Liverpool FC Forum

[metalhead]

I don't blame people for being worried , but lets not change this worry into an obsession or paranoia. Killing 92 innocent people is not the way to justify an opinion.

If extremists wants prove a point let them fight  each other and leave others to continue with their lives

[Kenny Kan]

TBH, I've unlocked the thread because I'd like to hear Bam's rationale for raising this issue when he did and in the way he did.  He doesn't offer much in terms of his own views on the cut-and-paste stuff in the thread opener (although I sense an implied endorsement).  But, in his second attempt at cut-and-paste, we do get an acknowledged direct link to Breivic in the first few lines.  So what's up Bam?  Are we to understand that you have some sympathy for the "Frankfurt School-->Cultural Marxism-->multiculturalism-->political correctness" conspiracy theory?  If so, are you comfortable with the fact that Breivic (and other far-right extremists who post and share and endorse the article you excerpted in the first post) share similar views?  Is this the kind of meaty discussion you wish to have?  Or is this really just a twisted wind-up attempt?

Bob, this isn't a wind-up. In your own words its meant to insight ''Meaty discussion''. In fact Bob it's not an endorsement it's looking a things with an open mind rather than suppressing everything as racist or whatever all the time. This is what I mean, in my initial post when I took on cultural studies and ''Critical Whiteness'' etc (refer to my initial post where I asked you a question) its relevant to you I think.

In this subject it touched on the suffragettes, rather than stating women should have equal rights for example, it stated that men were oppressors of women. And that in schools girls struggled more in mathematics and this wasn't deemed as fair even though boys don't flourish in home economics - its like it's a cycle of reverse psychology on a lot of traditions and taken for granted assumptions which seek to undermine civil traditions, if you know what I mean.

People coming in here saying ''this thread should be banned'' epitomizes ''taboo'' subjects in today's society that aren't even allowed or wanted on a public forum. Because its viewed simply as Right-Wing rhetoric, yet Left-Wing rhetoric is happily allowed and nobody questions it, how can one movement have a voice and the other not. People have been conditioned to Nu-Left-Wing views where anything is remotely sensitive should be suppressed in their eyes. It's ironic really that Nu-Left movements are in fact becoming Right Wing with their suppressing of such debates - do you see what I mean Bob?

The only one who hasn't is Daws

  good on you mate, not 1 whole thing is ever right or fact. So rather than appease to far left wing views and swallow them wholesome its good to take snipets from other perspectives.

As for the Brevik thing - I don't agree in this gruesome act of terrorism and murder its disgusting, simple as that really.

But I noted, The Frankfurter's in this thread didn't offer any views on Sweden's insight and some of the quotes given by the minister for example.

I think this has proved a point. ''Burn and ban the thread because its overly right''. ''Don't worry about overly Left views there're allowed''. 

[Kenny Kan]

No mate, what I'm saying is you have to know where to draw the line. I draw it at bad taste and in light of Norway, this thread is disrespectful and in bad taste.

No mate, what you are saying is, that you want a censorship on certain things. One line refers to that madman in the second article and it shouldn't be tolerated - his actions in the article haven't been justified, take off the pinko hat and fecking read it with some objectivity. If you don't like it, simply walk out the thread instead of kicking up a song and dance about it.

[Kenny Kan]

Take for eg. That Norweigen incident headlined and hit people really hard but the bombings in Mumbai the week before didn't even get a mumur on here - is it the 'norm' that one group kill innocent people and therefore is almost accepted, when the other nutter in Norway killed innocent children is demonsized (rightly so) but the Mumbai bombings weren't? Society is fecked up IMHO.

[Reg]

Funny I'm being called a pinko......    I'm writing this from Vietnam where I'm currently enforcing some contracts. These fellas put me somewhere to the right of Ghengis Khan right now... in fact the only thing thats pink about me is my a.rse.

It comes down to maturity at the end of the day, nothing to do with politics.

[Bad Bob]

TBH, I've unlocked the thread because I'd like to hear Bam's rationale for raising this issue when he did and in the way he did.  He doesn't offer much in terms of his own views on the cut-and-paste stuff in the thread opener (although I sense an implied endorsement).  But, in his second attempt at cut-and-paste, we do get an acknowledged direct link to Breivic in the first few lines.  So what's up Bam?  Are we to understand that you have some sympathy for the "Frankfurt School-->Cultural Marxism-->multiculturalism-->political correctness" conspiracy theory?  If so, are you comfortable with the fact that Breivic (and other far-right extremists who post and share and endorse the article you excerpted in the first post) share similar views?  Is this the kind of meaty discussion you wish to have?  Or is this really just a twisted wind-up attempt?

Bob, this isn't a wind-up. In your own words its meant to insight ''Meaty discussion''. In fact Bob it's not an endorsement it's looking a things with an open mind rather than suppressing everything as racist or whatever all the time. This is what I mean, in my initial post when I took on cultural studies and ''Critical Whiteness'' etc (refer to my initial post where I asked you a question) its relevant to you I think.

In this subject it touched on the suffragettes, rather than stating women should have equal rights for example, it stated that men were oppressors of women. And that in schools girls struggled more in mathematics and this wasn't deemed as fair even though boys don't flourish in home economics - its like it's a cycle of reverse psychology on a lot of traditions and taken for granted assumptions which seek to undermine civil traditions, if you know what I mean.

People coming in here saying ''this thread should be banned'' epitomizes ''taboo'' subjects in today's society that aren't even allowed or wanted on a public forum. Because its viewed simply as Right-Wing rhetoric, yet Left-Wing rhetoric is happily allowed and nobody questions it, how can one movement have a voice and the other not. People have been conditioned to Nu-Left-Wing views where anything is remotely sensitive should be suppressed in their eyes. It's ironic really that Nu-Left movements are in fact becoming Right Wing with their suppressing of such debates - do you see what I mean Bob?

The only one who hasn't is Daws

  good on you mate, not 1 whole thing is ever right or fact. So rather than appease to far left wing views and swallow them wholesome its good to take snipets from other perspectives.

As for the Brevik thing - I don't agree in this gruesome act of terrorism and murder its disgusting, simple as that really.

But I noted, The Frankfurter's in this thread didn't offer any views on Sweden's insight and some of the quotes given by the minister for example.

I think this has proved a point. ''Burn and ban the thread because its overly right''. ''Don't worry about overly Left views there're allowed''. 

Alright, Bam, I'll take you at your word that this isn't a wind-up.  If that's the case, what exactly are we meant to be discussing here?

1) The Frankfurt School's intellectual positions and their up-take in wider society over the course of the last century?

2) Multiculturalism as a public policy and its relationship to immigration issues, particularly in Europe?

3) The ideological slant of contemporary academia?

4) The over-reach of extreme political correctness and the resulting impact on public discourse?

Help me out here because this thread is all over the map.  As for keeping an open mind, I'd be happy to do so as long as the source material provided for me and others to digest is of a sufficient intellectual standard to merit exploration.  The stuff you've posted up so far is some rather nasty conspiracy theorist nonsense trying (but failing) to cloak itself in the garb of rigorous intellectual critique.  The fact that this sh!te only appeals to reactionaries and extremists should be a huge tip off.  Surely we can discuss the purported excesses of political correctness without dragging the Frankfurt School (Jewish intellectuals? Oh the horror!) into it?  If not, I suggest we postpone our meaty discussion for a couple of years until we've all had a chance to read and digest our Lukacs, Benjamin, Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, and Fromm (not to mention our Foucault, Derrida, Said, Deleuze, Guitarri, Spivak, Bhaba, Lacan etc.--for proper context, of course).  After all, it's bad form to critique ideas on the basis of a few hackneyed caricatures found on the web.  Meaningful discourse requires us to wrestle with the original source material. 

[Kharhaz]

I want to get involved but I really cant be fecked to read all of the OP

My thoughts also. Not only that I start to see shapes when I stare at the screen too long !

[Kenny Kan]

TBH, I've unlocked the thread because I'd like to hear Bam's rationale for raising this issue when he did and in the way he did.  He doesn't offer much in terms of his own views on the cut-and-paste stuff in the thread opener (although I sense an implied endorsement).  But, in his second attempt at cut-and-paste, we do get an acknowledged direct link to Breivic in the first few lines.  So what's up Bam?  Are we to understand that you have some sympathy for the "Frankfurt School-->Cultural Marxism-->multiculturalism-->political correctness" conspiracy theory?  If so, are you comfortable with the fact that Breivic (and other far-right extremists who post and share and endorse the article you excerpted in the first post) share similar views?  Is this the kind of meaty discussion you wish to have?  Or is this really just a twisted wind-up attempt?

