ShogunRua wrote:theficionado wrote:ShogunRua wrote:Of course. Leftists always eat their own eventually. It's the same way in American universities; the 70's liberals and modern-day professors and administrators are presently being attacked and purged by the modern-day leftists.
You know there is a pejorative that Republicans use to characterize others who are not sufficiently conservative, right?
Oh yes, "cuckservative". A lovely term. Only I don't consider myself a Republican and am not much of a "conservative". A common mistake people make is to think anyone opposed to socialism/cultural Marxism must be a Republican/conservative. It's not so simple or clear-cut.
Yes, I know that the right is composed of many groups, some contradictory, some overlapping: nationalists, social conservatives, Evangelical Christians, libertarians, the wealthy, and men in general. Just as the left is composed of African-Americans, Hispanic Americans, gay people, women, the non-religious, unionists, etc. I'm speaking in probabilistic terms, of course.
I had to look up the meaning of "cultural Marxism" because nobody I know identifies with cultural Marxism. Wikipedia says: "Cultural Marxism is a term used by critics and even self-admitted Marxists are unlikely to use the term to describe their own ideology." Seems to me that it's a label used by political opponents to group a diverse array of political interests together in order to characterize them in negative terms through a connotation with Marx (which is seemingly still effective in American society).
Political coalition formation is an iterative process. Hispanic Americans don't flock to the left because they're cultural Marxists. They're largely on the left because the nativist rhetoric on the right kind treats their heritage and perhaps even their living relatives with a great deal of disdain.
ShogunRua wrote: Many "Rightists" (am I doing this right?) were celebrating the ouster of John Boehner as recently as a few months ago. This is feature of dogmatic groups in general.
Sure, I was celebrating, too. Boehner was a fifth columnist, sell-out scumbag who rubber-stamped all of Obama's legislation as surely as any Democratic lapdog while attacking the more principled members of his party, like Ted Cruz. What is the purpose of Republicans having control of both the House and Senate if they all approve everything the executive branch comes up with?
So you're saying ... you support his expulsion because he wasn't conservative enough? Rationalize it all you want, I do it, too, but it's the same thing.
ShogunRua wrote:Look, SJWs/liberals have been kicking the ass of conservatives for the last 40 years. It's embarrassing how easily and crushingly they have conquered territory after territory, utterly expelled conservatives from entire areas (like colleges), and enacting laws undreamed of by even the most radical leftist a few generations ago.
As a result, many weak Republicans/conservatives have become pathetic turncoats/appeasers.
But what I was talking about is different, like this;
http://www.breitbart.com/racism/2015/11 ... i-debacle/
That's one narrative. I could easily provide some counter-narratives detailing years and years of liberal defeat. How about neoliberalization? An increase in privatization of public institutions and goods, deregulation, and free trade?
Here's an alternative take on the Mizzou situation according to that narrative: The "cultural Marxist" students actually don't have any power whatsoever. What led to the resignation of the adminstrators was the involvement of the Mizzou football team. As state governments have funded state universities less and less, universities require money from alternative sources, such as alumni donations and have accordingly placed more importance on sports team, as a way of maintaining strong identification with the school. Events also provide ticket sales, visibility in entertainment markets, etc. The only reason the administrators got canned was because of the ridiculous amount of future money dependent upon 70 or so student-athletes, who only were only able to leverage their position as revenue sources because the state is providing the university with fewer and fewer funds.
I suspect the reason groups create these narratives is that the underdog narratives and victimhood narratives — WE'RE the ones being oppressed — are, counterintuitively, sources of resonance and probably a great way to engender political commitment. And, again, it seems to be a common feature of both sides for this reason.
on a case of celluloid sewage/digital dregs accurately, than by withholding my measly 7 bucks. At least that way I walk away clean and with some ammo under my belt which I wouldn't if I'd spent it on some greasy whore.
