Es tagad, kā liels mākslas mīļotājs, lasu gleznotājas E.Romanes grāmatu "Mēs abi", kur viņa apraksta savu mīlas stāstu ar MA rektoru L. Svempu. Visvairāk mani pārsteidza, kā viņa aprakstīja 50,60,70 gadu mākslinieku vidi. Viņai liela māja Mežaparkā un netālu Dž, Skulme ar Ābolu dzīvo..un bieži mājā notiek viesības , kur piedalās daudzi tā laika vadošie gleznotāji, kritiķi.
Tad, lūk..ar kādu vieglumu un pašsaprotamību viņi pie galda runā.." ..mēs ar Svempu tikko bijām Parīzē pa muzejiem, bet vasaras beigās brauksim uz Romu..tā esmu pēc Itālijas noilgojusies.."
"Mēs Romā bijām ziemā..", atbild Džemma pār galdu.."uz Luvru brauksim nākamgad"
Tādā stilā , lūk, dzīvoja tā laika radošā inteliģence, kas parakstja papīrīti ar VDK.( ... tālāk ... )
Interesantas pārdomas. Pārpublicēju komentāru, for posterity.
( ... tālāk ... )
heda, kas te interesants uzzināms par mūsu sociķiem?
"Protams, žēl dzirdēt, ka procesā tiek iznīcināts arī kaut kas vērtīgs. Bet arī tam, iespējams, būtu labāka vieta muzejā." - gedymin
"The younger, radical generation is taking the civil rights of blacks as a pretext for levering their parents’ generation out of power. They have no time for free speech: why would they want anyone to describe what they’re doing?"
A Study in Marxist Revolutionary Violence: Students for a. Democratic Society, 1962-1969. John Edgar Hoover.
As weaponized attack narratives, “racism” and “hate speech” are thought terminating clichés. As Robert J. Lifton explained: They seek the “subordination of human experience to the claims of doctrine” that have “much to do with the peculiar aura of a half-reality” that authoritarian movements are determined to impose. Those targeted are rendered“linguistically deprived.” Thought terminating clichés are weapons from the political warfare toolbox that the American left adopted from Mao. They are disorienting. In fact, the disorientation brought on by thought terminating clichés are spring loaded to elicit ill considered ‘in -the-moment’ responses calculated to compromise the target.
Alongside main attacks, supporting narratives declare one “divisive” for simply defending one’s views against coercive attacks. From the phrase “political correctness is the enforcement mechanism of post-modern narratives that execute Neo-Marxist objectives,” one can see how anyone who dares to say “2 + 2 = 4” can be designated as divisive. In the pseudoreality of imposed scientific socialism, truth is divisive. Against narratives intent on nihilizing America, all defenses are classified as divisive examples of racism, the very utterances of which constitute hate speech.
Another example comes from Keith Ellison, then a Congressman and Deputy Director of the DNC, when posting a Tweet endorsing Antifa violence against targeted segments of the population. In its reporting of the event, Newsweek not only minimized Ellison’s endorsement of Antifa violence and Antifa itself, it also declared all protests of Ellison’s endorsement to be racist and anti-Muslim. Regardless, with Ellison’s January 2018endorsement of Antifa and Antifa violence, there is notice that the DNC is comfortable with Antifa violence directed against the citizenry.
As noted, the racism narrative is designed to designate all things American as racist in in order to delegitimize all things American. ... “The goal of The 1619 Project, a major initiative from the New York Times that this issue of the magazine inaugurates, is to reframe American history.” "Our democracy's founding ideals were false when they were written."
“To stop something much, much worse. Imagine you could erase the American Civil War. How would you do it? Would you kill Jefferson Davis? Robert E. Lee? Lincoln? All the Confederate and Union Leaders? But that might not be enough to erase the idea. Maybe we have to kill the people who made them who they are, who gave them their moral and political beliefs. Friends, fathers, mothers, grandparents. How far back would you to go to snuff out the spark that lit the fuse? But if you eliminated the right combination of people, one by one, until you got the exact start of it, until you got to the one that undoes it all . . . you could reshape the future. And that’s what she’s doing.”
