ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, October 27, 2014

What "Cultural Marxism" is and isn't

This is very relevant today, since it is not only an excerpt from William S. Lind's ON WAR, which is being officially released later today by Castalia House, but a topic that has been the subject of some debate among GamerGaters opposed to the pinkshirts' attempts to transform the game industry in a conventionally cultural marxist manner.

Most people wrongly understand cultural Marxism to mean: "cultural efforts to establish an actual global Marxist system". This is not correct. Marxism is a political and economic system that has been repeatedly refined since Karl Marx laid down his pen. It might be a little less confusing to describe it as "cultural Marxianism", but that's being excessively pedantic. The matter is readily clarified by the essay entitled "What is Political Correctness", as the father of 4th Generation War theory explains the historical roots of political correctness in cultural Marxism:
Political Correctness is cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. Its history goes back not to the 1960s but to World War I. Before 1914, Marxist theory said that if a major war broke out in Europe, the workers of every country would join together in a revolution to overthrow capitalism and replace it with international socialism. But when war came, that did not happen. What had gone wrong?

Two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, independently came up with the same answer. They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true Marxian class interests that Communism was impossible in the West until traditional culture and Christianity were destroyed. When Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bela Kun Bolshevik government in Hungary in 1919, one of his first acts was introducing sex education into the Hungarian schools. He knew that destroying traditional sexual morals would be a major step toward destroying Western culture itself.

Lukacs became a major influence on a Marxist think tank established in 1923 at Frankfurt University in Germany, the Institute for Social Research, commonly known as the Frankfurt School. When Max Horkheimer took over as director of the Frankfurt School in 1930, he set about in earnest to do Lukacs’ bidding by translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms. Other Frankfurt School members devoted to this intellectually difficult task were Theodor Adorno, Eric Fromm, Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse. Theirs was not the Marxism of the Soviet Union—Moscow considered them heretics—but it was Marxism nonetheless.

The Frankfurt School’s key to success was crossing Marx with Freud. They argued that just as under capitalism everyone lived in a state of economic oppression, so under Western culture people lived under psychological repression. From psychology they also drew the technique of psychological conditioning. Want to “normalize” homosexuality? Just show television program after television program where the only normal-seeming white male is homosexual.

In 1933 the Frankfurt School moved from Germany to New York City. There, its products included “critical theory,” which demands constant, destructive criticism of every traditional social institution, starting with the family. It also created a series of “studies in prejudice,” culminating in Adorno’s immensely influential book, The Authoritarian Personality, which argued that anyone who defends traditional culture is a “fascist” and also mentally ill. That is why anyone who now dares defy PC gets sent to sensitivity training, which is psychological conditioning designed to produce submission.
In other words, it is not a tool used to establish Marxism, but rather a perversion of Marxism aimed at the culture rather than the political economy. Anyone attempting to understand the pinkshirts of #GamerHate must first understand that cultural Marxism is real and that it is the underlying basis for the SJWs' current attack on the game industry. And it is worth pointing out that any #GamerGaters attempting to defeat them would do very well to understand that they are presently engaging in a 4GW struggle, and that in that struggle, they are the insurgents.

249 Comments:

1 – 200 of 249 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Anonymous October 27, 2014 9:06 AM  

Source?

Blogger Vox October 27, 2014 9:08 AM  

It is an excerpt from William S. Lind's ON WAR, which you can purchase at the link above. Or, later today, on Amazon.

Blogger Tommy Hass October 27, 2014 9:08 AM  

I read about Charles Lindbergh. Seems like the heebs were at it back then.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother October 27, 2014 9:11 AM  

Marrku,

The switch on your neural net processor, your learning computer, is not set to "learn".

Blogger GF Dad October 27, 2014 9:17 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Difster October 27, 2014 9:22 AM  

All well and good but what can we do about it?

The first step is to clean out the churches. Get rid of the ear tickling, culturally relevant pastors, youth leaders, etc. and go back to hard line fundamentalism. Right and wrong, black and white.

Welcome the sinner, preach the gospel, but don't tolerate the sin.

Getting your kids out of public school too of course.

Turn off the TV, it's poison leaking in to the home.

Identify those of like mind and actively discuss these things. Hold each other accountable.

Don't be afraid of being a target for those that disagree.

Anonymous 11B October 27, 2014 9:27 AM  

That looks like part of the script Lind used in his presentation video on the history of Political Correctness. For those who would rather view Lind on video, than read, here is his great presentation on this topic from the 1990s.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 9:28 AM  

Right and wrong, black and white.

I would put it this way. There are shades of gray. However:

if(color == "#FFFFFF") {
   goto heaven;
} else {
   goto hell;
}

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 27, 2014 9:30 AM  

Can't wait to buy it. If you want to set the PCzis off into a rage have them read Chapter 31 of Lin's "Victoria", a fine use of the gladius.

Anonymous Andrew Spooner Jr. October 27, 2014 9:36 AM  

Hi Vox, Ilk. I just wanted to reintroduce myself, as I have had some interactions here before while suffering from severe mental illness (like James Brown on PCP, naked in the street punching cops-style mental illness) My meds are working well now and I wanted to apologize for my previous behavior. Vox may remember me from a series of cryptic email manifestos. Sorry about that.

Anonymous Philalethes October 27, 2014 9:36 AM  

In 1933 the Frankfurt School moved from Germany to New York City.

Why? Could it be because...? Oh no, that would be....

Anonymous A Visitor October 27, 2014 9:47 AM  

@Difster, yes!

@Markku

char y = 'y' ;

while int a (y = 'y'; system.out.println ("LOL!"; a++;)

I didn't know the Frankfurt school had moved to NYC but that doesn't surprise me. What should surprise most people is that cultural Marxism has made a long march through society.

The next time someone accuses you of being racist, homophobe, etc. retort with, "Really? So you agree with the policies of the old Soviet Union (don't tell them but obviously meaning psychiatric incarceration for political dissent)?"

Watch them be dumbfounded and walk away.

Lastly, Vox the response of Zaid Jilani was hilarious. Granted, I'd never heard of ASL and VASL until the post but that was beautiful.

Blogger Glen Filthie October 27, 2014 9:48 AM  

Perhaps I am picking the fly shit out of the pepper here Vox...but have you seen the various works of the pundits that refer to it as 'liberal fascism'?
I can see their point: the bullying and the scapegoating of the 'pinkshirts' is classical fascism. (Mind you, the stupidity is the hallmark of socialist 'useful fools').

These people make for fascinating study. They would also make excellent targets for the patriotic rifleman too, I suppose.

Anonymous A Visitor October 27, 2014 9:49 AM  

int a = 0;

while (y = 'y'; system.out.println ("LOL!"); a++;)

It's been years since I coded Java, was unsure about one syntax error, just found the other!

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 9:50 AM  

but have you seen the various works of the pundits that refer to it as 'liberal fascism'?

Heh heh, check the subject of the third Voxiversity, in the left sidemenu.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 9:51 AM  

A Visitor, you are still assigning 'y' to the variable y in the condition, not checking its value. It needs to be ==.

Anonymous VD October 27, 2014 10:02 AM  

My meds are working well now and I wanted to apologize for my previous behavior. Vox may remember me from a series of cryptic email manifestos. Sorry about that.

No worries. Welcome back.

Perhaps I am picking the fly shit out of the pepper here Vox...but have you seen the various works of the pundits that refer to it as 'liberal fascism'?

Relatively new here, are you? Yes, I interviewed Jonah not long after the book came out.

Blogger Cataline Sergius October 27, 2014 10:23 AM  

The take away is, "the dog is dead but the tail still wags".

I've known for a while that they don't' really know what they are fighting for or even why they are fighting.

But I was certain we had lost the culture war and were now engaged in guerilla war.

The good news is that properly run guerilla wars have done fairly well lately.

Anonymous Michael October 27, 2014 10:25 AM  

Sure, the Marxists refine their ideology over time in order to make it more compatible with the host culture it seeks to infect and overtake. In the final analysis it is a variation on a methodology to arrive at the same conclusion as that of the Judeo-bolsheviks: communism.

Blogger Josh October 27, 2014 10:30 AM  

Sure, the Marxists refine their ideology over time in order to make it more compatible with the host culture it seeks to infect and overtake. In the final analysis it is a variation on a methodology to arrive at the same conclusion as that of the Judeo-bolsheviks: communism.

You completely missed the point.

Anonymous AlteredFate October 27, 2014 10:32 AM  

What I have never understood, is how all of these marxists can metagame their ideas to the point of knowing how to undermine and subvert and build theory and put it to use successfully to an extent, but at the same time, shouldn't that level of understanding about marxism also show them that it is not only unworkable, but evil? How can they maintain that marxism is good for mankind while simultaneously destroying everything that most everybody in the world considers, good for mankind? They are seeking to build a utopia that nobody wants to inhabit, including they themselves. So why do they do it? Are they really evil? Mentally disturbed? What is wrong with their brains that this same malfunction continues to manifest in human nature, over and over again.

Anonymous Michael October 27, 2014 10:34 AM  

Josh, no, I didn't. They know that they cannot succeed in transforming western nations into communist states without first undermining traditional western values, which stem from Christianity. The SJW are merely a symptom of the problem, a handy tool of the establishment.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 10:36 AM  

So why do they do it?

This Time It's Different™

Anonymous allyn71 October 27, 2014 10:39 AM  

".... but at the same time, shouldn't that level of understanding about marxism also show them that it is not only unworkable, but evil?"- AlteredFate October 27, 2014 10:32 AM


Power and Control. It is a system that will allow them to control the lives of others. The thought of that kind of power over another is irresistible to them. Yes, it is evil.

Anonymous Porky October 27, 2014 10:42 AM  

Whether Marx/Engels or the Frankfurt School, the goal always was, and is, to eradicate Jesus' influence on the world.

Good luck with that.

Anonymous Corvinus October 27, 2014 10:42 AM  

But I was certain we had lost the culture war and were now engaged in guerilla war.

The good news is that properly run guerilla wars have done fairly well lately.
--Cataline

And it is worth pointing out that any #GamerGaters attempting to defeat them would do very well to understand that they are presently engaging in a 4GW struggle, and that in that struggle, they are the insurgents. --Vox

The cultural Marxists are the state forces. They engage in 2GW tactics of using a state army to take over a place using massive force and to cow dissenters into submission with high levels of firepower.

Unfortunately for them, with GamerGate, they have blundered into an Iraq.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 27, 2014 10:47 AM  

Off hand I cannot remember any PC being intellectually interesting, perhaps what would be more interesting than the ravings of the SJW types who spout the PC is to ask them how they became indoctrinated into their respective cults.

Blogger Brad Andrews October 27, 2014 10:54 AM  

> go back to hard line fundamentalism. Right and wrong, black and white.

The latter is quite true, but the former is idiotic. It is only going for a view that was culturally relevant a few generations ago instead of one that is relevant today.

I suppose you would also argue we need to use "thee" and "thou" in public speech today.

Christians always need to show how those living in the current culture can stick to the truth shown in the Scriptures. We all live in different societies and claiming one application is ideal is idiotic and a good way to be totally irrelevant.

The problem lies not in applying truth to our current situation, it comes about when we change the truth, not apply it. That is a very important distinction.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 10:57 AM  

but the former is idiotic.

Well, the word is ambiguous, so I'd need to know which definition of fundamentalism you reject. The historical definition is anyone who accepts all these "Five Fundamentals", and also that anyone who doesn't, is not a Christian.

