Cultural Marxism

Cultural Marxism is a term that’s been used regularly here by kiwi guy, alongside his strong anti-feminist views. What is it apart from a general perjorative?

An insidious attempt to impose socialism by stealth? Or a nutter conspiracy theory?

Godwin alert!

Urban dictionary:

The gradual process of destroying all traditions, languages, religions, individuality, government, family, law and order in order to re-assemble society in the future as a communist utopia. This utopia will have no notion of gender, traditions, morality, god or even family or the state.

The Philosophy was proven not to Work already by Vladimir Lenin as he tried in vein to control and subjugate the people. He admitted before he died that capitalism was the only true system in which people understand how to live with each other….

Lenin knew that there were a few western Idiots who kept spreading the communist ideas long after Lenin gave up…. he called these people useful idiots as they had more emotion than brains and could be used to subvert the western states for a military takeover in the future as the citizens would already be perverted and sick and weak from poisonous ideas, decadent lusts and mindless entertainment.

An Australian perspective from Jason Wilson in ‘Cultural Marxism’: a uniting theory for rightwingers who love to play the victim:

What do the Australian’s columnist Nick Cater, video game hate group #Gamergate, Norwegian mass shooter Anders Breivik and random blokes on YouTube have in common? Apart from anything else, they have all invoked the spectre of “cultural Marxism” to account for things they disapprove of – things like Islamic immigrant communities, feminism and, er, opposition leader Bill Shorten.

What are they talking about? The tale varies in the telling, but the theory of cultural Marxism is integral to the fantasy life of the contemporary right. It depends on a crazy-mirror history, which glancingly reflects things that really happened, only to distort them in the most bizarre ways.

It begins in the 1910s and 1920s. When the socialist revolution failed to materialise beyond the Soviet Union, Marxist thinkers like Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs tried to explain why. Their answer was that culture and religion blunted the proletariat’s desire to revolt, and the solution was that Marxists should carry out a “long march through the institutions” – universities and schools, government bureaucracies and the media – so that cultural values could be progressively changed from above.

Adapting this, later thinkers of the Frankfurt School decided that the key to destroying capitalism was to mix up Marx with a bit of Freud, since workers were not only economically oppressed, but made orderly by sexual repression and other social conventions. The problem was not only capitalism as an economic system, but the family, gender hierarchies, normal sexuality – in short, the whole suite of traditional western values.

The conspiracy theorists claim that these “cultural Marxists” began to use insidious forms of psychological manipulation to upend the west. Then, when Nazism forced the (mostly Jewish) members of the Frankfurt School to move to America, they had, the story goes, a chance to undermine the culture and values that had sustained the world’s most powerful capitalist nation.

And:

The whole story is transparently barmy. If humanities faculties are really geared to brainwashing students into accepting the postulates of far-left ideology, the composition of western parliaments and presidencies and the roaring success of corporate capitalism suggests they’re doing an astoundingly bad job. Anyone who takes a cool look at the last three decades of politics will think it bizarre that anyone could interpret what’s happened as the triumph of an all-powerful left.

The theory of cultural Marxism is also blatantly antisemitic, drawing on the idea of Jews as a fifth column bringing down western civilisation from within, a racist trope that has a longer history than Marxism.

It allows those smarting from a loss of privilege to be offered the shroud of victimhood, by pointing to a shadowy, omnipresent, quasi-foreign elite who are attempting to destroy all that is good in the world. It offers an explanation for the decline of families, small towns, patriarchal authority, and unchallenged white power: a vast, century-long left wing conspiracy. And it distracts from the most important factor in these changes: capitalism, which demands mobility, whose crises have eroded living standards, and which thus, among other things, undermines the viability of conventional family structures and the traditional lifestyles that conservatives approve of.

The story of cultural Marxism is also flexible and can be tailored to fit with the obsessions of a range of right-wing actors. As such, it’s one example of an idea from the extremes which has been mobilised by more mainstream figures and has dragged politics as a whole a little further right

Rational Wiki describes it:

The term “cultural Marxism” is most commonly encountered as a snarl word decrying everything right-wingers don’t like, alluding to a conspiracy theory involving sinister left-wingers in the cultural and artistic spheres, including the media and academia, supposedly being engaged in a decades-long plot to undermine Western culture. With bonus anti-Semitism.

