https://mobile.twitter.com/JohnCleese/s
"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
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.
https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/art
"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".
https://business.financialpost.com/opin
“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.”
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/behind-an
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 ... )
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.
https://unconstrainedanalytics.org/wp-c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKON0MH
| ← Previous day | (Calendar) | Next day → |
