Tag Archives: cultural Marxism

Who Are the Progressives?

Posted on by

Who Are the Progressives?

by Jean Drapeau, Liberty Institute of Canada

Dumbfuckistan
Progressive worldview in the US

The Progressive Movement

The progressives are people of different political stripes (but mainly neo-liberals and Marxists) who share a common goal: To replace Christian society and the free market with a Marxist, 60-gender plus amoral society ruled by politically correct bureaucrats.

The progressive movement, also called “cultural Marxism,” grew out of the efforts of a few Marxist academics at Germany’s Frankfurt School in the 1920s. The men later fled Germany during WWII and set up shop at Columbia University in the U.S. They abhorred the social restrictions imposed upon them by Christian morality, and they also equally hated capitalism and the free market because Karl Marx said that those were bad. The Frankfurt academics believed that traditional society needed to be “burned to the ground” so that the phoenix of a perfect Utopia would rise from the ashes.

The movement became known as “progressivism.” It has been widely promulgated by university professors since the 1930s. In 1942, the federal Conservative Party changed its named to “Progressive Conservative Party” to reflect the fact that it had adopted progressive ideals. Later the conservatives dropped the word “progressive” to emphasize their adherence to budget cuts and lower taxes, but hardly to question the progressive social agenda of the other parties. Today, progressivism is promoted not only by academics, but by left-leaning think tanks and mainstream politicians from all parties.

How Have They Attempted to Achieve Their Goals?

The methods that progressives have used to accomplish their goals of societal transformation have evolved over time. Today they include:

  • Political correctness: With political correctness, it becomes taboo to speak against society’s traditional taboos. Ironic isn’t it? The goal is to remove speech as a tool that can be used to defend culture and values. When a man does speak-up, then the state’s Anti-Human Rights Commissions come calling with the intent to shut the man up, to fine him, or to put him in prison.
  • Attack on Christianity: The progressives are relentless with their attacks against Christianity because of its myriad prohibitions against moral and sexual degeneracy. For example, they call traditional Christian culture a “rape culture” purely as a means of discrediting and demeaning Christianity.
  • Attack on the family: Progressives are known to call parents “dangerous.” They routinely attack motherhood and fatherhood. The reason is that they know that parents are the first line of defence in protecting children. They need to discredit parents so that they can take their place for the purposes of education and indoctrination.
  • Discrimination against Anglo-Saxons: One way to burn society to the ground is to make the majority of its citizens no longer believe in their own worth. Hence, the progressives use the false meme of “privilege” and the old history of slavery to devalue and degrade us.
  • Promoting mass immigration: Progressives are well aware that mass immigration can be used to wipe out traditional Anglo-Saxon Christian society. This is why hundreds of thousands of foreigners are being allowed to flood across Canada’s borders each year. They call it “multiculturalism.”
  • Attack on capitalism and the free market: At their core, the progressives are Marxists and believe that an economy run by a few academic elites from the top-down is the best way to manage resources. They don’t believe in property rights because such rights stand in the way of the central distribution of resources (i.e., your wealth). They adamantly believe in “each according to his need and each according to his ability,” even though such philosophy has resulted in economic and societal collapse wherever it has been tried.

How Do We Fight It?

Progressives shroud their evil deeds with Orwellian Doublespeak. Racist terms like “privilege,” “diversity” and “inclusiveness” simply mask the progressive’s real intent to destroy our traditional culture, values and prosperity. The best way to fight them is to expose what they are really saying. When they announce a “diversity” program, call them racist. When they sexualize young children with their debauched sex-ed programs, call them sick degenerates. When they shout “privilege,” call them xenophobes.

Do what this German politician from the anti-establishment party AfD did when the bureaucrats wanted to pass a law recognizing 60 different genders: He ridiculed them and rejected them:

Progressives are dangerous. Their ideology threatens the very survival of humanity. We, therefore, cannot shrink from their threat. Instead, we must attack them with all of our might. Truth and morality are behind us. We must win!