Outside of graduate seminars in the history of critical theory, the term is primarily used by reactionaries to red-bait anyone with progressive tendencies.

The conspiracist usage was prefigured in Nazi Germany, where Kulturbolschewismus (“Cultural Bolshevism”) was used as a term of political abuse

Wikipedia says similar in a more long winded fashion in Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory:

A 20th-century conspiracy theory regards the Frankfurt School as the origin of a contemporary movement in the political left to destroy western culture, referred to as “Cultural Marxism” by theory proponents. It advocates the idea that multiculturalism and political correctness are products of critical theory, which originated with the Frankfurt School. The theory is associated with American religious paleoconservatives such as William Lind, Pat Buchanan and Paul Weyrich, and has received support from the Free Congress Foundation.

According to Chip Berlet, who specializes in the study of extreme right-wing movements, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory found fertile ground within the Tea Party movement of 2009, with contributions published in the American Thinker and WorldNetDaily highlighted by some Tea Party websites.

Philosopher and political science lecturer Jérôme Jamin has stated that “Next to the global dimension of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, there is its innovative and original dimension, which lets its authors avoid racist discourses and pretend to be defenders of democracy”.

Professor and Oxford Fellow Matthew Feldman has traced the terminology back to the pre-war German concept of Cultural Bolshevism locating it as part of the degeneration discourse that aided in Hitler’s rise to power.

William S. Lind confirms this as his period of interest, claiming that “It [Cultural Marxism] is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I.

 

Leave a comment

76 Comments

  1. Timoti

     /  30th December 2015

    Oh,dear. Kiwi Guys handlers will need to bring him in from the cold and remodel him
    .
    Looking forward to PartisanZ’ take on this article. I’m just arranging my deck chair. I have a dictionary handy and given my inferior IQ to Kittyfib ,Mike C and PZ, my kindly next door neighbour will translate into blue collar speak concepts I don’t understand. Man,she had problem last time when I tried to get my head around wind and wind.

    Reply
    • kittycatkin

       /  30th December 2015

      I don’t expect that Kittycatkin is in the dictionary, but that is my user name, not the insulting version that you childishly insist upon using ever since I declined to go into details about my personal circumstances and finances that were none of your business.You can use it as much as you like, it won’t make me reveal things that are nothing to do with you and that you have no right to know.

      Reply
      • Timoti

         /  30th December 2015

        Lol….you told me you were on $210 per week.
        I asked what benefit… your refused to say.
        Cart before the horse????

        Now if you will excuse me, I have to see in what way Pete is offending me next. The Middlemarch thing brought back horrid memories.

        Reply
        • kittycatkin

           /  30th December 2015

          You called me a liar because I said that rates and insurance took a large chunk out of it-people in that situation didn’t have insurance. you said. You then turned into the worst kind of troll, abusing and hectoring me about things that are none of your business. My situation is just that; none of your business.

          Reply
          • Timoti

             /  30th December 2015

            I’m sorry, but you are seriously weird. Look at the thread again.
            Have a great night, don’t let the bed bugs bite.

            Reply
            • kittycatkin

               /  31st December 2015

              It may seem seriously weird to you that someone would not want to give personal information to a stranger online;well, you’re entitled to think that. I am entitled to think that I don’t want to tell someone something that they have no right to know, and that would not enlighten them much if they did know it. Your threats about a private detective were extremely unbalanced, and way beyond sheer nosiness and vulgar curiosity but do hire one if you would like to and have nothing better to spend your money on.

  2. kiwi guy

     /  30th December 2015

    Leftists HATE being called Cultural Marxists and deny they are, and yet as we all know over at The Standard there are plenty of them slithering around – eg Te Puke or whatever its name is, has its own little blog devoted to Marxism which it is quite proud of.

    It is incredible that Leftists can openly embrace and display Stalinist/Maoist mass murder paraphernalia and not have their reputations destroyed.

    Meanwhile Leftists delight in intimidating into silence anyone who dares question their extremist politics with baseless accusations of “Fashist!” or “Nazi!”.

    Cultural Marxism:

    We are talking political philosphy here and a whole lot of history. So a complex issue that is difficult to wrap up in a post.

    I use to think it was only a bit of dog whistling jargon thrown around by US rightwing shock jocks. In fact it is a plausible description of “Progressives” as they like to call themselves.

    Basically Marxism failed miserably in its prediction that Capitalism and Liberal Democracy in the West would be destroyed and replaced with a Socialist Utopia like in China and Russia.

    The Western working class didn’t rise up in revolution, in fact in some countries like Italy they aligned with the extreme Right instead.

    To explain this away the next generation of Marxist intellectuals ( eg Gramsci ) concluded that Western social or cultural institutions were to blame for the failure of a socialist revolution in the USA, Britain, Aussie, NZ etc. The working class was too heavily brainwashed from the cradle to grave by these institutions – eg The Church, the education system, the heterosexual two parent family, the media – that they were unable to identify the real enemy and overthrow their oppressors in a Marxist revolution.

    Therefore what was needed was a “Long march through the institutions” ( I think that is a Gramsci quote ) , infiltrate these institutions, attack them, break them down – only then would a Socialist Revolution and overthrow of Capitalism and Liberal Democracy be possible.

    A simpler way of putting it is:

    Marx’s working class failed to overthrow the Capitalist class. Therefore the next theorists like Gramsci decided that it would be females, homosexuals, lesbians, pedophiles ( YES, those too), Negroes and all those other “oppressed” subgroups who would now be deemed classes and would take up the struggle to overthrow the “oppressor class” in the great Marxist class conflict.

    That is the basics, but it gets complicated with Liberal philosophy and vocabularly, the Civil Rights movement, the rise of Deconstructionism, Postmodernism etc.

    I haven’t got time to go into detail on all this.

    Maybe more later, I will try to find some lost links ( computer crash ) I have collected over years.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  30th December 2015

      ‘ be females, homosexuals, lesbians, pedophiles ( YES, those too), Negroes ‘….so these people only vote left…is that what you are saying?

      Reply
      • Kevin

         /  30th December 2015

        According to the Left, yes. Otherwise they’re uncle toms, class traitors, and whatever term you want to use.

        I mean you do know that there is no such thing as a conservative homosexual, right?

        Reply
        • kiwi guy

           /  30th December 2015

          Individuals of an “oppressed class” who act in the interests of the “oppressor class” are considered to lack “class consciousness” – this supposedly comes about for the reason I mentioned above, the social or cultural institutions like the heterosexual nuclear family condition the individual from birth to unconsciously act in the interests of Capitalism.

          The phrase “consciousness raising” is used a lot by Progressives to describe their efforts to “Smash Capitalism!(TM)” or “Smash Patriarchy(TM)” – now you get an idea of where they are coming from.

          You can see the creepy Totalitarian mind control implications of this view immediately:

          If you dont agree with a Marxist it is because you are a poor brainwashed fool who needs to be “politically re educated” or disappeared.

          Because the oppressor class ideology has been ingrained into us since birth literally everything you think, say or do is unconsciously reinforcing the power of hegemony of the oppressor class.

          EVERYTHING you do is political – as the famous Feminist slogan states “THE PERSONAL IS POLITICAL”.

          Therefore everything you do or say or think needs to be vigorously criticized by yourself or your vigiliant Cultural Marxist comrades.

          I’m only half joking when I reference pictures of “The Cultural Revolution”, what we have happening in the West with Progressives is a Cultural Revolution Lite, which potentially morph into something even more harmful than it already is…

          Reply
          • Kevin

             /  30th December 2015

            That photo is an excellent metaphor for what the cultural marxists are doing.