Bob, this isn't a wind-up. In your own words its meant to insight ''Meaty discussion''. In fact Bob it's not an endorsement it's looking a things with an open mind rather than suppressing everything as racist or whatever all the time. This is what I mean, in my initial post when I took on cultural studies and ''Critical Whiteness'' etc (refer to my initial post where I asked you a question) its relevant to you I think.

In this subject it touched on the suffragettes, rather than stating women should have equal rights for example, it stated that men were oppressors of women. And that in schools girls struggled more in mathematics and this wasn't deemed as fair even though boys don't flourish in home economics - its like it's a cycle of reverse psychology on a lot of traditions and taken for granted assumptions which seek to undermine civil traditions, if you know what I mean.

People coming in here saying ''this thread should be banned'' epitomizes ''taboo'' subjects in today's society that aren't even allowed or wanted on a public forum. Because its viewed simply as Right-Wing rhetoric, yet Left-Wing rhetoric is happily allowed and nobody questions it, how can one movement have a voice and the other not. People have been conditioned to Nu-Left-Wing views where anything is remotely sensitive should be suppressed in their eyes. It's ironic really that Nu-Left movements are in fact becoming Right Wing with their suppressing of such debates - do you see what I mean Bob?

The only one who hasn't is Daws

  good on you mate, not 1 whole thing is ever right or fact. So rather than appease to far left wing views and swallow them wholesome its good to take snipets from other perspectives.

As for the Brevik thing - I don't agree in this gruesome act of terrorism and murder its disgusting, simple as that really.

But I noted, The Frankfurter's in this thread didn't offer any views on Sweden's insight and some of the quotes given by the minister for example.

I think this has proved a point. ''Burn and ban the thread because its overly right''. ''Don't worry about overly Left views there're allowed''. 

Alright, Bam, I'll take you at your word that this isn't a wind-up.  If that's the case, what exactly are we meant to be discussing here?

1) The Frankfurt School's intellectual positions and their up-take in wider society over the course of the last century?

2) Multiculturalism as a public policy and its relationship to immigration issues, particularly in Europe?

3) The ideological slant of contemporary academia?

4) The over-reach of extreme political correctness and the resulting impact on public discourse?

Help me out here because this thread is all over the map.  As for keeping an open mind, I'd be happy to do so as long as the source material provided for me and others to digest is of a sufficient intellectual standard to merit exploration.  The stuff you've posted up so far is some rather nasty conspiracy theorist nonsense trying (but failing) to cloak itself in the garb of rigorous intellectual critique.  The fact that this sh!te only appeals to reactionaries and extremists should be a huge tip off.  Surely we can discuss the purported excesses of political correctness without dragging the Frankfurt School (Jewish intellectuals? Oh the horror!) into it?  If not, I suggest we postpone our meaty discussion for a couple of years until we've all had a chance to read and digest our Lukacs, Benjamin, Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, and Fromm (not to mention our Foucault, Derrida, Said, Deleuze, Guitarri, Spivak, Bhaba, Lacan etc.--for proper context, of course).  After all, it's bad form to critique ideas on the basis of a few hackneyed caricatures found on the web.  Meaningful discourse requires us to wrestle with the original source material. 

This thread could be very deep and meaningful if people stopped grappling and cherry picking snipets to simply close discussion down.

Now, I've asked you twice Bob about 'readings' etc that can be found in Universities to educate people. You haven't replied about that - do I take it then, that your no comment on the issue is a ''Yes'' that Universities today (generally) teach far-left wing rhetoric?

I touched on Foucault and Marxism as I said earlier and in these readings they condemned (immigration issue) the Cronulla riots near Sydney. After restlessness in this area between Lebanese and Anglo-Australia youths, these readings
demonized the Anglo-Australian's for coming out in full force and causing carnage and ''embarrassment'' to the nation of Australia. I don't know the ins and outs of this, but when speaking to an Australian woman the other day she said the literature that I read eloquently left out the fact the Lebanise youths had bashed up life guards and hassled Anglo-Australian
people on the beaches for weeks prior to that.

This is her view, probably biased you may say but why is it that when I read academic literature at University they push one perspective more with an underlying agenda?

Just as I don't take right-wing views as fact (in the main) I also don't take left-wing ideology as fact (in the main). You can take bits from both IMO and draw your on conclusions based on research and personal experience.

As for where this thread should go, well I agree it is a very broad map. But if I had to pick the options you presented, I'd pick option 1 and 4.

1) The Frankfurt School's intellectual positions and their up-take in wider society over the course of the last century?

4) The over-reach of extreme political correctness and the resulting impact on public discourse?