Of course, in the absence of anyone teleporting from the future to undertake the needed direct action, the next best thing would be people today who understand the same high stakes for the future, like Antifa or even Greta Thunberg, who is, after all, only calling for a rebellion to avert extinction. Like The Hunt, In the Shadow of the Moon justifies the current targeting of Americans for refusing to conform to the demands embedded in Neo-Marxist racism narratives thus justifying direct action.
In closing, the Neo-Marxist weaponization of racism is the leading edge of political warfare attacks that will be enforced through hate speech regimes imposed through international and foreign forums. The speech codes these efforts seek to enforce have already achieved de facto enforcement. Racism seeks the destruction of American identity. Hate speech purposefully seeks the destruction of the First Amendment, which it has already substantively displaced in popular culture. Because Neo-Marxist LOEs attack along political warfare vectors that follow Maoist mass line trajectories, there is great confidence in their success because there is a high degree of assurance that Americans- especially among national security professionals - lack the discernment and the competencies to recognize these activities as strategic level assaults, let alone defend against them. That America’s national security apparatus is defenseless against political warfare attacks is established and well known. As two Chinese Colonels stated over twenty years ago in their 1999 Chinese War College thesis:
Whether it be the intrusion of hackers, a major explosion at the World Trade Center, of a bombing attack by bin Laden, all of these greatly exceed the frequency bandwidths understood by the American military . . . This is because they have never taken into consideration and have even refused to consider means that are contrary to tradition and to select measures of operation other than military means.
The typical socialist today is not a union guy who wants higher wages; it’s a transsexual eco-feminist who marches in Antifa and Black Lives Matter rallies and throws cement blocks at her political opponents.
We see it in the riots and looting sweeping the country in the aftermath of the George Floyd killing. The socialist left today is concerned less with worker exploitation by the bourgeoisie and more with the race, gender, and transgender grievances of identity politics. I call it identity socialism.
Today’s socialists want an America that integrates the groups seen as previously excluded while excluding the group that was previously included. “If you are white, male, heterosexual, and religiously and/or socially conservative,” writes blogger Rod Dreher, “there’s no place for you” on the progressive left. On the contrary, it should now be expected that in society “people like you are going to have to lose their jobs and influence.”
In other words, for identity socialists and for the left more generally, blacks and Latinos are in; whites are out. Women are in; men are out. Gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, together with other, more exotic types are in; heterosexuals are out. Illegals are in; native-born citizens are out. One may think this is all part of the politics of inclusion, but to think that is to get only half the picture. The point, for the left, is not merely to include but also to exclude, to estrange their opponents from their native land.
How did we get here? To understand identity socialism, we must meet the man who figured out how to bring its various strands together, Herbert Marcuse.
Marcuse’s Revolution( ... tālāk ... )
“I believe that there is a ‘natural right’ of resistance for oppressed and overpowered minorities to use extralegal means if the legal ones have proved to be inadequate,” Marcuse wrote. “Law and order are always and everywhere the law and order which protect the established hierarchy; it is nonsensical to invoke the absolute authority of this law and this order against those who suffer from it and struggle against it [...] for their share of humanity. If they use violence, they do not start a new chain of violence but try to break an established one.”
"The demonization of the right as fascism, that therefore forfeits its place to be heard in the public square, employs the strategy developed by the Marxist scholar Herbert Marcuse. One of the progenitors of the so-called New Left in the 1950s, Marcuse maintained that certain views on the right had to be silenced because this freedom of expression was “serving the cause of oppression.” In this line of thought, censorship serves the cause of freedom because intolerance against the right, while indulging extremism from the left, somehow levels the playing field for democratic debate. That absurd notion is at last managing to take hold in many academic and media circles today".
A key component of fascism, one found in virtually every definition, is the idea that it involves suppression of political opposition and the use of “redemptive violence” against ideological rivals to expand influence and power. Since Antifa routinely use violence and intimidation to prevent political opponents from assembling and publicly defend these tactics as a means to their ends, their fascist tendencies are self-evident.
To most, this connection is clear. To Antifa and some leftist scholars, it is not. The intellectual basis for those who reject Antifa’s fascist connection can be found in the writings of Herbert Marcuse, whose work is considered to be the root of neo-Marxist philosophy.
While at the Institute of Social Research—better known today as the Frankfurt School—[Herber] Marcuse would publish several works on Marx that would abandon the Marxist focus on labor and class struggle and develop the controversial philosophy of critical theory.
Critical theory is defined as “a philosophical approach to culture, and especially to literature, that seeks to confront the social, historical, and ideological forces and structures that produce and constrain it.”
This might sound benign, but in practice, critical theory is the shallow analysis of politics, history, art, and society through the lens of power dynamics. It places the world into a box of oppressor vs. oppressed and insists that those who are oppressed are “good” and those who are oppressors are “evil.”
Marcuse applies this theory in his 1965 essay “Repressive Tolerance”—a true example of doublespeak—wherein he argues that free speech and tolerance are only beneficial when they exist in conditions of absolute equality. When there are power differentials at play, which there most certainly always will be, then free speech and tolerance are only beneficial to the already powerful.
He calls tolerance in conditions of inequality “repressive” and argues that it inhibits the political agenda and suppresses the less powerful.
To account for this, Marcuse calls for a “liberating tolerance” that represses the strong and empowers the weak. He explained that a liberating tolerance “would mean intolerance against movements from the Right, and toleration of movements from the Left.”
If one is an adherent of Marcuesean philosophy, then one could easily justify using fascist tactics in the name of fighting it.
The problem is that if you view the world through the obfuscated lens of conflict, then you see little other than power dynamics, and the only way to restore power imbalances is to use force. This essentially means that the weak (“the Left”) can do no wrong because they are virtuous, and the powerful (“the Right”) are oppressive no matter what they do, due to their perceived position of dominance.
This is the logic behind Marcuse’s assertion that “what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression.”
Marcuse openly admits that his liberating tolerance might seem “apparently undemocratic” but justifies using “repression and indoctrination” to advance the agenda of a “subversive majority.”
It becomes apparent that if one is an adherent of Marcuesean philosophy, then one could easily justify using fascist tactics in the name of fighting fascism.
In Antifa’s Marcusean calculus, they must use intolerance, aggression, coercion, and intimidation in order to subvert—in their estimation—the oppressive patriarchal capitalist society. Since they’re at an inherent disadvantage in terms of power, then open dialogue and debate will do them no good.
If Antifa use force to gain back power, don’t they become the same type of evil they once fought? The only way they can turn the tables of power is to use force and threats of force, which are completely justified by the ends they achieve.
There is, of course, one thing Marcuse failed to address. If the oppressed are virtuous and use “repression and indoctrination” to turn the table of power against their oppressors, do they not become the oppressors themselves?
That is to say, if Antifa are truly representatives of the downtrodden and they use force to gain back their power, don’t they become the same type of evil they once fought? Restoring power means that the oppressed become the oppressor and that leads to nothing but an infinite power struggle, a Marxist conception in its own right.
Marcuse, Antifa, and other neo-Marxists should heed Freidrich Nietzsche’s words: “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster… for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”
This is the root of the modern anti-fascist ideology, and understanding the philosophical foundations illuminates why Antifa and others think they have license to behave like fascists in the name of fighting them.
"Sengrieķu atlēts Teagens guva 1400 uzvaru. Kad Teagens nomira, viens no viņa uzveiktajiem naktīs nācis pie Teagena statujas (olimpiskajiem uzvarētājiem cēla statujas), un to pātagoja. Statuja apgāzās un klausītāju nospieda. Statuju apvainoja slepkavībā, tiesāja un iemeta jūrā."
-- via, Imants Kore
Cultural Marxism is a Conspiracy Theory.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Please look elsewhere, as we plot the Revolution.
Nolēmu nedaudz iedziļināties, "kur tas suns aprakts?"
Nemieru laikā var mainīt varu. Nemierus grūti organizēt, ja nav iemesls, bet iemeslu var atrast.
Losandželosas "Sociālisma un Atbrīvošanas" partijas nodaļa sāka protestēt pret Manuēla Žaminesa nāvi 7. maijā. Flojds nomira 25. maijā.
Partija sevi raksturo kā "revolucionāru marksistisku organizāciju". Kas notika ar Žaminesu? Te īss incidenta izklāsts:
Officer Hernandez was responding to a call about a drunken, knife-wielding man who had threatened a pregnant woman.
"The officers approached the suspect and told him in Spanish and English to put down the knife. Instead, Jamines raised the knife above his head and lunged at Officer Frank Hernandez, a 13-year veteran of the department, Beck said.
Eyewitness accounts from six civilians, nine police personnel and two fire department staff indicate Hernandez fired twice "in immediate defense of life," Beck said. Jamines, 37, died at the scene.
"This was a very brief moment in time, just 40 seconds between first contact and the time of the shooting," Beck said. "He rushed the officers with a knife so he's controlling the timeframe. Sometimes officers can't create time or distance."
Latvijā okupantu pieminekļi pazuda tikai pēc LR likumiskās varas—ministru padomes lēmuma: izslēgt šādus pieminekļus no kultūras pieminekļu saraksta. LR ministru padomes lēmumam sekoja katras pašvaldības demokrātiski ievēlēto pārstāvju—pilsētas valdes lēmumi par demontāžu. Vandālisms nav leģitīms.
Lai kaut kā tomēr iekļautos angļu kreiso studentu dzīvē, meitene atkārto tropus par marksismu un sociālismu, bet nespēj līdz galam atteikties no savas izcelsmes un ģimenes vēstures, tāpēc ir spiesta paskaidrot: "Stalin did some things wrong." Labs ieskats kreiso studentu dzīvē un uzskatos.
Silīcija ieleja itin aši ir atbildējusi uz manām raizēm, ka soc. tīklos atjaunot "tag line" un "bio" tik bieži ir apgrūtinoši:
"New App Automatically Updates Your Profiles With The Latest Virtue Signals"
The tech wizards at Capo Creative are launching a new app that will help users stay abreast of the latest trends in virtue-signaling—it's called Signlr. Algorithms within Signlr analyze virtue signal trends across the Internet and, as soon as a new one is detected, update all your social media to fit the current narrative.
"The Finnish Puolustusvoimat has just released the #Battlefield 2020 short film about their vision of the present day defensive #battle against an attacker. From a hybrid incursion into all out counter attack. It has full English subtitles."
Since 2015, as far back as the Washington Post’s database goes, fatal police shootings of unarmed black people has decreased by 68%.
Since 2015, the number of assailants killed that were reported to be attacking one or more of the officers has stayed relatively flat, floating between 43% and 54%.
Even though the rate at which police officers are attacked in these fatal shootings has stayed flat, the rate at which they kill unarmed black people has decreased.
"They speak of “deep-rooted systems of oppression; legacies of hate.” No elaboration required here? (..) No nuance or complexity? Is it obvious that “hate”—as opposed to incompetence, or fear, or cruelty, or poor training, or lack of accountability, or a brutal police culture, or panic, or malfeasance—is what we observed in Minneapolis? We are called upon to “effect change.” Change from what to what, exactly? Evidently, we’re now all charged to promote the policy agenda of the “progressive” wing of American politics. Is this what a university is supposed to be doing?
I must object. This is no reasoned ethical reflection. Rather, it is indoctrination, virtue-signaling, and the transparent currying of favor with our charges. The roster of Brown’s “leaders” who signed this manifesto in lockstep remind me of a Soviet Politburo making some party-line declaration. I can only assume that the point here is to forestall any student protests by declaring the university to be on the Right Side of History.
What I found most alarming, though, is that no voice was given to what one might have thought would be a university’s principal intellectual contribution to the national debate at this critical moment: namely, to affirm the primacy of reason over violence in calibrating our reactions to the supposed “oppression.” Equally troubling were our president’s promises to focus the university’s instructional and research resources on “fighting for social justice” around the world, without any mention of the problematic and ambiguous character of those movements which, over the past two centuries or more, have self-consciously defined themselves in just such terms—from the French and Russian Revolutions through the upheavals of the 1960s."