            Reply
            • kiwi guy

               /  30th December 2015

              Yep, and it was this reality that finally dawned on me and I walked away completely disillusioned about the Left and how its liberal socialism has been hijacked by the Cultural Marxists. 😦

      • kiwi guy

         /  30th December 2015

        “‘ be females, homosexuals, lesbians, pedophiles ( YES, those too), Negroes ‘….so these people only vote left…is that what you are saying?”

        In the revised Marxism these groups become the new “oppressed classes” who will overthrow the Capitalist “oppressor class”.

        The new Class Enemy is the heterosexual, white, able bodied, middle class, male.

        Notice how the middle class remains a main target in this revised Marxism, and it is ironic that most of the big players in Feminism etc are white middle class females who have been brainwashed at university Liberal Arts faculties – even some black lesbian feminist got pissed off about it and started the Twitter hashtag #FeminismIsForWhiteGirls.

        Reply
  3. Kevin

     /  30th December 2015

    Cultural Marxism is real. It’s about authoritarianism vs libertarianism. It’s about social justice warriors in the media, universities, businesses, industries and other organisations trying to impose their ideas (that’s where the cultural marxism comes in) on the rest of us. An example? GamerGate, where SJWs in the media ran a false narrative that the gaming industry was sexist and toxic to women.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  30th December 2015

      bit confused which group are the authoritarians and which the libertarians?thx.

      Reply
      • Kevin

         /  30th December 2015

        Authoritarianism is when someone else tells you what to do and what to think. Liberatarianism is when you decide for yourself what to do and what to think.

        I’ll leave it up to you to figure out the rest.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  30th December 2015

          so Liberterianism is somekind of ideological fantasy then,that has never and never will exist.

          Reply
          • Timoti

             /  30th December 2015

            Just a little more bait….you could hook a big one.

            Reply
          • Kevin

             /  30th December 2015

            I just thought you wanted to know which group was authoritarian and which were libertarian. Have you managed to work it out?

            Reply
            • which group? well, one day it is the blue-eyed group, and the next day it is the brown-eyed group. Rinse and repeat.

  4. Sorry, I am still laughing inside at the picture conjured up by the statement that “The Philosophy was proven not to Work already by Vladimir Lenin as he tried in vein to control and subjugate the people. ” I tried in vain not to giggle!

    Reply
    • Timoti

       /  30th December 2015

      I’ll raise you:

      “It allows those smarting from a loss of privilege to be offered the shroud of victimhood, by pointing to a shadowy, omnipresent, quasi-foreign elite who are attempting to destroy all that is good in the world”

      Reply
      • Stings huh?

        Reply
      • Kevin

         /  30th December 2015

        Standard SJW defence – we’re fighting to right social imbalances!

        Fine.

        What about the fact that there are far more female teachers and male, especially in primary schools? Where are the SJW calls for more male teachers?

        Or what about the All Blacks. They have a much higher proportion of brown skins than white skins per population. How about SJWs calling for more honkeys in the All Blacks?

        Male suicide? Way more males kill themselves than females. Gotta have more females bumping themselves off. In the name of social justice of course.

        Prison? Everyone knows there aren’t enough whites in prison. I know, let’s make the burden of proof the balance of probabilities in cases where the defendant is white.

        Reply
        • kiwi guy

           /  30th December 2015

          Actually it is the man haters who demand that a wymmin’s rape accusation IS THE EVIDENCE.

          Cunliffes snivelling “sorry for being a man” comment to satisfy the Sistahood and the “man ban” policy idea that got quickly dropped when exposed to sunlight, are excellent examples of the creeping toxicity of Cultural Marxism.

          Reply
    • The rub, “The story of Cultural Marxism is also flexible and can be tailored to fit with the obsessions of a range of right-wing actors”.

      “it distracts from the most important factor in these changes: capitalism,” or, more correctly, our duty to find a middle way between free market capitalism and social responsibility. (not “socialism”)

      Thanks for your vote of confidence in my IQ/EQ Timoti, but I’m not going to put a whole lot of effort into this one. Today I am thoroughly reading System Justification Theory, which I suspect is directly related – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_justification

      Somewhere in there will be a very good psycho-sociological explanation for the virulent tenacity of Cultural Marxism as an SJT buttress for people like KG (except I know why he/she is really doing it)

      Yours Ψ

      PS – this is worth a read too. Marx was apparently a Jew and the whole “communist” thing funded by the Rothchild/Zionists.

      http://www.wakeupkiwi.com/The-Conspiracy-to-Rule-the-World-1.shtml

      Gee whizzzzzzz its hard to know what to believe!

      Reply
      • kiwi guy

         /  30th December 2015

        Your rambling posts suggest you should just start with Philosophy 101 – try Bertrand Russell’s A History Of Philosophy. It makes an excellent read though it only goes up to WW2. Philosophy takes a turn for the worst after that especially Deconstructionism the favourite sophistry of the Feminist war pigs.

        Reply
        • Oh yeah KG, talk to me about rambling posts!
          Can I get some editing lessons from you?

          The reason I generally don’t write brief comments is the briefer ones tend to be people insulting each other. I try not to engage in that.

          And please, don’t tell me what to read and then rave on about “authoritarian” CMs and RLFs.

          Reply
          • kiwi guy

             /  30th December 2015

            Seriously just go find some quality Philosophy 101 material.

            Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  30th December 2015

            When “Letters to the Editor” had a 120 word limit I learned to say a lot in a few words. Less is often more. When needed, insults pack more punch too!

            As for Philosophy 101 when I took it at the end of a science degree I was stunned that I would finish an hour’s lecture with just half a page of notes. I doubt its study would curb your verbosity, merely encourage it. However Russell writes well as did Hume an amazing three centuries earlier.

            Reply
            • Timoti

               /  30th December 2015

              Now that’s what I call an incisive comment.
              I was inflicted with Comrade Z’s disease until I learnt a technique from pioneer educationalist Win Wenger. Less is more. And you remember more of your subject.

            • @ Timoti – Nah, sorry. You never had my disease – intelligence.

            • Lol. Pithy.

            • Timoti

               /  30th December 2015

              Out of it, you reckon Ben !

            • You’re obviously intelligent Timoti. Was a good quip from Z though.

              Between you, Kevin, Alan and Z I usually drop in every day to see what mischief you’re all fomenting amongst each other. This blog is going from strength to strength.

              Even KG has valid points but they’re dressed up with the most offensive clothes that I’m not surprised at the down votes.

              KG still keeps coming back though. I can admire that in a person 🙂

              Happy New Years to all.

            • Timoti

               /  31st December 2015

              Thanks for the compliment, but you are misinformed. I don’t have the IQ units under the hood of those you describe. No problem though, I just improvise.

              Yes, that was a good quip.

            • @ Alan – And you direct this at me!!!!

              I’m not gonna go do word counts but here’s some initials &/or names who have posted lengthy comments in the last 24 hours, bjm1, dave1924, Kiwiguy, Timoti, Goldie, Traveller … and others.

              Hmmmm …?

              No, I can only and quite justifiably conclude that it’s my comments which sting the most.
              Ψ

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  30th December 2015

              I directed it at you because you defended long comments. Relevance, not sting.

      • kiwi guy

         /  30th December 2015

        “The rub, “The story of Cultural Marxism is also flexible and can be tailored to fit with the obsessions of a range of right-wing actors”.”

        The story of “Oppression” is also flexible and can be tailored to fit with the obsession of a range of left-wing actors.

        Reply
        • Good word play KG! The problem with the meaning of these words is quite simple.

          Oppression theory is comprehensible to a Rational Human Being and Cultural Marxism isn’t. CM doesn’t exist outside of it’s own conspiracy theories. Oppression actually exists.

          see – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_theory

          Especially Duckitt and Right-Wing Authoritarianism – vis

          “Punitive socialisation is hypothesised as a cause of social conformity. This conformity is predicted to lead to a view of the world as a dangerous, dog-eat-dog place … Unaffectionate socialisation is hypothesised to cause tough-minded attitudes. This promotes a view of the world as competitive, similar to the jungle of the evolutionary past. The need to compete is aligned with high SDO (Social Dominance Orientation)”

          Reply
  5. Alan Wilkinson

     /  30th December 2015

    The western world is full (I exaggerate only for effect) of people who believe the utopia they wish for is only unattainable because of the delusions others suffer from supported and fostered by an evil conspiracy. Strangely both Left and Right resort in equal passion to these internal comforts.