Uniformity in the Guise of Diversity: The Sham Debates on CBC Discussion Panels

Posted on by

Thursday, 28 July 2016

Uniformity in the Guise of Diversity: The Sham Debates on CBC Discussion Panels

by Tim Murray

CBC = Canadian Blue-Piller Corporation
CBC = Canadian Blue-Piller Corporation

“Gaps Press”: The Omission of Inconvenient Facts

Leftist John Grierson, the first Commissioner of the National Film Board of Canada — later dismissed for his communist sympathies — once said something to the effect that successful manipulation of public opinion largely consists not in slanting the news, but choosing it. The real power of a news outlet lies in its ability to determine what is and what is not newsworthy. Thus, the public is not so much victimized by the “lying press” as by what patriotic Germans have recently dubbed the “Lückenpresse” — the “gaps” press. Leaving out crucially relevant information is as effective as misrepresenting it. The silent lie is as potent — and morally reprehensible — as the uttered lie.

Of course, this technique is not confined to the print media, but to television and radio as well. None employ it better than CBC Pravda, Canada’s state broadcaster, which may be described as the conversion of conscripted taxpayer money into thinly veiled ideologically partisan bullshit. Its apparent mandate is to manufacture consent by using journalism as a mechanism of social engineering. For the “Friends of the CBC,” the CBC is the appointed gatekeeper of information that can be trusted not to let inconvenient truths to slip by and red-pill the public. The objective is not to just keep disturbing ideas out, but to keep the masses in. Inside the CBC matrix. Canadians must not be let out of their sheep pen, or radical campus feminists would put it, their ‘safe zone’.

As I have long said, the CBC is an infallible guide as to what is not happening in the world. Perhaps then CBC “Pravda” is not an appropriate appellation, for “Pravda” is the Russian word for “truth.” A more apt description of the CBC and its mission would be “The Omission of Truth.”

There are several ways that Mother Corp pulls this off. One, the standard way, is to simply neglect to mention inconvenient facts and events — or acknowledge them only after competing media have forced their hand. If, for example, a TV viewer wanted to know anything about the Rotherham scandal, or the sexual harassment and assault of women in Cologne by swarms of largely male Muslim migrants, he wouldn’t turn to CBC National News. Not unless he wanted to wait until the story was cold.

Therein lies the irony. The broadcaster that is blatantly aligned to political forces whose clarion call is “inclusion” is noteworthy for its exclusion. When the CBC says that it has an “exclusive,” one’s instinctive reaction might be, “This is news?” The CBC is consistently exclusive of ‘hate’ facts, that is, facts that the political class and its flock hate to hear.

Discussion Panels: Narcissism of Small Differences

The other classic CBC technique of news omission is the presentation of a discussion panel which implies that a full range of perspectives will be brought to bear on the topic in question. Typically, there is a panellist who is thought to be on the Left, and one thought to be on the Right — as the CBC defines it — and another with his or her feet planted on both sides of the issue. In truth however, all three are more or less on the same page. All are mired in the muck of the centre-left moral consensus. If you lie outside that consensus, you are not of the Right, but the “far Right,” a moral leper beyond the pale of acceptable discourse.

The funny thing is that this “far Right” upon closer scrutiny looks a lot like the Old Left looked like. A cause that favours job protection for indigenous workers, opposes unfettered free trade, globalism, and austerity and upholds the welfare state by defending it from the crippling claims made upon it by cheap imported labour and an endless stream of refugees. Oh, and like the Old Left, the new Right, the “alt-Right, or the “far” Right as they are variously called are dedicated to the preservation of freedom of expression. How quaint.

CBC panel discussions go essentially like this, “Hands up. Which panellist here believes that the official policy of Multiculturalism has been a disaster for this country? No hands? Then are there any panellists here who believe that the federal government should substantially reduce immigration intakes? No one? Then I thereby declare mass immigration and multiculturalism is the winner by acclamation and good for the country.”

The tag team of Mesley and Mansbridge cannot be likened to referees trying to break up two adversaries locked in mortal verbal combat, but to moderators of a pantomime, a mock duel between puppets who argue over various nuances of a common world view. The debates may be spirited, but they are not markedly polarized. In fact, when voices become strident, it is usually a reflection of trivial differences. It’s what Freud called the narcissism of small differences. People who resent each others’ similarity go to great pains to seize on trivial points of departure and inflate them so as to stake out what they believe is their distinctive identity.

That is what characterizes campaign rhetoric in Canada. Political parties do their best to magnify their differences in order to foster the illusion that they offer starkly different pathways, an illusion dispelled when the opposition forms the government. They campaign on the Left and govern from the Right — or vice versa. Eventually some voters get wise. They come to understand that there is no Left or Right, but merely the “ins” and the “outs.” Most however, never learn. They can be persuaded to run lemming-like over the cliff on cue in pursuit of the ‘leftwing’ or ‘rightwing’ boogeyman of the day. Meanwhile, the CBC wants to sell tickets to a fight, a real “horse race” with everything allegedly on the line. Everything, that is, except the policies that matter. The bipartisan policies that guide the nation, the policies of mindless immigration-driven population growth and continued cultural fragmentation, dressed up in the trendy jargon of economic development, sustainability and diversity.

