http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School_conspiracy_theory
Em poucas palavras, esta teoria diz que os novos comunistas, seguidores dos frankfurtianos, do Gramsci e do Lukacs, querem destruir os valores da civilização cristã ocidental através do marxismo cultural, movimento esse que inclui o politicamente correto, o pacifismo, o feminismo, o movimento gay e o ambientalismo. A mídia e o sistema educacional - dominados por esquerdistas hahahaha - seriam responsáveis por doutrinar as pessoas, difundindo o marxismo cultural. Por isso, nas colunas de Olavo de Carvalho, tem Gramsci pra cá e Gramsci pra lá.
Pior que Olavo de Carvalho são seus seguidores, as olavetes. Eles habitam o submundo da Internet, nas seções de comentários de notícias, nas redes sociais e nos fóruns de discussão. Não fazem mais do que repetir o que o Mestre fala nesses espaços e defender o Mestre quando o vêem atacado, agindo da mesma forma que um cão defendendo o dono. Provavelmente, só conhecem Gramsci a partir do que leram escrito pelo Olavo de Carvalho. Como não conhecemos olavetes no mundo real mas vemos a Internet infestada delas, têm-se a impressão de que as olavetes sejam apenas softwares que detectam textos sobre política e geram automaticamente comentários com as expressões "Gramsci", "Foro de São Paulo", "marxismo cultural" e "doutrinação esquerdista".
As olavetes têm o estranho hábito de falar do Brasil como se fosse um país de esquerda. A causa do fato do Brasil ter muita miséria, criminalidade, favelas e sistema educacional de péssima qualidade seria a esquerda. Pessoas normais sabem que em 500 anos de história, o Brasil foi governado pela esquerda somente entre 1961 e 1964 e a partir de 2003 (duvida-se até mesmo o quanto seja "esquerda") e todos esses problemas já existiam em 2002. Difícil entender o raciocínio das olavetes. Em linha com este raciocínio, consideram que as universidades brasileiras são dominadas pelo pensamento marxista e isto explicaria o atraso cultural do país. Na cabeça de uma olavete, as ideias de seu Mestre só não seriam aceitas no meio acadêmico por causa do "domínio marxista". Estariam estas ideias mais presentes no resto do mundo?
Bom, como os leitores deste blog fiz o Atlas das Eleições Presidenciais no Brasil https://sites.google.com/site/atlaseleicoespresidenciais/ inspirado no Atlas do Dave Leip das eleições presidenciais dos EUA http://uselectionatlas.org/. O atlas norte-americano tem um fórum de discussão sobre política norte-americana e política internacional. Bom, aí neste fórum, uma olavete tentou fazer uma difusão internacional dos ideais do seu Mestre. Será que ele esperaria mais aceitação dialogando com pessoas que não são do país de Marilena Chauí e Emir Sader? Seu esforço foi frustrado. Vejam este tópico.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=190087.0
O assunto introduzido foi este. Assunto bem interessante de ser discutido.
|
Yes, we can examine the "trees" as oppose to looking at the "forest", but perhaps this is the biggest reason why the GOP is struggling at the presidential level and specifically, in purple-like states they used to do well in?
You look at the American financial trend since 2000 and it just seems that with wages/salaries stagnating, more jobs going offshore and minorities growing in population that this is the reason for the overall GOP problem. From a pure financial standpoint, the GOP appears to be the "top 5%/rich" party. Well, there are far fewer rich people in America than there are in the "working poor" and with the cost of living rising and wages not keeping up, people are getting pinched. While at the end of the day, the gov't really can't do very much in a global economy where the country keeps losing steam and a competitive advantage, (which is part of the reason wages fall...supply labor > demand), at least the Democrats come across as "caring" (even if they don't). Meanwhile, how many Mitt Romney's with the smug Exec. smile have come from the Republicans recently across the board? As Americans continue to get poorer, one has to believe that the GOP's problems are only going to grow, not shrink because we know, average income to low income earners tend to vote democratic.
Eis a contribuição do nosso amigo olavete
It all boils down to media and colleges. For decades we placed our confidence upon colleges and education as a path for our kids. Gramsci knew it, and its no wonder why he stressed the importance of starting indoctrination not on Kindergarten, or Trade School, but precisely at those very high-brow intellectual circles.
Then we have the media, which being also heavily contaminated, does everything it can to portray the GOP as the party of the uneducated, of the stupid, of the anti-science, of the angry old white racist man. These two things don't explain it all, however. There's a third factor. See, though not an American, I'm a GOP supporter. I agree with Reps far more than I do with Dems. If I was American, I'd be a registered Republican. And unfortunately, the GOP not only has had its reputation tarnished by the enemy. Its been tarnishing itself since the rise of the Christian Right. Goldwater warned you, and apparently, you gave the poor man little attention. Its not about being pro-life. I'm a pro-life too, even though I also happen to be an atheist. Its not about the drugs. William Buckley Jr. was a proponent of decriminalising the herb. Its not about gay marriage, which I oppose simply because I am totally against Civil Marriage at all, even though its something I'd easily compromise. Its about how you present yourselves.
E as respostas que os norte-americanos do Fórum deram. Provavelmente, eles conhecem mais a política norte-americana do que nosso amigo olavete.
I am amazed that you somehow think that the gradual decline of the Reagan coalition is the result of a Gramscian plot. (And, incidentally, you've completely misunderstood Gramsci.)
Cause and effect.
The decline of the Republicans happened after 1994, when Democrats embraced what they always were all along - the Party of State-guided developmental capitalism. Why vote for social reactionaries when the Democrats are promising you technocratic capitalism, if all you want is technocratic capitalism?
Except that your entire narrative is false. (It's also, interesting, based on an inverted Marxian analysis of society, with the "ivory-tower elite" in the place of the exploitative bourgeoisie - I'd guess you know somewhere that what I'm getting at is true.)
The Democrats aren't hostile to capitalism - and capitalism, as you know, is not synonymous with the 'free-market'. They're mere technocrats who want to administer it in a way as to promote stability (they take inequality as threatening to the system, and rightly so). There's no room whatsoever for genuine class analysis or alternative modes of political economy within the Democratic Party.
What brand of capitalism does the Republican Party promote, then?
And before you go on about how "Bush wasn't a real conservative" and "The Tea Party is different" look at all those Tea Party representatives who've taken Ag Department subsidies and the fact that they have no problem pushing money into government contracts for Raytheon and BoozAllenHamilton and others.
Wait, what the hell are you talking about with college and the media? Education doesn't have much effect on voting patters, except on the extreme ends of the education spectrum.
Are you saying that colleges "indoctrinate" people to be liberal and vote Democrat? And the media doesn't have to "portray" the GOP as what you said; Republican politicians do it just fine by themselves. The media just reports on it.
|
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário