Jump to content

La gauche et la culture


Recommended Posts

il y a 35 minutes, Paperasse a dit :

Peut-être que beaucoup de gens viennent sur un forum pour faire la guerre.

 

J'essaie de rester détaché (ce que je ne réussis pas forcément, et ce qui peut me demander des efforts car ce n'est pas le plus naturel), parce que je viens sur ce forum pour apprendre.

Apprendre ne se fait pas sans effort. Plus encore quand tu n'es pas à l'école.

Link to comment
Le 19/01/2023 à 18:12, Ultimex a dit :

Amha, avec Altamont 69/La Famille Manson/Les abus de drogues divers et variés, les idéaux hippies ont pris du plomb dans l'aile assez vite et son influence actuelle semble, au final, plutôt limitée (à part des poncifs comme Peace & Love et un certain nombre de fantasmes).

 

Penses-tu qu'il y a un équivalent au mouvement hippie aujourd'hui ?

Je parle plutôt en terme artistique.

 

Un équivalent en terme purement politique, ou plus généralement d'idées, de pensée, je dirais intuitivement que c'est le mouvement écologiste.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Un élément pertinent pour le sujet du thread, O'Sullivan's first law: "All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing."

D'après Urban Dictionary:

Quote
O’Sullivan’s Law states that any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time. The law is named after British journalist John O’Sullivan.

Television shows are the best examples of this. 24, House. Charitable foundations are worse but harder to see.

One of the reasons for this is leftist intolerance versus right-wing tolerance. Right wingers are willing to hire openly left-wing employees in the interest of fairness. Left-wingers, utterly intolerant, will not allow a non-Liberal near them, and will harass them at every opportunity. The result over time is that conservative enterprises are infiltrated by leftists but leftist enterprises remain the same or get worse.

Also, leftism is in and of itself a form of decay. It’s what happens not just to television shows but to nations, churches and universities as the energy given off by the big bang of their inception slowly ebbs away. Rather than expend vitality in originality and creation they become obsessed with introspection, popularity and lethargy. Leftism is entropy of the spirit and intellect.

Another reason is that the parasitic nature of Liberals/Leftists attracts them to existing money.

An enterprise can stave off O'Sullivan's Law if their creators keep it in mind and remain vigilant and truthful.
O'Sullivan's Law hit 24 when they finally had a Muslim villain then started running disclaimers that Muslims aren't all terrorists.

The Annenberg Foundation was started by a Republican but it didn't take long before O'Sullivan's Law had them handing a domestic terrorist money for educating kids.

The ACLU, the Ford Foundation and the Episcopal Church all fell to O’Sullivan’s Law.
by Melvin Udall April 22, 2011

 

  • Yea 2
  • Post de référence 4
Link to comment
il y a 35 minutes, Lancelot a dit :

Un élément pertinent pour le sujet du thread, O'Sullivan's first law: "All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing."

C'est la même que la Deuxième Loi de Conquest.

Link to comment

En fait c'est apparemment l'inverse : https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2021/05/john-osullivans-first-law-all-organizations-that-are-not-actually-right-wing-will-over-time-become-left-wing/

 

Quote

Why this post? This law is falsely attributed to Robert Conquest 1000s of times, including by me. So we need some counter-attribution! There is this post on tracking down the actual Robert Conquest laws. It seems that we can blame John Derbyshire for the false attribution, since he wrote in 2003:

Several readers have asked me for Robert Conquest’s Three Laws of politics. As best I can remember, they are:

1. Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.

2. Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.

3. The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.

Of the Second Law, Conquest gave the Church of England and Amnesty International as examples. Of the Third, he noted that a bureaucarcy sometimes actually IS controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies–e.g. the postwar British secret service.

So, the second law here, is actually John O’Sullivan’s First Law, which appeared in the October 27, 1989, issue of National Review, which is archived here:

That is explained by O’Sullivan’s First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don’t like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels’s Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows.

We can now add a lot more of these, since practically every large company and industry is now far left, borderline ethno-communist (naturally, a list of such countries was censored too). “America is a communist country.”, not quite false. If you want the current popular take on why everything is approaching communism as time goes towards heat death, you can check out Richard Hanania’s piece.

 

  • Yea 2
Link to comment
  • 6 months later...

J'ai partagé l'article pour info, mais je ne sais pas s'il a raison ou pas (je dubite même un peu).


Après, je rapprocherais ça d'une constatation comme quoi les gugusses qui s'occupent d'innovations vieillissantes ou en cours d'obsolescence ... ce ne sont pas les vrais innovateurs,

ce sont justement souvent des cafards gauchistes, structurellement incapables de pondre un truc neuf utile, mais juste capables de jouer les coucous.

De ce fait, que des structures/assocs/fondations innovantes 20 ans en arrière soient reprises par des coucous, ce n'est pas 100% une surprise.

Si on regarde les bios des vrais innovateurs, beaucoup passent d'une innov à la suivante, et laissent forcément les précédentes aux mains d'autres.

Parfois ça se passe bien, mais souvent les héritiers massacrent juste le truc.

 

Donc bref, ce mouvement de passage de trucs novateurs, puis en obsolescence, vers des nullards, ça me paraît plutôt naturel.
Pas forcément déprimant.

(Et de toutes manières, le socialisme, c'est comme la gravité).

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...