I have tried to make this exact argument on more than one campus, but very few of the inmates are open to hearing it.
Professors – even those with tenure – are terrified, and with good reason.
Cultural Marxist infiltrators from Women’s Studies, Political Science, and similarly subversive departments of the Faculty of Arts have taken over the administration.
And these disingenuous thugs think nothing of destroying the career of anyone who speaks the politically incorrect truth.
This is what gives clout to the vainglorious bleating of the social justice weenies.
So Fiamengo has her work cut out for her. Gramsci’s “long march through the institutions,” has had a century to embed its creeping rot into the infrastructure of academia.
Routing it out is not going to happen overnight, and it’s not going to be pretty.
Being venal, slimy, and gutless, these weasels fight dirtier than anyone else I’ve ever come across.
‘The long march through the institutions’ – just yesterday, I was invited to a meeting of a group of Ontario conservatives who simply could not understand how the leadership of their party could be so hijacked by Progressives….
And my friend and I had to explain Gramsci’s plan…the poisonous fruit of which we are now reaping, so that all political opinions/parties/education options are the left, the ruthless left and the hard, murderous left!
But, there is no place for us to run to to get away from statism run amock!!!
Part of the difficulty lies in progressives’ use of ordinary English words in a way that means something very different to them than it does to normal people. Like the phrase “critical thinking.”
For example, they say they want to teach “critical thinking” in schools, and conservatives readily agree… not realizing that, to a progressive, “critical thinking” means “thinking in accordance with critical theory.” In other words, thinking like a social justice weenie.
So the conservatives get sucked in every time.
This problem is compounded by the mindset typical of the political class, characterized by the utter absence of the ability to form any concept of a problem that is not susceptible to solution by state intervention.
This was evident in a video I recently stumbled across (and can’t find right now) of Tarek Fatah addressing the Canadian Senate on Terrorism: it was clear that the Senate did not hear a word he said, because it did not fit their preconceptions.
This was particularly obvious in the question period after the presentation. The senators all wanted to know what structures and policies should be put in place to let them import Muslims without importing Jihad. So a senator would ask him that, and he would explain that there are no such structures and policies: you cannot import Muslims without importing Jihad.
And then the next senator would ask him again in different words.
This is typical of people who have been exposed to certain style of “conflict resolution” techniques: they rephrase the question until they get the answer they want. They see this as a “negotiating technique.”
The idea that you cannot negotiate with facts is completely alien to them.
How is this possible? Because even our conservatives were taught by teachers who were trained by cultural Marxist teacher trainers.
That is why they are so easily manipulated by progressives.
What is most baffling is that even though the Progressives use this technique in just about everything, they are completely blindsided when Muslims do exactly the same thing.
When Muslim countries negotiate international treaties or make speeches or communicate in any important manner, they use words to mean what they want, not what us Westerners know them to mean.
For example, a ‘Freedom and Justice’ party sounds pretty nice to Western negotiators, not understanding that in Islam, ‘Freedom’ means ‘being freed from the laws of man and subject only ti laws of Allah’ and ‘Justice’ means ‘justice as determined by Sharia and Sharia alone’.
‘Human Rights’ mean ‘Human Rights as defined by Sharia and Sharia alone.
And so on…
You’d think that the Progressives would have realized their technique is being used by the Muslims against themselves. It should not be surprising, as many Muslim thinkers who developed this technique had been educated by socialists and are well versed in Critical Theory.
That is why, for example, the hardline Islamist women were able to infiltrate the feminist governance structures in Ottawa and turn them into an effective tool of Dawa…
And as for the Conservatives – they ought to have learned by now. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Having been so bamboozled by the use of language by Progressives, they ought not fall for it when it is done by the Islamists!
The trick to understanding this is never to mistake a cultural Marxist for a progressive.
Cultural Marxists are the ones who design the fallacies; progressives are the ones who fall for them.
For example, cultural Marxists know full well that there is only one objective reality, and each individual has a unique subjective perspective on it.
When they teach that everyone makes his own reality, they deliberately conflate the objective with the subjective. This makes the rest of the indoctrination go much more smoothly.
