Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 11 of 11

Thread: When Did Multiculturalism Become Entrenched in America?

  1. #11
    Progressive Collectivist
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 09:22 PM
    Progressive Collectivist
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    23 Posts

    Post Re: When Did Multiculturalism Become Entrenched in America?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scoob
    I think it's unfair to call the individualist consumer liberalism current in the West and especially the USA "Marxism."
    Thats true, but I didnt want to say something like that, so if what I have written could lead to such a misunderstanding I want to clarify it.

    Marxism influenced parts of the American society long ago, especially in the social sciences. Furthermore Marxism influenced the USA indirectly, because the Marxist egalitarian propaganda was one of the major reasons why the American establishment changed its mind if its about certain issues, especially if its about race and gender/sex.

    Here the West turned into something even more radical than it was in Marxism, which believed in the basic equality of human beings, but didnt want to force foreign people into its own society, make the own society diverse and fractionated like the liberal West did after accepting certain egalitarian and milieu-theories.

    Marx was a major figure to point out many of the things you suggest here: including how individual workers who lack "class consciousness" (collective thinking) are easy prey for highly organized and powerful capitalists. I think many of Marx's insights remain quite relevant to the modern world, and his economic analysis was excellent and perhaps unsurpassed to this day.

    Thats true, we all can learn from Marx if its about the problems, and certain solutions, although his whole concept was irrational and not good for the higher goals from which I think that they are really important, he was just too egalitarian in his almost pseudoreligious ideology, although what the Communists and Social Democrats made out of it was probably worse than what he wanted.

    Marx promoted Socialism for Europe only, and considered e.g. capitalist development in India to be progressive (for India). I don't know of him ever promoting racial mixing.
    For him Communism was just possible after a certain degree of development. His historical point of view was very linear, what was one of his faults. He still thought in the schemes of his social group and time.

    However, Marx-ists in the USA promoted racial mixing. Or rather, people promoting racial mixing used (quite selectively) Marx's words (as well as the words of many others) to promote their political agenda.

    And the establishment accepted it, because they wanted to be "better than Marxists and Fascists" in their "human and fair" liberal concept.
    In the beginning it was just a mean to show the world that the USA = not Fascism = not racist = Communists lied...

    However - Marx's idea of revolution by a proletarian underclass is untenable in the West. The USA and the West in general tends to find proleterian laborers from undeveloped countries. We need a solution for this. In the USA, a strong protectionist alliance with Europe would be excellent. No more free education and development for Third World people and economies. We need a collective spirit, not "every man making a profit for himself."
    Fully agree, although I think we can develop the rest of the world too, but just under our rule, with our leadership and controlled.

    At least if they want higher technology and direct-massive help. F.e. no control of populations growth and destruction of nature = no help or in extreme cases even intervention.

    What Marxism is to blame for is the idea of class warfare, and dividing Western societies along these lines - which has been misused since the 1960's in the USA as the Countercultural movement, which promoted such destructive ideas as radical feminism, sexual liberation, egalitarianism, etc.

    Yes, but if the liberals wouldnt have been Jewish influenced, so weak in their European traditions like in the USA, and there wouldnt have been the Cold War, they would have never won with their cultural revolution which endangers all Europeans worldwide.

    However the trend of Globalism is quite strong. Perhaps an increase in global terrorism can cause a new feeling of isolationism and protectionism - but more likely it will increase the involvement of the West in the Third World, both commercially and militarily.


    Any ideas for a solution?
    As long as the system makes the people self-satisfied and decadent with its cheap surrogates, control of family, work etc., I see no real chance to form an effective mass-movement.

    Only if the substitution of the liberalcapitalistic society, which paralyse the whole society, will collapse, more will wake up.
    Otherwise the will only wake up if there are riots in their front garden.

    So far I would promote to form cells, groups of mutual help, information and teaching.
    To make contacts with local opposition leaders and try to network small cells of different regions.

    Later to form cadres of absolute trust of people with good skills.

    I often think about what the Hizbollah and other Islamists did, women clubs, men groups, social help, information and ideological teaching.

    The best people which you can find in such small groups more or less under the radar of the mindcontrolling dicatatorship of the media, education and opinion, you have to form active cadre cells.

    Propagate the social, cultural and biological consequences of the liberal system and the social and spiritual alternatives.

    Well, thats not easy, but its at least the only thing everybody can try.

    My concept of controlled Capitalism, with a strong state and big state sector in the economy which could lead to a planned economy in the 2nd or 3rd step although that must not be. (maybe small local experiments)

    Most important is too form a new body of collectivistic thinking higher developed humans with Eugenic measures and new forms of education.
    Here we can learn a lot from what NS did, what concepts they had about education of the youth and the forming of new elites.

    Today, with new technologies and knowledge, this trials must be much more successful and even in the 30s at least if its about that NS was successful.
    The leadership must be a symbiont, the head of the collective, not a destructive parasite like it is today.

    The leadership should gain prestige and material advantages if they develop the society, if the make the whole collective succssful, not taking advantage of their position which they get oftentimes by chance and exploit the whole collective JUST FOR THEIR OWN PROFIT.

    I think such a decadent leadership can be in almost all societies, its a human fault we should eliminate on the long run and in meantime do all we can with education and social control to form a new leadership after the possible take over, which will work on in the right direction.

    The system I have in mind can just work with excellent decent and idealistic individuals on top, at the beginning this might be dangerous and so we must be careful, but on the long run the human defects will be eliminated which lead to degeneration and decadence too often in human history.

    But of course, today and most likely in the future too that are just phantasies...we will see what we can do...

    I think its possible to form a social organization in which it is even with our to-day human material possible to prevent abuse of power and especially the success of individuals which shouldnt be powerful at all like it is in our liberalcapitalistic society.

    At the beginning, for the first cadres you can just know it more or less of people you know personally with some luck, later on tests and observation might be better.
    Even later social engineering might lead to success and in the end we might know which inherited traits lead to individuals which act destructive for the collective and prevent their success at least in the political and military castes which control the society first, which are the controlling instance for the economy.

    Other suggestions?
    Last edited by Agrippa; Saturday, June 19th, 2004 at 09:12 PM.
    Magna Europa est patria nostra

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: Monday, October 17th, 2011, 01:03 AM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: Tuesday, July 27th, 2010, 04:13 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: Tuesday, February 8th, 2005, 03:52 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, November 23rd, 2004, 03:08 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts