POLANDA : - powered by PolishForums Classifieds [67] Off-Topic [162]
33    

Off-Topicpage 1 of 2

Understanding Critical Theory as it relates to the Modern Era


Slavictor
30 Mar 2018  #1

There are several online videos detailing historical records and accounts of the Frankfurt School (aka "The Institute for Social Research"), it's influential members and it's ideologues.

Included here is one such video:

youtu.be/1wBcDuP9xbI

Although many methods to undermine Western Societies were developed at the Frankfurt School, one notable method can be found in "Critical Theory". Critical Theory is nothing more than criticizing anything that is not useful to furthering marxist ends. Anything is fair game for criticism, especially criticism of it itself. Critical Theory is not intended to offer any sort of solution or remedy to what it criticizes. It's point is to be used as a destructive method, to weaken and break down established societies from within. A few quotes from the developers of Critical Theory;

Critical theory does not create, it only destroys. Above all, critical theory has no material accomplishments to show for itself.

- Max Horkheimer.

One can rightfully speak of a Cultural Revolution since the protest is directed towards the whole Cultural Establishment, including the morality of existing society. What we must undertake is a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system.

- Herbert Marcuse

For anyone wishing to familiarize themselves with why certain things have occured to the West the way they have, this video, and the many others like it, provide insights, explanations and remedies to the effects of Critical Theory and other weaponized instruments of the Frankfurt School.

One of the goals of the Frankfurt School is to invert norms in society. Anything good, is bad. Anything right, is wrong. Anything healthy, is sick. Anyone guilty, is innocent. The ideology is gradually injected into the host city or country over time with the goal of driving it slowly insane. Read the 11 Recommendation of the Frankfurt School and see how it applies to where you live. Here is #8 on the list, in action:

8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime

Cultural Marxism at Work

'At 00:45hrs on Wed, 4th of April, police were called by a homeowner to reports of a burglary in progress at an address in South Park Crescent, Hither Green SE6, and a man injured.

'The 78-year-old resident found two males inside the address. A struggle ensued between one of the males and the homeowner. The man, aged 38, sustained a stab wound to the upper body. The man was taken to a central London hospital. He was pronounced dead at 03:37hrs.'

republicstandard.com/the-future-of-europe-is-civil-war
Atch
9 Apr 2018  #2

Don't be so ridiculous. You're taking one incident as an example. And the British legal system is one of the fairest and most transparent in the world. Where would you rather go on trial, Russia or England?? Incidentally this old fellow has only been arrested. Wait and see if it even comes to trial, and if it does, whether he's convicted and if he is, whether he actually goes to jail. In Ireland recently, somebody went on trial for killing an intruder and he was acquitted.
johnny reb
9 Apr 2018  #3

Same in the U.S.A.
Someone comes into your home and "you are in fear for your life" you have every right to let the air out of them.

On the ridiculous note of a law however is that law enforcement officers is so lacks that they can kill an unarmed person if the police officer is simply "in fear for his safety."

Two distinctive sets of rules and laws.
Hells bells......I am in fear of my safety every time I have an encounter with law enforcement even if it is for something simple like forgetting to use my turn signal.
Slavictor
9 Apr 2018  #4

as an example

Exactly. An example of 1000's. One could easily fill heavy books on the matter. I'm not here to argue with you about it.
Atch
10 Apr 2018  #5

Well what are you here for then? Why start a thread about something if you don't want to discuss it? It wouldn't be a bit of the old propaganda now would it? Surely not - I'm deeply shocked :))

The bottom line is, no matter how much old yap you carry on with, is that you know quite well, that if you were an innocent person accused of a crime, your chances of a fair trial in the UK are guaranteed whereas in all those lovely authoritarian, totalitarian, right wing paradises, your chances are pretty much zero. They have quotas to fill, so your fate is sealed before you even step into the dock.
delphiandomine
10 Apr 2018  #6

One has to question the relevance of this thread on a website called Polishforums, not NorthAmericanPropaganda.
SigSauer
10 Apr 2018  #7

In Ireland recently, somebody went on trial for killing an intruder and he was acquitted.

How lovely. He likely only had to bankrupt himself to mount a legal defense against a malicious prosecution by the state. It is an affront to common decency to put people who lawfully defended their lives on trial just to satisfy the whims of an outraged public.
delphiandomine
10 Apr 2018  #8

Given that prosecutions are independent in Ireland, it means there was a case for him to answer. Ireland is fortunately a place where you can't just murder someone because you feel like it.
SigSauer
10 Apr 2018  #9

Justified homicide is a pretty clear exemption under the law in almost all western democracies. The state using its vast resources to further victimize someone who was forced to defend their life is immoral and an abuse of the legal system. No one is 'pro-murder' or thinks that you should be able to murder someone 'because you feel like it.' You have never been in a position before where you've had to use deadly force to defend yourself, it doesn't "feel good," and no one wants to have to do something like that. You just can't help yourself but to spout bollocks at every opportunity.
delphiandomine
10 Apr 2018  #10

Clearly there was significant doubt over whether the murderer was defending himself at the time if the murder, otherwise it wouldn't have gone to trial.

A quick look at the case in question shows that there was a need for a trial to establish what actually happened, given that the murder victim was unarmed at the time. The prosecution was partially brought on charges of unreasonable force, and the murder weapon was a modified tool designed to be used in an offensive situation.
Atch
10 Apr 2018  #11

Justified homicide is a pretty clear exemption under the law in almost all western democracies.

Well, I don't know about the rest of the world, but in Ireland anyway, that has to be established in court. The Defence and The Dwelling Act is also quite new. This is the first case to be tried.

He likely only had to bankrupt himself to mount a legal defense against a malicious prosecution by the state.

No, he'd have legal aid, all expenses paid by the state. What do you mean by an 'outraged public'? What would they be outraged about - that an intruder was killed?? If anything they'd be more likely to say he got what he deserved. Although in Ireland they tend to just say something like "God isn't it terrible what happened with that business of the burglar and yer man who killed him?" as in it's a most unfortunate series of events.
delphiandomine
10 Apr 2018  #12

Indeed, if you read about the case, it's very clear that there was significant doubt over what actually happened. Siggy is jumping to conclusions without even basic knowledge of the case, that's all.

I'm struggling to see why he was acquitted, given the disproportionate force used in this case
Atch
10 Apr 2018  #13

Irish cases of self-defence are tried on the following basis:

If the accused thought the force was reasonable, and the jury thinks objectively that the force was reasonable he gets an acquittal.
If the accused thought the force was reasonable but the jury objectively thinks it was unreasonable he's convicted of either manslaughter or murder.

I think a jury would identify with being in a blind panic, grabbing the nearest weapon and lashing out to defend yourself. The accused was very young and the jury would be very reluctant to return a guilty verdict and sentence him to a lifetime in jail, if there was any doubt in their minds. Also unless you've been in court and heard the testimony it's hard to make an assessment. The demeanour of the accused under questioning is something you have to actually see in order to get a feeling for the case.

Also, as he was from the travelling community the jury would be wary of allowing prejudice to influence their decision - automatically assuming a measure of guilt because he comes from a sector of society with a reputation for volatile and violent behaviour.

So I think all of those factors would have a part in the verdict. You'd need to hear the Judge's summing up as he sets out very clearly the legal conditions that must be satisfied in order to return a guilty verdict.

Just to add, under Irish law:

"It is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held but in considering whether the person using the force honestly held the belief, the court or the jury, as the case may be, shall have regard to the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for the person so believing and all other relevant circumstances. "

So what it boils down to in the end is, if you can convince the jury that you thought you were in mortal danger, it doesn't matter if they think you were in no danger. It only matters that they believe YOU believed you were. Once they reach that point, they then have to decide if the amount of force you used was reasonable - and as you've convinced them that you feared for your life, then they're likely to think that the force you used was justified, so you'll be acquitted.
Slavictor
10 Apr 2018  #14

you don't want to discuss it

A memorable line from a favourite movie; Rear Window " Haven't you heard? Women don't nag anymore, they 'discuss' ". The goal of demonizing victims over the perps was a stated objective of the FrankFurt School. That's all this post is about.
Atch
11 Apr 2018  #15

It's not a post. It's a thread which you started. The purpose of starting a thread is to initiate a discussion on the topic raised, not to make a random statement simply for the sake of doing so - unless of course you're engaging in the modern equivalent of airborne leaflet propaganda.

A memorable line f

Fine words butter no parsnips - put that on your needles and knit it. Now there's a couple of lovely bits of the vernacular for you. Use them wisely Comrade.
Lyzko
11 Apr 2018  #16

Don't forget, however, that Hitchcock may have had mysoginist tendencies, even though he might well have been one of the two or three greatest directors in the cinema.
Slavictor
11 Apr 2018  #17

It's a thread which you started.

Thanks for clarifying that. You sure told me. You're the argumentative, belligerent type. Perhaps a lawyer. If it's an argument you want, grab a shovel and go dig up Marcuse and argue with him about the Frankfurt Schools' objectives. Rest assured, you will get the last word in that conversation.

mysoginist tendencies

Hitch didn't write the screenplay. A non-PC screenwriter did.
Atch
12 Apr 2018  #18

You're the argumentative, belligerent type. Perhaps a lawyer.

Actually I'm not at all belligerent. I'm a very pleasant person, beloved by all :)) I do come from a family with a long history of legal practice though and I did consider being a barrister but I went the Bohemian route instead and studied art. That's possibly why I appear to be the only one here who extended you the courtesy of looking at your link to the video about modern art. I notice you're quite happy to discuss some topics you introduce- a bit selective aren't you? On what basis I wonder do you make that selection.

Hitch didn't write the screenplay. A non-PC screenwriter did.

No, but he wouldn't have directed anything he wasn't happy with.

There was no such thing as PC in those days. Anyway men and women insulting each other about their supposedly stereotypical traits is still the stuff of much comedy and people are still laughing. What does that tell us?
Lyzko
12 Apr 2018  #19

But Hitch had to approve it, no?
Atch
12 Apr 2018  #20

Well as I say Lyzko, he wouldn't direct a film if he didn't like the screenplay so I'm sure he didn't have a problem with it. He'd insist on changes I imagine. Having said that, I also had heard that he was a bit of a misogynist, but maybe he was just irritated by actresses with their insecurities etc. I think he liked Grace Kelly, must check that :)

Well I checked and yes, he thought Grace was the bee's knees - and the Rear Window screenplay was written for her, based round her real life character apparently. The writer spent ten days or so following her around on Hitch's instructions to get a feel for her personality (unknown to her). I mean that she didn't know that's why he was with her, not that he was stalking her !!
Lyzko
12 Apr 2018  #21

All accurate, Atch! Yet, Hitch did display to contemporaries in the know, a decided prankishness, today, bordering on cruelty (although sadism is clearly going too far, I'd have to admit), and often directed at the weak link in the chain. He'd politely "bully" his leading ladies, knowing full well that a Jimmy Stewart or other leading man would knock his block off if Hitch tried to pull that sort of stuff on them. Furthermore, he would pick on underlings on the set, most famously (if true), that stage hand who was known to have a chronic drinking problem, with whom Hitch allegedly made a little bet that the poor fella couldn't lay off the booze for one night straight. He then proceeded to hide the man's bottle, causing him to suffer a serious medical relapse, nearly leading to the chap ready to commit suicide.

S'far as we know, Hitch never apologized over that trifling incident either, at least not according to various sources through which I've browsed and are deemed authoritative:-)
Atch
13 Apr 2018  #22

Yes, John Lennon could be a bit like that too. Maybe it goes with the territory of being a creative genius :) When the Beatles first rocketed to the top, Brian Epstein was asked to write his own biography and he asked Lennon for title ideas. "How about Queer Jew' Lennon quipped!

