26 October 2015

Stamping Out Cultural Marxism

I enjoyed this piece at Zero Hedge by Tyler Durden. I hope it spurs some discussion in the combox.  It has application in the ecclesiastical sphere, too, but here is the relevant excerpt of the post on how to stamp out cultural Marxism in one generation.  Note the section on Homeschooling, too:

And so, here are my solutions, which must be enacted by individuals in their daily lives regardless of the potential backlash. Do you have leftist leaning friends or family members? It doesn’t matter. Are you employed in a workplace crawling with social justice ideologues? Stop seeing them as part of the equation because they do not matter. Worried about losing a relationship if you make a stand? Say good riddance. This is what must be done by free thinkers if they are to counter and reverse the collectivist nightmare of cultural Marxism.


Feel no shame: Social justice relies on shaming tactics, usually by slandering an opponent with a label that does not really apply to him, in order to control his arguments and behavior. If you don’t care about being called a bigot, a racist, a sexist, a misogynist, a homophobe, etc., then there is not really much that they can do to you.

Do not self-censor: This does not mean you should go out of your way to be antagonistic or act like an ass, but the thought police have power only if you give power to them. Say what you want to say when you want to say it, and do it with a smile. Let the PC police froth and scream until they have an aneurysm. Cultural Marxists are generally weaklings. They avoid physical confrontation like they avoid logic, so why fear them?

Realize there is no such thing as white privilege or male privilege: In reality, there is only institutionalized “privilege” for victim-status groups. There is no privilege for whites, males, white males or straight white males. When confronted with such claims, demand to see proof of such privilege. Invariably, you will get a long list of first world problems and complaints backed by nothing but easily debunked talking points and misrepresented statistics. People should not feel guilty for being born the way they are, and this includes us “white male devils.”

Demand facts to back claims: Cultural Marxists tend to argue on the basis of opinion rather than fact. Present facts to counter their claims, and demand facts and evidence in return. Opinions are irrelevant if the person is not willing to present supporting facts when asked.

Do not play the game of "unconscious bias": If social justice cultists can't counter your position with facts or logic, they will invariably turn to the old standby that you are limited in your insight because you have not lived in the shoes of a - (insert victim group here).  I agree.  In fact, I would point out that this reality of limited perception also applies to THEM as well.  They have not lived in my shoes, therefore they are in no position to claim I enjoy "privilege" while they do not.  This is why facts and evidence are so important, and why anecdotal evidence and personal feelings are irrelevant where cultural Marxism is concerned.

Let cultural Marxists know their fears and feelings do not matter: No one is entitled to have their feelings addressed by others. And, a person’s fears are ultimately unimportant. Whether the issue is the nonexistent “rape culture” or the contempt cultural Marxists feel over private gun ownership, their irrational fears are not our concern. Why should any individual relinquish his liberties in the name of placating frightened nobodies?

Demand that society respect your inherent individual rights: Collectivism’s ultimate propaganda message is that there is no such thing as inherent rights or liberties and that all rights are arbitrary and subject to the whims of the group or the state. This is false. I have written extensively in the past on inherent rights, inborn psychological contents and natural law, referencing diverse luminaries, scientists and thinkers, including Thomas Aquinas, Carl Gustave Jung, Steven Pinker, etc., and I welcome readers to study my many articles on individualism.  Freedom is an inborn conception with universally understood aspects. Period. No group or collective is more important than individual liberty. No artificial society has preeminence over the individuals within that society. As long as a person is not directly impeding the life, liberty, prosperity and privacy of another person, he should be left alone.

Maintain your rights; they do not hurt other people: PC cultists will invariably argue that every person, whether he knows it or not, is indirectly harming others with his attitude, his beliefs, his refusal to associate, even his very breathing.  "We live in a society", they say, "and everything we do affects everyone else...".  Don’t take such accusations seriously; these people do not understand how freedom works.

