the problem with america today - Page 11

If you do not know what western cultural values are, say compared to middle eastern culture, then you are probably not of the western society. So no issue for you as to what is happening to western civilization.

@Noitsyou.   "No one has told me what these Western values are. I think I have an idea of what people mean but I don't think they really know what they are talking about. What I mean is that these values, as expressed today, are not traditional but evolved over time."

I believe I attempted to, but you rejected that attempt? 

@Noitsyou. You asked, "Although I am curious as to what these traditional Western values are." For the purposes of understanding and using a common definition for this discussion, I submit the following as an answer to your question. (From the same article and link already provided.)

Critical Theory was essentially destructive criticism of the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism.

Even if, as a melting pot society, we have traditions that evolve all the time, I don't see that as a problem. It is the method of delivering the societal change that creates the new bias, that GWB was talking about, that the liberal readers here, don't want to grasp. It shuts down free speech and thought. It silences the discourse. It doesn't truly instruct or lead to a cohesive, melding society, it divides the society further with a false sense of agreement because it doesn't care about the people who aren't agreeing with their morality, the one's that eschew the Christian traditions. It is as if the separation of Church and State is remade to be the disregarding of Church and the elevation of State.

I think you aren't understanding where the traditional Marxism was abandoned and then studied to craft a neo-Marxism using culture as a means to change. The whole point is how to effect permanent societal change, and traditional Marxism being economically driven was acknowledged as failed. The Frankfurt school original thinkers went beyond that idea. And it is what is driving the current atmosphere between the differences of the leftist and right/ liberal and conservative thinkers. 

I think it is remarkable that you claim the Liberal views as the defenders of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, when I know of people who are decidedly Christian conservative thinkers who would make that same claim. How can you both be correct?

There is an established basic definition of Political Correctness which goes along these lines: "Avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude, or marginalize, or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."
All subsequent constructions on PC (being, strictly, unnecessary) lean towards elaborating this basic principle into the "PC gone mad" point of view, that labels it as an effort to change society, not just by means of a wide-ranging but often small scale cultural reform, but as part of the "Great Communist Plot" of which the Right are so scared, they have to insult each and every manifestation of improvement to the way human society operates. Contrary to apparent popular belief, this principle was never aimed purely at the Americans; and neither Americans nor any other nationality ought to be fearful of it (despite the assertion in the 2nd of Bee's 3 'cut & paste' posts ^^^). There are many more things in this world to be genuinely afraid of.

I have no doubt that Gramsci will be spinning in his grave if he gets to hear he was "largely responsible" for this, later defined, idea of "Cultural Marxism", rather than the humanistic version he thought he was writing about.

Marginalizing the issue suits the PC agenda, and no one here is making the claim that this an American movement, except HM. It obviously has only been understood the soonest by certain American's who are feeling the brunt of the change.

Just trying to instruct the biggest deliverers of the PC message has already caused quite the defensive backing up against the wall.

HM, what part of this post and accompanying link article do you not understand?

http://http://globalcomment.net/articles/view.php?id=165

European leaders condemn multiculturalism for its "utter failure"

In February2011, *****British Prime Minister David Cameron launched a scathing attack  on 30 years of multiculturalism in Britain warning that it fostered extremism*****.

####Mr Cameron said that public money should not be handed to ethnic groups who did not share British values.####

*** He called for an end to the 'passive tolerance' of divided communities and said members of all faiths must integrate into wider society and accept core values ***.

His damning verdict came just months after (((((((German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that multiculturalism in Germany had failed.)))))

(((((((Mrs Merkel said the so-called "multikulti" concept - where people would "live side-by-side" happily - did not work, and immigrants needed to do more to integrate - including learning German. In her speech in Potsdam Mrs Merkel said that the approach to build a multicultural society “has failed, utterly failed.” )))))))

– BBC 17 October 2010 The comments come amid rising anti-immigration     feeling in Germany. The debate first heated up in August of that year  when Thilo Sarrazin, a senior official at Germany's central bank, said that "no immigrant group other than Muslims is so strongly connected with claims on the welfare state and crime". French president Nicolas Sarkozy  joined the European leaders in condemning multiculturalism as a failure He told the French people: 'We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.' The president made the declaration in a TV debate  after being asked if the policy of encouraging the religious and cultural differences of immigrants was not working. He told viewers: “My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure.” 'If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France. France has some 751 no-go zones. The French government labels them sensitive urban zones. But what they are are dangerous to whites and non-Muslims who enter. Some of the no-go zones function like micro-states, and are governed by sharia law. A leading French intellectual says it means where the police don't go, the firemen don't go and even the doctors and ambulances don't go, except if they have no other choice. He says that these parts of France are in the hands of drug traffickers, gangs and Imams. Muslims block the streets illegally for Friday prayers. French journalist and author, Alexandre Del Valle declares that the situation will lead to civil war Meanwhile the ruling class in Australia happily turn a blind eye to the dangers of multiculturalism. Maybe the ethnic and Muslim vote is so high in Australia that criticism of multiculturalism is past the point of no return. The greatest evil of multiculturalism has been the opening of the floodgates of Muslim immigration into Western countries, thus giving Islam a foothold in these countries, enabling its goal of implementing Sharia law via its “stealth jihad”.

Failing to agree is not the same as failing to understand.

Bee, the American part reflects back something in what you posted; you do READ stuff before you cut & paste it ?

You don't agree that Cameron and Merkel admittedly recognized the utter failure of their social experiment, yet continue the destruction of their respective countries, still?

What do you believe the motivation for the current population redistribution and resulting social demise might be for EU and america?

Man get over the phobias you have because America is made up of immigrants whether they be 5 or 150 years ago. Look at the immigrant communities that have enriched America for generations. I am not calling names here but you are pretty xenophobic. To take it one step further I sure don't hear you using examples of the social experiment of the genocide committed on native Americans and in fact you are now trying to say the exact opposite. I love hypocrisy. The more I think of this and your position - the more I believe we have a problem in America and it isn't the immigrants that generally are the problem but instead the selfish people who stole this country from the native Americans. They had no problem immigrating here and pretty much wiping out that culture, now did they?

I have no problem cutting and pasting pertinent paragraphs from linked articles. Many people don't bother reading links. Be assured, I am quite aware of your snubbery attempts at me. I can't say as I always do bother to read all your propaganda and self important deducements, but I understand perfectly how the American part relates to the history of the Frankfurt school, critical theory, cultural Marxism and political correctness.

You want to make a case that you are some kind of intelligentsia, Marxist expert. Big whoop dee do, for you. I am not afraid of you! LOL