1. The inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture
2. The deity of Jesus Christ
3. The virgin birth of Christ
4. The substitutionary, atoning work of Christ on the cross
5. The physical resurrection and the personal bodily return of Christ to the earth.

Myself, I'd need to discuss the definition of "inerrancy", but with that caveat, I am a fundamentalist.

Anonymous Difster October 27, 2014 11:00 AM  

An addendum to the solution I posted earlier:

For those of us engaged on Social Media, confront, confront, confront. Give them no quarter. Put them down like dogs and don't be the least bit apologetic about it at any time.

Anonymous paradox October 27, 2014 11:03 AM  

Michael
...they cannot succeed in transforming western nations into communist states without first undermining traditional western values...


Cutlral Marixsm is not economic Marxism. Do you seriously believe a cultural Marxist like Howard Schultz (Starbucks, CEO) wants economic Communism? He wants the cultural variant (mutation) of communism, which will create cheap labor for Starbucks.

Anonymous Anonymous October 27, 2014 11:03 AM  

Turn off the TV, it's poison leaking in to the home..

T.V. is an altar; Americans worship at it daily.

Next time you get trapped in a venue (or home) where T.V. is part of the background noise or its visual wallpaper.... (sports bar, small restaurant, bookstores [yes, books-a-million has a t.v. in the back of their bookstore])... look at the faces of the people. They are all focused on the t.v. Head slightly raised, eyes wide open absorbing, worshiping; if you had a painting of it, you could title it "The Adoration of the Whore Of Babylon"


Blogger Josh October 27, 2014 11:03 AM  

Myself, I'd need to discuss the definition of "inerrancy", but with that caveat, I am a fundamentalist.

I don't think it works that way, dude.

The fundamentalists view it as an all or nothing proposition.

Putting it another way, if someone said "with the caveat on not being so sure about the virgin birth, I'm a fundamentalist", should they be considered a fundamentalist?

Anonymous Difster October 27, 2014 11:05 AM  

I suppose you would also argue we need to use "thee" and "thou" in public speech today.

That's just dumb. I'm not talking about modes of speech here, I'm talking about Biblical principles.

In the American church today (I can't speak for anywhere else) popular culture is an abstraction layer through which we access our faith and it should be the other way around.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 11:09 AM  

Putting it another way, if someone said "with the caveat on not being so sure about the virgin birth, I'm a fundamentalist"

I didn't say, "I'm not sure about inerrancy", I said "I'm not sure about the DEFINITION of inerrancy". For example, does it include the view which is more accurately called infallibility? Because at the time Five Fundamentals was written, I'm not sure that distinction existed.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 11:13 AM  

Also, does it suffice that the original Hebrew scrolls contained no errors, or does it also require that we have currently access to manuscripts that are free of all errors, even clerical ones?

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 11:19 AM  

From the Reddit thread that prompted this:

If you wish you could check Google Trends for "cultural marxism". Or google books. In the latter you'll find the expression was used extremely sporadically (and not about the same thing) until very recently. In the modern right-wing sense it came from a 1992 article in "Fidelio" (a LaRouche publication), later it was picked up by William S. Lind. Both use it in the conspiratorial sense.

Words are just words, but lots of people are going to think you're doing a wink wink, nudge nudge at their theories if you adopt their vocabulary. When people are using these terms in very dark "dog whistle politics", you don't want to be blowing that whistle if you don't mean it. This is quite a bit more serious and worth avoiding than the media using it to smear by association (which would also happen, but the media will smear anyway, so that matters little).


William S. Lind? Never heard of him. *looks innocent*

Anonymous Dumb founded October 27, 2014 11:26 AM  

It is obvious why the Cultural Marxists had to concentrate on the young in their quest to destroy traditional Western Culture and Christianity (since it is inextricably part of Western Culture in the same way that today, Islam is in Middle Eastern culture--they have been eliminating Christians in the Middle East for a long while now.)

There has recently been some suggestion that the young are becoming disillusioned with their lot, at least where it comes to the economy. Also, women seem to have been scared by the Democratic party's infatuation with making it easier for Ebola to get into the US.

It also looks like social media is being used to enforce the notion that we should not prevent people from those countries coming here.

I expect we will have a serious Ebola outbreak this winter. Maybe I am wrong, we will see.

If we survive that then it might present a way to disarm the whole cultural marxist crap by driving home the message that many of the old ways have good reason and likely came out of our brushes with plague from hundreds of years ago.

Blogger Josh October 27, 2014 11:27 AM  

I expect we will have a serious Ebola outbreak this winter. Maybe I am wrong, we will see.

The numbers aren't in your favor.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents October 27, 2014 11:29 AM  

Eric Blair aka George Orwell started out as a Fabian Socialist until his involvement in the Spanish Civil War. I think he became a realist after that.

Read Homage to Catalonia, and you can actually see his thinking in the process of changing. The description of the Reds and their terrorism is both historically interesting and yet right up to date.

Anonymous The other skeptic October 27, 2014 11:32 AM  

I expect we will have a serious Ebola outbreak this winter. Maybe I am wrong, we will see.

Are you crazy? The Magic Negro has this covered!

Anonymous Michael October 27, 2014 11:34 AM  

SJW cling to PC because it provides a cover for them to lash out without suffering social repercussion. It's more the order of a cult put into practice.

Persecution of Christians has been a recurring theme since Christ. Once something evil is institutionalized by government, they always present the same ultimatum: either kneel before or affirm some pagan deity or practice, or suffer consequences. Note that the onus is always placed upon the exercise of free will - this is deliberate, because in order to suffer eternal damnation requires voluntary submission to evil.

Blogger Josh October 27, 2014 11:35 AM  

I didn't say, "I'm not sure about inerrancy", I said "I'm not sure about the DEFINITION of inerrancy". For example, does it include the view which is more accurately called infallibility? Because at the time Five Fundamentals was written, I'm not sure that distinction existed.

My apologies.

Rephrase it as "I'm not sure about the definition of the virgin birth"

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents October 27, 2014 11:36 AM  


T.V. is an altar; Americans worship at it daily.


It's also a drug. Back when real research was still possible, brainwave tests showed clearly that people viewing TV have brainwaves very, very similar to people who are asleep, or hypnotized. The flicker rate of the image has definite effects on the state of mind.

No idea how this plays out in the modern sports bar with 15 or more monitors, though. But you are right about the slack-jawed look. Check out the pupils of most TV watchers, they are usually dilated to some extent, and that correlates to "no thought" in body language.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 11:36 AM  

Note that the onus is always placed upon the exercise of free will - this is deliberate, because in order to suffer eternal damnation requires voluntary submission to evil.

Exactly. Greg Koukl calls the homosexuality issue as "the spearhead". As such, homosexuality is only of marginal importance in Christianity. But it was chosen as THE issue with which to make the Christian willingly spit in God's face, and celebrate abomination before Him. That's why we are talking about it so much, despite it being only a marginal issue.

It was always the same, which issue would be the spearhead. But it happens to be this.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 11:38 AM  

Rephrase it as "I'm not sure about the definition of the virgin birth"

As far as I know, there has never been any debate about the definition of that word, nor any alternative words that reject a particular aspect of it. So, nobody would actually say such a thing.

Anonymous Jump the Shark October 27, 2014 11:40 AM  

The Chicago Statement on inerrancy, which is held by pretty much evert Fundamentalist I've met who has considered the subject, states that the original documents were inspired and inerrant, but the (not innerrant) copies we presently posess are good enough to go on.

Anonymous Michael October 27, 2014 11:47 AM  

paradox, social Marxism and economic Marxism is a distinction without a difference. Marxism leads to socialist-communism, any way you cut it. Do you really think that this is merely a social experiment or something? They want for everything to be under their absolute control. Human rights, liberty, ownership of property and businesses are all anathema to their ideology. Why do you think they constantly strive for Babylonian multiculturalism while incurring massive amounts of debt?

Ultimately they want to separate us into two classes, with themselves at the top of the pyramid and everyone else at the bottom as part of the servant class.

Blogger Doom October 27, 2014 11:47 AM  

Many native people's understand this perfectly. So, I thought you, being an Indian and all, would appreciate that perspective.

When encountering force and organizationally superior civilizations, natives often but not always, fought for their way of life, land, mobility, and such. Soldiers are what they faced at first. That was war. An honest to God real attrition based struggle between cultural factions. War is not popular. Women folk become faint, and the weak-kneed had tizzies. So, those were employed in a more sickening and terrifying way. Instead of soldiers, social workers and psychologists were sent to destroy the 'lesser' cultures. More evil in that, it invaded every part of the 'weaker' nation, changing what it had believed to be good and bad to reverse. Only, if one of these was killed in the war, it wasn't called war, it was called murder.

This game has been played for a very long time. Well, after genocide was ruled out, it seemed the only way. It is a far more hideous fate. Being eaten alive rather than just murdered outright. They often aren't even taught their own language these days.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 11:48 AM  

Do you really think that this is merely a social experiment or something? They want for everything to be under their absolute control.

The detractors argue that for it to be any kind of Marxism, that is not yet adequate. Rather, everything needs to be under their control in the exact way described by Karl Marx.

Anonymous Michael October 27, 2014 11:52 AM  

Markku, let 'em argue. Either way they'll be fighting over scraps and rubble when all is said and done, just as it was in Soviet Russia.

Marxists do not build; they tear down.

Blogger Matamoros October 27, 2014 11:52 AM  

...have you seen the various works of the pundits that refer to it as 'liberal fascism'?

Fascism/National Socialism have been the only victorious opponents of Marxism (for a time) - hence the name "fascism" is used to smear all enemies of cultural marxism; because to be a "fascist" is to be dearly hated by the marxists.

Any where one sees people using the term "fascist", therefore, one can accurately label the users "marxists". This includes feminists, eqalitarians, homophones, and their ilk.

Anti-marxists have sought to take the term "fascist" and apply it in blowback against the users, and have been moderately successful at this; but have muddied the waters so that no one knows who is what.

In other words, "fascist" has become a supreme perjorative, like "racist", "hater", "bigot", and other leftist perjoratives.

However, since the marxists own the narrative, anti-marxist traction using their perjorative terms against them have been low, but growing as the public tires of their tirades.

Blogger Josh October 27, 2014 11:53 AM  

As far as I know, there has never been any debate about the definition of that word, nor any alternative words that reject a particular aspect of it. So, nobody would actually say such a thing.

Third Ecumenical Council?

My point is that inerrancy is as central to fundamentalism as any of the other five points. Otherwise they wouldn't have bothered to include it.

Blogger Josh October 27, 2014 11:55 AM  

paradox, social Marxism and economic Marxism is a distinction without a difference.

Certainly there is a difference, otherwise there would be no need to modify Marxism with cultural.

And we're back to you missing the point.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 11:55 AM  

I'm kind of on the fence about this. "Social Marxism" does have that ambiguity, and existing baggage due to it having been misapplied. But, it is an established term. One should not opt for a neologism, if there is already a good enough expression.

But, if I were to coin one, it would be "Social Totalitarianism".

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 11:58 AM  

My point is that inerrancy is as central to fundamentalism as any of the other five points.

Inerrancy by what definition? That was my point. In one definition, I hold it just as strongly as any of the rest. In another, I don't. In other words, I don't hold it 50%. Rather, I need an answer from someone who wants to call me, or not call me a fundamentalist about what he means by Fundamental number one. If the answer is X, then I hold it 100%. If Y, then I hold it 0%.

Anonymous paradox October 27, 2014 12:00 PM  

Michael,

A lot of major CEOs are cultural Marxists and you still believe they want economic Marxism? No way, not a chance, they want their game maintained. Yes, they'll use regulations and other socialist type polices to squash competition. However, those cultural Marxists will never accept full blown communism, it's not the current CM program, it's about cheap labor. At best they've shown acceptance of Chinese corporate communist model.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 27, 2014 12:00 PM  

The easiest way to think about this, in terms of "cultural Marxism", is that if you take old-fashioned academic Marxism and replace "the bourgeoisie" with "white people" at every turn, you get a pretty good translation. Cultural Marxism would be better described as racist Marxism.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 12:01 PM  

Third Ecumenical Council?

That was about the meaning of "mother", not "virgin".

Anonymous 11B October 27, 2014 12:05 PM  

However, since the marxists own the narrative, anti-marxist traction using their perjorative terms against them have been low, but growing as the public tires of their tirades.

In the wiki entry on Lind, they include this:

Bill Berkowitz, in an article for the Southern Poverty Law Center, described William Lind as the one person "who has done the most to define the enemies who make up the so-called 'cultural Marxists.'", being a leading proponent of the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory.

I've been seeing this more and more in the past year. The left is starting to circle the wagon to prevent the Cultural Marxist term from gaining traction. Note how the above quote by the $PLC is referring to it as the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory.

Blogger GF Dad October 27, 2014 12:11 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 12:13 PM  

represent the original

Again, this word needs clarification. Does "represent" mean "good enough for all practical purposes", or "no errors at all, not even meaningless scribal errors"?

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents October 27, 2014 12:14 PM  

11B

I've been seeing this more and more in the past year. The left is starting to circle the wagon to prevent the Cultural Marxist term from gaining traction.


Agree. I've seen the term ridiculed via the "original intent" scam, as in "Karl Marx never wrote…" as well as the "drown with minutae" via "In the Manifesto, Marx clearly said…and if you have ever read Kapital you would know….". Both are mere deflections away from the real topic. But it is interesting to see the same tactic, sometimes the same verbiage, showing up in a diverse set of sites.

The left clearly does not like the term Cultural Marxism and wants to suppress it. All the more reason to use it widely.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 12:26 PM  

But, regarding the original issue, it is precisely their genuine-seeming discomfort about the associations of the word, that I believe their claim of being "moderately left", yet agreeing that SJW's pose a threat. Remember, they don't even KNOW that we are aware of the discussion. So, they are not attempting to misrepresent their views and slither their way to our ranks, and then corrupt us from within.

Rather, what this tells me is that GamerGate is indeed a thing that has caused even self-described moderates to start waking up to what's happening.

Anonymous Doug Wardell October 27, 2014 12:27 PM  

Two years ago, I would have rejected the idea that there was a real, concerted effort to change the culture, but it's becoming difficult to believe anything else. Thank you for shining a light on all of this, Vox, and thank you for being a leader in the fight against it.

Anonymous Difster October 27, 2014 12:29 PM  

We need a working definition of Cultural Marxism.

There are a few versions going around they're not terribly consistent.

Here's a first shot at it:

Cultural Marxism:
The subjugation of all expression, public and private to the whims of self-appointed cultural gatekeepers.

Anonymous Veritas October 27, 2014 12:32 PM  

If you won't talk about the Jewish issue, you will continue to miss the mark on who / what the nature of the struggle really is. Yes it has to do with Marxism, now ask who the major proponents of it historically are, what they believe, and why did Jesus Christ call them the synagogue of Satan.

As mentioned above why do you think the Frankfurt school moved to New York in 1933? Who was being expelled from Germany at the time? Hmmmm....
What group exists in every nation that has been raped by this Marxism as a functionally independent nation within the host nation?
Hmmmm...
What group has the financial means to back such an undertaking? Hmmmm..
What group has a religious justification for such wanton rape of Christian culture and has done so throughout history whenever they can? See where this is going?

I'm sorry if I am coming across as a little condescending, but it's frustrating to see you people dance around the nature of the problem ever so closely and yet continue to miss the mark ever so slightly. If you are a Christian you really have no excuse, because the Bible is RIFE with warnings about the Jews and their hatred for Christianity.

I'm NOT saying "lets go hang the Jews!" but you NEED to know your enemy.



Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 12:33 PM  

So, if we compromise our values to attract "moderates", then we have again been the Charlie to their Lucy.

But we don't need to do the whole Vade Retro Satanas -routine either, and come across as total assholes.

Anonymous Corvinus October 27, 2014 12:38 PM  

SJW cling to PC because it provides a cover for them to lash out without suffering social repercussion. It's more the order of a cult put into practice.
@Michael
It's also because they're a 2GW army that relies on using the same ol' weapons and firepower, without bothering to even try maneuvering, thinking on their feet, and adapting to their enemies (3GW). It's just using the maximum amount of PC ammo on their enemies and hoping it sticks.

Cutlral Marixsm is not economic Marxism. Do you seriously believe a cultural Marxist like Howard Schultz (Starbucks, CEO) wants economic Communism? He wants the cultural variant (mutation) of communism, which will create cheap labor for Starbucks.
@paradox
Good point. This may explain why economic elites are mostly cultural Marxists -- they're rich and therefore above it all and don't have to worry. Christianity and Western Civ are sinking, while they make bank. What's not to like?

I've been seeing this more and more in the past year. The left is starting to circle the wagon to prevent the Cultural Marxist term from gaining traction. Note how the above quote by the $PLC is referring to it as the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory.
@11B
"Conspiracy theory" is another one of their old-hat, standard SJW ammo dating from the 1960s, along with "racist" and "sexist". "Homophobe" is newer of course, but along the same design.

Anonymous Corvinus October 27, 2014 12:41 PM  

@Difster:

I'd put it as "Straight white Christian males bad evil authoritarian oppressors, everybody else wonderful pure ethereal beings who are just as intelligent, capable, and competent as straight white Christian males, but who have been sooo put upon throughout history."

Anonymous Difster October 27, 2014 12:45 PM  

Corvinus, you're wrong. Anyone that does not submit get skewered. Straight, white, Christian males are the most visible target, but look at what happens to homosexuals that say they've gone straight or the adult child of homosexual parents that wan't too cracked up about having two moms or two dads. Look at what happens to black conservatives, etc.

Making it about race or religion is myopic at best.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents October 27, 2014 12:47 PM  

But, regarding the original issue, it is precisely their genuine-seeming discomfort about the associations of the word, that I believe their claim of being "moderately left", yet agreeing that SJW's pose a threat.

They may seem to be discomforted by the tactics of the Social Justice Bullies, but they agree with the SJB's goals. Maybe not completely, but enough to go along with them.

Remember, they don't even KNOW that we are aware of the discussion.

So? There are entire buildings full of things that leftists don't know, we call them "libraries". The ignorance of leftists is a given.

So, they are not attempting to misrepresent their views and slither their way to our ranks, and then corrupt us from within.

Maybe. Maybe not. How am I supposed to tell the difference between yet another slithering concern troll and an alleged genuine "moderate" leftist?

Rather, what this tells me is that GamerGate is indeed a thing that has caused even self-described moderates to start waking up to what's happening.

Self described moderates need to figure out what side they are on. Otherwise, men like me will assume they are just another SJB ally, and act accordingly.

Anonymous Corvinus October 27, 2014 12:49 PM  

@Difster

Well, naturally, SJWs don't cotton to what they consider "traitors" against the SJW Narrative. And face it -- straight white Christian men need one group of "traitors" -- straight white Christian women -- for demographic survival.

Anonymous Difster October 27, 2014 12:51 PM  

Corvinus, if the straight, white, Christian men of America, got on bended knee and submitted too the SJW's, they would simply turn their attack on the next biggest target.

Anonymous Jump the Shark October 27, 2014 12:53 PM  

Cultural Marxism

World Fascism.

Consider:

Enlightenment individualism: Classical liberalism.
Enlightenment collectivism: Marxism.
Counter-enlightenment collectivism: Fascism.

The Marxists and the Fascists agreed that the collective, rather than the individual, was the true pivot around which ethics should revolve. The Marxists though they were very scientific and reasonable, and they thought that the collective in question would eventually be the whole world. The Fascists, contrawise, thought reason was self-contradictory, that passion and will to power were the true guiding lights (though the passion of a leader, as will to power worked out among individuals would only be anarchy), and that the collective in question would be a nation or bloodline.

Marxism always had religious undertones what with its promise of heaven on earth. So when reason and experiment proved contrary to Marxism, the true believers rejected reason. They started quoting counter-enlightenment philosophers, and developed post-modern thought from the resulting anti-epistemology.

The primary differences, then, between Cultural Marxism and Fascism are these: They retain the Marxist idea of a world utopia instead of a national utopia. They retain the Leninist idea of ushering in said utopia with an elite cadre of true believers instead of a single, strong leader.

Anonymous Veritas October 27, 2014 1:00 PM  

Until you people are willing to talk about the Jewish issue, you will continue to miss the mark as to the nature of this struggle.
Yes, Marxism has much to do with the issue, now ask who are historically the major proponents of it. What group predominantly led the Bolshevik revolution? Ask who Jesus Christ called the synagogue of Satan, and then investigate why he called them that. Once you understand that modern Judaism=the religion of the pharisees you can start to put things together.

The Frankfurt School was moved to New York in 1933, as mentioned above. Who was being expelled from Germany at that time?

What group has historically always been expelled from Christian nations due to their active efforts to subvert the Christian culture?

What group has religious justification, indeed mandate, to undermine gentile/Christian culture in whatever way possible?

What group has the financial means to actually implement such subversion?

Until you are willing to examine the Jewish issue, you will continue to miss the mark as to the nature of the problem. Christians however really have no excuse, considering how RIFE the bible, is in warning about the Jew's hatred for Christ and Christianity.

Anonymous Corvinus October 27, 2014 1:02 PM  

Corvinus, if the straight, white, Christian men of America, got on bended knee and submitted too the SJW's, they would simply turn their attack on the next biggest target.

@Difster
Nah, they'd bludgeon us harder, like a bitchy wife whose husband has gone totally pussy-whipped.

I'm not quite sure you understand that cultural Marxism is a giant shit test against Western Civilization.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 1:06 PM  

Self described moderates need to figure out what side they are on. Otherwise, men like me will assume they are just another SJB ally, and act accordingly.

This attitude is exactly how we could still blow it all up. It is obviously impossible to become a reactionary without there having been a phase of changing one's views. If we had the opportunity to NOT come across as total assholes without compromising the truth, and still we chose to do so, then we can only blame ourselves for any moderates not won over.

That's like assigning our PR branch to Taylor.

Anonymous Corvinus October 27, 2014 1:10 PM  

If we had the opportunity to NOT come across as total assholes without compromising the truth, and still we chose to do so, then we can only blame ourselves for any moderates not won over.

@Markku
I dunno... people seem to instinctively warily admire "total assholes" who are honest and tell the truth. Especially women. I imagine that "moderates" who disdain the message of "total assholes" because they're "total assholes" tend to be low-value males (especially Gammas) and low-value females for the most part. And I'm not sure they'd be very effective allies in any case.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 1:16 PM  

Notice the "without compromising the truth" -part. If not being asshole WOULD compromise the truth, then you choose the truth instead.

But we need not speak in a way that casts aspersions on their honesty or basic intelligence without having good reason to do so. Because EVERYONE (except perhaps those who were raised by reactionary parents and who never changed their views) is going to go through that process, one time or another. And it can be interrupted if we treat them as dishonest, when they know damn well themselves that it is not so.

Anonymous Anonymous October 27, 2014 1:32 PM  

I think that it is a bit unfair to suggest that there is any connection between Marx, Lenin Stalin and the social justice warriors. The Bolsheviks may have been guilty of mass murder but that is not excuse for pinning the crimes of Scalzi et al on them.

AKAHorace

Anonymous Sigyn October 27, 2014 1:33 PM  

What group has religious justification, indeed mandate, to undermine gentile/Christian culture in whatever way possible?

What group has the financial means to actually implement such subversion?


Satan?

Anonymous Veritas October 27, 2014 1:40 PM  

Sadly, the nature of the corruption is so deep that it's difficult to even have a conversation with many (not all) people because they don't take for a fact that there is indeed something called Truth which exists outside and independent of themselves. A Truth against which opinions can be measured as right or wrong. Never mind that it is self contradictory to believe that the statement "there is no truth" is true, most people haven't given it any thought. By merely asserting that Truth exists, you often put yourself in the "asshole" camp.

I believe it is best to faithfully share the Gospel and trust the Lord for the increase, continuing in fervent, dutiful prayer that He would open hearts to the Truth. Just as it always has been. At this point, no amount of human rhetoric is going to be able to break through the delusions.

Anonymous Kernal Sanders October 27, 2014 1:43 PM  

"Anyone that does not submit get skewered. Straight, white, Christian males are the most visible target, but look at what happens to homosexuals that say they've gone straight or the adult child of homosexual parents that wan't too cracked up about having two moms or two dads. Look at what happens to black conservatives, etc."

But those examples are the outliers of their groups. White people are targeted and attacked for merely existing as white people. The never ending demand for more diversity for example. All diversity means is Less White People Now. Zero White People Later.

Anonymous Veritas October 27, 2014 1:44 PM  

Sigyn
"Satan?"

Close, who is his synagogue on earth? Who are his earthly children?
According to Jesus Christ.

Blogger Robert What? October 27, 2014 1:49 PM  

I've come to the realization that Marxists, Leftists, Progressives, what have you, are mostly people who have nothing of value to offer anyone. They have no hope of achieving prosperity by any productive route. So the only way they can achieve the prosperity they think they are entitled to is by appropriating it from the productive classes. That is the essence of it all.

Anonymous Doug Wardell October 27, 2014 1:50 PM  

Markku October 27, 2014 1:16 PM

And it can be interrupted if we treat them as dishonest, when they know damn well themselves that it is not so.


I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm one of those moderates you guys have been talking about, and if you really want to make an enemy of me, the easiest way is to try to define me or my friends in a way which I know isn't true. That sort of thing coming from the left is exactly what's brought me to this side of the fight.

Anonymous Dumb founded October 27, 2014 1:51 PM  

"The numbers aren't in your favor."

Which numbers are those Josh? The ones you pulled out of your ass?

Maybe you mean these numbers:

"There is minimal information on how well filoviruses survive within aerosolized particles, and in certain media like the biofilm of sewage systems. Preliminary studies indicate that Ebola is aerostable in an enclosed controlled system in the dark and can
survive for long periods in different liquid media and can also be recovered from plastic and glass surfaces at low temperatures for over 3 weeks (Piercy, et al., 2010). "

From:

https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=911d64b9ded9491e7f6278dec44bbc1a

It's a PDF.

Anonymous Sigyn October 27, 2014 1:51 PM  

According to Jesus Christ? As per John 8:39-47, it looks to me awfully like "anyone who doesn't love Jesus".

Who do you love, Veritas?

Blogger Rabbi B October 27, 2014 1:52 PM  

@Veritas

"Until you are willing to examine the Jewish issue, you will continue to miss the mark . . . the Jew's hatred for Christ and Christianity."

A little myopic perhaps. In light of the following, a little more equanimity may not hurt:

"I speak the truth in the Messiah—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from the Messiah for the sake of my people, those of my own race, the people of Israel.

Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. (cf. Romans 10).

I do not know what your worldview is, but if it happens to be a solid Biblical worldview, I would entreat you to to consider the passages above. The Marx's, Bernake's and the Madoff's of this world may be held responsible for their own actions, and I believe they will - like all of us.

But if you are going to ask us to examine the so-called "Jewish issue" (whatever that may be), it is important to examine ALL of it, and examine it in the light of the truth. I am not aware of any mandate in the Torah where we are called to perniciously undermine or subvert any culture.

Since a sizable number of our people have departed from the one true G-d and we have turned our backs to Him and His Torah, means that our people will embrace all kinds of philosophies,political or otherwise, that are antithetical to His ways as revealed in His Torah.

In other words, most of the 'Jewish issues' you outlined above have little or nothing to do with being Jewish, but they have everything to do with our collective disobedience to the One Who called us to be a light unto the nations as well as a blessing among the nations to where we have been scattered.

Again, I do not presume to know your background, but I, for one. share Paul's unceasing anguish and I do know that our people could use your prayers at a time such as this.

"I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom He foreknew." (cf. Romans 11)

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 1:53 PM  

This is part of that very progressive overreach that we've been waiting for so long. We must not squander it.

Would it be fun to say "too little, too late. Go screw." to the moderates that are waking up because this is finally touching their own lives? Yes. But that fun would have a big price tag attached.

Anonymous Difster October 27, 2014 2:01 PM  

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm one of those moderates you guys have been talking about, and if you really want to make an enemy of me, the easiest way is to try to define me or my friends in a way which I know isn't true.

If you are a moderate in transition, then I am willing to give you a pass right now. But a permanent moderate is a moral coward; he sits and waits to see which way the wind will blow and then takes that side. The moderate takes the "winning" side and declares he's been on that side all along.

The moderate is not to be trusted.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents October 27, 2014 2:01 PM  


Would it be fun to say "too little, too late. Go screw." to the moderates that are waking up because this is finally touching their own lives? Yes. But that fun would have a big price tag attached.


Missing the point. How do I tell the difference between a moderate leftist who is waking up because now they are the target of a 5-minute hate, and a slithering concern-troll who can use enough of the right words to get in the door?

Entryism is the tactic that the left has used for, what, a century now? You're saying "Don't worry, this time it's different", I'm asking you how do you know.

Scratch a "moderate leftist" and more often than not under the paint there's just another Social Justice Bully….who has some pull with others, because we let him or her or it into the clade. See the problem yet?

Anonymous Corvinus October 27, 2014 2:06 PM  

@Markku

I understand. With moderates (Deltas), one should be willing to talk to them and reason with them. But with SJWs (Gammas), smacking them around is all one really can do. Reasoning with SJWs would in fact be compromising the truth by definition, because you're treating their stupid childlike statements as worthy of reasoned debate. Which is the exact reason they've been so successful in causing so much damage.

Anonymous Corvinus October 27, 2014 2:09 PM  

Scratch a "moderate leftist" and more often than not under the paint there's just another Social Justice Bully….who has some pull with others, because we let him or her or it into the clade. See the problem yet?

@Paradigm
Excellent point. One rule of thumb is to watch if the moderate actually turns over time into the right side, or continues to put out SJW crap, even if cloaked somewhat. Any SJW crap that any moderate continues to put out should be dealt with severely.

Blogger Rabbi B October 27, 2014 2:12 PM  

Also, beginning in the nineteenth century, primarily in Germany during the so-called enlightenment, and eventually throughout much of Europe, the Jewish Reform movement began to form. It was a movement that was not seeking to undermine Christian culture, but rather a movement whose stated aims were to do away with the Torah, Jewish traditions, and all things Biblical, while seeking to be accepted by and assimilate themselves into Christian culture.

Theirs was a war on Judaism and the Torah, while at the same time it sought to court Christian favor, even attempting to use the civil powers of the Christian culture to undermine Torah-observance among faithful Jewish communities.

When we are rebellious and disobedient to the One true G-d, it would seem that our subversion knows no bounds and does not discriminate.

Anonymous Veritas October 27, 2014 2:14 PM  

I love the Lord Jesus Christ first and foremost, because He first loved me.

Do the Jews love Jesus Sigyn?

Lets look at the Talmud:

Sanhedrin 43A: "On Passover Eve they hanged Jesus of Nazareth. He practiced sorcery, incited and led Israel astray...Was Jesus of Nazareth deserving of a search for an argument in his favor? He was an enticer and the Torah says, 'You shall not spare, nor shall you conceal him!"

Gittin 57a: "He (the rabbi) then went and raised by incantations the sinners of Israel (Jesus). He asked them...What is your punishment? They replied: With boiling (in) hot excrement."

Sanhedrin 107B: "Jesus... stood up a brick to symbolize an idol and bowed down to it. Jesus performed magic and incited the people of Israel and led them astray."

I could go on.

Who was Jesus talking to in John 8:44? Who was his audience?

Who is He talking about in Rev 3:9?

Paul in Romans 11:28?

This isn't about hating the Jews, a Christian should pray for their salvation and love them as an enemy, knowing that God will save a remnant of them. But you need to know, as Paul says all through ought the NT, they are currently enemies of the Gospel.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 2:15 PM  

Entryism is the tactic that the left has used for, what, a century now? You're saying "Don't worry, this time it's different", I'm asking you how do you know.

I don't NEED to know. Because the principle was to never compromise the truth. If they say "we would join you, if only you would do this, not to this, or not talk about this thing", then you say "no can do".

But whenever you can avoid it without moral compromise, you opt for the non-asshole option.

Anonymous Corvinus October 27, 2014 2:15 PM  

Also, beginning in the nineteenth century, primarily in Germany during the so-called enlightenment, and eventually throughout much of Europe, the Jewish Reform movement began to form. It was a movement that was not seeking to undermine Christian culture, but rather a movement whose stated aims were to do away with the Torah, Jewish traditions, and all things Biblical, while seeking to be accepted by and assimilate themselves into Christian culture.

Assimilate themselves into the Enlightenment, which by that time called the shots in "Christian culture". Vatican II was the equivalent to Reform Judaism in the Catholic Church.

Blogger Rabbi B October 27, 2014 2:18 PM  

"Assimilate themselves into the Enlightenment,"

Thanks for fixing that. What I meant.

Blogger Rabbi B October 27, 2014 2:21 PM  

@Veritas

The Talmud is not a creed or something akin to Scripture that we quote to prove a theological or doctrinal position. So, for you to quote the Talmud as one does the Bible to prove your point does not work.

Anonymous VD October 27, 2014 2:23 PM  

Thank you for shining a light on all of this, Vox, and thank you for being a leader in the fight against it.

You're welcome. But I'm not a leader. I'm just a guy who refuses to submit to any king but Jesus.

I'm one of those moderates you guys have been talking about, and if you really want to make an enemy of me, the easiest way is to try to define me or my friends in a way which I know isn't true. That sort of thing coming from the left is exactly what's brought me to this side of the fight.

Fair enough, so long as you don't place your friends above the truth. And be aware that you may not fully understand what is going on either. Judge by actual consequences, not rhetoric from one side or the other. The road to Hell, after all, is paved with good intentions.