"Violent Protest and the Intelligentsia"
Scholar Gary Saul Morson sees disturbing parallels between Russia before the Revolution and contemporary America.
"The similarities between this week’s riots and the Los Angeles riots of 1992 are obvious. Both were occasioned by appalling video images, and both divided the nation along partisan and ideological lines. The differences between the two events, however, are more revealing. The violence in 1992 came after a court verdict; the beating and arrest of Rodney King had happened more than a year before. This year’s riots came within days of George Floyd’s killing by Minneapolis officers. The riots of 1992 were mostly confined to poor and working-class areas of Los Angeles. This week saw mayhem all over America, and in Los Angeles, New York and elsewhere the rioters targeted wealthy streets and neighborhoods.
But perhaps the most striking difference is the rationalization, and sometimes full-throated defense, of violence from left-wing elites: the glorification of havoc, the vilification of cops and their middle-class admirers, highfalutin defenses of vandalism. The sense of revolution and class warfare was everywhere this week: the cognoscenti and underclass arrayed against the petty bourgeois shop owners; the elite and those they claim to represent against everybody else.
Gary Saul Morson says he has no special insight regarding police actions and the death of George Floyd. But he does have a provocative thesis about America’s current political moment: “To me it’s astonishingly like late 19th-, early 20th-century Russia, when basically the entire educated class felt you simply had to be against the regime or some sort of revolutionary.”
Mr. Morson, 72, is a professor of Russian literature at Northwestern University and an accomplished interpreter of Fyodor Dostoevsky, Anton Chekhov and Leo Tolstoy. Obviously we haven’t arrived at anything like what Lenin called a “revolutionary situation,” Mr. Morson says, but we have arrived at a situation in which well-intentioned liberal people often can’t bring themselves to say that lawless violence is wrong.
In late czarist Russia, some political parties and other groups—the Social Democrats, the anarchists, the Marxists—explicitly endorsed terrorism. “The liberal party—the Constitutional Democrats, they called themselves—did not condone terrorism,” Mr. Morson says. “But they refused to condemn it. And indeed they called for the release from prison of all terrorists, who were pledged to continue terrorism right away. . . . A famous line from one of the liberal leaders put it this way: ‘Condemn terrorism? That would be the moral death of the party.’ ”
The lesson seems highly relevant today. “When you’re dragged along into something you don’t really believe yourself—because otherwise you are identified with those evil people, and your primary identity is being a ‘good guy,’ not like those people—you will wind up supporting things you know to be wrong. And unless there is some moral force that will stop it, the slide will accelerate.”
Mr. Morson, ensconced in his delightfully untidy and book-laden office in Chicago as we chat on Zoom, concedes that a scholar who spends much of his time thinking and writing about Russia’s revolutionary period will tend to look for parallels between that time and our own. The parallels don’t obtain in every way.
But some of them make the analogy worth considering. One is that many of today’s revolutionaries are wildly successful and privileged. Take Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman, both New York lawyers in their 30s, who have been criminally charged for attempting to firebomb a police vehicle with a Molotov cocktail. Mr. Mattis was educated at Princeton and New York University, Ms. Rahman at Fordham.
Why do people at the top want to destroy the system that enabled them to get there? “No,” Mr. Morson says, “you have it wrong. When you’re such a person, you don’t feel you’re at the top. The people at the top are wealthy businesspeople, and you’re an intellectual. You think that people of ideas should be at the top.”
The word “intelligentsia,” he notes, comes from Russian. In the classic period, from about 1860 to the First Russian Revolution in 1905, “the word did not mean everybody who was educated. It meant educated people who identified with one or another of the radical movements. ‘Intelligents’ believed in atheism, revolution and either socialism or anarchism.
“The idea was that since they knew the theory, they were morally superior and they should be in charge, and that there was something fundamentally wrong with the world when ‘practical’ people were. So what you take from your education would be the ideology that would justify this kind of activity—justify it because the wrong people have the power, and you should have it. You don’t feel like you’re the establishment.”
