Originally posted by: Butterbean
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Originally posted by: NeoV
any resemblance to the actual world in this thread, or any by this op, is purely coincidental
Did your Rx run out BB?
Btw, it's "you're" smarter than that, not "your"
Well like Yuri Said - you can give demoralized people all the facts and they are still unable to take them seriously
"The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already for the last 25 years. Actually, it's over fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans thanks to lack of moral standards.
As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who is demoralized is unable to access true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I showered him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures ? even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him a concentration camp ? he will refuse to believe it until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom. When a military boot crashes his butt, then he will understand, but not before that. That?s the tragedy of the situation of demoralization."
If you could only apply this to both sides of the politcal spectrum, we might have some common ground. Are you trying to say that you escape this "demoralized" category?
For instance, the conservatives would like to kill social programs with their ideology. They would like to demoralize those who rely on the programs so that they will either do what they are told to do or else eventually just die.
When Uri speaks of "demoralization" he doesn't mean deflated or depressed - he means the abandonment or removal of morals. The Marxists realized a long time ago that a noble nation like the US couldn't be conquered head on. Instead, the sought to degrade and corrupt the institutions and character of the people.
The military, the family, patriotism etc. - all these had to be ridiculed and debased. At the same time lower things were glorified and encouraged (easy sex, drugs etc.). The abandonment of conscience, restraint, innocence, moderation etc. was seen as psychological, political and cultural liberation.
A curious thing about this process of corruption is that egotistically once people fall to something they tend not to see it as a fall but rationalize it as something good (freedom, choice etc). They then will often proselytize whatever it is they fell to. People can lose their
humanity and fall into their animal nature with its various lusts and weaknesses etc. Once people do fall to that nature they become very hostile to any contrast or any suggestion anything is wrong with them.
The hostility the homosexual groups have for anyone who wont go along with them is a good example. The Boy Scouts being "evil" and homosexuals being seen as a special, oppressed group deserving protection (from the Boy Scouts even) is a pretty good example of how society gets turned upside down via demoralization. The present impulse to expose 5 yr old children to sex "education" and gender dysphoria (via SIECUS as Obama wans etc) started back with the Marxists of the 1920'a (see Marcuse and Georg Lukács - who first used radical sex ed for kids in Hungary).
What you say about conservatives can be true to an extent. Where extreme liberals tend to encourage spoiling and weakness conservatives in the extreme can just abandon people to problems and impose a rigid conformity. Its as if liberals practice love without principles and conservatives practice principles without love.
But as I said that's in the extreme. Kids need a mother and father because they love and bond differently (the modern abandonment of the differences is one reason for the identity and gender issues we have). Its quite normal for mothers to love their kids without spoiling and its normal for fathers to moderate or discipline their kids without being harsh. The problem is the extremes where mothers spoil for advantage or fathers pressure to impose their egotistical will.
What the Marxists knew however was that its easier to corrupt and appeal to the women - who are seen as the easiest way to alter society since they are more prone to emotional thinking and manipulation. Its easy to guilt trip women that laws are "unfair" etc, and that gov programs (for the children) are needed. Indeed the nanny state is only possible when the men have been neutralized - and they often give in to keep the women happy.
Right now we dont have an extreme conservatism. If people think Bush was an extreme conservative its only because they are so far demoralized and feminized that even a liberal RINO like Bush seems oppressive.