Majorityrights Central > Category: Cultural Marxism

In recent days there have been around a dozen opinion pieces at the Telegraph site addressing the Catholic Church’s defence of marriage from the trespasses of “gay rights” activism.  I’ve participated in a few of the threads (plus one at the Indy which had to be taken down, so shocking is it to the fastidious liberal to encounter opposition).

My usual argument was that the female demand for male fidelity (monogamy) is a European sociobiological trait, so the protection and preservation of marriage as the most efficacious form of monogamy (for raising well-adjusted offspring able to make adaptive life-choices) is a highly important interest for our people.  The effect of its homosexualisation would be to reduce it to the status of a mere lifestyle choice – even more than it is already.  Young women, in particular, would no longer find in it that idealisation of love, sex and family which has drawn them up the church aisle, on their father’s arm, for centuries.

Plainly, homosexual activists are not open to conservative or religious argument.  Even the two most reasonable who did briefly acknowledge that there are more important things to society than homosexual equality never followed that line of reasoning through to its natural conclusion.  The rest of them - and there was an impressive number of homosexuals and leftists commenting on these threads - were hermetically sealed away from all reason.  They denied outright that the homosexualisation of marriage will have the slightest impact on its status.  But the quality of their advocacy generally – it’s arrogance and smugness, its frequent recourse to insult, its hatred of the Church and the Vatican, its refusal to acknowledge any merit in opposing arguments (some of which were unanswerable) – leaves one with precisely the impression that these people will sully and wreck whatever they touch.  The repute of marriage, already in decay, will never recover while they use it to prove their normality to themselves - which is all they are interested in.

It was my intention to go through some of the threads and pick out their more interesting arguments.  I have tried.  This is the result, and it’s not much because there isn’t much that can be used:

from being the minority though I may be in my sexual orientation I am part of a growing MAJORITY of Brits who have no problem at all with homosexuality. There is literally no way marriage equality isn’t going to pass, and when it does you people can all be quiet again.

Just skimmed your verbal diarrhoeal rant.  I’ve checked up, and you have indeed been on these forums for years, and pretty much everyone hates you.  You’ve been written about on blogs, and at all times people always have a problem with you.  You’ve been called a bigot, a homophobe, and intolerant - to just highlight a few terms.

What’s going to happen is this geoffrey1, equal marriage will be here in the next year or two, and nothing some warped and twisted bigoted homophobic intolerant keyboard warrior fanatical fundamentalist like you, .. will have the slightest impact.

Glad we have the Prome Minister and all major political parties on our side though - as well as the majority of the British public.

We’ve grown up in lots of ways.  The fact that society still has a bit of room left for homophobes like you makes me proud that we still tolerant alternative opinions.  But don’t get any ideas that you will be see as anything other than a vile and nasty homophobe and someone the majority doesn’t care to know.  Imagine what a sick world it would be if people like you were in the majority.  I expect you’ll go now and report back to your BNP buddies.

None of these remarks was made to me, incidentally.  I have not selected them because they contain insults.  They are merely representative of the quality of thought that, apparently, goes on in homosexual circles.  Yet these creatures are winning their war for the right to marriage.  Obviously, the reason for that lies elsewhere than in their ability to set out their case, which has no merit whatsoever.

by Graham Lister

If there was no difference between essence and appearance, there would be no need for science. - Karl Marx.