As you mentioned Jimmy Stewart, he said of Grace Kelly, that what set her apart was that she came from an affluent family, was well educated, had a stable home and loving parents. She had the dignity and self-assurance that comes with that. She didn't feel she had to be nice to some guy to get ahead. That was quite unusual in the Hollywood of those days - and possibly even today.
Lyzko
13 Apr 2018  #23

Moreso in those days, when women aka ladies acted "womanly" instead of the girlish excuses for starlets (more like harlots, actually!) aka Reese Witherspoon and company. Compare especially the voices of a Helen Walker ("Impact"- 1947), a Joan Crawford or indeed a Grace Kelly with the shrill squeals emitting from today's young females in the biz.
Slavictor
18 Apr 2018  #24

In keeping with the title of the thread, another excellent video on the definition, history, key players and objectives of Cultural Marxism can be seen in the following 22 minute expose.

youtu.be/_w0TOJspijA
Slavictor
25 Apr 2018  #25

If only one could return to the past accompanied by a pistol.



Tacitus
25 Apr 2018  #26

It is just sad to witness how this thread continues to insult and misrepresent some of the greatest thinkers of the last century (Adorno, Horkheimer, Habermas).

I have heard before that there are some fringe elements who like to misrepresent the Frankfurt School , but this is the first time reading it. Case in point, the above mentioned quote was made by Horkheimer shortly before the Nazis took power.

I just hope people do not take the mad rantings of Slavictor as facts. Anyone who studies humanities will read some of their texts at some point.
Slavictor
25 Apr 2018  #27

Tacitus, as a marxist you are surprisingly un-alone on Polishforums. It is senseless employing critical theory at this post.
Lyzko
25 Apr 2018  #28

What's the matter? Afraid Tacitus might actually be talking sense?
:-)
jon357
26 Apr 2018  #29

to insult and misrepresent some of the greatest thinkers of the last century (Adorno, Horkheimer, Habermas).

Written by people who've never read a whole book by any of those giants and probably couldn't manage one.

I have heard before that there are some fringe elements who like to misrepresent the Frankfurt School

Generally people who don't understand contemporary thought.

I just hope people do not take the mad rantings of Slavictor as facts

I doubt that even he does.
Slavictor
26 Apr 2018  #30

Remember "Rain Man", the film?

Dustin Hoffman's autistic character had certain astounding yet severely constrained mathematical abilities. He was completely dysfunctional otherwise and had to be limited to a mental institution. The "brains" behind the Frankfurt School were not much different. Not in the Rain Man's mathematical sense, but in their astounding ability to invent devious methodologies to parasitically destroy target societies. They excelled as deviants, par excellence. As nihilists, abesent of moral constraint the Frankfurt School's founders were highly dysfunctional as people. As they say, when you lose your eyesight your other senses become heightened. Similarly, those at the Frankfurt School were fractured and incomplete as fully functioning human beings, un-attuned to a moral capacity. Due to this lack of normal functionality, another part of their minds became heightened. Birds of a feather found then each other. How would things have been different if these maladapted freaks instead used their dialectical imagination for a genuinely healthy constructive purpose.

But, marxists worship these criminally brilliant moral deviants and miscreants. Thankfully, no one is left alive from the frankfurt school but their "work" continues to manifest itself in society, like an eating radiation that lives on long after the blast. Perhaps marxists should now choose a living surrogate of similar deviant quality to take their gods' place? At least their god could be interactive. Someone like Semion Mogilevich, say. Mogilevich is also a tribesman, like those at the Frankfurt school and who share a similar brilliant deviousness in a criminal capacity.

One person who beautifully summarized the yet ongoing destructive, parasitic philosophies of the Frankfurt School is Maurice Samuel in his book "You Gentiles", with the quote:


  • Truer words never spoken

PreviousNext
European News Thread [120]No Whites Allowed [45]


Off-Topic / Understanding Critical Theory as it relates to the Modern Eratop