Blogger Rabbi B October 27, 2014 2:25 PM  

"...they are currently enemies of the Gospel."

And it follows, so is everyone else who is currently rejecting the Truth and walking in the same disobedience. The Jewish people are highlighted, because we have had more revelation and should know better. It is the 'to the Jew first, and equally to the Gentile' principle at work. It doesn't work just for the blessings.

Anonymous Veritas October 27, 2014 2:25 PM  

Rabbi B,

Nothing you quoted in Romans 10 contradicts anything I have said. Paul earnestly yearns for the Jews to come to Jesus Christ in faith, and accept him as the promised Messiah. In fact, he makes it clear that they have NOT submitted to God's righteousness.

"Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness."

Just as Paul, I hope the Jews will repent of their evil too and accept Jesus Christ for who he is. But that does not mean we pretend that there is any salvation for the Jews apart from repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

It is also very suspect that you talk about the Torah rather than the Talmud, when, if you are indeed a Rabbi, you would know that the Talmud supersedes the Torah in authority.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 2:29 PM  

The kind of person who is a natural ally to our side is the kind of person who loves the truth. For them, who loves lies.

But this also puts us at a certain disadvantage. Our natural allies take a much dimmer view about us saying things they know to be false. So, the cost to us for blaming them for something that merely seems PROBABLY true, is much higher. Therefore, we miss on some entertainment value that their side can enjoy.

Oh well. We'll survive.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 2:37 PM  

if you are indeed a Rabbi

Knowing his email address, I'd say the chances of his not actually being a rabbi are exceedingly low.

Anonymous Sigyn October 27, 2014 2:38 PM  

Who was Jesus talking to in John 8:44? Who was his audience?

The same as the audience He had when He talked about salvation.

But that does not mean we pretend that there is any salvation for the Jews apart from repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

There is a long, long distance between "salvation apart from Christ" and "JOOS ARE 100% HELLSPAWN AND TRYING TO DESTROY US ALL!"

Blogger Josh October 27, 2014 2:41 PM  

It is also very suspect that you talk about the Torah rather than the Talmud, when, if you are indeed a Rabbi, you would know that the Talmud supersedes the Torah in authority.

Bullshit.

Put up or shut up, veritas.

Back up your claim.

Blogger Josh October 27, 2014 2:45 PM  

Which numbers are those Josh? The ones you pulled out of your ass?

Maybe you mean these numbers:


How many new Ebola cases have we had the in last two weeks?

How many should we have had if it was truly spreading exponentially?

Blogger Rabbi B October 27, 2014 2:46 PM  

"I'd say the chances of his not actually being a rabbi are exceedingly low."

FWIW

I have received (and continue to receive) formal training as a rabbi. Unlike Christendom, where ministers receive a general ordination to minister, rabbis can receive s'micha (ordination) in a variety of subject areas. Which means we can receive multiple ordinations. I am currently working on a 's'micha for the halochos (laws) related to Sabbath, which is going to take 28 months by the time I am finished.

However, I will say this, due to my opinion that Y'shua is the promised Messiah of Israel, that will often mean that my s'micha credentials will not be recognized.

Blogger Josh October 27, 2014 2:51 PM  

I'm one of those moderates you guys have been talking about, and if you really want to make an enemy of me, the easiest way is to try to define me or my friends in a way which I know isn't true. That sort of thing coming from the left is exactly what's brought me to this side of the fight.

I think that with moderates or other unaffiliated, the first side to scream "you're either with us or with the terrorists" loses.

Anonymous Anonymous October 27, 2014 2:51 PM  

Unfortunately for them, with GamerGate, they have blundered into an Iraq.

That's actually a really good analogy. In GG, we have people thinking they can shame gamers by getting a few girls involved in games and then criticizing the gamers for not being nice enough to them. In Iraq, we have conservatives trying to shame ISIS fighters by running stories of Kurdish girl warriors, hoping the ISIS fighters won't be as quick to kill them.

Anonymous Doug Wardell October 27, 2014 2:52 PM  

Difster October 27, 2014 2:01 PM

If you are a moderate in transition, then I am willing to give you a pass right now. But a permanent moderate is a moral coward; he sits and waits to see which way the wind will blow and then takes that side. The moderate takes the "winning" side and declares he's been on that side all along.

The moderate is not to be trusted.


Just because, for example, I don't happen to have a problem with things like gay marriage, this doesn't make me a coward. If I were a coward, I wouldn't be on this site using my real name and I wouldn't be engaging both sides when I think they are wrong. The idea that I've ever been one to test the wind before deciding on my principles is laughable.

At the end of the day, I've chosen this side because it's generally the side of the pursuit of truth while the other side is the side of false narratives, shallow thinking and character assassination. Don't make me rethink that.

Anonymous Porky October 27, 2014 2:52 PM  

What group has historically always been expelled from Christian nations due to their active efforts to subvert the Christian culture?

What group has religious justification, indeed mandate, to undermine gentile/Christian culture in whatever way possible?

What group has the financial means to actually implement such subversion?


Oh for Christ's sake......

Lots of people are Satan's Little Helpers these days, Veritas.

Guess what? Resist the Devil and he will flee from you.

The problem is not Ze Jooooooooos, Veritas.

The problem is that The West forgot how to resist the Devil.

Anonymous paradox October 27, 2014 2:56 PM  

Rabbi B

The Talmud is not a creed or something akin to Scripture that we quote to prove a theological or doctrinal position.


Meh... unless you're a Karaite, I'm not buying it.

Anonymous Sigyn October 27, 2014 2:57 PM  

How many new Ebola cases have we had the in last two weeks?

What's the incubation period again?

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 2:58 PM  

The only options are not "Jews are no different than anyone else" and "all Jews are Satan's little helpers" though. There is also the option that Satan always prioritizes using the Jew over the Gentile, when he has the option. So that Christendom would then see the statistically obvious at some point, and dirty its hands with a genocide.

Blogger Josh October 27, 2014 3:00 PM  

Pentecost was the beginning of 4th generation spiritual warfare.

Anonymous Veritas October 27, 2014 3:01 PM  

Sure Josh.

Shabbat 15c and Baba Metzia 33a from the Talmud.

By Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai

A. “He who occupies himself with Scripture gains merit that is no merit.
B. “He who occupies himself with mishnah gains merit for which people receive a reward”
C. “He who occupies himself with Talmud – there is no source of merit greater than this.”

Also refer to Rabbinic Judaism by Jacob Neusner with a contribution by William Scott Green, pp 31-34 for a more in depth look at the matter.

Anonymous Difster October 27, 2014 3:04 PM  

Doug said: Just because, for example, I don't happen to have a problem with things like gay marriage, this doesn't make me a coward.

That doesn't make you a moderate either. I think we might have different definitions of what a moderate is.

I am neither left, nor right, but no one would ever accuse me of being a moderate.

Based on what you've just said, I don't think you're a moderate at all. To me a moderate is the person that tries to find the middle ground in all positions; he's always looking for the compromise rather than the truth or the obviously moral position.

You can be something other than right or left and not be a moderate.

Blogger Josh October 27, 2014 3:05 PM  

A. “He who occupies himself with Scripture gains merit that is no merit.
B. “He who occupies himself with mishnah gains merit for which people receive a reward”
C. “He who occupies himself with Talmud – there is no source of merit greater than this.”


Does merit translate to authority?

Unless it does, this doesn't support your claim.

And even then, it's one rabbi. Hardly authoritative.

Anonymous Doug Wardell October 27, 2014 3:06 PM  

VD October 27, 2014 2:23 PM

You're welcome. But I'm not a leader. I'm just a guy who refuses to submit to any king but Jesus.


Out of curiosity, if that plus a growing following of people like myself who take inspiration from your struggle doesn't make you a leader, what would?

Anonymous Anonymous October 27, 2014 3:06 PM  

The Chicago Statement on inerrancy, which is held by pretty much evert Fundamentalist I've met who has considered the subject, states that the original documents were inspired and inerrant, but the (not innerrant) copies we presently posess are good enough to go on.

For what it's worth, that sounds like the Catholic position: the original writings (of the books specified as Canon by the Church) were inspired and without error, but we have no such guarantee about copies or translations. In fact, we know of some errors in those, though they're remarkably few considering the centuries and the amount of pressure there has been to alter meanings.

Blogger Rabbi B October 27, 2014 3:08 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Rabbi B October 27, 2014 3:09 PM  

@Veritas

I am not going to use this blog as a venue to give you 'Talmud for Dummies', but I will tell you again that that your attempts to quote the Talmud like Scripture and use the quotes as proof-texts for arguments you don't understand and from a Jewish text about which you haven't the slightest clue, are specious at best. Please stop.

Blogger Josh October 27, 2014 3:11 PM  

Please stop.

Can we get a moratorium on the stormfront internet auxiliary thought police copying and pasting out of context quotes from the Talmud?

Blogger Josh October 27, 2014 3:16 PM  

Also, a very brief internet search identifies "Baba Metzia 33a" as a wonderful canary trap that shows the source is biased.

The correct Aramaic is Bava, it seems. Not Baba.

Very interesting...

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 3:17 PM  

I found Rabbi B's earlier quotes, about how what seems like a singular statement in the Stormfront version and is actually just one of the Rabbis with conflicting opinions, convincing.

For the Stormfront side to still maintain credibility they'd have to address this.

Sure, it does raise eyebrows that even ONE of the Rabbis would take the position that gentiles who read Torah need to die. But that was not what the Stormfront side wanted to have me believe.

So, one honesty point to the Jewish side, and away from Stormfront.

Anonymous Veritas October 27, 2014 3:18 PM  

Josh, you have not considered the second source, nor do you understand the influence Shimon ben Yohai has in Judaism. People still make annual mass pilgrimages to his supposed burial site. You might as well say, "Aw who cares about what Paul says in Romans, he's just one Christian!". If you are content to dismiss the quote entirely because of semantics, I won't stop you. If I say to you, the study of Dawkins has more merit than the study of Bible, what do you think I am trying to say, and based on what I have said, which writing has more authority in my eyes?

Anonymous Veritas October 27, 2014 3:27 PM  

Josh, it is fascinating how you call for censorship, how very liberal of you. For the record, I have nothing to do with stormfront or any neo nazi group.

Rabbi B, I will accept your challenge when you show the same reverence for the Bible, because "your attempts to quote the New Testament as proof-texts for arguments you don't understand and from a Christian text about which you haven't the slightest clue, are specious at best. Please stop."

Thank you for addressing the arguments, instead of the poster. Good day to you.

Blogger Josh October 27, 2014 3:30 PM  

You might as well say, "Aw who cares about what Paul says in Romans, he's just one Christian!"

Actually, I can't, because the Jews don't view the Talmud in the same way that Christians view the Bible, as several Jews (Samuel Scott, Shimson, and Rabbi B) have repeatedly explained.

Anonymous Doug Wardell October 27, 2014 3:31 PM  

Difster October 27, 2014 3:04 PM

That doesn't make you a moderate either. I think we might have different definitions of what a moderate is.

I am neither left, nor right, but no one would ever accuse me of being a moderate.

Based on what you've just said, I don't think you're a moderate at all. To me a moderate is the person that tries to find the middle ground in all positions; he's always looking for the compromise rather than the truth or the obviously moral position.

You can be something other than right or left and not be a moderate.


Fair enough.