Similarly, cultural Marxists know full well that the Islamic dialectic is disingenuous in the ways you describe; it’s the useful idiots indoctrinated by cultural Marxists – including, but not limited to, progressives – who don’t get it.
Progressives truly believe they hold the moral and rational high ground, and that reasonable Muslims will eventually have to admit it.
Cultural Marxists are not so naïve. They know full well that jihadis will eat social justice weenies for breakfast. But they don’t care; by that time, the goals of the globalist plutocrats will have been achieved.
You see, cultural Marxism has no preference between fascism and communism, theocracy and democracy. Any package of sophistry that induces the masses to accept plutocratic totalitarian statism it will do.
That’s what cultural Marxists do for a living: they use their knowledge of dialectics, psychology, sociology, and so on, to fabricate and promulgate multiple competing packages of sophistry, all of which put the masses into a compliant frame of mind vis-à-vis the state, while dividing them against each other.
That’s what the men who own the world pay them for.
The progressives of the custodial left and the conservatives of the dictatorial right are both equally duped.
Only classical liberalism – the white Christian hetero-patriarchy (with or without the overtly religious overtones) – is really dangerous to the globalist plutocrats.
From it spring the ideas that cultural Marxism seeks to eradicate from human consciousness: that we ought to love our brothers as ourselves, and that the state exists only to guarantee the inalienable rights of every individual.
A number of trends are coming to a head which we can use to our advantage.
Firstly, people are getting fed up with feminists, minority whiners, and social justice weenies of every ilk.
Secondly, people are getting fed up with both ends of the left/right spectrum and realizing that they cannot count on the government for anything.
Thirdly, people are broke and this, more than anything else, will motivate them to action.
In order to harness the momentum of these trends, we must defragment the right under an umbrella of rugged individualism, strong families, and sound economy.
What we have to work with is a rag-tag collection of isolated nexi of resistance to cultural Marxism, each motivated by its own concerns, and all deeply distrustful of each other. To wit:
– the libertarian right
– the Christian right
– the Jewish right
– the White Pride movement
– the impoverished middle class
– the pro-masculinity movement
– the pro-family movement
– the pro-firearms movement
Now, what propelled Western civilization to the pinacle of accomplishment, prosperity, and world power is the unbeatable team made up of the Aryan warrior and the Jewish intellectual.
Yes, you read that right. Think about it.
These two groups must mend their differences and work together.
If they do, the others will fall in line and we can still snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
Otherwise, we will be isolated, overrun, and ignominiously slaughtered by the torrent of mewling weaklings sent against us by cultural Marxism.
Now, this idea may be a bit jarring at first, but the fact of the matter is, right-wing Jews and White Pride groups have more in common with each other than either has with left-wing Jews or progressive gentiles.
And the sooner we all learn that, the better our chances of not drowning in a caustic deluge of co-called social justice.
The reflexive de-Aryanization of Western academia is just as harmful and shameful as the simplistic caricature that those evil international bankers are all Jews.
It’s long past time for both sides to let go of their knee-jerk reactions, start thinking clearly, and work together.
As Robert Spencer happened to be in Ottawa and Montreal, and I was lucky to go to both events. The videos from them should be up by Monday/Tuesday, a reliable source tells me.
Anyhow, I took this opportunity to run your idea by a number of people whose opinion I value. They agreed that your idea is intriguing.
Also, the right-wing Jewish groups would be willing to work with anyone at all for the preservation of our society, but that it is highly unlikely that Aryan supremacist groups would be willing to work with Jews…
It depends on whom you approach, and how you approach them.
Your concern may well be justified when it comes to the rank-and-file neo-nazi skinhead. But if you look, for example, at David Duke’s web site, you will notice that the leadership of that movement has no beef with “the Jews” as a whole. Indeed, he writes
“Anyone who opposes Jewish extremism, supremacism and Zionism I consider an ally and brother in the cause for the liberation of Europeans and every people on the planet from the Zio-Globalist threat.”
I strongly suspect that he opposes the same cabal of globalist totalitarian plutocrats that all sensible, freedom-loving people oppose.
Thus, if the right-wing Jewish groups you mention are on the level when they say they “would be willing to work with anyone at all for the preservation of our society,” it seems to me that Duke has already declared them allies.
To make that work, however, they would have to give up the “chosen people” shtick and turn their backs on people like Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, who preaches that “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.”
I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree on this issue.
I am a very firm Zionist: not because I think the land of Israel is owed to Jews because of their genealogy/special relationship with Jehovah, but because they successfully defended their land in a military conflict…
It seems highly unlikely to me that a white supremacist group would be willing to work with me and other Zionists – and your comment supports this.
Supporting the right of the state of Israel to exist and defend itself is one thing.
Zionism is quite another (disingenuous protestations of so-called secular Zionists notwithstanding).
If you do not believe that the Jews have been given dominion over the entire world by virtue of a special covenant with the God of Abraham, then you are not a Zionist.
The Jewish Right and White Pride both say they want to save Western civilization. But obviously they’re not serious if nursing past grievances is more important to them.
If they won’t put aside their differences and work together, Western civilization is finished.
It was never about world domination, but always about a nation state for Jews. Theodor Herzl originally wanted to create this nation state in Africa, and even Argentina was considered.
Zionism does not, in any way, shape or form, strive for dominion over the World, religiously mandated or not!
And, like I said earlier, the Jewish Right is willing to play ball. I checked with my contacts. The white supremacists, I don’t really have any contacts with them, but from the few I have encountered in the past, I highly doubt they’d pitch in.
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 
April 11, 2016 at 13:55
Xanthippa:
I have tried to make this exact argument on more than one campus, but very few of the inmates are open to hearing it.
Professors – even those with tenure – are terrified, and with good reason.
Cultural Marxist infiltrators from Women’s Studies, Political Science, and similarly subversive departments of the Faculty of Arts have taken over the administration.
And these disingenuous thugs think nothing of destroying the career of anyone who speaks the politically incorrect truth.
This is what gives clout to the vainglorious bleating of the social justice weenies.
So Fiamengo has her work cut out for her. Gramsci’s “long march through the institutions,” has had a century to embed its creeping rot into the infrastructure of academia.
Routing it out is not going to happen overnight, and it’s not going to be pretty.
Being venal, slimy, and gutless, these weasels fight dirtier than anyone else I’ve ever come across.
April 11, 2016 at 14:47
CodeSlinger,
‘The long march through the institutions’ – just yesterday, I was invited to a meeting of a group of Ontario conservatives who simply could not understand how the leadership of their party could be so hijacked by Progressives….
And my friend and I had to explain Gramsci’s plan…the poisonous fruit of which we are now reaping, so that all political opinions/parties/education options are the left, the ruthless left and the hard, murderous left!
But, there is no place for us to run to to get away from statism run amock!!!
April 11, 2016 at 21:08
Xanthippa:
Yes, I know exactly what you mean.
Part of the difficulty lies in progressives’ use of ordinary English words in a way that means something very different to them than it does to normal people. Like the phrase “critical thinking.”
For example, they say they want to teach “critical thinking” in schools, and conservatives readily agree… not realizing that, to a progressive, “critical thinking” means “thinking in accordance with critical theory.” In other words, thinking like a social justice weenie.
So the conservatives get sucked in every time.
This problem is compounded by the mindset typical of the political class, characterized by the utter absence of the ability to form any concept of a problem that is not susceptible to solution by state intervention.
This was evident in a video I recently stumbled across (and can’t find right now) of Tarek Fatah addressing the Canadian Senate on Terrorism: it was clear that the Senate did not hear a word he said, because it did not fit their preconceptions.
This was particularly obvious in the question period after the presentation. The senators all wanted to know what structures and policies should be put in place to let them import Muslims without importing Jihad. So a senator would ask him that, and he would explain that there are no such structures and policies: you cannot import Muslims without importing Jihad.
And then the next senator would ask him again in different words.
This is typical of people who have been exposed to certain style of “conflict resolution” techniques: they rephrase the question until they get the answer they want. They see this as a “negotiating technique.”
The idea that you cannot negotiate with facts is completely alien to them.
How is this possible? Because even our conservatives were taught by teachers who were trained by cultural Marxist teacher trainers.
That is why they are so easily manipulated by progressives.
April 11, 2016 at 21:21
CodeSlinger,
What is most baffling is that even though the Progressives use this technique in just about everything, they are completely blindsided when Muslims do exactly the same thing.
When Muslim countries negotiate international treaties or make speeches or communicate in any important manner, they use words to mean what they want, not what us Westerners know them to mean.
For example, a ‘Freedom and Justice’ party sounds pretty nice to Western negotiators, not understanding that in Islam, ‘Freedom’ means ‘being freed from the laws of man and subject only ti laws of Allah’ and ‘Justice’ means ‘justice as determined by Sharia and Sharia alone’.
‘Human Rights’ mean ‘Human Rights as defined by Sharia and Sharia alone.
And so on…
You’d think that the Progressives would have realized their technique is being used by the Muslims against themselves. It should not be surprising, as many Muslim thinkers who developed this technique had been educated by socialists and are well versed in Critical Theory.
That is why, for example, the hardline Islamist women were able to infiltrate the feminist governance structures in Ottawa and turn them into an effective tool of Dawa…
And as for the Conservatives – they ought to have learned by now. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Having been so bamboozled by the use of language by Progressives, they ought not fall for it when it is done by the Islamists!
April 12, 2016 at 00:49
Xanthippa:
The trick to understanding this is never to mistake a cultural Marxist for a progressive.
Cultural Marxists are the ones who design the fallacies; progressives are the ones who fall for them.
For example, cultural Marxists know full well that there is only one objective reality, and each individual has a unique subjective perspective on it.
When they teach that everyone makes his own reality, they deliberately conflate the objective with the subjective. This makes the rest of the indoctrination go much more smoothly.
Similarly, cultural Marxists know full well that the Islamic dialectic is disingenuous in the ways you describe; it’s the useful idiots indoctrinated by cultural Marxists – including, but not limited to, progressives – who don’t get it.
Progressives truly believe they hold the moral and rational high ground, and that reasonable Muslims will eventually have to admit it.
Cultural Marxists are not so naïve. They know full well that jihadis will eat social justice weenies for breakfast. But they don’t care; by that time, the goals of the globalist plutocrats will have been achieved.
You see, cultural Marxism has no preference between fascism and communism, theocracy and democracy. Any package of sophistry that induces the masses to accept plutocratic totalitarian statism it will do.
That’s what cultural Marxists do for a living: they use their knowledge of dialectics, psychology, sociology, and so on, to fabricate and promulgate multiple competing packages of sophistry, all of which put the masses into a compliant frame of mind vis-à-vis the state, while dividing them against each other.
That’s what the men who own the world pay them for.
The progressives of the custodial left and the conservatives of the dictatorial right are both equally duped.
Only classical liberalism – the white Christian hetero-patriarchy (with or without the overtly religious overtones) – is really dangerous to the globalist plutocrats.
From it spring the ideas that cultural Marxism seeks to eradicate from human consciousness: that we ought to love our brothers as ourselves, and that the state exists only to guarantee the inalienable rights of every individual.
Which is why I keep repeating:
It’s not the left versus the right.
It’s the system.
Versus you.
April 12, 2016 at 08:14
You are, of course, right, Codeslinger!!!
Now, how do we restore our culture?
April 13, 2016 at 18:17
Xanthippa:
A number of trends are coming to a head which we can use to our advantage.
Firstly, people are getting fed up with feminists, minority whiners, and social justice weenies of every ilk.
Secondly, people are getting fed up with both ends of the left/right spectrum and realizing that they cannot count on the government for anything.
Thirdly, people are broke and this, more than anything else, will motivate them to action.
In order to harness the momentum of these trends, we must defragment the right under an umbrella of rugged individualism, strong families, and sound economy.
What we have to work with is a rag-tag collection of isolated nexi of resistance to cultural Marxism, each motivated by its own concerns, and all deeply distrustful of each other. To wit:
– the libertarian right
– the Christian right
– the Jewish right
– the White Pride movement
– the impoverished middle class
– the pro-masculinity movement
– the pro-family movement
– the pro-firearms movement
Now, what propelled Western civilization to the pinacle of accomplishment, prosperity, and world power is the unbeatable team made up of the Aryan warrior and the Jewish intellectual.