I don't want to turn this into a race/religion thread but that's exactly what the 'Godwin's' have done already, plus its been done before. And I certainly am not justifying that Norweigen nutjobs actions, even though the sensitive's jumped all over it like a rash. But, where I ask, were all these people when Mumbai was bombed last week, where was all the crocodile tears and anger re what happened there?

There wasn't, large parts of society today are conditioned to what is now the 'norms', where in years gone by outrage would of been heard. Is that there are so many bombs and suicide bombers in the world today who blow themselves to bits, that we've become desencetized to the world around us?
Nobody, raised the proverbial eyebrow on here about this, perhaps the media coverage wasn't as widely reported. However, the moment a Right-wing fruit cake released hell on earth, this thread becomes ''inflammatory''.

Weren't the comments in this thread http://www.liverpoolfc-newkit.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=29189
''inflammatory'' when many members were pi$$ing in the grave of this dead girl, where were the 'good genuine' people then, for the closing down of that thread. If it makes nobody else wonder, it certainly makes me wonder.

BTW Bob, you finally reply to the questions I asked about 'Uni' and this discussion can get rolling in a sensible way.

[dawson99]

Kenny, we're allwoed as a society to take the mickey out of Winehouse becuase shes a public figure (this is sarcasm)

Its like in Africa 1 million can be killed, raped, mutilated, but if theres no oil or they are not europeans, whos really gonna care?

[SouthCoastShankly]

TBH, I've unlocked the thread because I'd like to hear Bam's rationale for raising this issue when he did and in the way he did.  He doesn't offer much in terms of his own views on the cut-and-paste stuff in the thread opener (although I sense an implied endorsement).  But, in his second attempt at cut-and-paste, we do get an acknowledged direct link to Breivic in the first few lines.  So what's up Bam?  Are we to understand that you have some sympathy for the "Frankfurt School-->Cultural Marxism-->multiculturalism-->political correctness" conspiracy theory?  If so, are you comfortable with the fact that Breivic (and other far-right extremists who post and share and endorse the article you excerpted in the first post) share similar views?  Is this the kind of meaty discussion you wish to have?  Or is this really just a twisted wind-up attempt?

Bob, this isn't a wind-up. In your own words its meant to insight ''Meaty discussion''. In fact Bob it's not an endorsement it's looking a things with an open mind rather than suppressing everything as racist or whatever all the time. This is what I mean, in my initial post when I took on cultural studies and ''Critical Whiteness'' etc (refer to my initial post where I asked you a question) its relevant to you I think.

In this subject it touched on the suffragettes, rather than stating women should have equal rights for example, it stated that men were oppressors of women. And that in schools girls struggled more in mathematics and this wasn't deemed as fair even though boys don't flourish in home economics - its like it's a cycle of reverse psychology on a lot of traditions and taken for granted assumptions which seek to undermine civil traditions, if you know what I mean.

People coming in here saying ''this thread should be banned'' epitomizes ''taboo'' subjects in today's society that aren't even allowed or wanted on a public forum. Because its viewed simply as Right-Wing rhetoric, yet Left-Wing rhetoric is happily allowed and nobody questions it, how can one movement have a voice and the other not. People have been conditioned to Nu-Left-Wing views where anything is remotely sensitive should be suppressed in their eyes. It's ironic really that Nu-Left movements are in fact becoming Right Wing with their suppressing of such debates - do you see what I mean Bob?

The only one who hasn't is Daws

  good on you mate, not 1 whole thing is ever right or fact. So rather than appease to far left wing views and swallow them wholesome its good to take snipets from other perspectives.

As for the Brevik thing - I don't agree in this gruesome act of terrorism and murder its disgusting, simple as that really.

But I noted, The Frankfurter's in this thread didn't offer any views on Sweden's insight and some of the quotes given by the minister for example.

I think this has proved a point. ''Burn and ban the thread because its overly right''. ''Don't worry about overly Left views there're allowed''. 

Alright, Bam, I'll take you at your word that this isn't a wind-up.  If that's the case, what exactly are we meant to be discussing here?

1) The Frankfurt School's intellectual positions and their up-take in wider society over the course of the last century?

2) Multiculturalism as a public policy and its relationship to immigration issues, particularly in Europe?

3) The ideological slant of contemporary academia?

4) The over-reach of extreme political correctness and the resulting impact on public discourse?