I do like compromise in theory, but I recognize that it is almost always going to be a loss for the right in the long term, at least until the left eventually destroys what it sought to "improve."

Blogger Josh October 27, 2014 3:35 PM  

Josh, it is fascinating how you call for censorship, how very liberal of you. For the record, I have nothing to do with stormfront or any neo nazi group.

Almost every time the discussion turns to Jews, we see this same copypasta.

Just like we used to see repetitive "anti race is code for anti white. Diversity is white genocide" copypasta.

And if atheists made a habit of quoting Bible verses out of context in any thread that mentioned atheism or Christianity, it would get old.

Monomania is boring, stupid, and distracting.

Blogger Rabbi B October 27, 2014 3:37 PM  

@Veritas

You will notice that in my initial post I was unsure about your Biblical worldview. Admittedly, I was a little surprised when you affirmed that: "I love the Lord Jesus Christ first and foremost, because He first loved me." This proclamation just didn't seem to square with you post which initially prompted my response. I guess you could say I was responding to the arguments and to the poster both. Good day to you as well.

Blogger Josh October 27, 2014 3:39 PM  

Rabbi B, I will accept your challenge when you show the same reverence for the Bible, because "your attempts to quote the New Testament as proof-texts for arguments you don't understand and from a Christian text about which you haven't the slightest clue, are specious at best. Please stop."

Where did he attempt to do anything of this?

I specifically mean:

Fail to show reverence for the Bible

Attempt to quote the new testament as proof texts

Fail to have the slightest clue about Christian arguments

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 3:42 PM  

I'd say that he is probably honest about his viewpoint, because after having been prevented from finding out myself whether or not these things are so for decades, because the discussion had always been silenced with the anti-semitism card, I myself had come to the conclusion that any Jew is about 95% likely to lie to my face, and that they probably have a LOT to hide. Because it is almost always the one who has skeletons in his closet, who opts for the ad hominem approach.

Anonymous Veritas October 27, 2014 3:51 PM  

Josh, Rabbi B is more than capable of speaking for himself, I don't think he needs to you defend him. You probably have some "brief internet searches" to attend to anyway.

Rabbi B, if you do indeed believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, the promised Messiah who died on the cross for the remission of the sins of all those who will place their faith solely in Him, and was raised again on the third day according the the Scriptures, then I consider you my brother in Christ, and I am sorry if I have been taken to be prompting hatred for the Jews, or if I have grieved you. No Christian is permitted to hate anyone, even those who hate him, but should instead pray for their enemies and do good to them. However, many Jews do indeed despise Jesus and work to subvert the gospel. It is against them that I write.

I ask though, why do you want to be a Rabbi, one of those who follow the traditions of the elders, who crucified Christ? Paul, the Pharisee of pharisees, counted all of it dung compared to the glorious gospel of Christ!

If you do indeed believe Jesus was the Messiah, then I say Lord bless you brother, you have my love in Christ, but according to my conscience, even if I am proven to be wrong in the future, please be wary of the yeast of the pharisees.


Anonymous Sigyn October 27, 2014 3:53 PM  

Because it is almost always the one who has skeletons in his closet, who opts for the ad hominem approach.

Only a loser living in his mom's basement would think this!

Anonymous Shibes Meadow October 27, 2014 3:54 PM  

I had to write off another old friend this week: a great guy, a fellow Prep, Navy veteran, and nipponophile, a guy I've known since he was literally a boy. He happens to be a member of a small mailing list of my closest friends, with which I shared a link to the Social Justice Kittens Calendar last week. Lo and behold, a few days later he sends me an email wondering why I'm subjecting him to such garbage. It seems that the Social Justice Kittens make light of "intersectionality", a subject which he, as an "intersectional person" (???) takes seriously. He ended by offering to not make fun of my beliefs if I ceased to mock his own.

I sent him a curt reply reading simply "I have removed you from all mailing lists. Expect to further communication from me." Thus endeth two decades of friendship.

And I regret nothing. I am done with people defining for me the acceptable topics and opinions about which I may write. I cut him out of my life for the crime of attempting to impose his values of acceptable belief upon me.

Folks, this is no longer a schoolyard fight. This is clean-shaven Holy War, and it's about time we started fighting it. Friend or not, a person who attempts to limit my opinions to those expressed in Mao Zedong Thought is my self-appointed enemy. I will write off all my friends, my family, and everybody else I know rather than permit others to define the acceptable range of opinions which I may hold.

Blogger John Galt October 27, 2014 3:55 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 3:55 PM  

Well, the two of you certainly don't have skeletons in your closet. You need a warehouse for that.

Anonymous Andrew Spooner Jr. October 27, 2014 3:56 PM  

@VD "No worries. Welcome back."
I should also point out that Spacebunny has always been super nice to me no matter what.

Blogger Josh October 27, 2014 3:58 PM  

Josh, Rabbi B is more than capable of speaking for himself, I don't think he needs to you defend him. You probably have some "brief internet searches" to attend to anyway.

Is that a refusal to answer my question?

Anonymous Sigyn October 27, 2014 4:04 PM  

Well, the two of you certainly don't have skeletons in your closet. You need a warehouse for that.

Well, you'd know about closets.

Anonymous FP October 27, 2014 4:09 PM  

More are coming off the fence. A tech reviewer/personality I watch on youtube put up this video yesterday, note his stated fear of a backlash for posting it and some of the comments...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA7N5FDG4_8&list=UUkWQ0gDrqOCarmUKmppD7GQ

I can't imagine why he would make sure sure to show that he has his CA approved bullet button and 10 round limited mag installed and working... lol.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 4:09 PM  

Says the one whose husband lives in "Ass-gård".

Blogger Outlaw X October 27, 2014 4:10 PM  

Next time you get trapped in a venue (or home) where T.V. is part of the background noise or its visual wallpaper.... (sports bar, small restaurant, bookstores [yes, books-a-million has a t.v. in the back of their bookstore])... look at the faces of the people. They are all focused on the t.v. Head slightly raised, eyes wide open absorbing, worshiping; if you had a painting of it, you could title it "The Adoration of the Whore Of Babylon"

In the last two years I've been in over a dozen doctor offices. Every single one had a TV in the waiting room. One day I was in a fairly crowded one, I was feeling real bad and they had some black lady playing judge and I think it was like a reality divorce court. Like Judge Judy except they were getting divorces.

The couple getting the divorce were saying the meanest things about each other and I didn't have my mp3 player. I looked around and everyone was starring at it in a trance like state. I could not take it any more and I said in a real loud voice. "I can't believe you zombies are watching this?" A bunch of people looked at me with the disgusted look on my face, then went back to watching it as if it never happened.

Ir's amazing how easy people are to mass control.

Anonymous Sigyn October 27, 2014 4:21 PM  

Durr, he lives with me in an underground complex--

...Crap, did I just admit we're basement dwellers? At least it's our OWN basement.

Okay, let me think about this one. For the moment, something something, your mom.

Anonymous Sigyn October 27, 2014 4:22 PM  

This is why I don't play video games!!!

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 4:24 PM  

At least it's our OWN basement.

Yeah, cause yo momma so fat, she live in her house, AND her basement.

Anonymous Sigyn October 27, 2014 4:25 PM  

Is this the one, Outlaw?

Anonymous Stickwick October 27, 2014 4:27 PM  

A couple of years ago, Bill Whittle posted an Afterburner piece on cultural Marxism, called The Narrative. If one is not inclined to read through an essay on the subject, Whittle's 12-minute video gives it in a nutshell.

Markku: As such, homosexuality is only of marginal importance in Christianity. But it was chosen as THE issue with which to make the Christian willingly spit in God's face, and celebrate abomination before Him. That's why we are talking about it so much, despite it being only a marginal issue.

Something similar can be said of creationism. Evolution, the age of the universe, etc. are really tertiary issues in Christianity, but starting with Huxley they were made spearhead issues; and the opponents of Christianity have wielded them rather effectively in dividing Christians against themselves and separating people -- especially young people -- from faith.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents October 27, 2014 4:28 PM  

Self described moderates need to figure out what side they are on. Otherwise, men like me will assume they are just another SJB ally, and act accordingly.

Markku
This attitude is exactly how we could still blow it all up. It is obviously impossible to become a reactionary without there having been a phase of changing one's views. If we had the opportunity to NOT come across as total assholes without compromising the truth, and still we chose to do so, then we can only blame ourselves for any moderates not won over.

This is not my first rodeo, Markku. I used to belong to a church that was just as you describe, it was accomdating to moderate people who just had a few differences of opinion. A few of those moderate people got selected to teach a class or two, and promptly set about teaching Social Justice. Any attempt to oppose them was met with calls for "unity". Because "unity" is more important than anything. Time went by, and women were now deacons. More time went by. My breaking point was when the Boomer preachers started talking about how women preachers are totally OK, and real men who love Jesus don't need any guns so just get rid of 'em, boys.

Later that church decided that practicing homosexuals were ok. Some others people I know left. Then they decided it was OK to have active homosexuals as ministers. More people left.

In the last year or so, that church has come out for gay marriage and active homosexuals in all roles in the church. Membership is imploding. Another win for the Social Justice Bullies, who started with a simple "Can't we be part? We're moderates, can't we all just get along?" and when some of them were shown to be slithering types it was apparently impossible to toss them out.

I've seen entryism as a tactic up close, Markku. I know how the game is played. Don't act like I'm ignorant, or stupid. I'm neither.

Now, I asked you before, and you have not answered: how do I tell a real, live moderate leftist from a slithering concern-troll SJB intent on using the tactic of entryism? Would you please be so kind as to actually answer this direct question, per the rules of the blog?

Anonymous Sigyn October 27, 2014 4:31 PM  

Your mom's so ugly, she thought Cthulhu was her twin sister. In fact, she's SO ugly, she scared HIM away!

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 4:34 PM  

Now, I asked you before, and you have not answered: how do I tell a real, live moderate leftist from a slithering concern-troll SJB intent on using the tactic of entryism? Would you please be so kind as to actually answer this direct question, per the rules of the blog?

As I already said very clearly, I don't know, nor do I need to. Because according to my principles, as opposed to your Church, I am making no compromise in either case.

And I don't think you are stupid, but rather, you have run too far in the opposite direction due to a bad experience in the other extreme.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents October 27, 2014 4:49 PM  

Markku
As I already said very clearly, I don't know, nor do I need to. Because according to my principles, as opposed to your Church,

Not my church. My former church. Shook the dust off of my feet. Note that.

I am making no compromise in either case.

I don't see how you will have any choice but to compromise, sooner or later. Suppose some moderate who is all about freedom stands up to the Quinn/Sarkeesians in public or at least on #twitterbrain, but also suggests that maybe a few changes in GTA or HALO wouldn't really hurt all that much. Whatcha gonna do, Markku? A teeny wieeny compromise, or turn away an ally…an ally who turnsd out to be a concern troll, but now it's too late to kick him out.

That's how it works. I've seen it with my own eyes. Those fights would be much easier to resolve if one kept slithery concern trolling Social Justice Bullies out of the group in the first place. That's why I keep asking you how to tell the difference, because once you let a SJB into the group the first thing they do is invite all their great, dedicated friends in and the second thing they do is start changing the philosophy and focus of the group - and anyone who tries to stop them at that point suddenly finds Alinsky's rules deployed from inside the group.

Entryism is a very effective tactic, surely we can agree on that? How do we combat it? Wouldn't it be a good idea to assess people before they come on board? Maybe insist on some kind of probationary period of time? Or is it just "Come on in, everyone welcome, don't care what you say or do"?

And I don't think you are stupid, but rather, you have run too far in the opposite direction due to a bad experience in the other extreme.

Ok, thanks for that. But I really don't think you know what you are setting up for; having to choose between a principle, or a popular moderate who just happens to have brought some more great guys into the fight, and who's asking for just one, little, insignificant, compromise.

First step on the slippery slope is the easiest. It's all downhill from there.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents October 27, 2014 4:50 PM  

Or to put it another way - inviting the "moderate" into fighting gamergate is stepping right into a multi-round game of "prisoner's dilemma". Got a plan, including an exit option? Better have one, if you don't you've lost before the first round.

Anonymous VD October 27, 2014 4:51 PM  

how do I tell a real, live moderate leftist from a slithering concern-troll SJB intent on using the tactic of entryism?

It's easy. The moderate leftist will simply go about his business. The entryist will immediately be very helpful, offering to take the load from weary shoulders, volunteer for committees, and generally show a real enthusiasm for getting involved. The entryist will be chock full of ideas for improvements.

In the case of a Church, the moderate leftist will show up for services. The entryist will volunteer to teach Sunday School and help out at social events.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 4:52 PM  

Suppose some moderate who is all about freedom stands up to the Quinn/Sarkeesians in public or at least on #twitterbrain, but also suggests that maybe a few changes in GTA or HALO wouldn't really hurt all that much. Whatcha gonna do, Markku?

I already told you. Don't you even read my messages? I said:

If they say "we would join you, if only you would do this, not to this, or not talk about this thing", then you say "no can do".

Of course you don't allow them in any position where they have any authority, until you are sure that they are on your side all the way. That wasn't what the discussion was about.

Anonymous VD October 27, 2014 4:53 PM  

Suppose some moderate who is all about freedom stands up to the Quinn/Sarkeesians in public or at least on #twitterbrain, but also suggests that maybe a few changes in GTA or HALO wouldn't really hurt all that much. Whatcha gonna do, Markku? A teeny wieeny compromise, or turn away an ally…an ally who turnsd out to be a concern troll, but now it's too late to kick him out.

You can't compare a centralized organization to an umbrella one like #GamerGate. There is no need to kick anyone out of #GamerGate. The only thing you have to do is ignore the moderates and not let them affect what you're doing. That's their whole objective, to convince you to let them become your voice.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 4:56 PM  

inviting the "moderate" into fighting gamergate

You probably mean fighting FOR gamergate. We are GamerGate, SJW's are Anti-GamerGate. Confusing, I know, but that's what it is.

You are not getting the dynamics. They are ALREADY fighting for GamerGate over there. The only issue is, do we treat them as people who have common ground with us until proven otherwise, or as enemies.

Anonymous Angry October 27, 2014 4:57 PM  

A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents,

The Muslims actually have a very good solution to the problem of entryism: the convert is sent on a suicide mission. If he goes, then he dies for Allah and ends up in Heaven. If he is merely a pretender, then he just...dies.

Very effective.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents October 27, 2014 5:05 PM  

Vox, this is a good observation...

In the case of a Church, the moderate leftist will show up for services. The entryist will volunteer to teach Sunday School and help out at social events.


…it is exactly on target. I've seen it, and had to get in a fight to get someone out of youth Sunday school a few years back for just that reason. Part of the fight was "we are always short handed, why do you want to turn her away if that's her calling?", along with "unity". We won because the woman in question was new enough to the job that she was botching in more ways than just one. The complaint of "not enough people" was real. Still is real.

Because at some point, people have to become fully part of the group, shouldering part of the load. How do we get from A to B? How do we get from "moderate on probation" to "moderate whio can be trusted"? Time isn't enough necessarily. Some people can lie for quite a while. Been there, seen that, too.

Markku

I already told you. Don't you even read my messages? I said:


Yes, but it seems you don't understand mine.

If they say "we would join you, if only you would do this, not to this, or not talk about this thing", then you say "no can do".

That's one way to screen out SJB's up front, just as I asked, but it is incomplete in the case of a slithery type who lies. Yes, Markku, SJB's lie to get into groups. So it's not a case of "we would join you if only you'd …", it's a case of "Oh, yes, I'm on your side" then some time later, when firmly embedded, "Oh, and by the way, we should stop talking about this one thing". Then the fight begins.

Of course you don't allow them in any position where they have any authority, until you are sure that they are on your side all the way.

Ok, one more time: how do I tell if a moderate is on my side all the way, or a slithery entryist looking for an opening to start changing the organization? Do you see why this matters, yet?

That wasn't what the discussion was about.

You're arguing that we should welcome moderates. I'm urging caution because of what's happened time after time: to the SFWA, to various gamer mags, to the entire university system, and so forth. You seem to be saying "Eh, it'll be different this time". Ok, how will it be different?

Anonymous Anonymous October 27, 2014 5:07 PM  

the Jews don't view the Talmud in the same way that Christians view the Bible, as several Jews (Samuel Scott, Shimson, and Rabbi B) have repeatedly explained.

I get that, but as a non-expert who won't be quoting anything from it, it still seems like cheating to be able to shrug off every reference to one of your central texts with, "Hey, it's not our gospel." Granted, as a Catholic I wouldn't want to be held responsible for the writings of, say, Richard Rohr (a liberal Catholic priest who has presided over a lesbian "wedding"). But I would expect to answer for the writings of, say, St. Thomas Aquinas -- a man who has been canonized and named a Doctor of my Church precisely because of the importance of his writings.

To my non-expert eyes, the Talmud looks about like the Summa (or perhaps a compilation of writings from all the Doctors): not the equivalent of Scripture, not infallible, but certainly a central text on which much later development of our faith was based. If somewhere in the Summa Aquinas had said, "Oh, and Moses was a dick," that would be a problem.

Blogger rcocean October 27, 2014 5:07 PM  

I've seen the term ridiculed via the "original intent" scam, as in "Karl Marx never wrote…" as well as the "drown with minutae" via "In the Manifesto, Marx clearly said…and if you have ever read Kapital you would know….".

Yes, another variation on the "No true Scotsman". Its also why we have "Stalinism" and "Bolshevism" because after all they are REAL Marxism. So don't blame Marx for the Gulags. REAL Marxism hasn't been tried yet.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents October 27, 2014 5:08 PM  

Markku

You are not getting the dynamics. They are ALREADY fighting for GamerGate over there.


Then let them stay over there. Why do we have to accept them over "here", whatever "here" looks like?

The only issue is, do we treat them as people who have common ground with us until proven otherwise, or as enemies.

If all you are saying is that we should have an arms-length agreement with moderates, that's fine, I have no disagreement. However it looks to me more like you want a deep, intertwined alliance and I have seen where that can go.

Blogger rcocean October 27, 2014 5:09 PM  

And of course plenty of Liberals support Cultural Marxism but aren't Marxists. You could label them Fellow travelers.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 5:12 PM  

Ok, one more time: how do I tell if a moderate is on my side all the way, or a slithery entryist looking for an opening to start changing the organization? Do you see why this matters, yet?

He is a moderate, so he is by definition not in your side all the way. Under no circumstances should you ever allow a moderate a position of authority.

If he complains from a position of non-authority, you say no. If he persists, you kick him out.

It will be different this time because:

a) It's me. I WILL kick people out.

b) Because, as Vox pointed out, it's not an organization. It's a ground-up, 4GW sort of a thing. The only authority anyone has in that kind of a thing is what he can convince others to do.

It will NOT be different this time because the prospective entryists are different. They are not.

Anonymous rho October 27, 2014 5:16 PM  

That's one way to screen out SJB's up front, just as I asked, but it is incomplete in the case of a slithery type who lies. Yes, Markku, SJB's lie to get into groups. So it's not a case of "we would join you if only you'd …", it's a case of "Oh, yes, I'm on your side" then some time later, when firmly embedded, "Oh, and by the way, we should stop talking about this one thing". Then the fight begins.

Fight today's battle today. Fight tomorrow's battle tomorrow.

It's not as complicated as you seem to think it is.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 5:17 PM  

If all you are saying is that we should have an arms-length agreement with moderates, that's fine

That is exactly what I have been saying. That whenever you have two options, where you come across as an asshole in the one, and not in the other, and neither approach compromises the truth in any way, then you choose the latter.

For example, you don't accuse them of being dishonest just for being moderates unless you actually KNOW they are being dishonest due to some more specific information.

This was my FIRST statement on the matter:

So, if we compromise our values to attract "moderates", then we have again been the Charlie to their Lucy.

But we don't need to do the whole Vade Retro Satanas -routine either, and come across as total assholes.

Blogger Danby October 27, 2014 5:20 PM  

@Markku.
So I'm a fundamentalist? Who knew?

Anonymous klunky October 27, 2014 5:21 PM  

"And even then, it's one rabbi. Hardly authoritative."

Missing the point. Don't need "authoritative". We are talking about a culture which actively tries to destroy OUR culture, on a constant, determined, nonstop, and long-term basis. Your "one rabbi" is evidence of cultural support for this project -- rabbis who teach this or that, or anybody else, of any ideological stripe, don't just spring up with their particular views out of just plain nothing. "Authority" isn't needed to prove the case, merely means, motive, and opportunity. All in plain sight.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 5:22 PM  

So I'm a fundamentalist? Who knew?

You are a fundamentalist in the historical definition. That is not the only definition, though. But it is the only unambiguous definition. The rest are basically value judgements.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 5:26 PM  

Missing the point. Don't need "authoritative". We are talking about a culture which actively tries to destroy OUR culture, on a constant, determined, nonstop, and long-term basis. Your "one rabbi" is evidence of cultural support for this project -- rabbis who teach this or that, or anybody else, of any ideological stripe, don't just spring up with their particular views out of just plain nothing. "Authority" isn't needed to prove the case, merely means, motive, and opportunity. All in plain sight.

Then your side shouldn't present it to me as "Talmud says this" when the truth turns out to be "one Rabbi in the relevant Talmud section says this, and others disagree". Otherwise I will bravely go into battle with a Jew, thinking you told me the truth, and come away embarrassed.

Guess who I'll then be more inclined to believe in the future?

Blogger Josh October 27, 2014 5:30 PM  

Missing the point. Don't need "authoritative". We are talking about a culture which actively tries to destroy OUR culture, on a constant, determined, nonstop, and long-term basis. Your "one rabbi" is evidence of cultural support for this project -- rabbis who teach this or that, or anybody else, of any ideological stripe, don't just spring up with their particular views out of just plain nothing. "Authority" isn't needed to prove the case, merely means, motive, and opportunity. All in plain sight.

Shut up retard.

We're taking specifically about a claim that the Talmud has greater authority than the Torah.

Anonymous klunky October 27, 2014 5:30 PM  

"Then your side shouldn't present it to me as "Talmud says this"

I don't have a "side". I'm just parsing the situation for you in a way that isn't biased or hysterical.

Anonymous klunky October 27, 2014 5:33 PM  

"We're taking specifically about a claim"

_You're_ talking about that, or maybe it's just what you think you're talking about.

I'll talk about whatever I damn please.

And "retard". Pffftt.

Blogger Josh October 27, 2014 5:33 PM  

I don't have a "side".

Really?

