Story details at RIAR Foundation.co,
Category Archives: Explaining leftism
A clear and concise explanation of how ‘woke’ is Marxism by James Lindsay
For a professional level understanding of all the material covered by Prof. Lindsay, please see Maj. Stephen Coughlin’s essay, Re-remembering the misremembered left: On the strategy and tactics being used to dismantle America
UPDATE:
One of the things this site has done since it started, was compare Islam to Marxism as philosophies and systems of organization for humanity. At a certain point some years ago, we concluded that there was little to no daylight between them in any meaningful way. At least not in terms of human liberties. But the video above contains another data point on another similarity not noticed before.
Marx, he explains near the start, believed all mankind was socialist but didn’t realize it yet. And it is socialists/communist’s job to drag man to socialism which is his natural state.
Islam, Mohammad explains, is how all people are born. So when you ‘convert’ to Islam, Muslims claim you are ‘reverting’ to your natural state. Your original religion to which all people are born. Notice how this philosophy allows some degree of moral justification for foisting their organizational principles on you.
Looking at ‘wokeism’ as a Marxist or Maoist line of effort
1. Wokeism, more Mao than Marx
While what this Prof. says is factually correct, it is also Marxism as a function of the abstraction of Marxist Critical theory as created by purely Marxist think tanks like The Frankfurt School, The Fabian Society, Runnymede and a lot of others. The two minute explainer below shows how what he is calling Paradoxical, is in reality, “Liberating Tolerance” which means zero tolerance for non-communist ideas as written by the Frankfurt School’s Herbert Marcuse. Also, it feels like a classical communist misrepresentation of history, not by this speaker above but by historians in general influenced by very specific Soviet disinformation, that classical Marxist communism was somehow about a more fair redistribution of wealth. Communism was always about the entire package. Culture, economics, all of it. In the early days of the Bolshevik Revolution, they used to hold plays on the streets mocking Christian beliefs and rituals. It was always anti-Christian, and anti-individual. He is certainly correct that the current communist revolution taking place, camouflaged as “wokeness” is indeed closest to Maoism. The Prof. also refers to the “capture” of Western institutions. This is thanks to the work of Antonio Gramsci, a classical marxist who wrote a book about how Mao’s idea of the Long March to conquer the West could be applied to capturing institutions. HIs concept was “The Long March Through the Institutions”. It clearly worked.
It remains important to understand though, that the concept of not letting any idea except leftist ideas be expressed is neither hypocrisy nor paradoxical. It is a dialectic. The prof. does in fact get to that just before the half way mark when he explains the “Marcuse Playbook”. But doesn’t mention that this is one aspect of the dialectic. The dialectic being that all vectors of existence and thought in Western Civilization must by all means be moved to the left eternally in a never ending revolution of destruction. That “liberating tolerance” was one tactic by the Frankfurt School to deploy against certain aspects of Western thought such as freedom of speech. But there are many many more such as Discourse Theory, where all who attempt to use truth in opposition to a narrative such as Global Warming, will be silenced with personal accusations of character flaws under the new Maoism which negate truth by virtue of the flawed character of the speaker. In other words, if you show that in truth there is no global warming, then you are a “climate Denier” and worse, which is an attempt to link you to Nazis who would be Holocaust Deniers and so on.
This is not to say that there is any deception whatsoever in this Professor’s interview. There is not. This is rumination on his thoughts, not criticism. It would be most excellent if the average Westerner was as well versed in these concepts as he is. Then perhaps we could literally laugh and shrug off all these problems which the Marxists have brought us from the dialectic of the sexes (feminism) to the dialectic of the weather. (Global Warming) and right up to the dialectic of sexual dimorphism itself, the ‘trans-scam’. You can and might be murdered if you even are a child going to a school where they believe that men cannot be women just by saying so.
Thesis, counter-thesis, synthesis. Ram one set of opposites together and force them to fuse until there is neither or something new. The dialectic.
I’m positive there are more and better ways of understanding this material and these events than I have described here. I usually point to Stephen Coughlin or James Lindsay. Anyone who would like to critique this analysis for greater clarity could please do so in the comments.
Tucker Carlson for March 29th, 2023 and Liberating Tolerance as applied to ‘gun control’
As is usual, Tucker get it in the 50 ring. Which is exceptional for mass market TV. You simply cannot get a bullseye on mass market TV and expect people to make sense of it.
For the last 1/4 inch into the centre of the dart board, I ask readers to consider the Herbert Marcuse model of changing what he called, “Repressive Tolerance”, meaning a liberal society where everyone can speak and everyone has a fair shot at the prize based on effort and talent as much as possible, into what he called, “liberating Tolerance”. Liberating Tolerance is where anyone who’s ideas the left doesn’t like is prevented from speaking while those who’s ideas are revolutionary and destructive are forced upon us. This is what we see with every dialectic attack on our civilization. The silencing of anyone who has a non-narrative view. In this case, narrative means fictional. And a fiction which must be seen as true, as it is iterated by the state.
Here is a two minute explanation of this process:
Discourse Theory, a Frankfurt School, Marxist think tank concept and offshoot of Marxist Critical Theory, is explained in this post here.
For a complete and proper understanding of the machinery underneath of the events we cannot help but have noticed, especially since 2016 when all the gloves came off, please consider reading this paper by Stephen Coughlin, even if you can just manage 4 pages a day.
Lastly, here is a much longer video of how these semantic tools work. Essentially it is Stephen Coughlin’s explanation but done by a Prof. who was one of three who busted the true nature of the Peer Review process as it exists today. James Lindsay is the Prof who submitted an entirely fake paper to ‘scientific’ journals for peer review, that was littered with politically correct terms, and was accepted for publication. I believe his paper was on rape in a dog park.
Here is another 4 minute explainer video on Repressive tolerance but it misses a critical factor right at the start. The video says: “anyone slightly right of centre…”. The facts are, anything true is now labelled “far right extremist” if that truth interferes with the authority of the narrative. “Safe and effective”, Men being women just by saying so, Global Warming is an existential threat, Islam is the religion of peace and the list grows as each effort runs out of steam.
When this concept is understood, Tucker Carlson’s thesis which is now two nights running, March 28th and 29th, is easily understood as the kinetic version of Liberating Tolerance. In other words, encourage deadly action by a group you can paint as oppressed, so long as their attacks damage the main pillars of civilization, while making damn sure the majority of people it views as oppressors, have no access to force multipliers. Its exactly the same strategy applied to freedom of speech. Hitler used the same method. Make sure Jews don’t have guns but anyone likely to kill one, does.
Three videos explaining Marxism methodology such that it becomes easier to spot it in our institutions
Several years ago now, in what was truly a labour of love and desperation to try and point out what was taking place around the Western world, three videos were transalted from a Polish academic on the nature of communism and communist methodology, in such a way that we may recognize it as it plays out around us and in policy.
This is dense. It is not something you can watch while sipping a Mojito. But it is absolutely worth the effort. Each video covers an important aspect of the things being done to us in every institution as the Communist revolution that has overtaken free and democratic societies entrenches itself. Grab a coffee and check these out please.
It has been said that those that do not understand the strategic aspects of the Marxist lines of effort against us become controlled opposition, even when opposing the revolution. This would be because each line of effort against the West is not about what it appears to be about. Its about creating the conflict. So arguing either side of the issue means the people looking for the synthesis, or total loss of the West in all ways, wins. For example, “Multiculturalism”, which is in and of itself an oxymoron, is about using one culture to destroy another such that at the end you have no culture at all. Just a never ending state dictated set of imposed values. AKA communism. “Multiculturalism” would be more honestly called, Critical Culture theory. Set one culture against another, and both are fused into a synthesis of nothingness.
Hopefully these videos will allow the viewer to see more clearly the strategic aspects of the Marxist revolution taking place in the West, and not get bogged down entirely in the tactical aspects of it.
This is not to say that the tactical should be ignored. Various groups have had victories in opposing things like mask mandates and mRNA injection issues and these must be fought and continue to be fought. But the strategic must be understood to be effective. Think of it like battles and war. Winning the battles is good. Winning the war is critical.
Firstly, explaining Marxism, Homosexuality, artist’s role in the revolution and the Long March through the institutions
Second, we post this one a lot. Explaining how to force a synthetic view on the population. Put another way, manufacture a “consensus” and then dialectically impose that view, usually a false one like Global Warming etc. on the majority.