Help me out here because this thread is all over the map.  As for keeping an open mind, I'd be happy to do so as long as the source material provided for me and others to digest is of a sufficient intellectual standard to merit exploration.  The stuff you've posted up so far is some rather nasty conspiracy theorist nonsense trying (but failing) to cloak itself in the garb of rigorous intellectual critique.  The fact that this sh!te only appeals to reactionaries and extremists should be a huge tip off.  Surely we can discuss the purported excesses of political correctness without dragging the Frankfurt School (Jewish intellectuals? Oh the horror!) into it?  If not, I suggest we postpone our meaty discussion for a couple of years until we've all had a chance to read and digest our Lukacs, Benjamin, Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, and Fromm (not to mention our Foucault, Derrida, Said, Deleuze, Guitarri, Spivak, Bhaba, Lacan etc.--for proper context, of course).  After all, it's bad form to critique ideas on the basis of a few hackneyed caricatures found on the web.  Meaningful discourse requires us to wrestle with the original source material. 

This thread could be very deep and meaningful if people stopped grappling and cherry picking snipets to simply close discussion down.

Now, I've asked you twice Bob about 'readings' etc that can be found in Universities to educate people. You haven't replied about that - do I take it then, that your no comment on the issue is a ''Yes'' that Universities today (generally) teach far-left wing rhetoric?

I touched on Foucault and Marxism as I said earlier and in these readings they condemned (immigration issue) the Cronulla riots near Sydney. After restlessness in this area between Lebanese and Anglo-Australia youths, these readings
demonized the Anglo-Australian's for coming out in full force and causing carnage and ''embarrassment'' to the nation of Australia. I don't know the ins and outs of this, but when speaking to an Australian woman the other day she said the literature that I read eloquently left out the fact the Lebanise youths had bashed up life guards and hassled Anglo-Australian
people on the beaches for weeks prior to that.

This is her view, probably biased you may say but why is it that when I read academic literature at University they push one perspective more with an underlying agenda?

Just as I don't take right-wing views as fact (in the main) I also don't take left-wing ideology as fact (in the main). You can take bits from both IMO and draw your on conclusions based on research and personal experience.

As for where this thread should go, well I agree it is a very broad map. But if I had to pick the options you presented, I'd pick option 1 and 4.

1) The Frankfurt School's intellectual positions and their up-take in wider society over the course of the last century?

4) The over-reach of extreme political correctness and the resulting impact on public discourse?

I don't want to turn this into a race/religion thread but that's exactly what the 'Godwin's' have done already, plus its been done before. And I certainly am not justifying that Norweigen nutjobs actions, even though the sensitive's jumped all over it like a rash. But, where I ask, were all these people when Mumbai was bombed last week, where was all the crocodile tears and anger re what happened there?

There wasn't, large parts of society today are conditioned to what is now the 'norms', where in years gone by outrage would of been heard. Is that there are so many bombs and suicide bombers in the world today who blow themselves to bits, that we've become desencetized to the world around us?
Nobody, raised the proverbial eyebrow on here about this, perhaps the media coverage wasn't as widely reported. However, the moment a Right-wing fruit cake released hell on earth, this thread becomes ''inflammatory''.

Weren't the comments in this thread http://www.liverpoolfc-newkit.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=29189
''inflammatory'' when many members were pi$$ing in the grave of this dead girl, where were the 'good genuine' people then, for the closing down of that thread. If it makes nobody else wonder, it certainly makes me wonder.

BTW Bob, you finally reply to the questions I asked about 'Uni' and this discussion can get rolling in a sensible way.

Bam, do you really think far left rhetoric is being taught? sounds like an exaggeration to me.

Far-left rhetoric = Anarchy, Communism, etc

I agree that political correctness is in it's excess nowadays but I also believe there is a right place for cultural sensitivities. Teaching children to be tolerant and sensitive to ethnic and cultural diversity is a good thing. Without those skills you can never live in a multi-cultural society.

I have far more issues with a far-right rhetoric than a far-left one. Far-left, e.g. communism failed for very valid reasons - corruption, lack of opportunity, etc.

Far-right however advocates "a complete rejection of the concept of social equality as a norm". Hence why so many far-right advocates stick to their own and often promote a sense of superiority of their group.

[Bad Bob]

This thread could be very deep and meaningful if people stopped grappling and cherry picking snipets to simply close discussion down.

Now, I've asked you twice Bob about 'readings' etc that can be found in Universities to educate people. You haven't replied about that - do I take it then, that your no comment on the issue is a ''Yes'' that Universities today (generally) teach far-left wing rhetoric?

