(06-04-2020, 08:44 AM)Last42min Wrote: White privilege, the way it is currently used, is a way to create class injustice that can not be overcome in the current system. It is used in exactly the same way communists used the poor to bring about revolution in underdeveloped nations. The only way to change it is to change the system. There is a pattern going on here.
I often hear conservatives talk about the confounded alliance between gays, trans, blacks, muslims, unions, etc. Those groups do not have the same end goals. Ultimately, some of them are even conflicting. Yet, the narrative persists because each of these groups can be marginalized effectively to bring about a system change. Gays and Trans bring about sexual revolution, in that they can tear down gender and sexual norms. Feminism pushes back against familial norms, and weakens the family structure. Muslims and atheists bring about religious revolution, in that it tears down the Christian stronghold in the US. Blacks represent racial and class revolution, and can be used to attack the legal institutions. Unions represent class revolution, and are used to weaken capitalism. Illegal immigrants are an attack on sovereignty and are useful in advancing globalism. TAgain, this doesn't mean that these groups don't have legitimate grievances. Some more than others. I am saying that there is a long con going on here that takes any legitimate grievance, then ultimately warps it by saying these problems can not be solved in a capitalist society. This is not the overt narrative, but when you start looking behind the curtain, it becomes obvious.
These concepts are all talked about extensively by communist and socialist philosophers. We're not talking about new ideology here. Some of this goes back 200 years (maybe more if you're looking at concepts), but it really begins to come together in the 60's and 70's. Every one of these groups has a sub-group that is headed by thought leaders that are connected to the socialist, progressive movement. Every single one. If I wanted to spend all morning typing on this post, I could point out the socialist philosophers and activists and their specific chapters that preach the only way to change each of these "injustices" is to destroy capitalism. Those groups get more funding and a disproportionate amount of media coverage, and ultimately end up shaping the narrative for each respective marginalization. There is no incentive to solve the problems within the current system.
The great flaw in conservatism is neglecting these marginalized groups. They have failed to reach out, not because they hate all those groups (maybe a case could be made for certain groups), but because conservatives tend worry about themselves and their family, and equal opportunity under the law. This is because the evidence suggests that any person can rise up and be successful in this system (and this is largely true). They see the stranglehold by the left and see it as a waste of time to try to win their votes. But neglecting these marginalized groups has allowed the activism component of the left to have a massive influence in the narrative. Most of conservatives have no idea what community organizers do. Most of them don't understand that these organizers literally go into these groups to "educate" them on their grievances and solicit them to the cause. From an early age, people in these groups are taught one ideology only. This way of thinking is rarely able to be undone. Conservatives don't realize that their absence in reaching out to these communities on an idealistic level has created a vacuum that has easily been filled by the progressive voices. At some point, conservatives need to stop avoiding these groups and start reaching out to them. I fear it's too late.
The sad thing is that there are so many opportunities to correct the narrative. I have a program I am trying to start, but I know the pushback is going to be severe, not from the people in the community I want to reach out to, but by their "thought" leaders.
Thomas Sowell is one of the greatest right leaning intellectual leaders of our time. What most people don't know is, that for most of the early part of his career he was a Marxist. Why? When he looked around and saw the differences between neighborhoods, one wealthy one not the only explanation he was offered was the idea of structural inequality, racism, class struggle etc. and that's what lead him to Marx. So you're absolutely right, progressives are the only ones talking.
Look at the current situation with George Floyd. The national conversation has been completely framed by the idea of "this happened because of systemic racism, this ideology is rampant overwhelming and a serious threat to black lives. The only question is do you fight it peacefully by protesting/donating to a 'cause' or do you loot in the streets (with a wink and a nod from the Marxist overlords." With very few exceptions do you see anyone even THINK to challenge the narrative. In this vacuum of rationality, Sowell also points out that in these cases not only is no evidence given, none is asked for. The Chosen narrative of the day races around the world unchecked while hearts and minds are manipulated with false constructs.
The biggest key to the ascension of the left in the 20th century is the domination of the campuses. Whether its the leadership of the democrats or the republicans they are all similarly educated, from the same universities and were all exposed to the pathogen of leftist ideology. So when push comes to shove and you see Marxist thought being advanced on the national stage, you don't see major pushback from what should be the conservative party because in reality most of them agree with the Premise. Tucker Carlson pointed this out better than I ever could. Nikki Haley, Carly Fiorina, The president of the heritage foundation, the Vice President etc. all lined up behind the institutional racism narrative.
You also make a great point about the political coalition that the left has built. I think that at a certain point, the far left understood that in a nation with a GDP of 20 trillionish dollars, it was going to be hard to make a universal appeal for class struggle. With an emerging and growing demographic, it was going to be hard to maintain their previous strategy of white nationalism (look it up.) Instead they knew that in order to craft a governing majority out of the emerging electorate they were going to have to start with a base of class struggle but then slowly add on sectarian grievance to piece together disparate groups that aren't economically depressed, or not depressed enough to push them away from what would have been traditional values and ideals.