This third video deals with Semantic Marxism, and stigmatizing the entire culture:
Herbert Marcuse’s Repressive Tolerance as dominant principle at work in Ontario (and everywhere) School Boards
In the second video which was shot at the Durham District School Board at some point in Q1 of this year, we see what should be familiar to everyone by this point, even if people are not familiar with the strategy at work and still refer to what they see as ‘leftist hypocrisy”.
Below, is a 4 minute primer on Repressive Tolerance which is worth seeing first before watching the School Board meeting. For those who want to know more about Marcuse’s semantic marxism, please search YouTube for James Lindsay and Stephen Coughlin with additional terms, Repressive Tolerance or Marcuse. Also this video is very good and very relevant.
Below is a video from the Durham District School Board in Ontario. See if you can spot the many ways in which Marcuse’s Repressive Tolerance is the principle used to deflect parent’s concerns about the collection of sexual data on young children.
This video is unedited from the original taken from Facebook, other than the background noise, which was considerable, was removed and some speech levelling was applied.
For those that wish a deeper and academic dive into the specifics of the strategy used to revolutionize our school boards, and for that matter, every aspect of our civilization, we recommend reading 5 pages a day of Stephen Coughlin’s essay on the Left’s Tactics to Transform America.
Additionally, Marxism and homosexuality, easily extended to the “trans” movement.
Stephen Coughlin with V4F: Explaining the information battlefield
This is a well done 9 minute explainer video taken from an amazing podcast with Stephen Coughlin and Vets4Freedom. Please watch, learn, enjoy and most of all, spread.
The full video is below:
Stephen’s documents can be found at https://unconstrainedanalytics.org
Please click through to V4F’s YouTube channel and give it a thumbs up if you would.
The point is never the point, and global warming
The following short clip is a single question taken from a video of dual presentation on ‘Climate Change’ given by Action4Canada last week in Ottawa. The whole presentation, which richly deserves to be seen, will be available as soon as possible.
This is a question from one audience member to the first speaker of two discussing ‘Climate change’,and who, by her question, is pointing out a herd of elephants in the room:
This clip is a magnificent example of how we all become controlled opposition when we do not understand the larger strategy.
With the left, the point is never the point. The revolution, is always the point.
How does this apply here. Well, its clear that the same people who are working three shifts to take away your privacy and liberties under the rubric of Global Warming/Climate Change, are the same people replacing the population, or if not replacing, diluting them, of Western nations to the point that there is no coherence to them anymore. This means no shared values, history or sense of joint existence.
The questioner makes the point that each person who moves from a hot place to a cold place increases their ‘carbon footprint’ by 4.2X on average. So how can the same policy makers do this while also claiming to want to stop Climate Change?
At this point let’s look at the difference between a mistake and a policy.
A mistake is where you try to achieve an objective, and when you notice your methods are not achieving the results you want, you stop using them, and try something else. A policy is where you see you are in fact getting the results you want and you continue and or double down on it, no matter what you say you want or are trying to achieve. The immigration and climate change frauds have both been going on for far far too long for this to be incompetence. Writing it off as such, stupidity, ignorance, hypocrisy, greed, this is what makes us controlled opposition. Even unwittingly so. Because we are arguing the point, which it never is.
This is not to say that the architects of all these things do not fully take advantage of these lesser attributes of man. Corporate and individual greed is most definitely one of the ways the architects managed to entice powerful people and institutions into being a part of the overall plan.
When you argue against abortion, ‘trans-rights’ and all the other not-really-the-issue-issues which are tearing us all apart in the absence of a greater understanding, it assists those with the meta plan to control us all through a total philosophical revolution. A revolution at the core of who we are.
