've learned a lot from them, but I don't consider myself aligned with any of the movements (MRM/MRA or MGTOW etc). I see them as a counter to the more extreme Feminist movements, but the truth lies somewhere between the extremes. However I do think it's totally fair game for men to (finally) start doing what women have been doing for so long now - have movements of their own and actually counter a lot of the ridiculous claims of radical feminists. But I think the most important thing they can do is simply spread information that the general public is unaware of and counter all the skewed statistics the feminists love to spew.

Yeah, if you start that thread I'll be there.

In fact, here's a little tidbit - the Manosphere is the opposite side of the feminist coin. It seems to be against the more virulent strains of feminism, and as I said it does point out a lot of valuable information (like the fact that men didn't always 'have the vote' - originally it was only the wealthy and powerful who did, but when government decided to force men to sign up for the draft on their 18th birthdays they gave those men the vote as a sort of consolation - a bit of power to go with the rather extreme risk/responsibility, which women never had to accept when they got the vote). But what does the Manosphere really accomplish? (Especially MGTOW, which is men going their own way) - the further disintegration of families and marriage, that's exactly what! Men going their own way means men who refuse to marry or get romantically involved with women. Factor in that much of the information revealed through the Manosphere comes from Warren Farrel, who was a leading feminist and the only male board member of NOW (National Organization of Women), and it COULD be that it's entirely by design that the men's movements result in men avoiding marriage. Hmmm.. (Assault on marriage and family, by any chance?)

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

And it's not just feminism, they've also radicalized race relations , creating a culture of what are known as race-baiters, like Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Spike Lee, and countless lesser-known names, who espouse powerfully charged spiteful rhetoric designed to demonize one race and make another feel oppressed and want to rise up in violence. Please understand - I am NOT saying there's no such thing as racism or that it's not a problem - but I just don't think the way to deal with it is through hatred and divisiveness.

Plus it's the left that's in charge of mass media and the education system - so they pretty much control the dialectic and can mold young minds with propaganda. How many shows these days feature a well-adjusted family or a happily married couple? Instead, even going back to the early 80's, you've got Friends, Married With Children, Two and a Half Men, etc. Singles cast adrift or families that can't get along.

Your discussion is flourishing, many interesting points. I will start researching in Frankfurt School literature of different authors. As I said I mostly read Erich Fromm books and was very impressed by his positive attitude towards humanity and humankind. He emphasized the love and especially the love towards all humans so it's very hard for me to imagine that he seeded hatred.

Another point about Fromm was that he opposed mindles consume in any form. That is a thread you find in many of his writings, especially in "About the love towards life" and "Loving - An art". Especially in "Loving - an Art" he definitely writes against a consuming attitude in relationships and emphasizes the ability to really get to know your partner to the depth of the soul (as he writes this book from the viewpoint of a psychotherapist).

And if the Frankfurt School (Socialists) and their heirs had much power about the media I think they would consider much more anti-consumist views in their plots. E.g. "Sex and the city" is definitely 100% opposite to Frankfurt School as I experienced the writings.

Another refutation of this sad crop of propaganda comes from good ole FDR:

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies.

Originally Posted by Franklin D. Roosevelt

Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people.

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living

Not sure what that has to do with this thread… does it mean that because I criticize the left you assume I'm standing for the right? I already said I don't. Try to see beyond the false dichotomy man!!

It's not a false dichotomy, an attempt to protect democracy is being passed on as a socialist invasion by the elite. Defending the working class from the current class war is deemed an attack on the upper class.

Dude - you're usually so much smarter than this! How does the fact that radical feminism caused a huge rift between males and females protect us from tyranny? All it does is weaken the society itself - it does nothing to government, and it does nothing to weaken the power of the right. What the Frankfurt school was pushing is not legitimate government, it's a sneak attack on the society itself. There's a legit element in leftist politics that does (or attempts to do) what you're talking about - to provide checks and balances on the power of the right. It doesn't seem like they're really doing much of that though - instead the current administration is mostly bent on Frankfurt School/ Alinsky style subversion attacks against the American people. You seem to be missing the fact that what this thread is about is not the legitimate left, but a sneaky subversive element operating within it. Or are you saying that that subversive element is what you consider the legitimate left?

You know what - when will I learn that it doesn't work to try to create a thread that's more subtle and complex than "my side good, your side bad!"? I made a thread about non-religious reincarnation and people mostly couldn't keep that idea in their heads - most of them defaulted to "reincarnation = religion!". And now you're reading a thread about Marxist subterfuge hidden within left movements as "Left=Bad, Right=Good!"


Waitwat??!! Did you actually just say that you think the Obama administration is trying to protect the US from class warfare??!!

I don't actually see a rift between males and females myself. I think the two genders are getting along just fine as we enter a stage of deeper equality between them. With any social movement, such as the progression of African Americans in society, there are elements that want to blame white people, and there are a small minority of feminists that act antagonistic towards men. Overall, feminism has been a very positive movement for the country.

Ok, well now at least you're starting to admit that there actually IS a small element that does bad things. It's actually a lot bigger than you make it out to be but it's a start. Now if you can only grasp that that bad element is the entire POINT of this thread!!! The marxists who radicalized feminism didn't do it because they thought they were helping anybody, they did it because they knew it would sow dissent and create hatred. And in spite of your industrial strength rose colored glasses the radical element is still strong in mainstream feminism, and most people have absorbed a lot of radical ideas without realizing that's what they are.

Sigh. But I've already explained all this several times. You just want to use this thread to push your own arguments about different topics.