You are a special kind of stupid. There is no conspiracy. It is what it is. "Social justice" is repackaged Marxism. They just changed the marketing terms to trick low IQ morons like you. If you deny the following, you are choosing to deny reality. The term "social justice" evokes positive ideas of fairness, equality, and addressing systemic inequalities, its underlying framework and practical application often align with core Marxist principles. Proponents of this view suggest that what appears to be a movement for inclusivity and equal opportunity is, in reality, a strategy to dismantle existing power structures and redistribute resources based on group identity rather than individual merit. Emphasis on Group Identity: Instead of focusing on individual rights, social justice prioritizes the experiences and needs of specific identity groups (e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation). This is directly parallel to Marxism's focus on class struggle, where the oppressed proletariat seeks to overthrow the bourgeoisie. "Systemic" Issues: Social justice advocates attribute inequalities to systemic oppression, inherent biases, and historical injustices embedded in institutions. This is exactly Marx's critique of capitalism as inherently exploitative and oppressive. "Oppressor/Oppressed" Narrative: The social justice framework frames social relations as a power struggle between "oppressors" and "oppressed." This is argued to be a repackaged version of the Marxist concept of class conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Deconstruction of Norms and Institutions: Social justice movements aim to deconstruct traditional norms, values, and institutions, arguing they are inherently biased and perpetuate inequality. This echoes Marxism's desire to overthrow existing societal structures. Economic Redistribution: Many social justice initiatives, particularly those related to economic equality, advocate for policies like wealth redistribution, progressive taxation, and reparations. These measures are align exactly with Marxist ideology. Rejection of Individualism: A strong emphasis on collective action and group rights over individual rights is viewed as a move away from liberal ideals and a closer alignment with Marxist collectivist ideology. Language and Rhetoric: The use of terms like "equity," "privilege," and "systemic oppression" is coded language for Marxist concepts, even if not explicitly acknowledged as such.
After all these years this is pretty much how the newest trash-rag-linking-to, Marxist-claiming-Maganut seems to us. You guys just react to whatever is queued. Never learn, never advance understanding... Christmas theme.
You’re apparently under the delusion that this incoherent rant constitutes a valid argument. Your posts are a masterclass in how to embarrass yourself in public. It’s a cacophony of empty rhetoric, baseless accusations, and intellectual laziness so profound it could be studied in a museum of stupidity. Your brain clearly skipped the “critical thinking” module.
No, I've been drinking some very nice rum. Look, every authoratarian in history finds some groups to make idiots hate and fear and then they have their souls trapped in a crazy state. Try and understand, we have the deja-moo every time another of Bannon's weaponized-autistics or maga moron turns up. Now, back to important stuff like making a fruit cocktail before I neck the whole bottle.
So, what's it all about really? I'll have a go. The techniques of religious and political authoritarians overlap significantly. They both rely on similar mechanisms of control and persuasion to maintain power. 1. Control Through Fear Religious: Threats of divine punishment (e.g., hell, sin, curses) are used to instill fear and obedience. Political: Threats of external enemies, economic collapse, or internal dissent serve a similar purpose. 2. Charismatic Leadership Both often rely on a central figure presented as divinely chosen, uniquely wise, or indispensable to the system. 3. Us vs. Them Narrative Religious: Non-believers or heretics are demonized to unify the faithful. Political: Political opponents, minorities, or ideological groups are painted as existential threats to the nation. 4. Rituals and Symbols Religious: Ceremonies, prayers, and sacred symbols reinforce group identity and obedience. Political: Parades, flags, hats and anthems serve the same purpose. 5. Suppression of Dissent Both use censorship, excommunication, imprisonment, or worse to silence opposition. 6. Claiming Absolute Truth Religious: Doctrines are often presented as infallible and beyond question. Political: Propaganda portrays the leader's decisions as the only viable path forward. 7. Control of Education Religious: Doctrine is embedded in schooling to indoctrinate the young. Political: State-controlled education pushes ideologies favorable to the regime. 8. Economic Dependency Religious: Often encourages tithing or donations as a moral obligation. Political: Uses economic dependency (e.g., welfare systems, patronage networks) to enforce loyalty. 9. Appeal to Tradition Both often claim to restore or uphold "traditional values" to justify their authority.
