gnidrologs (![[info]](http://klab.lv/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} gnidrologs) rakstīja,@ 2017-11-03 20:14:00 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
The amount of destructive cultural marxism spewed by leftwing outlets like Salon, HuffPo, Vox, Cosmo etc. has reached new levels of utter depravity. Their aim, conscious or not, is to make the normal abnormal, and the abnormal normal.
The combination of Marcuse, Horkheimer and the rest of the Frankfurt School's critical theory, and their new idea of a Marxist revolution not being an uprising by the Bourgeoisie against the Proletariat, but rather a new class struggle between oppressed victim groups and identities against the established society built on Judeo-Christian values, lie at the center of this. Their success in taking over large cultural megaphones like academia, media and pop-culture has given this toxic ideology a huge foothold in the culture. Helped along with "political correctness", a construction of Mao Zedong, which is used as a shield against the backlash of normality, deeming it as intolerant and hateful. This has been very effective. We're seing the result of this today with how polarized the political landscape has become as a result of the left diving off the deep end. Colleges and Universities with their safe spaces and trigger warnings have become factories for insanity.
Funny thing is that this takeover of academia, media and pop-culture isn't some grand conspiracy theory either - all you need to do is establish a leadership at the top of an organization once, and then it's easy to secure the continuation of the dominating ideology within by controlling who is hired and who isn't, as well as who takes over when the time comes. Look at all the Silicon Valley giants like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Youtube etc., and the widespread censorship of conservative opinions, while the most vile leftwing propaganda gets a free pass over and over again. Youtube "trending" is one good example of how one-sided it is.
Add Foucault, Derrida and Lacan. The Frankfurt School guys at least had a distincitive vision of what the world ought to be like and they were under the direct impression of Nazi Germany and Mussolinis Italy from where these guys had to flee, so naturally, their view of mankind and civilization was grim to begin with. In a sense, these people thought they'd make the world a better place by challenging every possible social norm which is what critical theory actually is: Criticizing everything ad nauseam. Their idea of sexual freedom is rooted in Reich's idea that fascism or totalitarianism are rooted in sexual frustration. It made sense for them to promote free love, as that meant the creation of a better world from their point of view. What's important here imo is the intention of actually wanting to create, well, anything at all.
The above mentioned three frauds however and their disciples, who knew nothing about the west's culture, religion or art to begin with established the notions that everything means nothing, that objective quality doesn't exist and that the only theme of mankind in all of history is power. Their only aim is destruction - they have no vision of their own, not even a lame leftist social utopia, nothing. Meanwhile, their dimwit writings plague every humanities faculty from Berkeley to Warsaw.
The difference between these two mindsets is pretty clear. Take a look at these:
This is 'Young Virgin Auto-Sodomized by the Horns of Her Own Chastity' by Salvador Dali. It's sacrilege art that pokes fun at christianity with the virgin mary being bored out of her mind by the idea of Annunciation while at the same time reminding christians that christianity incorporated elements of paganism, namely the theme of an impenetrable mother goddess. While clearly an affront to the status quo, Dali was a learned scholar with an intricate knowledge of the subject matter. It's a parody, not a malicious derision. It's controversial, but in a way that invites an argument.
Meanwhile, post-structuralism ends up producing this gargabe:
Andres Serranos Piss Christ and Chris Olifi's The Holy Virgin Mary. The former needs no explanation, the latter is a collage of porn pics and the holy virgin is smeared with elephant dung. No knowledge, no parody, nothing. This is produced only for shock value and is solely meant to deride people who believe in christianity, or anything at all. Arguing is futile, because nothing has any value.
The collage of headlines you posted falls into the same category as Piss Christ: Proclaiming fat people to be aesthetic, promoting incest and sodomy for the sake of promoting it and of course the inevitable patriarchy ramblings only serve the purpose of creative destruction. Not one of the Cosmopolitan writers actually banged their siblings or practices rusty trombone (I wonder what's next, the Cleveland Steamer ?). Their reasons to publish this are shock value and debasement of standards under the guise of 'look how liberal, tolerant and sophisticated we are'.