It is obvious that the people pushing these issues and policies do not believe in them. Al Gore bought a beachfront villa for USD $8,875,000 in California in 2010, presumably in part, from the proceeds of his movie warning us all that the oceans were rising and would swallow up coastal cities within a few years. Flashing forward to today, The Oligarchs use private gets to get to the brothels in Davos every year for the WEF hedonism and megalomania festival. (Ever see the menu? It isn’t cricket)
This is because the issues themselves are meant to be destructive to our civilization, as are the ‘solutions’ to them. To divide, to dissolve any coherence we may have as a people. It is also to have the state be able to arbitrarily impose a pseudo-reality on us at a whim, especially destructive ones, and have us accept, believe and defend them. (The first example in this author’s lifetime would be Trudeau Senior’s arbitrary, expensive and destructive imposition of the Metric System in Canada. More on that in another post)
So a phoney problem is invented that requires a solution that the architects wanted all along but the public would never accept. In fact we have national constitutions preventing exactly these scenarios. This so called solution will control critical aspects of the public’s lives. Aspects which they would never have willingly given up were it not for the ‘problem’. But the phoney problem media blasts at us night and day is the device used to get the public to accept the only “acceptable ‘solution” to it. (Think vaccines) Thesis, counter-thesis, solution.
Also note: Real problems are never to be addressed; the drastically falling sperm rates in men. The paving of the best farmlands in Canada to build gargantuan brutalist beehives for massive (debatably) legal and illegal immigration, with no consideration of how to feed these new people that we are aware of. Massive spike in dangerous recreational drug use, enormous health impacts of gene therapy vaccines, which cannot even be acknowledged by the enemy-propaganda networks that our media has become.
That is not to say that we should not understand these things on a case by case. Small policy victories can be made if you can argue reality against the imposed pseudo reality, or put simply, the total BS reasons to create a policy no one would want otherwise. But only if you can do it publicly enough that it embarrasses the policy makers. I have seen it with my own eyes. But it’s the publicity of showing obvious reality that makes the difference and again, at a small scale, like a school board. This is because the policy makers know damn well the policies they want are based on lies. But then sometimes larger scale powers will designate those who insist on reality to be terrorists, and eliminate that line of defence, such as, like parents who speak truth to school boards. The children must be seen as property of the state and doubly so what they believe. The responsibility for ensuring that ownership is all the parents have left.
If the policy makers actually wanted to mitigate the problems they claim are the issues, then proving they are wrong would work to change the policy, even without public scrutiny.
Think about how many fields in which we have all had to become minor experts in the past few decades. Climatology and virology for sure. For some of us, Islam and other issues every so often. Y2K, ozone holes, purple loosestrife, zebra mussels, killer bees, africanized honey pigs. This is because all these things are being used to negate us as a people, a history and a culture. Understanding these things well enough to know what we are being told is false is great and all. But how often does it work to explain to others who need to believe the government is benign? I would guess close to never.
The videos of the speakers from Friday night’s event should be available soon. And people should watch them. They are excellent expert presentations on climate reality. Understanding them will make you bullet proof in climate discussions. The result of which is people stop shooting at you. Getting them to understand that this isn’t about climate science is another thing altogether.
At some point the question always comes up in one form or another, ‘Why would they lie to us about all this’?
Answering this is very dangerous because unless really well explained, you will be dismissed as a nut no matter how on top of the truth you actually are. And frankly, even if it is really well explained. You have to have an audience willing to consider that they are misled as opposed to waiting for an opportunity to dismiss you and everything you think from their uncluttered intellectual cosmos.
For those who figured out early that the gene-therapy shots were a bad idea, discussions with others usually went loosely like this:
[Vaxx Skeptik] well, science science, data data, experts with nothing to gain and everything to lose show us that…
[Normie] Ok Well then if that is true, then why would they….
And that is when it all goes off the rails. You could convince someone that the vaxx is bad using reason, science and evidence. But if you dare tread into the motives for agencies promoting the shots, you move from what you know and can prove into dark conspiracies and ad hominem that even if true, will cost you your listener. In fact being asked why they would do this is a kind of trap, whether the asker is conscious of that or not.
Dr. Peter McCullough early on was brilliant in his approach. He would testify to the facts of heart damage from the gene-therapy injections, and when asked why this was being done to us, would refuse to touch the subject. He would just stick to cardiology. That was the right approach in terms of not being immediately dismissed. He did point out though, that the official literature contained curious omissions, leaving it to the listener to figure out why those omissions existed. He also explained the curious censorship of his factual documents on Covid19. This leads us to the reality on these narratives without saying that in fact, narratives is what they are. One doesn’t have to censor truth, facts and expert opinion unless you are trying to hide it.
So what Dr. McCullough did is give facts that leave the listener to come to rational conclusions about the next layer problems. This can work.
So asking everyone to abandon their jobs, families, hobbies and other interests to become an expert on every set of meta-lies imposed on us to get a world of stateless people with no rights is not a practical solution. Most people won’t even bother to read a single paper or watch a decent video showing the counter-narrative materials.
But trying to get people to understand how to look at all things in official media and see what they are designed to do, might work. Still, it is critical that we all must continue to fight the small fights we chose to take on. Whether it is the bogus trans-rights issues used to make monsters out of your children with surgery and drugs while the same people ban books like Dr. Seuss and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory for somehow being dangerous to children, or forcing your children to endure male fetishists to read kid’s books to them – yeah fight it if you can endure the Discourse Theory attacks you will be under as a consequence. We have to keep doing this. But sooner or later we have to come to understand that these issues are not the real fight.
The real fight is against a total Marxist revolution attempting to destroy every single aspect of our existence, using issues from the sanctity of life (abortion and MAiD) right on down through our cultures, to what type of car you drive.
Eeyore for VladTepesBlog.
Thank you for your time.
Tucker Carlson for February 24th, 2023
It should be noted that any reference to the US secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg, without explaining that his father was the founder and #1 fan of the Antonio Gramsci society, and himself translated Gramsci’s Prison Diaries into English, is an error of omission that prevents any understanding of Buttigieg’s actions for what they are. Specifically Marxist dialectics, and in no way incompetence. Furthermore, the fact that he is homosexual is not identity politics. It is a distraction from the fact that he is where he is because he is a communist.
Identity politics is a smoke screen. When Clinton was running for president each time, the narrative was launched that we must vote for Hillary because she is a woman. Meanwhile the exact same people and organizations that launched her campaign and designed it to be focused that way, also launched military grade critical-theory attacks against a staggeringly competent Alaskan governor, Sarah Palin.
Attacks so well orchestrated they even dusted off Tina Fey and put her on Saturday Night Live.
As an aside, I had a discussion with a then-friend who is a Democrat and leftist in every way at around that time. I asked him why he hated Sarah Palin so much. He answered mocking a woman’s voice, “I can see Russia from my house”. I let it go for a while and a few minutes later, I asked him, ‘Do you think people who can’t tell the difference between a TV comedian and a candidate for high office should be allowed to vote?” to which he answered no.
I then reminded him that it was Tina Fey who said “I can see Russia from my house” while Sarah Palin had actually answered a question on foreign policy experience very well showing that she had to deal with Canada and Russia and other countries across the Arctic regularly as governor of Alaska, and therefore had more foreign policy experience than any of the other candidates for president or VP. (paraphrasing).
So while Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton both identified as women at that point, only the leftward leaning ones get our support. The same for homosexuals. Pete gets to be celebrated for who or what he has sex with. But non-communist ones like Glen Greenwald, must be ignored, and on occasion demonized and destroyed. Like Candice Owens or other African descended Americans who actually like the US and Western values where destroyed by Marxist allegedly black-rights groups like BLM.
In other words, it is not, nor is it ever hypocrisy to note how identity politics is played to advance the leftist power grab. It is a smokescreen so you won’t notice who really is in control and why.
James Lindsay: Modern Medical Lysenkoism
How the Marxist Dialectic is Attacking You: An Introduction to the Dialectic with Stephen Coughlin
MUST WATCH: Bill Mahar on the similarities between Mao’s revolutionary China, and modern America
Bill Mahar shows quite a sophisticated understanding of the root thinking of communism, and mercifully opposes it.
Stephen Coughlin joins Vets For Freedom Canada (V4F) for a podcast on understanding the enemy
The perfect example of Frankfurt School Discourse theory: Making opposition to govt. policy illegal
At a dinner once, I was given a licence to only say the word, “Dialectic” three times. After that, no dessert. So I learned to save it for the best uses.
This video below is a stellar example of the Frankfurt School’s Discourse theory. The way that works, is that a communist think-tank comes up with a concept they want to force onto the mainstream. They call that “a consensus”. Usually its to impose a pseudo-reality onto the public at the expense of reality. Often really obvious untruths like men can make themselves real women just by saying they are, and any attempt to stop them from all aspects of female life is a semi-crime.
The way this is done, is to make any opposition to the consensus, “hate-speech”. This is a form of dialectics. Targeted use of language and concepts to always force the culture farther and farther to the left. Examples are easy. Critical race theory. Critical gender theory. Global Warming, which if there was any honesty in the left, would be called, “critical climate theory”.
In this case, it was the Spanish Parliament. A VOX member was making the case that unbridled and massive illegal immigration resulted in certain kinds of criminality.
When he made this case, he was reminded by the president of that parliament, I assume equivalent to the Speaker of the House or Speaker of a British style Parliamentary system, that to equate immigration with crime was illegal and he must take it back and not do it again. There is zero consideration as to the truth or falsity, or even consequences to his claim. It’s that it is a claim that may not be made.
This would be because the plan is to flood the West with African and Islamic migrants with no vetting in order to prepare it for the death of all of its concepts of national identity and individual rights and replace it with an authoritarian essentially Marxist Leninist state, as they are preparing us for in Canada as well under Mark Carney and Justin Trudeau.
Normally the use of Discourse Theory is a little harder to spot. Slightly more subtle. Just real enough to make you sort of accept it while you get that increasingly familiar buzzing in your head from trying to accept what makes no logical sense. But this exchange in the Spanish Parliament was deliciously clear cut. Habermas’ Discourse theory perfectly applied in a Parliamentary situation such that no factual reference to the consequences of the massive invasion of Spain can be made. Not even it seems, pointing out that Illegal immigration is in fact, illegal.
Keep an eye on Stephen Coughlin’s Twitter feed. One suspects he will have something to say about this one.
Below, a refresher course on exactly what Discourse Theory is and how it is applied:
Please also see RAIR Foundation’s write up on the Spanish video
Solving the problem by defining the standards
The following YouTube video is one of the most enjoyable experiences I have had standing up. Beyond its face level meaning, there is a lot to take away about how things have happened in the past few years and even into earlier efforts this site and its colleagues have made against other government lines of effort to destroy our culture, and we as a people.
Remember how the word, ‘vaccine’ was redefined to allow for the inclusion of mRNA shots that in no way whatsoever acted like, or was made in the manner of, or in any other way fit the definition of a vaccine? The same could be said of using the PCR test for a diagnostic tool, and adjusting the cycle threshold to give the desired results. Actually for more than the last few years, governments have been manipulating definitions to get the results they want in order to justify whatever policy they want.
Anyone who follows the banning of guns knows this to be true. Legal gun owners have a lower violent crime rate than the general population. Especially homicide rates.
Homicide rate for PAL 0.67 accused / 100 000 ppl . Average Canadians 1.22 /100 000 ppl . Keep in mind 80% of Pal licensees are men aged 18-40 and the homicide rate for men aged 18-40 in the Gen pop is much higher
But it goes back much farther even with the current efforts. Remember the “Religion of Peace”? That wasn’t exactly a lie. In the book, Milestones, which is the foundational document of the Muslim Brotherhood right after the Islamic war-manual, the Koran, it is stated that once the whole world is subjugated to Islamic law, it shall know peace. And therefore, Islam is the religion of peace.
Examples of these kinds of what seem to be childish linguistic tricks are actually quite common and are among the more powerful devices being used to destroy Western Socratic civilization.
But it seems that the problem goes back much farther.
Please watch this video, which claims to be a banned Ted Talk, on how science has been practiced for centuries. We might think after seeing it, that in a way, yes, Anthony Fauci IS INDEED science. Science as its actually done, not as it is intended to be done. Science as practiced, not in theory. When one watches this, and examine Fauci’s life through the lens of RFK Jr’s book, one gets the sense that Fauci is acutely aware of the principles in this video, and applies them to his work, which means to all of our lives. Some of them much shorter and much much worse as a result.
As an aside, presumably after this lecture was recorded, but before the date of upload, the James Web telescope has accumulated enough data to put the Big Bang theory into question.
[This post may be updated and corrected over the day as people point out aspects which do not present as intended.]