Authoritarian techniques, whether religious or political are particularly effective on people who externalize fault for problems in their lives. This psychological tendency creates a fertile ground for manipulation. 1. Blame Shifting Reduces Responsibility Individuals who externalize problems are often looking for an external force to blame for their struggles. Authoritarians capitalize on this by providing clear scapegoats (e.g., "the unbelievers," "the opposition," "foreigners") while positioning themselves as the solution. 2. Simplistic Answers to Complex Problems These individuals are drawn to black-and-white explanations for nuanced issues. Authoritarians thrive on offering such oversimplified narratives, which absolve individuals of personal responsibility while focusing their anger elsewhere. 3. Reinforcement of Power Structures By redirecting fault outward, people align themselves with the authority figure or institution as a protector or savior. This makes them less likely to challenge those in power. 4. Emotional Catharsis Through Blame Externalizing fault can be emotionally satisfying, as it shifts guilt, shame, or frustration onto others. Authoritarians encourage this, fostering a sense of unity through shared grievances. 5. Decreased Critical Thinking People who blame others for their problems are less likely to introspect or question the systems they support. This lack of critical thinking makes it easier for authoritarians to propagate their narratives unchallenged. "No you lack critical thinking, No YOU lack critical thinking.. bla bla". 6. Desire for Order and Security Those who externalize fault often feel disempowered and crave stability. Authoritarians promise to restore order (to the chaos they made) by controlling the supposed source of their troubles, making their authority seem not only acceptable but desirable. 7. Victim Mentality as a Tool A cultivated sense of victimhood can be weaponized. Authoritarians frame their followers as under siege, galvanizing them to action or submission while painting opposition as oppressors or aggressors. Individuals who internalize responsibility or analyze issues systemically are harder to manipulate. They scrutinize authority, question oversimplified narratives, and resist scapegoating. Authoritarian systems often marginalize or silence such people, as their critical thinking poses a threat to the established order.
Both The Gateway Pundit and ZeroHedge often cater to audiences looking for contrarian or alternative perspectives, but they do so in ways that prioritize sensationalism or ideological bias over rigorous analysis. 1. Contrarianism as Intellectualism These outlets position themselves as "outside the mainstream," appealing to people who want to feel smarter than the average consumer of traditional media. However, this often translates into an echo chamber of contrarian takes rather than genuinely insightful or substantiated analysis. 2. Simplistic Narratives for Complex Issues They often reduce complex issues (economics, politics, global events) into overly simplistic, emotionally charged narratives. This appeals to readers seeking confirmation of their preexisting biases rather than those willing to grapple with nuanced realities. 3. Lack of Substance Articles frequently rely on cherry-picked data, dubious sources, or unverified claims. For people who want to appear knowledgeable, these "facts" provide a veneer of expertise without requiring deeper understanding or critical thinking. 4. Emotional Manipulation Headlines and content are designed to provoke outrage, fear, or smug satisfaction—emotions that reinforce engagement without fostering critical inquiry. 5. Reinforcement of Identity These outlets resonate with readers who see themselves as part of an embattled group, whether that's anti-establishment conservatives (Gateway Pundit) or economic doomers and libertarians (ZeroHedge). The content affirms their worldview, providing a sense of intellectual superiority within their chosen tribe. 6. Resisting Accountability By framing dissenting voices or fact-checking as part of a "mainstream conspiracy," they shield their audience from self-reflection or reconsideration of beliefs. Narrow Appeal Their approach lacks appeal for those who value nuanced, evidence-based analysis or are open to changing their opinions based on new information. The reliance on sensationalism and ideological purity limits their credibility and audience to those already inclined toward their narratives. In essence, these outlets cater to an audience that wants to feel informed and "in the know" without necessarily putting in the effort to critically evaluate information. For others, the lack of depth or credibility renders them unconvincing or even off-putting.