    I prefer the starting point of never ascribing to malevolence what is adequately explained by stupidity.

    Reply
    • Or worse still, malevolent stupidity? Or seeming stupidity masking malevolence? (Not you)

      Problem is, certain things are facts. There IS a status quo. It IS pervasive … etc

      Reply
  6. Goldie

     /  30th December 2015

    I note that only extreme-right wing people tend to use the term “cultural marxist”, invariably to describe anyone they disagree with. In the same way that hard-left people adopt the term “neo-liberal” to signify anything they disagree with, though no-one else uses the term.

    Users of those terms often resort to conspiracy theories (so extreme right-wingers believe in a conspiracy of cultural marxists working in universities and government agencies to oppress us, while extreme left-wingers believe in a conspiracy of corporations and the US military and spy agencies to oppress us).

    Myself – I find the terms “cultural marxist” and “neo-liberal” are useful indicators as to whether the writer is wearing a tin-foil hat.

    Reply
    • @ Goldie – you forgot to call the left-wing ones you disagree with “socialists”.

      Reply
    • kiwi guy

       /  30th December 2015

      “cultural marxism” is a phrase that is steadily moving into the mainstream.

      It’s limitation is that you really need to be familiar with some political philosophy to understand its meaning, so maybe it will never really take off, and remain mostly misused by US rightwing shock jocks.

      I use the term more as a signpost in a field of overlapping political ideologies.

      Reply
      • “cultural marxism” is a phrase that is steadily moving into the mainstream.

        I don’t see any evidence of that. I’ve just searched NZH and Stuff and barely a mention.

        And a Google News search also suggests it’s far from mainstream.

        Reply
  7. kiwi guy

     /  30th December 2015

    Heres an example of Cultural Marxism from Massey University.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/72597902/interest-grows-in-fat-studies-university-course.html

    The uni is offering a course in “Fat Studies”. Is this a legitimate academic subject? Of course not but this won’t stop the obese lesbian(s) running this higher education gambit.

    What is hilarious about the “Body Positivity” Feminist push, is that it is only obese females who are pretending that they healthy and sexy, and want men to validate them.

    Any fat guy knows exactly why he is fat and who is responsible – himself. That’s why no men will jump on the Feminist fat acceptance wagon – ok maybe a few effeminate homosexuals will.

    That’s probably the best illustration of the difference between the way men and women approach reality.

    Reply
    • You should be celebrating this KG, can’t you see that? This is “free market education” at its very best! If you don’t stand for the “free market” against Cultural Marxism, and, indeed, stand for the free market’s “freedom” to make an industry out of CM university courses, we won’t know where you stand or what you stand for …?

      The “freedom”, indeed, of women to approach reality differently from men?

      This, our confusion, will lead to odd deductions like my double-agent theory, or just that, while you sound highly intelligent, you really don’t know (or more correctly care) what the fuck you say.

      PS – funny photo by the way, if somewhat derisory.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  30th December 2015

        I suspect this “free market” is rather heavily skewed with taxpayers’ involuntary contributions. I doubt these courses would provide any economic value to participants without them

        Reply
        • The free market “as we know it”. Graduates of such a course might be quite useful to the food, fashion and weight-loss and dietician, dietary supplement industries, to name a few? I reckon employment would develop.

          Aside from tax avoidance – which, interestingly, increases along with income – taxpayers’ contributions could only be justifiably termed “involuntary” if there was a mass movement of open refusal to pay them. I don’t see it.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  30th December 2015

            Weren’t the Left claiming hundreds of millions or billions of tax avoidance yesterday?