The combination of Marcuse, Horkheimer and the rest of the Frankfurt School's critical theory, and their new idea of a Marxist revolution not being an uprising by the Bourgeoisie against the Proletariat, but rather a new class struggle between oppressed victim groups and identities against the established society built on Judeo-Christian values, lie at the center of this. Their success in taking over large cultural megaphones like academia, media and pop-culture has given this toxic ideology a huge foothold in the culture. Helped along with "political correctness", a construction of Mao Zedong, which is used as a shield against the backlash of normality, deeming it as intolerant and hateful. This has been very effective. We're seing the result of this today with how polarized the political landscape has become as a result of the left diving off the deep end. Colleges and Universities with their safe spaces and trigger warnings have become factories for insanity.
Funny thing is that this takeover of academia, media and pop-culture isn't some grand conspiracy theory either - all you need to do is establish a leadership at the top of an organization once, and then it's easy to secure the continuation of the dominating ideology within by controlling who is hired and who isn't, as well as who takes over when the time comes. Look at all the Silicon Valley giants like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Youtube etc., and the widespread censorship of conservative opinions, while the most vile leftwing propaganda gets a free pass over and over again. Youtube "trending" is one good example of how one-sided it is.
Add Foucault, Derrida and Lacan. The Frankfurt School guys at least had a distincitive vision of what the world ought to be like and they were under the direct impression of Nazi Germany and Mussolinis Italy from where these guys had to flee, so naturally, their view of mankind and civilization was grim to begin with. In a sense, these people thought they'd make the world a better place by challenging every possible social norm which is what critical theory actually is: Criticizing everything ad nauseam. Their idea of sexual freedom is rooted in Reich's idea that fascism or totalitarianism are rooted in sexual frustration. It made sense for them to promote free love, as that meant the creation of a better world from their point of view. What's important here imo is the intention of actually wanting to create, well, anything at all.
The above mentioned three frauds however and their disciples, who knew nothing about the west's culture, religion or art to begin with established the notions that everything means nothing, that objective quality doesn't exist and that the only theme of mankind in all of history is power. Their only aim is destruction - they have no vision of their own, not even a lame leftist social utopia, nothing. Meanwhile, their dimwit writings plague every humanities faculty from Berkeley to Warsaw.
The difference between these two mindsets is pretty clear. Take a look at these:
This is 'Young Virgin Auto-Sodomized by the Horns of Her Own Chastity' by Salvador Dali. It's sacrilege art that pokes fun at christianity with the virgin mary being bored out of her mind by the idea of Annunciation while at the same time reminding christians that christianity incorporated elements of paganism, namely the theme of an impenetrable mother goddess. While clearly an affront to the status quo, Dali was a learned scholar with an intricate knowledge of the subject matter. It's a parody, not a malicious derision. It's controversial, but in a way that invites an argument.
Meanwhile, post-structuralism ends up producing this gargabe:
Andres Serranos Piss Christ and Chris Olifi's The Holy Virgin Mary. The former needs no explanation, the latter is a collage of porn pics and the holy virgin is smeared with elephant dung. No knowledge, no parody, nothing. This is produced only for shock value and is solely meant to deride people who believe in christianity, or anything at all. Arguing is futile, because nothing has any value.
The collage of headlines you posted falls into the same category as Piss Christ: Proclaiming fat people to be aesthetic, promoting incest and sodomy for the sake of promoting it and of course the inevitable patriarchy ramblings only serve the purpose of creative destruction. Not one of the Cosmopolitan writers actually banged their siblings or practices rusty trombone (I wonder what's next, the Cleveland Steamer ?). Their reasons to publish this are shock value and debasement of standards under the guise of 'look how liberal, tolerant and sophisticated we are'.