Say, for instance, hypothetically, that I refuse to bake a gay wedding cake for a couple and I am accused of violating their rights in the name of preserving my own. I would immediately point out that no one is entitled to a gay wedding cake, baked by me or anyone else and I have every right to choose my associations based on whatever criteria I see fit. Now, a corrupt government entity may claim I do not have that right. But the fact is I do, and no one — not even government — can force me to bake a cake if I don’t want to. Also, I would point out that the gay couple in question has every right in a free society to bake their OWN damn cake or open their own cake shop to compete with mine. This is how freedom works. It is not based on collective entitlement; it is based on personal responsibility.

Refuse to deny the scientific fact of biological gender: Gender is first and foremost a genetic imperative. Society does not determine gender roles; nature does. A man who chops up his body and takes hormone pills to look like a woman is not and will never be a woman. A woman who tapes down her breasts and gets a short haircut will never be a man. There is no such thing as “transgendered” people. No amount of social justice or wishful thinking will ever allow them to reverse their genetic proclivities. Their psychological and sexual leanings do not change their inborn biological reality.

By extension, we should refuse to play along with this nonsense. I will never refer to a man in a wig and dress as a “woman.” I will never refer to a woman with identity issues as “transgendered.” They are what nature made them, and we should not police our pronouns just to falsely reassure them that they can deny nature.

Deny the illusion of Utopian equality: There is no such thing as pure equality.  Society is not a homogeneous entity, it is an abstraction built around a group of unique individuals.  Individuals can be naturally gifted, or naturally challenged.  But there will always be some people who are more apt towards success than others.

I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of equality of opportunity, which is exactly what we have in this country (except in the world of elitist finance which is purely driven by nepotism).  I do have a problem with the lie of universal equality through engineered means.

Standards of success should not be lowered in order to accommodate the least skilled people to facilitate artificial parity.  For example, I constantly hear the argument that more people with victim group status should be given greater representation in positions of influence and regard within our culture, from science and engineering, to media, to business CEO's, to politics, etc.  The key word here is "given", rather than "earned".  There is nothing wrong with one group of people excelling in a field more than another group, and there is nothing wrong with inequality when it comes to individual achievement.  We must begin refusing to reward people for mediocrity and punishing success simply because the winners are not part of a designated victim group.

If you are a man, embrace your role: I am a man and cannot claim to know what specific solutions women should take to counter cultural Marxism. I would love to read an article written on the subject by a woman in the Liberty Movement.  I will say that men in particular have a considerable task ahead in terms of their personal endeavors if they hope to repair the destruction of social justice.

For thousands of years, men have been the primary industrial force behind human progress. Today, they are relegated to cubicles and customer service, to video games and Web fantasies, to drug addictions and a lack of responsibility. If we have any chance of undoing the damage of cultural Marxism, modern men must take on their original roles as producers, inventors, entrepreneurs, protectors, builders and warriors once again. They should do this for their own benefit, and not for the validation of others.

You don’t have to prove to anyone you do "manly things", just go out and do them. Most importantly, become dangerous. Men are meant to be dangerous beings. That does not mean we are meant to be indiscriminately violent (just as women aren’t meant to be indiscriminately violent), but we are supposed to be threatening to those who would threaten us. Modern society has NOT removed the need for masculinity and I believe people will begin realizing this the more our culture sinks into economic despair. Train in martial arts, learn tactical firearms handling, go hunting and don’t take lip from people. In my opinion, every man should know how to kill things, even if he never plans on using those abilities.

Home-school your children: It’s simple, if you don’t want your kids propagandized, if you truly want them to be free from collectivist conditioning, then you will make the sacrifice and extract them from public schooling. With the introduction of Common Core into U.S. schools in particular, there is no other recourse but home schooling to prevent the brainwashing of cultural Marxism. If you do not do this, you are relying on the hope that your children will escape with their critical thinking abilities intact. Some do, and some don’t. Others turn into mindless social justice zombies. You can give them an advantage by removing them from a poisonous environment, and that is what matters.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am, in all sincerity, glad that we live in the United States, where you have every right to voice your backwards, ignorant, circular thoughts, Tinman. Long live freedom of speech. To quote Voltairre: "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

Having said all that, it strikes me that--despite your admonition that men must be brave, never fearful--much of what you've written here demonstrates genuine fear of interacting with other people on anything other than your own terms. You claim that "transgendered people do not exist," because of course you know exactly what every other human being's experience of his or her body-mind-biochemical state is. (By the way, you're confusing "sex," which is a biological matter, and "gender," which is--despite what you say--not biological in nature but a cultural concept.) You also sound fearful when you recommend withdrawing one's children from public schools so that they will not be "propagandized" and the victims of "collective conditioning." Have you no appreciation that the messages you and your spouse offer your children in your homeschool also involves propaganda? It's just that it's propaganda of which you approve.

As for your point about allowing people to discriminate against customers based on the business owner's disapproval of one or more of the customer's traits: Yeah, it's easy to write off the "need" for a wedding cake from a particular (gay-disliking) baker. But where should we draw the line in terms of legal responsibilities when a business chooses to open its doors for business? Should a restaurant be allowed to refuse service to gay people? Or Catholics? Should a motel owner be allowed to refuse to rent a room to a Black family? You know as well as I that this last scenario played out on a regular basis before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination in public accomodations. Some folks, such as Rand Paul, have advocated the repeal of such provisions. Given your philosophy of letting people open their own bakery (or restaurant? or motel?), would you apply your reasoning down the line? Where DO we draw that line?

One last thought. You want men to take up their rightful place as inventors, "producers," etc. I don't know much about your family life, other than that you have lots of kids, but I'm guessing that some of your offspring are daughters. As you educate them in your homechool, I hope sincerely you do not close down the possibility that one of them may have it in her to invent something that will save your life, or my life, years down the road. God gave girls and women minds just as good as those of their male siblings, and you're doing your daughter(s) a grave disservice if you tell her that men are the ones who are supposed to do all those smart-sounding things out in the world.

--Steve

thetimman said...

Steve,

a) Thanks? And I support your freedom of speech, too.

b) You keep stating what "I" wrote and think. You do know that I didn't write that, yes?

c) Posting the article does obviously show some level of approval or thinking that the author's points are worth considering, but does it really mean I just signed off on a word-for-word rubber stamp?

Anonymous said...

Timman, I must confess that I missed your italicized four sentences of introduction to the lengthy passage you quoted. However, I think it's reasonable to conclude that you agree with the majority of what you chose to share on your blog. Your prefatory note, for one thing, does not seem to express much in the way of reservations.

If you in fact disagree with some of the writer's points, where do you disagree? Can we safely assume that you agree with most of his reasoning?

--Steve

Pete said...

Oh, my! The old "you're afraid of being near people not like you" canard. What a hoot! It never gets old, eh? Keep those girls dumb and pregnant too--oh, married first of course.

Some people can't imagine that some things are right and good, while others are wrong and harmful--and should be avoided. Boggles the mind of some folks, I see.

thetimman said...

Steve, sorry to take so long to get back. Had work concerns most of the week.

I make no comment on the article the author links to within the post. Other than that, and properly understood in context, I pretty much agree with his post, though I'm not philosophically libertarian, and he is.

I think the government is so tyrannical at the moment, that there is common cause with libertarianism on most matters. But I very much believe in moral standards based upon the true faith. Hence my self-description as a Catholic monarchist.

I realize that until Our Lord or His Mother set things aright, we are light years from any decent Catholic monarchy taking root. But I mention it only to give a lens to my published musings favorable to certain libertarian impulses.

Did your head explode?

Anonymous said...

Timman, thanks for your reply. It's clear that you and I have vastly different worldviews -- and different interpretations of what Catholicism really is at its heart (though we are both proud to be Catholic and both love Christ) -- but I appreciate your civility in responding. I would also like to apologize for my relative lack of civility (in my previous post) when I referred to your views as "ignorant," etc. I don't think you and I would agree on much, but I shouldn't have tossed around inflamatory language so carelessly.

--Steve

thetimman said...

Steve, very gracious, and you are easily forgiven for any incivility. Don't I know how easy it is to get wound up? No worries. And God bless you and yours, too.

If we ever meet, I'll buy the first round.