The Objective: Simulate Debate to Uphold the Status Quo

CBC health warning logo
CBC health warning logo. The broadcasting station is liable for a heavy overdose of establishment propaganda.

But that is all as it should be for a state broadcaster whose mission is to manage dissent by limiting it to its handpicked ‘dissenters’. As the maestro of media propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, observed,

A media system wants ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity.

Noam Chomsky said much the same thing in his book, The Common Good:

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. This gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of debate.

Exactly.


Related posts:

The Name Game: The Erasure of European Canada’s History

Posted on by

The Name Game: The Erasure of European Canada’s History

by Tim Murray

BC Ferries
BC Ferries, here Queen of New Westminster

Shortly on the heels of news that a petition was circulating calling for the replacement of the name of coastal B.C.’s highest peak, Mt. Waddington, with the name of a former Chief of the Chilcotin band, the B.C. Ferry Corporation announced in July 2015 that three new vessels were going to benamed in honour of Coast Salish history. They were “Salish Orca”, “Salish Raven” and “Salish Eagle”.

The announcement came after the Corporation received 7,000 suggestions from citizens who were asked to participate. Of course, the Corporation was careful to emphasize that the selection was made in consultation with native representatives.

Earlier, the Victoria Times Colonist ran its own contest, in this case receiving 550 suggestions. As two of their journalists reported, “Aboriginal names were prominent…and the word ‘Salish’ appeared 72 times…The winner of our contest was based on the popularity of names and themes submitted by readers. Queen of the Salish Sea, as suggested by Victoria’s Laura Weston, combined the desire of entrants to retain the old class names with a swell of support for all things Salish.”

Of course, one Indian, that is, “Indo-Canadian”, Suki Grewa, wanted to get in on the action too. His suggestion? “Spirit of Multiculturalism”. I have a more apt name. “Spirit of Eurocanadian Displacement”. A submission by one Sharon Sinclair captured the spirit of Cultural Marxist collaboration, enablement and white self-abnegation with her suggestion of “Shores of Diversity.” How about “Shores of Ethnic Quislings”?

They were several suggestions that the ships be named after people like Rick Hansen, Terry Fox, Hanna Day and newborn Princess Charlotte, but apparently they lacked the ethnic credentials to be considered serious candidates in this year of Truth and Reconciliation. One man even suggested that the three vessels be named after pivotal battles like Vimy Ridge, Dieppe and Normandy. But it turns out these trivial events did little to shape Canadian identity and history in comparison to the contributions of hunter-gatherers.

I think it is only appropriate that “First Nations” nomenclature should be substituted for any locality, vessel or institution named after a wicked White ‘settler’, even if he happened to have been born in Canada. After all, what did Canadians of European origin ever do for this country, except build it?

Yes indeed, the name changers are on a roll.

They took down South Carolina’s Confederate battle flag, they’re intent on taking down Mr. Waddington’s reputation and they have a whole host of statues to take down too. There’s been talk that even Thomas Jefferson isn’t safe anymore, and in Canada, I hear that Wilfred Laurier is on the hit list now. Round and round she goes, where she’ll stop, nobody knows. No doubt if the Statute of Limitations was the “Statue” of Limitations, it would topple too, because the Grievance Lobby wants to keep going further and further into the past so it can “out” more and more Dead White Racists. Perhaps a merger is in the offing. “Racists Getting Fired” will become “White Racists Getting Fired or Retroactively Discredited Dead or Alive.”

Who knows, maybe centuries hence, when there is not even a trace of European-Canada to be found, paleontologists will posit the existence of a “missing link” between the pre-Columbian peoples and conquering Asian supermen. Dubbed “Homo Eurocanadas”, it will be widely thought of as a figment of the imagination of Crypto-zoologists who insist that a few remnants of this species are hiding in the wilderness. All they have as evidence, skeptics will claim, is the skeletal remains of a hominid without a backbone.

The Missing Link, Homo Eurocanadas
The Missing Link — Homo Eurocanadas: Fact or