Yes, you read that right. Think about it.
These two groups must mend their differences and work together.
If they do, the others will fall in line and we can still snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
Otherwise, we will be isolated, overrun, and ignominiously slaughtered by the torrent of mewling weaklings sent against us by cultural Marxism.
Now, this idea may be a bit jarring at first, but the fact of the matter is, right-wing Jews and White Pride groups have more in common with each other than either has with left-wing Jews or progressive gentiles.
And the sooner we all learn that, the better our chances of not drowning in a caustic deluge of co-called social justice.
April 13, 2016 at 23:08
CodeSlinger,
much food for thought…
April 14, 2016 at 19:26
Xanthippa:
Indeed.
The reflexive de-Aryanization of Western academia is just as harmful and shameful as the simplistic caricature that those evil international bankers are all Jews.
It’s long past time for both sides to let go of their knee-jerk reactions, start thinking clearly, and work together.
If we don’t, we will all be very sorry.
April 15, 2016 at 00:58
CodeSlinger,
I hate to break this to you, but that would be way too rational a course of actions for humans to take.
We WILL be sorry…
April 15, 2016 at 16:04
Xanthippa:
The probability that you are right is, well, alarmingly high…
April 15, 2016 at 16:22
CodeSlinger:
As Robert Spencer happened to be in Ottawa and Montreal, and I was lucky to go to both events. The videos from them should be up by Monday/Tuesday, a reliable source tells me.
Anyhow, I took this opportunity to run your idea by a number of people whose opinion I value. They agreed that your idea is intriguing.
Also, the right-wing Jewish groups would be willing to work with anyone at all for the preservation of our society, but that it is highly unlikely that Aryan supremacist groups would be willing to work with Jews…
April 20, 2016 at 17:27
Xanthippa:
It depends on whom you approach, and how you approach them.
Your concern may well be justified when it comes to the rank-and-file neo-nazi skinhead. But if you look, for example, at David Duke’s web site, you will notice that the leadership of that movement has no beef with “the Jews” as a whole. Indeed, he writes
“Anyone who opposes Jewish extremism, supremacism and Zionism I consider an ally and brother in the cause for the liberation of Europeans and every people on the planet from the Zio-Globalist threat.”
I strongly suspect that he opposes the same cabal of globalist totalitarian plutocrats that all sensible, freedom-loving people oppose.
Thus, if the right-wing Jewish groups you mention are on the level when they say they “would be willing to work with anyone at all for the preservation of our society,” it seems to me that Duke has already declared them allies.
To make that work, however, they would have to give up the “chosen people” shtick and turn their backs on people like Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, who preaches that “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.”
April 20, 2016 at 21:37
CodeSlinger:
I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree on this issue.
I am a very firm Zionist: not because I think the land of Israel is owed to Jews because of their genealogy/special relationship with Jehovah, but because they successfully defended their land in a military conflict…
It seems highly unlikely to me that a white supremacist group would be willing to work with me and other Zionists – and your comment supports this.
April 21, 2016 at 16:00
Xanthippa:
Supporting the right of the state of Israel to exist and defend itself is one thing.
Zionism is quite another (disingenuous protestations of so-called secular Zionists notwithstanding).
If you do not believe that the Jews have been given dominion over the entire world by virtue of a special covenant with the God of Abraham, then you are not a Zionist.
The Jewish Right and White Pride both say they want to save Western civilization. But obviously they’re not serious if nursing past grievances is more important to them.
If they won’t put aside their differences and work together, Western civilization is finished.
April 21, 2016 at 17:10
CodeSlinger:
Now you are misrepresenting Zionism.
It was never about world domination, but always about a nation state for Jews. Theodor Herzl originally wanted to create this nation state in Africa, and even Argentina was considered.
Zionism does not, in any way, shape or form, strive for dominion over the World, religiously mandated or not!
And, like I said earlier, the Jewish Right is willing to play ball. I checked with my contacts. The white supremacists, I don’t really have any contacts with them, but from the few I have encountered in the past, I highly doubt they’d pitch in.
April 25, 2016 at 19:41
Xanthippa:
You obviously haven’t read much Talmud…