“Our discussions of non-purposive elaborations of functional claims suggest ways of filling that lacuna, but it is also necessary to point out that Marxists can be too sensitive to the charge that they perceive conspiracies everywhere. There is more collective design in history than an inflexible rejection of ‘conspiracy theories’ would allow, and richer scope for purposeful elaboration of Marxist functional theses than that posture recognizes. Thus while ideologies are not normally ‘invented’ to to fit the purposes they serve, a fairly deliberate and quite concerned effort to maintain and protect an existing ideology is not unusual. According to Christopher Hill, nobility and gentry in seventeenth-century England doubted they “would still be able to control the state without the help of the church”, and, therefore, “rallied to the defence of the episcopacy in 1641…for explicitly social reasons”. Ruling class persons of no special devotion to an Anglican God frankly professed obedience, and acted on that inspiration. Or, to take another example, when a high state functionary, reflecting on the unequal distribution of information in society, concludes that “this inequality of knowledge has become necessary for the maintenance of all the social inequalities which gave rise to it”, he may be expected to see the persistence of an educational structure which reproduces ignorance in the right places…But sentences beginning “The ruling class have decided…” do not entail the convocation of an assembly. Ruling class persons meet and instruct one another in overlapping milieux of government, recreation, and practical affairs, and a collective policy emerges even when they were never all in one place at one time.

There are, of course, many shades between the cynical handling of ideology just emphasized and an unhypocritical commitment to it, and a division of labour between lucid and engagé defenders of dominant ideas can be quite functional. If awareness of the true nature of the game penetrates too far down the elite, it could leak into the strata beneath them. There is always a mix of manipulation, self-deception, and blind-conviction in adherence to an ideology, the optimal proportions varying with circumstance.

All classes are receptive to whatever ideas are likely to benefit them, and ruling classes are well placed to propagate ideologies particularly congenial to themselves. But before an ideology is received or broadcast it has to be formed. And on that point there are traces in Marx of a Darwinian mechanism, a notion that thought-systems are produced in comparative isolation from social constraint, but persist and gain social life following a filtration process which selects those well-adapted for ideological service…There is a kind of ‘ideological pool’ which yields elements in different configurations as social requirements change.

Yet it is unlikely that ideas fashioned in disconnection from their possible social use will endorse and reject exactly what suits classes receptive to them. Here a Lamarckian element may enter, to make the picture more plausible. In Lamarck’s theory the equipment of the individual organism is somewhat plastic, for it changes under environmental challenge when it is put to novel use. Because of the delicacy of intellectual constructions, sets of ideas enjoy a partly similar plasticity: one change of emphasis, one slurred inference, etc., can alter the import of the whole. Such ‘Lamarckian’ possibilities are intimated in Marx’s review of the numerous uses to which a self-same Christianity is liable, and is it not because ‘Liberalism’ is an ambiguous term that its presumed teaching varies across space and time.”

- from “Karl Marx’s Theory of History – A Defence” by G.A. Cohen.

Let the discussion on ‘top-down versus bottom-up’ processes in the world of ideas and ideology begin.

Note- the act of quotation does not imply approval or agreement.

“A substantial section of the chavs ... have become black.  The whites have become black.  A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic gangster culture has become the fashion, and black and white, boy and girl, operate in this language together - this language, which is wholly false, which is a Jamaican patois that’s been intruded in England.  And this is why so many of us have this sense of literally a foreign country.”

David Starkey, historian, famously opining on the London riots on the BBC’s Newsnight

Two days ago the Times Literary Supplement carried the response of Starkey’s academic peers, or at least one hundred and three peerless advocates of progressive thinking.  Their letter takes the view that, as a “historian of elites” but not “race and class”, Starkey was the wrong man for the job of debating negro life:

The problem lies in the BBC’s representation of Starkey’s views as those of a “historian”, which implies that they have some basis in research and evidence: but as even the most basic grasp of cultural history would show, Starkey’s views as presented on Newsnight have no basis in either. In particular, his crass generalisations about black culture and white culture as oppositional, monolithic entities demonstrate a failure to grasp the subtleties of race and class that would disgrace a first-year history undergraduate.

What they don’t like (but non-elitist folks do) is Starkey’s implication that a “particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic gangster culture” is just blacks being black, while the chavs’ immersion in that is whites being black.  Which sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

I estimate that between 30 to 40% of the signatories are not of native British descent.  Some are only post-grads.  The prime movers appear to be Alun Munslow , who has no immediate connection to London’s black or white underclass that I can see, and Paul Gilroy, who is at least black (though a product of Stuart Hall’s Birmingham School).

