Indecision 08 Wingnut thread

[fomenter]

not professing belief in any Manchurian candidate theory, just providing examples of good wingnuttery as the thread name suggests
i like this ones detail on the work of  Saul Alinsky and Antonio Gramsci, i believe i have heard Hillary is a big fan of his as well..

[Cain]

The biggest proponent of Gramsci is a right wing American radio host.

I'd tell you his name, but then I'd be commenting on American politics, which is verboten.

[fomenter]

fuck them, comment all you want, screw with them (politics) all you want.   the book by Saul alinsky on communist infiltration sounds like a worthy read especially if a lot of democrats are using it as a tactical manual.

[Cain]

He wasn't a Communist, he was a Chicago community organizer and radical liberal.

His basic rules can be read here:  http://www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html

However, it is worth noting that ex-Marxist Leninist and GOP cheerleader David Horowitz is the most noted public proponent of Alinsky, and used parts of his thinking in the writing of his Art of Political War, extracts of which were distributed at the 2000 RNC.

[fomenter]

the rules are a good read, i would like to read the whole book. The article called him a 'transformational Marxist not Communist (my bad) not sure of its veracity

who is the right wing host?

[Cain]

Oh, sorry.

It was Rush Limbaugh.  Alot of the authoritarian right are obsessed with Gramsci, they think he is proof of a far-left conspiracy in the media and among academics.  His contribution to Marxist theory is pretty important though, his idea of a cultural hegemon which is held by the rulin class and transmitted via propaganda to the lower classes in order to perpetuate class warfare.

His theories went on to be important to the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory, which partially aligned themselves with cultural Marxism (though their influence is overrated, and the best known of their number, Jurgen Habermas, is a Kantian liberal).

[fomenter]

a quick look at gramaci on wikipedia and i see where the authoritarian right would get that idea from. funny thing (according to wikipedia?) the right is using the same tactics.

Cultural hegemony continues to be a widely applied model in political analysis. For example, an analysis of US political power from 1932-2006 speaks to the dynamics of both class struggle and cultural hegemony. In this view, the surge in trade union membership in the 1930s helped create a massive political base for the Democratic Party, one which declined but persisted largely until 1980. In this exemplary analysis, Robert Brenner argues that the key turn in US politics was the ability of the Republican Party to exploit politics of race and religion:

    ...the problem that had bedeviled the American right since Goldwater: how to win electoral support for a domestic programme that was transparently against the economic interest of the great mass of the population, and a foreign policy that appeared both reckless and redundant? ¶ The answer, as we have seen, was to look to the South, both as model and as electoral base, to construct an anti-statist individualist ideology founded on white supremacy, [on] defence of the patriarchal family and [on] Protestant fundamentalism. It was the Republican right's success in constructing this ideological formula, and in identifying the liberal state as a central threat to the racial status quo and 'traditional family values', that provided it with the wherewithal to contend for power on a brazenly pro-business programme.[2]

The preceding analysis shows both material forces in play (such as class and capital), but also a cultural politics, in which ruling interests seek to find emotional issues with which shift worker loyalties from social programs to those which benefit the largest corporations. Many scholars have used these ideas to explain the rise of Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the US. The pattern of playing to issues of race, fear, and individualism in the US is sometimes represented by the notion of the "Southern strategy." More recently, many scholars have argued that the complex events of September 11, 2001 were instantly and deliberately conflated with "The War on Terror," a tool with which George W. Bush exploited nationalism, racism, Christianity, and fear so as to pursue corporate profiteering in the energy sector, pharmaceuticals, armaments, telecommunications, and other key sectors.[3]   [/qoute]

[Cain]

Yeah, that is one of the ironies.  The Southern Strategy is an excellent example of this, making people vote on race or gender or abortion, and not where their economic interests lie.

[Iason Ouabache]

Alan Keyes:  McCain didn't mention Jesus enough in his acceptance speech!!!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74684

[LMNO]

Yeah, that is one of the ironies.  The Southern Strategy is an excellent example of this, making people vote on race or gender or abortion, and not where their economic interests lie.

Isn't that what the book What Happened to Kansas is about?

[fomenter]

What's the Matter with Kansas? by Thomas Frank:
??

[Iason Ouabache]

While I'm at it:

Tom Hoefling:  Sarah Palin didn't talk about God and abortion enough!!!  And McCain is being funded by George Soros.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74636

But what of the substance? In keeping with the normal culinary proclivities of John McCain and the George Soros-funded liberals who run his political operations, there was not a single mention of the central moral question of our day: the fact that – even though the protection of the God-given, unalienable right to life is the foundation upon which American liberty rests – every day in this country thousands of unborn children continue to be brutally killed in their mother's wombs. Not a single word.

Ed Brayton had a good write-up on both articles:

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/09/worldnutdaily_declares_mccain.php#more

[Iason Ouabache]

Yeah, that is one of the ironies.  The Southern Strategy is an excellent example of this, making people vote on race or gender or abortion, and not where their economic interests lie.

Isn't that what the book What's the Matter with Kansas? is about?

I kept meaning to read that...  But yes, using religious issues as a political distraction is a great way to win votes.  The Republicans have been doing it for pretty much my entire lifetime.

[Cain]

Better class insanity

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/11/ground-zero-etiquette-a-tale-of-two-roses/

MM and her cult painstakingly analyze the way the two presidential candidates placed their roses at the NYC memorial on 9/11 and the commenters almost unanimously agree that it all demonstrates how McCain is the noblest of heroes but Obama is soulless, devoid of integrity, and indifferent to anything but his mad plan to destroy all that is or ever was Holy and Good in the history of western society.

[AFK]

Well, she was the dipshit who decided Rachel Ray was supporting terrorists because of a stupid fucking scarf.