College Campus Boogeyman

When will the Alt-Right realize that this is the same fear mongering tactics similarly used in the 1960s to claim that Marxists were "infecting" colleges as well?

Most of them likely already believe the US was on the verge of a communist coup back then anyway

Listen to Yuri and be enlightened

If you're complaining that none of the faggots that teach there want to smash the state, then yeah, they don't because they're on its bankroll and they'll deflect and complain about their libertarian bogeymen instead.

They use Marxist jargon while promoting their cartoony version of idpol state capitalism. However that's what they actually believe marxism to be. Holla Forums can claim that it's the true inheritor to leftist philosophy all it wants, but most people think of something else when they hear "Marxism" or "Socialism".

It's a common right-wing American meme.

Most American universities are actually fairly conservative. The problem is that the American Right is extremely, chauvinistically right-wing (remember that "Poe's Law" was originally in reference to the American Right), whereas most American professors are centrist liberals, and certain ideas like "America is the greatest nation to ever exist, is the favored nation of God and has never done anything wrong ever except elect Democratic presidents" have difficulty surviving an education, giving the impression to the right-wing parents that their child was indoctrinated by insidious leftists.

It's also worth noting that quite a lot of the American Right are essentially protestant cultists and many live in more small rural towns where right-wing propaganda is the news, so this may be their first exposure to any ideology which isn't insanely far-right.

You forget to take your pills this morning?

This pic… Now that's something ELSE.

It's even worse because at least there actually were KGB spies during the Cold War.

Of course, they weren't trying to brainwash people en masse; the USSR openly funded any US political party that espoused their ideals. They just wanted juicy research and military data.

Do Traditionalists not realize that values are not, and have never been, static throughout history? Do they understand the inherent subjectivity of what is considered "socially acceptable?"

They do not. "Tradition" is just a code-word for "stuff I like and believe"; there is no actual connection to actual historical tradition, or even knowledge thereof. If there was they'd have to specify what 'tradition' of what place, what group and during which time. And any such specification would be largely arbitrary, in the sense that there would be no real reason to assume that said choice is in any way better than any other.

This, pretty much.

I live in Burgerland and lots of the "muh traditions" people will get pretty upset over things they regard defilement of supposedly ancient and sacred Christmas traditions. The irony being that the holiday wasn't practiced in the United States at all until the mid 20th century. It was regarded as a profane pagan Catholic holiday.

It's doubly hilarious to hear people whine about "Jesus being taken out of Christmas" when, not even a century ago, you would have been told, under no uncertain terms, that Christmas had nothing to do with Jesus and no good Christian would ever think of practicing the holiday.

Within certain margins of error, but you're presenting a gross oversimplification of the data. Germanic tribes were big on monogamous marriages wherein the father of a child was invested in their upbringing, and in broad strokes you see that throughout Christian-Germanic history. Even when concubines were involved, there was a clear delineation between children born to the primary wife those born to the others.

Christianized post-Roman, western civilization buddy.

More to the point, I'm into traditionalism as a means to an end rather than an end in and of itself. Many values labeled traditional like sexual restraint, industriousness, and dedication to family and community are highly useful in building an effective society, but are now looked down upon as "OUTDATED, MAN".

Absolutely false. Some Puritins didn't, but that's hardly the entire country. Try again, commie :)

Typical leftist debate tactic.

that just earned you a lifetime in the gulag

...

So… 90% of the country. JFK was controversial back when he was running because he was Catholic.

You might want to actually learn some history to get in touch with all that tradition you apparently love so much.

Protestant !== Puritan you dumb commie. There were plenty of non-Catholics who had Christmas celebrations. Next you're going to tell me that polygamy was standard because Mormons existed.

So Christmas as we know it stems from the 19th century, but shares the name of another tradition that only shares the fact that they were held in late December.

Thus we just made Christmas up about 200 years ago.

The Puritans weren't the only religious group against the celebration of Christmas, fucko. I thought by "puritans" you just meant "extremists". The Presbyterians, for instance, also rejected Christmas. It was certainly unheard of outside of New England until the 20th century, and it wasn't uncontroversial even in New England.

Yes, leftists really are this dumb.

k

I'm still waiting for someone to bring up Sol Invictus.

And sure, they lived in other parts of the country, but that didn't stop there being a cultural taboo against Christmas. Episcopalians and Lutherans aren't required to celebrate it.

Which part of the fact that the two traditions both called "Christmas" had almost fucking nothing in common?
Christmas, as you know it, is a new invention. The important part was at the end with

There was a taboo within different religious groups, that doesn't mean that it was banned for groups that did practice it.

Why does either drinking or family a necessary part of Christmas? Christmas with Santa Claus (as opposed to St. Nicolas) and Reindeer? Sure, that was added within the last 100 or so years, but I'm not sure how that invalidates the whole history of Christmas celebration. A Christmas Carol was written back in 1843- does that mean it should be titled something else since it wasn't really Christmas they were celebrating?

I didn't say it was banned, I said it was taboo, or at least not in common practice outside of a handful of anglophiles in New England.

The whole point is that while the label "Christmas" is very old, the current nature of the tradition is very recent and thus pointing to "tradition" in an attempt to resist change to something that has already changed multiple times and radically so, is meaningless.

It was certainly practiced less widely, but that doesn't mean it was only practiced in the Northeast. The Dutch were big on it, and as far as I know, Scandinavians in general were cool with it. As far as American bans go, the only one I can find is one in Massachusetts in the 17th century, well before the US was even a country.

Something changed in the past, therefore we should always make sure to change it for the sake of changing it?

This, I think, gets to the root of the problem. It's easy to change some behavior previously held into something more hedonistic because there's no obvious reason not to.

Who's doing that? There is no central Christmas committee that dictates how Christmas is held. Most cultural developments are to be expected, whether they're engineered or natural, and if anyone's changing anything for the sake of doing it, you can be sure it'd be the people who are already in power. Again though, there is no reason to beat people over the head, pretending to represent some kind of eternal and unchanging tradition, especially when what you're trying to protect from change was itself a development upon an earlier tradition.

How the hell do you come to this conclusion?

Or is everyone to the right of the Weathermen "conservative"?

Preaching to the choir, bruv

Is there something wrong with that?

Read Chomsky.

All liberals are conservative, liberalism has been the dominant ideology in the West for 200 years. Just because they're not full blown right-wing doesn't make them not basically conservative.

Typically, the closest you get to Left in the American academia is IdPol and the occasional SocDem.

Weather Underground were just a bunch of edgy liberals.

What specifically are we talking about here? Is this specifically a Happy Holidays vs Merry Christmas thing now?

It's degenerate.


It's degenerate insofar as it creates a less capable citizenry.

Yeah, you're not going to ever hear any social science professors identify as Marxist.

That being said, it's very true that they're way way way bigger on the idpol stuff than they are on economic communism. In my experience most will actually identify as "Socialist," and by that they mean they furiously masturbate to the Scandinavian wellfare state model.

Forgot my flag :D

It is, in fact, very rare.

Even then, there's a big difference between identifying as a Marxist and actually being one.

Exactly, they're welfare state liberals who think "socialism" is just the far end of social liberalism.

No.

your precious germanic tribal caveman savages being spooked into monogamy doesn't mean your bullshit values are 'natural' or as the post you replied to put it, static throughout history.

I said that it was the closest they got to Left, not that it was left.