I touched on Foucault and Marxism as I said earlier and in these readings they condemned (immigration issue) the Cronulla riots near Sydney. After restlessness in this area between Lebanese and Anglo-Australia youths, these readings
demonized the Anglo-Australian's for coming out in full force and causing carnage and ''embarrassment'' to the nation of Australia. I don't know the ins and outs of this, but when speaking to an Australian woman the other day she said the literature that I read eloquently left out the fact the Lebanise youths had bashed up life guards and hassled Anglo-Australian
people on the beaches for weeks prior to that.

This is her view, probably biased you may say but why is it that when I read academic literature at University they push one perspective more with an underlying agenda?

Just as I don't take right-wing views as fact (in the main) I also don't take left-wing ideology as fact (in the main). You can take bits from both IMO and draw your on conclusions based on research and personal experience.

As for where this thread should go, well I agree it is a very broad map. But if I had to pick the options you presented, I'd pick option 1 and 4.

1) The Frankfurt School's intellectual positions and their up-take in wider society over the course of the last century?

4) The over-reach of extreme political correctness and the resulting impact on public discourse?

I don't want to turn this into a race/religion thread but that's exactly what the 'Godwin's' have done already, plus its been done before. And I certainly am not justifying that Norweigen nutjobs actions, even though the sensitive's jumped all over it like a rash. But, where I ask, were all these people when Mumbai was bombed last week, where was all the crocodile tears and anger re what happened there?

There wasn't, large parts of society today are conditioned to what is now the 'norms', where in years gone by outrage would of been heard. Is that there are so many bombs and suicide bombers in the world today who blow themselves to bits, that we've become desencetized to the world around us?
Nobody, raised the proverbial eyebrow on here about this, perhaps the media coverage wasn't as widely reported. However, the moment a Right-wing fruit cake released hell on earth, this thread becomes ''inflammatory''.

Weren't the comments in this thread http://www.liverpoolfc-newkit.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=29189
''inflammatory'' when many members were pi$$ing in the grave of this dead girl, where were the 'good genuine' people then, for the closing down of that thread. If it makes nobody else wonder, it certainly makes me wonder.

BTW Bob, you finally reply to the questions I asked about 'Uni' and this discussion can get rolling in a sensible way.

Oh, okay, I'm the one holding things up am I?  Well, I'll try my best to reply to your questions Bam but you've got to realize they lack coherence and were embedded in a rambling series of stuff.  Here's my best interpretation of what you're asking me, though, and my response.  You'll no doubt let me know if I'm off track.

1)You ask me about "readings about culture" but you've got to recognize (as I'm sure you do if you've been studying in this area) that there are countless "readings about culture" discussed in universities around the world.  Culture is easily one of the most complex words in the English language and one of the most studied subjects in academia so you'll have to be more specific. 

Now, based on the other things you've mentioned I assume you're not interested in, say, a cultural history of the Malian Empire or an interpretive anthology of Icelandic sagas.  No, you seem focused on what might loosely be called "cultural studies" or "postcolonial studies" (critical whiteness studies is a new one on me, BTW, but a little digging reveals that it is studied in a few places and that its focus would fall under the "cultural studies" or "postcolonial studies" umbrellas).  If that's the case, I wouldn't worry too much about the Frankfurt School.  The right-wing conspiracy theorists seem fixated on them because they can tar them with the 'Marxist' brush and emphasize their Jewishness.  Far more important to these schools of thought is the more recent work of Edward Said, Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida.  From them you'll get the main tenets of the postmodern critical perspective you seem to be critiquing: the historically-established European perception of the non-European Other (Said), the nature and significance of power relations (Foucault), and the general tenets of deconstructionism as it applies to literary criticism (Derrida).  There are, of course, many other authors who build upon and critique these guys but this material is at the core of anything 'postmodern' in the world of academia.

2) BTW, in your opening post you suggest that "Critical Whiteness" is a "Marxist theorem of thought" but, from what I've seen, it's more postmodern than Marxist and there is a difference between the two.  The cut-and-paste stuff you've posted is keen to lump it all under the category "Cultural Marxism" but that misses a lot of the internal nuances and struggles over meaning presented by these authors.  Most Marxist scholars would bristle at the suggestion that they are the same as postmodernists.  (And, yes, there are plenty of academic writers who are avowed Marxists...i.e. they draw intellectual inspiration from the writings of Karl Marx; most drive nice cars and live in nice houses and have no interest in fomenting class war, incidentally)

3) You also seem to lump feminism and Marxism together in the same camp in your thread opener.  Yet, while there are certainly Marxist-feminists out there, not all feminists are Marxists (in fact, many find Marxism too patriarchal!).  Some feminists are of course rather militant about gender relations but they aren't all man-haters as a rule.