We are talking about a culture which actively tries to destroy OUR culture, on a constant, determined, nonstop, and long-term basis.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 5:34 PM  

As I already said: Sure, it does raise eyebrows that even ONE of the Rabbis would take the position that gentiles who read Torah need to die.

But, the general anti-Jewish crowd had the benefit of doubt with me so far. With Jews, my principle was "never, ever take a Jew at face value, always check yourself."

But now it started looking like I'll have to start doing that to the other side too.

Blogger Josh October 27, 2014 5:35 PM  

_You're_ talking about that, or maybe it's just what you think you're talking about.

Since I'm the first person in the thread to use "one rabbi", what was the context of that usage? Ah, yes, the authority of the Torah vs the Talmud.

Blogger Danby October 27, 2014 5:39 PM  

@Markku
Fair enough. I certainly know a great many Catholics who would call me a Fundamentalist as well. But they'd mean it as an insult.

And you (and whoever put together the list) are right that all 5 points are non-negotiable truths. Fundamentals, one might say.

Blogger Josh October 27, 2014 5:40 PM  

And you (and whoever put together the list) are right that all 5 points are non-negotiable truths. Fundamentals, one might say.

Did we ever figure out a satisfactory conclusion to the inerrancy discussion?

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 5:43 PM  

and whoever put together the list

It was a document called The Five Fundamentals, from the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 1910s. It was a statement about who is a true Christian and who isn't. Those who agreed with, got the name "Fundamentalists" soon afterwards.

Anonymous klunky October 27, 2014 5:44 PM  

"I don't have a "side".

Really?"

What I said was not an opinion, it was an objective observation. Not like an op-ed column, more like a coroner's conclusion.

"Since I'm the first person in the thread to use "one rabbi"

Not interested in your context (which, btw, is in fact uninteresting). I was discussing things that I wanted to discuss. Don't rilly care what you think about anything.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents October 27, 2014 5:45 PM  

Markku
So, if we compromise our values to attract "moderates", then we have again been the Charlie to their Lucy.

But we don't need to do the whole Vade Retro Satanas -routine either, and come across as total assholes.


I got that. It's the subsequent text where you seemed to be saying that Charlie Brown really needs to avoid alienating Lucy because she's his friend that bothered me. I've been Charlie more times than I want to think about. In different ways.

It's Vox's blog and you are an admin or whatever, you'll carry on as you see fit. Fine by me. There is a serious need for a reliable countertactic to entryism, on multiple levels. The West needs it. Anyone figures it out, go very public.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 5:47 PM  

We just need to be absolutely balls to the wall assholes to anyone on OUR side who is in progress of making the first compromise. Shun them if necessary.

Anonymous paradox October 27, 2014 5:48 PM  

Josh
out of context quotes from the Talmud?


So the things written in the Talmud about Christianity are not bad? Christians have denounced the anti-Semitic statements of Martin Luther. Jews should renounce the anti-Christian statements of their rabbis. If the Talmud doesn't have any authority, It should be very easy to edit and remove those statements.

Anonymous SirHamster October 27, 2014 5:48 PM  

You probably mean fighting FOR gamergate. We are GamerGate, SJW's are Anti-GamerGate. Confusing, I know, but that's what it is.


To add more confusion, I'd say GamerGate is the scandal (just like Watergate was a scandal), while #GamerGate is about holding people responsible for GamerGate.

So if we don't want any more journalistic corruption and SJW nonsense, we'd be against GamerGates, but pro exposing them with #GamerGate.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 5:49 PM  

Because THEY should know better. The moderate can honestly try to "improve" things, because it's all so new to him. He just needs a firm "no".

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 5:58 PM  

I'd say that if the group is in real danger of making the compromise just because someone, from complete non-authority, is asking for it, then that means that the group has ALREADY been corrupted, and the compromise merely reveals the cancer.

Then, it is time for separation. It cannot be salvaged as a whole anymore.

Blogger Rabbi B October 27, 2014 6:07 PM  

" . . .it still seems like cheating to be able to shrug off every reference to one of your central texts with, "Hey, it's not our gospel."

@cailcorishev

Fair enough. My point is just that it's important to understand what the Talmud and what it is not. The general assumption in much of the non-Jewish world seems to consider the Talmud as another Bible for the Jews, like the Book of Mormon is for the Latter Day Saints.

I am also certainly not arguing that the text of the Talmud does not contain a number of references disparaging Yeshua the Messiah, which is an accurate reflection of what some of our people believed in the late second temple period, as well as many of my contemporaries today. This is not news. But it is one, of several examples of a zeal that is without knowledge.

There was a period of time when Paul zealously persecuted Jews who were actively embracing Yeshua as the Messiah, breathing out murderous threats, imprisoning many, and ordering the death of some. He would even go so far as to describe himself in one of his epistles as a blasphemous and ignorant man.

It is conceivable then that Paul, a Pharisee excelling beyond all of his contemporaries and trained at the feet of R' Gamliel, could have been quoted and had his words of derision against the Messiah and followers of the way recorded in the Talmud if the L-rd had not revealed Himself to him on the road to Damascus.

The Bible also contains many references to how our people have responded to this itinerant rabbi (Who I believe happened to be the Messiah) from Galilee, both positive and negative.

My intention is not to publish an exhaustive apology for the Talmud, but to at least provide a basic understanding of it's nature and purpose, and defend it from being (mis)used to prove points it was never meant to prove.

We all take issue when our words are taken out of context and used to make points or arguments that have no basis in the truth. IIRC, VD recently posted an "interpretation" (in this case read perversion) of Galatians that attempted to do the same thing and by people who had no real interest in the truth let alone what the text was actually saying. I am certainly not placing @Veritas in that class, and I have no reason to doubt his allegiance to the Messiah; but I did take issue with his methodology and in hopes of offering him another perspective that was more measured and one which he may not have considered before, sought to engage him accordingly.

I can only speak for myself, but I am not one to shrug anything off even if its uncomfortable, but I do strive to engage the issues as best I can.




Anonymous klunky October 27, 2014 6:09 PM  

@josh:

If tomorrow I started preaching the word of the Church of Cthulhu, and nobody got behind me, I'd be out of business in a week, and good riddance.

But if I was preaching something that made its way all the way into a canonical holy book, it would be an indication that other people were in fact behind me. So I don't care whether the Talmud takes precedence in "authority" over Torah, I care that what's in the Talmud _matters_, and that there are powerful and influential people in my society who think it matters. And that what these people think and do has an observably detrimental effect on my society, in ways that are not so hard to indicate.

Anonymous RamBam Thank You Ma'am October 27, 2014 6:15 PM  

"We're taking specifically about a claim that the Talmud has greater authority than the Torah."

To which Torah do you refer here, the Torah SheBiehtav or Torah SheBeal Peh?

Look folks, if you try to discuss the evil passages of the Talmud in a Christian context, you will encounter a common refrain from the Rabbi and their Shabbos goy - that the Talmud is not the equivalent to the Bible and you cannot take quotes out of context...and that most of the vile passages regarding Jesus, Mary and Christians are simply just a record of debates amongst the Rabbis throughout the ages.

This is a complete misdirection, as no Rabbi can deny (well he can if he took his yearly Kol Nidrei vow in the Synagogue) that a set of commonly accepted laws governing Jewish life (halacha) are derived from the Talmud. If it were 'just a record of debates' amongst the Rabbi, then nothing concrete can be derived from the study of Talmud. The regimented behavior of the Orthodox and adherence to many traditional practices proscribed in the Talmud (Torah SheBeal Peh) belies this as nothing but dissembling and misdirection.

Oh, and to keep this post on topic (I am not simply "jew-bashing" here), let us cover the Judaic roots of Marxism. Moses Mordecai Marx Levy aka Karl Marx, was the protege of Rabbi Moses Hess. Hess who taught his protege the principles of the management of revolution and counter-revolution as a behavioral science predicated on the Kabbalah, refined in the nineteenth century by Hegel, (the Hegelian Dialect - thesis + anti-thesis = synthesis).

Study the teachings and writings of Rabbi Moses Hess and you will find the Talmudic connection to Marxism.

Anonymous zippo October 27, 2014 6:19 PM  

"RamBam Thank You Ma'am" wins the internet for witty moniker.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents October 27, 2014 6:19 PM  

I'd say that if the group is in real danger of making the compromise just because someone, from complete non-authority, is asking for it, then that means that the group has ALREADY been corrupted, and the compromise merely reveals the cancer.

That's a valid point, but a lot of people won't see it that way. Probably can't see it. Multiple church denominations in the US over the last 50 to 80 years demonstrate this over and over again, and yet the same "Can't We All Just Get Along" and "unity!" errors keep showing up.

Then, it is time for separation. It cannot be salvaged as a whole anymore.

Depends on where one stands. Some people choose where their last stand will be, and that's that. But note that in the process, the enemy gains more ground.

Multi layer defense is needed. Screening up front, some kind of probation in time or action or learning, some kind of public statement, and a brick wall that can't be crossed without being thrown out. The people in charge of throwing out need to be very strong, and very red pill, and impervious to shaming tactics. Because entryism works, but only apparently in the direction of entropy.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 6:24 PM  

I'd set it up like this.

-If they take a genuine interest in your views, you allow them to tag along with you, and you extend them every courtesy.
-If and only if they sign up for your common creed 100%, you allow them to be members.
-If and only if they show themselves to be exceptionally wise and uncompromising people, you allow them a position of authority.

Blogger Markku October 27, 2014 6:25 PM  

And no democracy in Church.

No. Democracy. In. Church.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents October 27, 2014 7:15 PM  

No. Democracy. In. Church

Yes. And why? US demonstrates.

Most of the Puritan churches in New England at some point in the 18th century became governed on the Congregational model. Essentially democracy in church on money issues, or hiring a pastor. During the 19th century most of those slowly became Universalist, or Unitarian, or both. A lot of those churches probably don't even exist anymore.

Perfect example of what you say.

Anonymous Anonymous October 27, 2014 7:26 PM  

Fair enough. My point is just that it's important to understand what the Talmud and what it is not. The general assumption in much of the non-Jewish world seems to consider the Talmud as another Bible for the Jews, like the Book of Mormon is for the Latter Day Saints.

Fair enough. I don't think anyone here has that misconception, but maybe less informed people do.

I am also certainly not arguing that the text of the Talmud does not contain a number of references disparaging Yeshua the Messiah, which is an accurate reflection of what some of our people believed in the late second temple period, as well as many of my contemporaries today. This is not news.

I think it would be news to many. It was news to me the first time I heard about it, at maybe age 35. I hadn't heard about it from the mainstream media or entertainment sources, or from any of my Catholic teachers or pastors. It's certainly not common knowledge among Catholics, and I suspect not among most Christians who stick to mainstream sources of information.

If Christians had a set of books that was considered one of our primary texts -- beneath Scripture, but important enough that you couldn't be a serious student or teacher of Christianity without it -- and many of our modern rules and practices were based on it, and it said things about, say, Mohammed that the Talmud says about Jesus....well, I'm pretty sure that would be much more widely known. In fact, it'd probably be hard for a Christian to speak out about anything without being challenged with, "Yeah, but what about this? Where do you get off preaching when there's this?"

Anonymous Veritas October 27, 2014 7:36 PM  

@Markku

And no democracy in Church.

No. Democracy. In. Church.

Amen to that.

1 – 200 of 249 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts