Next Conservatism: What is Cultural Marxism

GOP USA ^ | 10-25-05 | William S. Lind - Commentary

[.30Carbine]

I am so grateful that you included me in the ping to your post. As you affirm with both your words and your demonstration, Love and Truth are the Way through what you describe so well here:

What we are speaking about here is — as the ancient Greeks and Romans realized a long time ago — a widespread pneumopathological disorder, or “spiritual disease” that is intimately related to psychopathic disorder. Plato called the disease nosos; Aristotle’s term for it was nosemos; Cicero put his finger on it by calling it the aspernatio rationes, or “contempt for reason.” It is a suicide mission when you boil it all down: It wants to “end history,” and start all over from scratch, on the theory that Man (or at least, “some” men, our would-be self-appointed “saviors”) can do a better job of creating a “just order” than God Himself can. And so the new construction — the second reality — can be built only when reason, God, and history are all “dead.”

The first thing you have to realize is that these people in the ALA, ACLU, et al., do not live in the same world that you and I do.

The “integrity” of the doctrine is more important than the truth of reality.

I have encountered the same dynamic you describe in many individuals who do not belong to the groups you list, and who would insist that they share nothing in common with such organizations of men. There are individuals in the Right as well as the Left, in the Conservative as well as the Liberal, in the Republican as well as the Democratic parties who live in the ideologies you detail and whose doctrines, according to their idea of "integrity," though defended to the death, fail the test of Reason and Truth.

This is my personal observation. May I use the gifts I have been given by my most gracious Creator as well--as ordered, as intelligent and intelligible, as graciously--as you have used yours here, betty boop, to defend the rational truth, to attempt with love to introduce Reality to those who live in darkness and call it "enlightenment."

[PatrickHenry]

This is all news to me, dear Patrick. Nobody responded to me after that post, but you alone. And according to my recollection, you corresponded with me only once, after that particular post.

Four times. As in one-two-three-four.

If the truth of this story is different from that which I now recall, then please, kindly do provide the corroborating links that i must have overlooked, according to you, that I might correct my understanding of the truth of the matter in this dispute.

I already did, not long ago, in this very thread, in the post to which you are now responding. There are four links to my four responses which followed your discovery of that footnote. Here's a link to the requested links, BB: post 113.

Jeepers, PH -- what is your real problem???

I'm too nice a guy.

[betty boop]

Dear Patrick, I apologize for not remembering that you did follow-up with me, and we even chatted a bit more. All I can tell you is I have a whole lot on my mind these days, and I've been away from FR a lot -- so I guess I just "lost my place."

I find something very curious that maybe you could help me with. I really don't understand why you get in such a lather over the things I say if you're convinced that my words are mainly garbage. I mean, you could always take the route a friend recently did whose name I cannot mention, because that would mean I'd have to ping him, and he doesn't want that. I mean the route of having a great big belly laugh, and then just moving on.

Actually I find you quite mystifying, but always gracious. For the rest of it, I guess we shall just have to continue to agree to disagree.

[PatrickHenry]

I really don't understand why you get in such a lather over the things I say if you're convinced that my words are mainly garbage.

I can't follow many of the threads you get involved in, so of course I don't get involved in most of your issues. And many of your issues are sooooo philosophical that I don't have the ability to get involved.

But when you comment on something I know about, and feel strongly about ... like this Darwin/Marx thing (which I will not revive at this time), than I really want to respond. Especially when it's you, because you're one of the best we have, and I'd like to help out if I can. But in this issue, my efforts weren't helpful. Maybe I'm never helpful, I'm not really sure.

[betty boop]

I'd like to help out if I can. But in this issue, my efforts weren't helpful. Maybe I'm never helpful, I'm not really sure.

You're one of FR's best dear PH, tirelessly committed to the presentation of science issues, and not just evolutionary biology either. We just have different ways of seeing I guess. But we can ventilate our little "disputes," and I think that is helpful.

BTW, speaking of science issues, have you read Lisa Randall's Warped Passages yet? It is an astonishingly lucid and well-written book. She does a superb job presenting string theory, relativity, and QM -- among other things. I bet you'd really enjoy it.

Thanks so much for writing, dear Patrick!

[PatrickHenry]

have you read Lisa Randall's Warped Passages yet? I

I've seen her discussing it -- twice -- on C-Span's Book Notes. I'm planning to buy it. Lisa has a bit of a fan club here on FR.

[betty boop]

Lisa has a bit of a fan club here on FR.

I can see why. She is going to sell a ton of books.

One very interesting thing she points out is the difference between string theory and her own particle-physics "model-building" approach. She says the string theorists are essentially Platonists, and the model builders Aristotelians. But in the end, the two approaches are essentially complementary: Both ways of doing science eventually lead to breakthrough insights, especially when they pay attention to each other. I thought that was a very interesting insight.

[AD from SpringBay]

"It is safest to grasp the concept of the postmodern as an attempt to think the present historically in an age that has forgotten how to think historically in the first place." Frederick Jameson, Postmodernism. Duke University Press: Durham. 1991. "Introduction".

That's a very interesting concept, especially when we consider how ignorant of history people under the age of 30ish seem to be.

[plan2succeed.org]

Fantastic response. Thank you!

Now you said:

Which is why I say: You cannot argue with an "ideologist." There is no shared basis in reason that can bring the "two sides" together so that the search for Truth can proceed with profit to both parties. The "integrity" of the doctrine is more important than the truth of reality.

That may be true, but I am not trying to convince the ALA that it is an extremist organization from whom children should be protected. I realize it will find any excuse to push porn on children -- just look at how it defies the US Supreme Court in a case it itself lost.

Rather, my goal is to convince the public that the ALA, once a venerable organization, has been changed to one pushing porn on children and smoothing the ground for criminals to victimize children (let alone the nation's very existence).

Right now the public generally is not aware of ALA policies and ALA lists and awards for children containing material inappropriate for children. I think if the public were to become aware, they would wake up and do something to stop the ALA from harming children. My group and I are trying to prove to the public that the ALA's influence must be removed from local libraries lest the problems CIPA and US v. ALA sought to address continue unabated, as well as other problems.

That's why I want proof to back up my statements before I publish them. I am trying to convince people, not the ALA, and the people will rightly want proof from reputable sources, not mere statements made by little old me.

Thanks again for your input. I hope it helps people wake up.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

NixonsAngryGhost, didn't you post this previously?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your brilliant post, betty boop!!!

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again, ’til I’m blue in the face if necessary: When one takes a shot at God, it is always man who must take the bullet. For God is Truth, and the only source of Truth. And the man who does not live in Truth is not truthfully a man.

The key point is: Once reason has been “killed,” then there is no basis for rational argument. So you can look for all the sources, all the facts, all the proofs you want to; but it really won’t do you any good in the end. Dealing with doctrinaire ideologues, you must always be prepared for the situation in which the “goalpost” will be constantly moved. Marx made it very clear: Inconvenient facts are always to be disregarded; and all questioning of “the system” is strictly prohibited.

So very true and well said. We often raise the deep questions like "what is reality?" - for truly, if people cannot agree on the fundamentals, there can be no understanding.

WRT the discussion between the two of you - I'd like to remind you and the Lurkers that no one on the linked thread replied to my post of evidence for Marx relying on or exploiting Darwinism to promote his agenda. It was post 120 there, but the bottom line is this Google search of the Marxist website:

Marx and Darwin

[PatrickHenry]

Hi, A-Girl! I really don't want to dwell on this issue. BB and I have bashed heads, and neither has had any effect on the other -- except to cause a headache.

To be candid, I won't be impressed by what Marxists say. I don't care if they claim they are the heirs of Isaac Newton and Alexander the Great. They can't be relied upon for accurate information.

To me, the best way to deal with the issue is: (a) to observe the chronological sequence of Marx's publications, compared to the comparatively late appearance of Darwin's Origins in that chronology; and (b) to ask ourselves what in the world is there about mutation and natural selection that has anything to do with the labor theory of value, the dictatorship of the proletariat, "to each according to his needs," etc. I'm a reasonably bright fellow, and I see no connection at all.

It's true that BB found one footnote in the final work by Marx, referencing Darwin. It was, I believe, on a trivial point about the division of labor (an old concept even by the time Darwin was in school), and although it's dazzling that she found it, it's not very persuasive.

And to slay any lingering doubts ... yes, I respect Darwin's work; yes, I think the theory of evolution is good science; and no, I'm not an admirer of Marx. I'm very much a free-market Republican conservative. I'm pretty sure that's the overwhelming position of all 355 people on my evolution ping list. Not commies. Not socialists. Not leftists. Not that many self-declared atheists either (although mostly religious, they're probably not of the fundamentalist -- six-day creation -- persuasion). They're conservative people who like science. And that ain't bad.

[cornelis]

I'm too nice a guy.

If only because there is Good in the world. Here's to hope for better! Cheers!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply and for sharing your view of what makes the argument! And indeed Marxists do not inspire my confidence either - nevertheless, there is correspondence on the link (e.g. by Marx) which I suspect is credible (as in written over his signature) - and which supports the point made by betty boop on the other thread.

[T. Buzzard Trueblood]

Interesting read.