The letter concludes in suitably repressive style:

We the undersigned would therefore ask that the BBC and other broadcasters think carefully before they next invite Starkey to comment as a historian on matters for which his historical training and record of teaching, research and publication have ill-fitted him to speak. If his celebrity and reputation for giving offence still persuade producers that he is worth the money, we would not seek to censor him nor determine their choices: however, we would ask that he is no longer allowed to bring our profession into disrepute by being introduced as “the historian, David Starkey” when commenting on issues outside his fields of expertise.

Starkey will probably stay silent and rise above this challenge to his well-paid notoriety.  But I suspect that in private his response might go something along the lines of:

A substantial section of the professoriate in the humanities ... has become Jewish.  British academics have become Jewish.  A particular sort of repressive, destructive, relativistic collective culture has long become the intellectual fashion on campus, and every humanities lecturer or student is required to operate in this language together - this language, which is wholly false, which is a Marxist revolutionary product that’s been intruded into higher education.  And this is why so many of us have this sense of the British university as, literally, an anti-white institution.”

That, too, would be all too true.

by Alexander Baron

On October 26, 2010, the headline on page 31 of the London Evening Standard read Anti-gay bullies are taught a lesson or two. This propaganda piece is about a secondary school in North London that is said to have almost eradicated “homophobic bullying” after indoctrinating its pupils with “gay” history lessons. The catalyst for this cynical piece of political correctness gone mad is revealed as the discovery by music teacher Elly Barnes that some of her charges were using the word “gay” as a derogatory term. Perish the thought. So Miss Barnes, sorry, Ms Barnes, set about instigating a scheme to “educate and celebrate” being “gay”, and of course, who better to include in this unsubtle brainwashing exercise than Oscar Wilde, who is of course pictured in the article?

The standard homo line on this degenerate and sexual predator is that he was a victim of Victorian hypocrisy who was driven to ruin by the vengeful father of his “lover”, Lord Alfred Douglas. The slightest critical examination of the undisputed facts of this sordid affair expose this for utter cant, and reveal clearly that Wilde was the author of his own misfortune.

Why anyone should consider Wilde to be any sort of icon remains to be seen, least of all a “gay” one, because in spite of his penchant for both the company and debasement of younger men, he was not strictly speaking homosexual.

READ MORE...

by PF

Critiques have consequences. Right now the greatest superpower on Earth, the United States, is faced with fundamental questions about its existence that it just can’t answer. What are we? Who are we? What should our strategic goals be? What are the fundamentals of our culture? All of these questions in my opinion are iterations of the first one: what are we? No satisfactory answer is forthcoming or can be agreed upon.

It is possible to intuit how an entity subject to such mass confusion cannot possibly continue to exist, but rather appears to simply be waiting on a series of transformations which will alter it beyond recognition. This is because an entity that doesn’t understand what it is, cannot maintain itself against the forces of entropy which, necessarily, will pull and push and work on it. Our predecessors in the 60s, 70s and 80s laid the cultural foundation for this dissolution of nationhood. In the late 70s, 80s, and 90s the resulting anomie began to have obvious consequences for the structural aspects of national existence - of which I would mention Ponzi economics and the dumbing down of school curricula and pop culture. Today the only thing that is sure is that the knock-on effects and unintended consequences of these mass movements are likely to carry us past several consecutive points-of-no-return, into a reality unmapped, unplanned, and given what little we can foresee of it, likely very dangerous.

To think, it may one day all end in nuclear war.

(If you have quibbles with the articulation of the preamble, I ask you to holster them, on the grounds that I wish to discuss something besides The General State of Things And How We Got Here)

Probably the most important causal strain underlying this cultural transformation was an act of intellectual warfare summarized in Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique. The perpetrators of these acts answer to the names of Cultural Marxism, Critical Theory, the Frankfurt School, and Boasian Anthropology.

Its quite remarkable to experience how these understandings, having trickled-down into knee-jerk reactions of even the intellectual proletariat, infuse every discussion. As Jonathan Bowden put it, they “permeate the ether”. The conclusions and tactics of these critiques have become some of the only common threads of our intellectual discourse, and an unconscious intelligenzia has busily spun itself a whole new cultural tapestry using them as a basis. The more people borrow their thoughts from the hive-mind, the more this ideational lattice-work appears to be independently rediscovered as an underlying facet of reality itself. Of course the observer is pointing to a reality that he himself has unconsciously structured and is calling it “World!”, as is par for the course with us, but it demonstrates that the battle which we lost was, first of all, an intellectual one.

READ MORE...

Finally, I have found a picture of I Bismuth, and he looks like this.  I can also reveal that when he gets some time away from the department, he works for that fine body, the Institute of Race Replations, vibrantly led and staffed as it is.  No cause for righteous complaint there.

In any case, the IRR has surpassed itself today by releasing its latest exposé of dark and unacceptable doings in the sheep- and cow-plagued, too unBrixton-like and too too green English countryside:

Racial violence: the buried issue

Research published by the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) today, reveals dangerously high levels of racial violence in the UK - a violence which is spreading into new areas.

As mainstream parties compete as to which can reduce immigration fastest - ostensibly to defuse community fears - no one asks who actually bears the immediate fall-out of such tensions - Black and Minority Ethnic, asylum-seeker/refugee and migrant communities.

As far as the authorities are concerned the Macpherson inquiry (set up in the wake of the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993) has dealt with racial violence. It no longer exists, it is no longer a problem issue. But the IRR’s report, Racial violence: the buried issue, reveals that, on average, five people a year in the UK have lost their lives to racial violence since Stephen’s death - a total of eight-nine victims in seventeen years.

And analysis of 660 racial attacks in 2009 reveals that certain groups of people are particularly at risk: ‘dispersed’ asylum seekers, newly-arrived migrant workers, those who look Muslim and/or work in isolating trades such as taxi-cabbing, food take-aways, small shops and eateries.

The map of violence has changed quite dramatically since studies were first done a generation ago, when primarily areas like Southall, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Newham witnessed the most racial attacks and racist murders. Such areas are now, in part through struggles against racism, more ‘at ease’ with their diversity. Today racial violence is on the rise in towns, cities and villages which are only now beginning to change demographically - with the arrival of asylum seekers, migrant workers, overseas students, and the natural movement of settled BME families from the larger conurbations.

According to the report’s authors: ‘The governments’ line that community tension is based solely on new immigration to the UK is partial and opportunistic. The UK is now witnessing an ever-expanding mosaic of different racisms based on different local conditions. And politicians themselves are responsible, through their neglect of poor disadvantaged areas, policies including the demonisation of certain groups and rhetoric around the war on terror, for creating, particularly in areas where competition over scarce resources is keenest, a climate in which racial violence will flourish. The drastic economic cuts of the new government can only make things worse.’

On its tatty little website there is a page about the history of the IRR.  Cogniscenti of anti-white institutional funding will recognise the names there.  I would like to think that Osborne’s budgetary constraints could put an end to this repulsive little hate-fest.  But the IRR has been sponging off Money since 1952, so I doubt it will disappear now.  Bismuth is hard to kill.

A commenter by the philosophically respectable if possible unsuitable name of Zarathustra asked a question on my Black Cab II thread which, whilst it is undoubtedly tawdry and boring, does deserve some elucidation.  And not only from me.  It seems to be addressed to everyone who reads this and is not already really, really convinced that negrifying the European genepool and filling up our living spaces with total aliens is not a Wholly Good Thing.

Here it is:

Could you enlighten me on whether or not you are racist? And what is your definition of racist?

READ MORE...