"Compliance and politically correct"
How scientifically destroy nations
In the '50s, a Harvard sociologist named Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment to measure conformity.
It worked like this: a subject, put in a cab, hears two sounds in a headset and must say which was more prolonged. But before giving his opinion, must listen to five other people who are in five other cabins: people (the subject does not know it) does not exist. The other cabins are empty, and they come from various sentences and judgments recorded, the experimenter can change at will. Perhaps adding giggles, whispers and indignant reviews malignant as a commentary on the subject's response.
Which of the two sounds is longer? From the other cabins are false judgments. Well, the subject - which would give the right answer - it tends to comply with the misjudgments of the group.
In other words, the average man tends to be wary of your ears (and their opinions) rather than continually contradict the rest of the group.
But if the subject was asked to write the answer instead to give voice to the microphone, making it know that the rest of the group (simulated), tended to give a more independent and just ... (maybe this is the reason for the discrepancy between the "feel" the public and the outcome of the elections?).
If the subject felt that from the other cabins were addressed comments like "Who do you think you are?" Or, "How many tunes!", Then 75 subjects out of a hundred rushing to change their opinion (right) to conform to the (wrong) in the group. More than the shame of giving a misjudgment in the minority, the fear of going through acting presumptuous. Moreover, accepting criticism, "Who do you think you" in silence.
In short, the individual that conforms to the group to renounce their belief in the right to be afraid, apparently, that "other people" accuse him of being better, smarter or more acute. In short, fears social envy.
The subjects explained in later interviews, why they had changed their opinion after listening to the others:
"In today's world you can not afford to be too much opposition";
"Modern life looks like this: you're trying to give reason to the other, "or even:
" If you want to avoid deviations from the opinions of others, you make it pay. "
And we were only in the 50s. Depressing?
The man is so spasmodically in need of "company" to give up what he saw and heard, and at their own discretion, although ... not to be excluded is a "our Achilles heel?"
power uses always this attitude of conformity, subordination to the ideas and situations in force ..
It must be recognized that this set of psychological mechanisms is the conformism, fear of being judged by "others", the feelings of others and social pressure piegarvisi, is a constant, seemingly invincible, also useful in normal times: Maybe inertia without this there would be a stable society. E 'However, in times of grave crisis, when to abandon the "common places" to explore the new reality in new ways, restoring the independence of opinion in which most are not used.
significant fact: Milgram was able to increase the frequency and degree of independence of those making them believe that their views would be crucial for the construction of air traffic control equipment. The liability of life induced the subjects to take firm in their view, they knew right against false one "other." So
conformism would also be somewhat a liability waiver, which may correct the call to responsibility.
Today, however, you must regret the devastation of good conformation, one that - for example - also forced the "unbelievers" to honor honesty, hard-working poverty, chastity, perhaps, the sacrifice of oneself to a task / job / or family responsibilities. It has now been replaced by the conformism of the "desecration" of that conformity that "he was a Christian," and for all, behave responsibly, it is more difficult. Morale, the company has not improved, indeed.
He said Simone Weil in 1949: "Religion has been declared private thing. Given the current habits of thought (the new conformism, ed) does not mean that it is in the secret soul, to say that is the object of opinion, taste, imagination, something like the choice of a party political or even a tie. Having become a private thing, lose the binding nature reserved for public affairs, and therefore no longer has an indisputable right to the loyalty ... Thus, there is nothing on which to build loyalty '"Except the state", added Simon, but it was still a state could apply for example. military loyalty to the death, now long since dissipated / privatization - because the destruction of the 'good' conformism has also dissolved the legitimacy of states.
Simone Weil described with those words the situation that we live today, tragically fulfilled: a company dissociated, insubordination or better uprooted, who deny allegiance to any authority (mostly correctly), and docile but - like Pavlov's dogs - to bring them into conformity by the media, advertising, on the 'authorities' irresponsible or malevolent, because falsely popular.
Because manipulation of the masses, as we have seen since September 11 has become an exact science. Besides, why do you think that American sociology has so dedicated to certain tests? Do you think that Milgram, in his experiment was aimed at reducing social conformity? Aimed to increase it, and to develop the means to arouse in command, in order to make them available to power.
now is the men mean to check that the lies of power are met and do not need orders to punish non-conformity.
Examples? Israel is carrying out a genocide against the Palestinians for years, and nobody knows anything, or the financial crisis in which we debate ... How many hundreds of people, primarily economists, but politicians and political leaders, journalists, and in general have certainly a powerful 'intelligence and better information to us, which means that they knew / know the truth, but they did not see nor provide the desired time. Their failure is not the lack of head, but of moral courage and honesty. The
showing that the intellect is a virtue of courage, of the 'fortress' in the Christian sense. As seems to have
Paolo Guzzanti told Eugenio Scalfari, founder, billionaire publisher and editor of the Republic, "In truth we do not care" ... Today
are too many to be the case.
The truth, however, all of which teaches us, is not "one that says" as gospel heaven, but by the intellectual exchange between people who do not always agree on everything, from the friendly controversy of who knows - but - the other is trying to tell the truth. Today is a lie because premedia conformism makes us say "at the bottom because I risk myself?" Better to wait and see how it goes ....
We were told that we are the fifth-largest economy. ... But no one tells us that "The Italian wages are among the lowest in the OECD, 16.5% below average. We were told, however, have "moderation" (Ciampi of the three pension ..) to be "flexible" that the permanent position is up (for those who never says so). In particular, the report indicates "Taxinge wages" of the Parisian organization, the annual net salary, with the same purchasing power of the average worker in Italy in 2009, totaled $ 22,027, compared with $ 26,385 of the OECD average and $ 28,454 of the EU-15. In the overall standings, Italy is ventritreesimo place to not only preceded by giants like the United States ($ 30,977), France ($ 25,977) and Britain ($ 38,054), but also from countries such as Spain ($ 25,339), Greece ($ 25,583) and Ireland ($ 31,897 ). Shines in first place with South Korea $ 40,190 ...».
Already our salary is among the poorest in the developed world. The South Korean took us almost 40 thousand a year and half, and also we buy their cars KIA! Because they are cheap and give a lot more of "our" Fiat. What, funded by our money until yesterday, you do not understand how it can suddenly have so much money to be able to buy other companies field ... someone who has done it to him the question? I do not know.
We were betrayed to keep their seat, have sold our nation, reducing incentives, paying farmers not to work, paying industries to go abroad, being careful to reward those universities was true in hospitals, research centers. Today those who think with pride of being Italian? None. We are ashamed to be Italian. And we are here to incense another hoax that is "our" revival "of" our "Republic". But to whom and for what? Of the new
that we have become slaves to want to be conformists.
Being "Politically correct "
The Marxist roots
The political correctness is nothing more than intellectual AIDS. Everything he touches the infection and then kills her. American college campuses it has reduced the freedom of expression, altered assessments referenziarie, politicized the selection and replaced intellectual integrity with vapid slogan. At school, class after class, the teachers convey ideologically empty and bombastic speeches that students are compelled to regurgitate to get a vote. These places, and there are many, are no longer universities, but many small North Korea covered by a veil of snob.
What then is the Politically Correct?
People " politically correct "on college campuses, to be honest, do not want you to know the answer to this question. Why? Because political correctness is nothing more than Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. The similarities are obvious.
First is that the traditional economic Marxism, cultural Marxism, which is the politically correct, are totalitarian ideologies. Both insist on "truths" that are contrary to nature and human experience.
Contrary to economic Marxism, there are no such things as "classless society" or issues of economic incentives. Contrary to the politically correct, men and women are different, as are their roles in society, races and ethnic groups have specific characteristics and homosexuality is abnormal. Since the only way in which people accept the "truth" of ideologues is whether you will be forced, they will be forced to action by the full power of the state if the Marxists of the two sides monitor.
The second similarity is that both classical Marxism that cultural Marxism adopt a "single factor" to explain history. Classical Marxism argues that all history was determined by ownership of the means of production. The cultural Marxists of the politically correct say that history is defined by those groups, identified by sex, race and sexual normality or abnormality, who have power over other groups.
The third similarity is that both types of Marxism define certain groups as good and others as evil a priori, without regard to the actual behavior of individuals. Thus economic Marxism defined workers and peasants as good and the middle class as evil. Cultural Marxism defines blacks, Hispanics, feminists, homosexuals and other minorities as well as some white people are bad. The politically correct does not recognize the existence of women and feminists consider the blacks who reject this ideology as whites. The fourth
analogy is in means: expropriation. Marxist economic expropriating the property of the middle class and upper middle class to give to the State. Cultural Marxists, on campuses and in government, impose penalties on the white man and give privileges to the groups they favor. Measures to encourage members of minorities are an example of this type of expropriation.
the end both types of Marxism employ a method of analysis guaranteed to show the correctness of their ideology in every situation. For classical Marxists, the method is Marxist economics. For Cultural Marxists, the method is linguistic: deconstruction.
Deconstruction first removes all meaning from "texts" then add a new meaning: in one way or another the text illustrates the oppression of women, blacks, homosexuals and so on. by white men and Western culture. The meaning given by the author is irrelevant.
These similarities are not accidental. They exist because the Cultural Marxism of political correctness, in fact, derives from classical Marxism, economic, particularly through the work of the Frankfurt School. Following World War I Marxists faced a difficult question: why the proletariat throughout Europe not been raised and introduced a new Marxist order, as they would like their ideology?
Two Marxist thinkers of the first plan, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, arrived with the answer: Western culture. Western culture has blinded the workers to their true interests of "class" so as not to enable them to react. So before socialism could come to power, Western culture had to be destroyed.
Lukacs in 1919 posed the question: "Who will save us from Western civilization? "
As Deputy Commissioner for Culture in the same year, the Hungarian Bela Kun Bolshevik government, the first thing I did was to introduce sex education into Hungarian schools.
In 1923, Lukacs and a group of intellectuals German Marxist, he founded a think-tank "(the study group and research) with the aim of translating Marxism from economic terms into cultural terms, the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt. In 1933, when the Nazis came to power in Germany, the Frankfurt School moved to New York.
There, its key figures such as Theodor Adorno, Erich Fromm and Wilhelm Reich developed a critical theory: "a cross between Marx and Freud who defines the key components of prejudice in Western culture," a psychological illness. The "critical theorists" argued that to remove the "injury" or Catholicism, capitalism and the traditional patriarchal family they had to be destroyed.
The link between the Frankfurt School and the student revolt of the '60s was mainly done by a key member of the Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse, who in the '60s coined the phrase "make love, not war" .
Marcuse's books Eros "and" Civilization "argued that the tools with which to destroy Western culture were, in effect, sex, drugs and rock and roll.
He popularized the ideas of the Frankfurt School so that students of the '60s radicals could understand and assimilate. Now we know the correctness policy of his work.
So this is the dirty little secret of political correctness: it is Marxism, Marxism translated from economics to culture. We know what economic Marxism did to the old Soviet Union. Allowing the cultural Marxism do the same in the U.S.?
William S. Lind, Congress Foundation
Source> Blue
Agle (was not the case for Italy?)
0 comments:
Post a Comment