4) On to your big question: are universities far-left in their leanings?  Well, the critics (the 'Culture Warriorers' in the US for instance) would certainly say so.  But, I think it depends a lot on the school, the program and the department.  Are Commerce/Business programs left-leaning?  Engineering programs?  Science programs?  No.  Certainly not.  (And, these programs attract the lion's share of students these days.)  If anything, they're somewhat right-leaning because they rely heavily on corporate donations, apprenticeship programs, etc. 

So, that leaves the Social Sciences and the Arts and, yes, these areas of the academy do lean left generally speaking.  Far left?  I'm sure some departments or some profs are but my experience is that most of these programs are more balanced than they are given credit for by external critics.  It also bears mentioning that students aren't empty vessels that get brainwashed and sent out into the world.  Most students have a political slant to their world view before coming to university and are resistant to extremist positions on the other side of the spectrum.  Sometimes, that leads to bias complaints about particular profs or programs, sometimes it leads to 'meaty' class discussion, but usually it leads to students swerving classes taught by profs they fundamentally disagree with.  Not really a recipe for world domination by the far left of the academy, I would say.

So, I hope I've answered some of your questions, Bam.  Now I have a few of my own:

1) What exactly concerns you about critical whiteness studies (or, more broadly, postcolonial studies)?  As a British ex-pat living in Australia and having worked in Aboriginal communities, surely you can understand why the colonial past might need to be critically examined rather than swept under the rug?

2) Do you feel that universities are too far-left and do you think that that has had a negative impact on society as whole?  Do you think that dense, esoteric academic theories (e.g. those of the Frankfurt School) really have the broad resonance required to fundamentally reshape society (as the "Cultural Marxism" critics claim)?

3) Do you merely feel annoyed by political correctness or do you consider it a threat at some level?  If it's a threat, what is the nature of that threat?

[neil]

fuckinel bob, i wondered what you brought to the table.

[Benny The Noon]

Can we have an end of day summary each day please

[Greavesie]

Can we have an end of day summary each day please

I have no idea why I click on this thread

[Kenny Kan]

1) What exactly concerns you about critical whiteness studies (or, more broadly, postcolonial studies)?  As a British ex-pat living in Australia and having worked in Aboriginal communities, surely you can understand why the colonial past might need to be critically examined rather than swept under the rug?

Critical Whiteness seeks to deconstruct the norms of 'White' ways to supposedly help a majority of educated Anglo-Celt demographic, understand how they can marginalize ethnic groups without meaning too. Therefore, what a White man considers to be the norm a Black man of different ethnic background could see this as foreign. Without wanting to marginalize the Black fella, the White man should acknowledge that his 'way' isn't necessarily the right way - and therefore should accommodate for this.

This discipline has probably evolved from the more broader post colonial studies in which I do agree, as an ex-pat living in an Aboriginal community should be critically examined.

But 'Critical Whiteness' studies to an extent, and in my opinion only, does give justification to people who critic it's very existence. Just as we can be critical of our post colonial past, surely we can be critical of why such disciplines (Critical Whiteness studies) are ever written into existence? Who's idea, and rationale was behind it, why did they conjure up such a subject?

The Frankfurt School's work cannot be fully comprehended without equally understanding the aims and objectives of critical theory. Initially outlined by Max Horkheimer in his Traditional and Critical Theory (1937), critical theory may be defined as a self-conscious social critique that is aimed at change and emancipation through enlightenment, and does not cling dogmatically to its own doctrinal assumptions.[13][14]
Horkheimer opposed it to "traditional theory", which refers to theory in the positivistic, scientistic, or purely observational mode – that is, which derives generalizations or "laws" about different aspects of the world

Source: Wiki

So, as you can see from the paragraph above it is easy to see how the 'Critical Whiteness' studies can be correlated to Frankfurt agenda, well I can. It, is turning inside out everything 'we' (westerners) see as normal (traditions & culture etc). For me there is a big difference between post colonial and the Critical Whiteness studies, one is an historical critique and the other is critiquing modern norms and practices. Is it really necessary for 'Westerner's' today to critique ourselves like this? Many Indigenous European cultures are producing sympathizers to other ethnic groups, to an extent that they're marginalizing their own people (see the Swedish article on the prior page for example).

Another theory that the Frankfurt School have built upon, among others including Freudian theory (all that sexuality stuff, again see the Swedish artcile about Boy's being made to dress up as girls!), is 'Culture Theory': Critique of mass culture as suppression and absorption of negation, as integration into status quo; critique of Western culture as a culture of domination, both of an external and internal nature; dialectic differentiation of emancipatory and repressive dimensions of elite culture; Kierkegaard's critique of the present age, Nietzsche's transvaluation, and Schiller's aesthetic education. Source: Wiki (which is objective in it's discussion re Frankurt)

Again, Critical Whiteness studies is something that ties into the bold quote above AND Frankfurt School agenda theories. These studies must come from somewhere and while the OP article had links to 'White Supremists' serving their agenda, then surely we are entitled to question the foundations, theories and agendas we are mostly reading (Foucault et al, Critical Whiteness Studies etc) in Universities today and ask what purpose are they practically serving. These ideologies in turn pervade many Westernized government ideologies today, Sweden, Norway and Great Britain amongst a host of others, in a kind of sympathetic outlook on policies like immigration and multiculturalism.

During this period the Institute of Social Research re-settled in Frankfurt (although many of its associates remained in the United States) with the task not merely of continuing its research but of becoming a leading force in the sociological education and democratization of West Germany. This led to a certain systematization of the Institute's entire accumulation of empirical research and theoretical analysis.
During this period, Frankfurt School critical theory particularly influenced some segments of the Left wing and leftist thought, particularly the New Left. Herbert Marcuse has occasionally been described as the theorist or intellectual progenitor of the New Left. Their critique of technology, totality, teleology and (occasionally) civilization is an influence on anarcho-primitivism. Their work also heavily influenced intellectual discourse on popular culture and scholarly popular culture studies.

The New Left arose in the 60's and 70's and to quote Wiki ''The New Left was a term used mainly in the United Kingdom and United States in reference to activists, educators, agitators and others in the 1960s and 1970s who sought to implement a broad range of reforms''.

''Activist, educators and agitators: Many current Pollies today went through Universities being educated by this Nu Left approach ( I should back that up I know, but given their age and current societal norms of lax immigration issues, highly sensitive discrimination issues in the work place etc etc, I've just put 2 + 2 and equaled 4).

So in summary to point 1, Postcolonial discussion and critique is necessary and worthwhile, modern day critique of the Westernized world only acts as a tool to justify the extreme cases of Political Correctness we see today in society.

2) Do you feel that universities are too far-left and do you think that that has had a negative impact on society as whole?  Do you think that dense, esoteric academic theories (e.g. those of the Frankfurt School) really have the broad resonance required to fundamentally reshape society (as the "Cultural Marxism" critics claim)?

I do feel Universities push too much left ideology yes Bob. On my 'online library' at Uni, I found many many Politically 'sensitive' readings listed. The problem is, at one point in time or other this 'library' had listed books from author's who were, more right leaning in their writings, critiquing other cultures in order to sort out deep rooted social and political problems they may have had. However, when I went to click on these author's to get a balance in views, the article, book or journal had been taken down off the site! THIS IS GOD'S HONEST TRUTH, Therefore the University had decided to suppress and silence certain academic authors' discussions because it didn't like the rhetoric used. Certain author's were given a voice, while other voices were being muted - leaving the inquisitive learners, passive and adhered to the left-wing ideology on University education - hardly democracy now is it, where were those authors' freedom of voice when it came to the University deciding students' literature. There is no balance, hence why I think that Universities are overly left in their teachings.

I think these esoteric theories (like the Frankfurt School) have pervaded certain aspects into society today, yes, some of the points above where I link theory to practice is definitely plausible.

3) Do you merely feel annoyed by political correctness or do you consider it a threat at some level?  If it's a threat, what is the nature of that threat?

This question could possibly lead to an inflammatory answer, therefore the 'Godwin-er's' of this forum will call for censorship and thread banning if I was to be too candid Bob.

Put it this way, I know MANY Briton's who are threatened by it and I can see why. Myself, yes I am worried because I can see this escalating to the point of no return in future where civil unrest and society simply fall apart. If one specific Indigenous demographic feel oppressed and marginalized by rules and regulations that were not a part of their society, culture and traditions in years gone by, ugliness will be born and fed. Take for example More people voting for the BNP, UKIP and EDL's new sorry existence.