The unlogic of the liberal left

No there is a factual and objective thread where Marxism morphed into the ideas of Antonio Gramsci, Adorno, Horkheimer, Derrida, Foucault, Herbert Marcuse etc. and there is a synthesis of these postmodern thinkers which can be summed up as: The west has an oppressive and authoritarian ideology which results in a negative cultural hegemony resulting in inequalities and alienation. The solution is to bring about a consortium of grievances so large as to actually challenge the superstructure.

So what are race, gender, sexuality and religion equality. 100 years ago they did not exist and the only equality that was conceived was in Marxism for the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Is it a coincidence that they are now the centre of our political message and that the ideas were peddled by Marxist academics 50 years ago?

The ideas that were considered radical left 50 years ago are now just normal so you don’t see them.

Sadie Khan recently said we should get rid of Mister and Misses on London Underground not to offend transfers. Imagine if someone said that pre-1960, do you think they would be able to hold public office? What about gay Christian marriage pre 1960? What about making verbal ****ging off a prisonable criminal offence (for non protected groups ****ging off protected group.) pre 1960 they would have said it’s an injustice. What about the idea that white history is evil, evil white slave owners and terrible Southern American Christians. Try that one pre 1960. These people are are calling normal and only concerned with employment, housing, education etc. They are imbued with radical ideas and take them as so normal that they simply reject as nonsense may challenge to it - to them challenging these ideas is like saying the moon is made of cheese.

That happened with Nazism too, in a gradual process that started with Darwin's theory of evolution.

It is just a natural evolution of society's hivemind.

Nothing is more dangerous to the left that political correctness. It is all too easy to link being anti-banker to being anti-semitic; and to sideline the real leftist issues (capitalism in general) by appeasing the population with addressing non-issues ("diversity".

No there is a factual and objective thread where Marxism morphed into the ideas of Antonio Gramsci, Adorno, Horkheimer, Derrida, Foucault, Herbert Marcuse etc. and there is a synthesis of these postmodern thinkers which can be summed up as: The west has an oppressive and authoritarian ideology which results in a negative cultural hegemony resulting in inequalities and alienation. The solution is to bring about a consortium of grievances so large as to actually challenge the superstructure.

So what are race, gender, sexuality and religion equality. 100 years ago they did not exist and the only equality that was conceived was in Marxism for the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Is it a coincidence that they are now the centre of our political message and that the ideas were peddled by Marxist academics 50 years ago?

The ideas that were considered radical left 50 years ago are now just normal so you don’t see them.

Sadie Khan recently said we should get rid of Mister and Misses on London Underground not to offend transfers. Imagine if someone said that pre-1960, do you think they would be able to hold public office? What about gay Christian marriage pre 1960? What about making verbal ****ging off a prisonable criminal offence (for non protected groups ****ging off protected group.) pre 1960 they would have said it’s an injustice. What about the idea that white history is evil, evil white slave owners and terrible Southern American Christians. Try that one pre 1960. These people are are calling normal and only concerned with employment, housing, education etc. They are imbued with radical ideas and take them as so normal that they simply reject as nonsense may challenge to it - to them challenging these ideas is like saying the moon is made of cheese.

No one cares about any of that, except people such as yourself. No one cares about the superstructure, they want better public services.

People want more money to public services, the NHS, better employment rights and environmental protections. This obsession with the non-existent cultural Marxism comes from the right.

I'll say it again. Marxism is an economic analysis. It has nothing to do with any of what you've just written.

Exactly, people care about the here and now.

Is my housing be affordable?

Can I get a GP appointment?

etc...

I've never encountered anyone in real life who gives a **** about any of the other stuff he's rambling on about.

Yet most people realise public spending has to be paid for either by taxes or borrowing (which accrues interest and will cause trouble for the country in the future).

It requires a view to be taken on politics, not simply a shopping list of what you would like.

Borrowing to grow the economy is a legitimate approach and has worked before. It's only since the 2008 crash that the narrative of all borrowing being bad has taken hold.

I agree, however we have had a budget deficit for a decade, and it's still at £50bn a year, and in a period of growth. This is reckless and unsustainable.

By all means invest in the economy, training for the skills we need etc. But we have to find cutbacks in public spending from somewhere.

Housing is where it's really needed. The govt can borrow cheaply to build and the assets will pay for themselves. It's purely a political choice not to do it.

Everywhere outside the South East is crying out for infrastructure investment as well, which again pays for itself over time.

Well you managed to insult a group (exactly what I’m sure you wouldn’t do to protected groups like blacks, Muslims, gays and women - right?) but people who challenge postmodern social theory are fair game, but you haven’t managed to actually argue philosophically. “You’re a bunch of nutters” is not a philosophical rebuttal. Try harder.

Many of those examples I provided were characteristic not skills.

If I have a job to do, then I should be able to hire what I want. If I only want to hire Eskimo painters, cleaners, builders, trade reconciliation specialists and directors then it should be my natural right to do so.

When it comes to amount of crime committed, or number of violent incidents, those supposed to be the "far right" are statistically far worse than the "far left". This has been the case for decades. There are hundreds of race or religion motivated criminal acts committed on a daily basis, it is a serious problem that everyone should be taking into account, no matter which political tribe they choose to support.

To be honest I find the whole "right" vs. "left" thing to be a pretty tedious argument. Anyone so simple-minded that they can define their entire ideology by such tribalism isn't really worth the time of day.

I don't need to try harder. You are a conspiracy theory nutjob. Plenty of others have already shown that.

That's wholly irrelevant. Even if all of that were applicable, it's still no evidence that there is some sort of group pulling strings in every country in order to kill white man.

Sorry but where did I say that there is a group pulling strings to kill ever white man?

Now you are just letting prejudices against an argument out instead of facing the philosophical content.

Complete nonsense - data is collated annually by EUROPOL and produced in a report called 'Terrorism Situation and Trend Report' TE-SAT, and 'Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment' SOCTA/OCTA.

Your claim that far-right are far worse than far-left is just plain wrong.

As is your claim that 100s of of race and religiously motivated criminal acts occur daily. The ONS also produce annual reports which don't back up your claims. Reporting isn't the same as convictions.

I'm not. That is what social Marxism is about, the bottom line.

No social Marxism is about this:

- Formation and measurement of arbitrary groups
- All group inequality is as a result of oppression and prejudice (not from natural differences)

- At the same time:
- Biology and history are prisons which cause inequality and therefore need to be negated (e.g. race is a social construct)
- Natural / biological differences don’t exist

- Therefore intervention is needed to equalise these groups
- The groups are classified as oppressed / oppressor groups
- From trying to make people equal; loss of objectivity (Rotherham), loss of truth (race is a social construct), loss of freedom (arrests for tweets)


The left use this thinking that the enemy of my energy is my friend and the friend of my enemy is my friend. For example if the Nazis wanted to control immigration and a UKIP member wants to control immigration, they say: you’re a Nazi.

The fact that there happen to be some people on the right who talk about a secret conspiracy to kill white people and refer to social Marxist thinkers, and there are some people who believe in Chemitrails and cite social Marxist thinkers, and who want lax gun laws, and cite social Marxist is thinkers, does not lump everything in the same box.

The left’s method of debate is to put a debate in an unacceptable box and therefore avoid debating it.

No! I have layers out the arguments above; debate them, don’t try and exclude by using the left’s game which is to label them!