Is American society, shaped by Protestant Christianity and dominated by a kind of dovish, humanitarian left-liberalism, ever likely to fall into the barbarity of the Russian Revolution? Aren’t we too—I fumble for a word as I formulate the question—soft for that sort of totalizing violence?
“I don’t know,” Mr. Morson answers after a long pause. “I don’t know if that means people won’t go as far as they did in Russia, or if it just means there will be less resistance to it.”
The danger begins, he thinks, when complex social and political problems can’t be debated any longer. “You get into a revolutionary situation because people can’t hear,” he says. “Can there be a dialogue on important questions, or is there only one thing to say about every question? Are people afraid to say, ‘Well, yes, but it’s not quite as simple as that’? . . . When you can’t do that, you’re heading to a one-party state or a dictatorship of some sort. If one party is always wrong and another always right, why not just have the right one?”
Mr. Morson speaks with conviction about the peril of “ideological segregation”: “It was very easy for white people to believe evil things of black people when they never met any. But when you live with somebody, you realize that they’re no worse than you are. . . . We’ve increasingly had ideological segregation on both sides. Each side has caricature views of the other.”
The assumption of historical inevitability may play a part here. You hear it in our political language: A favored policy is “an idea whose time has come,” a disfavored one is “on the wrong side of history.” This sort of teleological thinking—history has a direction, and that direction is identical with our political views—is fervently, if unconsciously, embraced by highly educated people today. It was also “one of the central arguments of late-19th-century Russian thought,” Mr. Morson says.
“Does history have a direction? And is later necessarily better? The greatest thinkers—Tolstoy, Alexander Herzen—answered no, later is not always better. They believed that sort of thinking was an importation of religious providentialism into history—the determinism of Hegel and Marx. The difficulty of this form of thinking is that it paralyzes you from acting. Between the wars, it was common for people to say: ‘Yes, you may like liberal democracy, but that’s of the past. We fascists are of the future.’ Or ‘We communists are of the future.’ People would resign themselves to the inevitable and conclude, ‘Well I can’t fight the future, I can’t resist the fascists or the communists.’ ”
I suggest that the American left is very fond of this teleological language—Barack Obama spoke in his first inaugural address of the “worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.” But Mr. Morson reminds me that Ronald Reagan used similar rhetoric. “Part of being a revolutionary is knowing that you don’t have to acquiesce to the tired, old ideas of the past,” he said in a 1985 speech.
Another marker of the Russian intelligentsia was the sheer contempt its members had for the peasants and workers they claimed to represent. “How many workers, how many peasants, were even in the Bolshevik Party? Very few. . . . Lenin’s whole idea was that ‘the working class, left to itself, will never develop more than a trade-union consciousness.’ That’s his famous phrase. They had to be led by the intelligentsia and completely disciplined. No matter what you say, they will do it, no matter how violent. They don’t have to understand the reasons, they’ll just do it. Because they’re the agents of history, as Marx described them. . . . That implies a contempt for the working class and a greater contempt for the peasantry.”
The supposition that America is moving toward anarchy or revolution because we’ve had a week of riots—or three years of bad faith and acrimony, or three decades of polarization—still seems hard to accept. Mr. Morson is careful not to predict the course of events. He uses the phrase “insofar as the Russian example applies” more than once.
But, he says, “we have a major depression, we have terrible fear from the illness, and now we have mass riots in the street, which our leaders do not seem to know how to handle. That’s a very rapid slide from only a year ago. And there’s no reason to think it will slow down. The slide could well continue.”
And history can unfold in unpredictable ways. Who would have guessed 20 years ago, he asks, that the First Amendment’s free-speech guarantee would become passé on the liberal left? “I used to get a laugh from students by quoting a Soviet citizen I talked to once. He said to me, ‘Of course we have freedom of speech. We just don’t allow people to lie.’ That used to get a laugh! They don’t laugh anymore.”
Man patika viens brīdis šajā lekcijā: Džekam pasprupa pieminēt t.s. "The Torch Network". Tad viņš it kā attapās, ka par to labāk nerunāt un pārgāja uz citu tematu. Šo var noskatīties kā daļu no "oppo research".
Navigate: (Previous 50 entries)