            However, I see that IRD reported $11M tax avoidance last year which is less than half the $27M of welfare fraud reported. I think we can take most of these numbers with a pinch of salt.

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  30th December 2015

              you will find avoidance is legal….evasion is not!

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  30th December 2015

              No longer. IRD can arbitrarily rule any avoidance scheme is subject to tax.

            • @ Alan – Jesus you’ve got a good sidestep on you!

              Nota Bene – taxpayers’ contributions could only be justifiably termed “involuntary” if there was a mass movement of open refusal to pay them. I don’t see it.

              @ Blazer – and yes, I forgot the third component of “minimisation, avoidance and evasion”

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  30th December 2015

              “taxpayers’ contributions could only be justifiably termed “involuntary” if there was a mass movement of open refusal to pay them” – mere assertion and simply wrong. Involuntary = under compulsion.

              If I had to address every misconception you promote I would be here all day. I confine myself to those I find interesting.

            • Timoti

               /  30th December 2015

              I admire your tenacity, Alan. After the first few posts with this person I stopped replying.
              Oh,those misconceptions are sometimes a deliberate muddying of the waters. Perhaps their much vaunted intelligence is being stretched to the limit. Have fun.

            • @ Alan – I don’t think I can be blamed or ridiculed for responding to the actual word you used, “involuntary”.

              http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/involuntarily

              Shitload of words in there. Only problem is, they don’t include “compulsory”.

              Sorry to disappoint you Timoti …. again … (though I do concede my “refusal” comparison was a stretch, I think it was a useful one. This “all tax is theft” is just BS. You want to drive your car on roads?)

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  30th December 2015

              For heavens sake, use a dictionary, not a thesaurus. Eg Webster:

              Full Definition of involuntary
              1: done contrary to or without choice
              2: compulsory
              3: not subject to control of the will : reflex

              http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/involuntary

            • My mistake for which I apologise. I searched “involuntarily” instead of “involuntary”.

              Oh well, can’t win ’em all. And that’s what all this is about, point scoring.

              Let me just count the constructive, positive ideas advanced today …..

              Oh … there aren’t any.

              If you advance a fresh positive idea here you might be “wrong”. And if you’re wrong …

              Cabin fever. Gotta go out.

            • I think that was only the value of fraud prosecuted for. I’ve heard that IRD settle a lot of debt outside of the courts.

            • kittycatkin

               /  30th December 2015

              Surely tax avoidance is when one can write things off (as I did with IRD when I was self-employed) and which must be legal if they go through the list and say what can be written off by way of costs and even help with suggestions. Evasion is when people make false declarations and mislead IRD. Or when (cough) cash in hand is exchanged for work-although a friend who worked for IRD said that they’d rather people didn’t bother with very small amounts as it cost more to administer than it was worth, especially one-offs.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  30th December 2015

              @kc, the tax law now allows the Commissioner of IRD to rule that any transaction that is structured to minimize tax can be ruled avoidance and liable. The Courts support that unless the taxpayer can show “commercial purpose” for the structure.

        • Goldie

           /  30th December 2015

          Alan: “I doubt these courses would provide any economic value to participants without them”

          Maybe, Alan. But people are still lining up to pay their $$ to attend such courses, so there is clearly demand for them. We can sneer at what the education market throws up, but it is still the marketplace at work!

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  30th December 2015

            I had in mind the public health gravy train as well as the student loan racket which allows those needing support to feel better about themselves to indulge in fact avoidance while hoping to lever aboard said train themselves.

            Reply
            • Oh, this is useful. So education is the only way to improve people (and fill their stomachs) but let’s close down the parameters of it into the narrowest possible corridor. A corridor not even circumscribed here, I guess because its so incredibly narrow? Or perhaps it would be dangerous to offer anything much other than derisive negativity?

              Let’s exclude those seeking education because they’re “needing support” – as if we could possibly tell them apart from those “not needing support” – and then actively avoid or maybe even actively prevent them leveraging their education to work in something like … just as an example … the public health and presumably public education systems?

              No where to go on this, is there?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  30th December 2015

              Public health seems to have given up on education in favour of compulsion, coercion and political lobbying for same.

              Once again you create a straw man via half a quote. The full one was “needing support to feel better about themselves”. The art of brevity is to remove only the superfluous words.

            • Thanks for correcting me. “needing support to feel better about themselves” is even more derisory, isn’t it?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  30th December 2015

              Derision is your response. That phrase was an accurate, neutral description. “to indulge in fact avoidance” was the pejorative, but I suspect truthful, kicker.

            • Oh, you’ve got me there. I didn’t magically, telepathically know what you meant by “fact avoidance”.

              Climate change fact avoidance perhaps?
              ‘Fat’ fact avoidance maybe?

              I know two young women training to be doctors, in and around the public health system.
              I’m sure they’re doing stacks of fact avoidance.

              Do please elaborate on fact avoidance?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  30th December 2015

              Better ask them if they are taking a “Fat Studies” course. My guess: no. Here is the justification for the course: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/72597902/interest-grows-in-fat-studies-university-course.html

              “As a discipline, Fat Studies is similar to Women’s Studies, Māori Studies, Queer Studies and Disability Studies.” The subtle difference, of course, is that your behaviour does not alter whether you are a woman, a Maori, a homosexual or disabled.

    • kittycatkin

       /  30th December 2015

      KG appears not to know that illnesses like thyroid conditions can cause ‘fatness’. as can being treated with steroids (no, not anabolic) for conditions like rheumatic fever.

      Reply
  8. Zedd

     /  30th December 2015

    Marxism (named after Karl Marx) writer of ‘Das Kapital’ is the basis of many early ‘communist manifestos’ BUT this doesn’t mean it is the ‘Socialist’s bible’ !

    If you want to read another political manifesto (extreme right-wing) may I recommend “Mein Kampf’.. interesting that it refers to the ‘National SOCIALIST Workers Party’ but was definitley not run as a left wing party !!

    Looking at the current regime in NZ.. maybe it could be titled “looking after 50.1% who keep them in power.. & to hell with the rest !!’ 😦

    10c worth…..

    Reply
    • kittycatkin

       /  30th December 2015

      I don’t know anyone who has been able to plough through Mein Kampf. I couldn’t. It rambles, repeats itself and contradicts itself. The reader finds themselves bogged down in verbosity, They find that they have read a page and their mind has switched off. I thought that I should read it, to see for myself what it said….but it’s so badly written that I couldn’t, and I don’t think that it was because it was in translation. I don’t think that my German is good enough now to read it in the original. What amazed me was the contradictions; he says one thing in one chapter and the opposite in the next. No matter what one might think of the views expressed, one can’t plough through the verbiage.

      The Manifesto is at least short, but MK is huge, Old Adolf must have thought that his words were such gems that not one must be removed. He was mistaken.

      Good luck to anyone who tries to read it.

      As John Key is Jewish, it would be unlikely that he would support views that were responsible for the murders of 6,000,000 Jews, some of whom were probably his mother’s relations.

      Reply
      • @ kck – Wake up! http://www.wakeupkiwi.com/The-Conspiracy-to-Rule-the-World-1.shtml

        Bit a fun! (God I bloody hope so?)

        What we are trending towards might be described as Global Corporatism, for which our National Party are the local franchise holders.

        Reply
        • kittycatkin

           /  30th December 2015

          Yes, but even if that was so (and I don’t agree) that doesn’t make Mein Kampf anything other than a hugely waffling, badly written, sloppily thought out bore. I really WANTED to read it to see what the attraction was, but I couldn’t plough through it. As I said, I have yet to meet anyone who’s finished it. Even if I agreed with it, I couldn’t read it. It must be the world’s dullest book. Herr Hitler can’t have heard of editing. No, I am not volunteering to do it. Once was enough.

          Reply
  9. kittycatkin

     /  30th December 2015

    ”’Cultural Marxism’ has become watered down, I think, and wrongly used so that its real meaning has been weakened,

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s