but do they ever speak proudly and openly about what they have learned and taken away from them? Not so much, I think. And so I wondered if examples I have overlooked might be brought to light.

they do… however they do so by holding the key unchanged (conserved) position of the party and crow the goals. they dont talk about theory or education, they do talk about key goals. those who have also read, and know the word codes from history, know what they are alluding to. (who knows if they mean it despite what they do, after all its a system about gaining power, not necessarily actually ending up at socialism. the failure of the ussr shows that one can use the process to take control, then abandon the false ideology that got you there, and do something else. so there is no conclusion as to the end)

another thing they do is point to lineages, rather than roots… so they will tag wright, who will say he walked with luthor (i dont know if he did), who everyone knows was with malcom, etc.

its a religion of sorts, and many religions when not acceptable to followers found ways so that large numbers could know each other and talk in the open, and yet not be restricted in communication.

we think peace is the absense of war..

they define peace as the absence of opposition to socialism/communism.

they dont have to talk directly to those who know these definitions from reading the stuff, since they know what they double meanings are. so sentences can be crafted to sound appealing to two opposing groups with one reading all manner of secret messages from their leader!!! (which reinforces the concept that the leader is really working for them against the rest of their opposition in the crowd, etc).

as far as examples… you just have to look for codes (usually words that have lost their real meaning).. progressive, liberal, socialism, socialized..

changing personel (individuals) to human resources (means of production).

thanks for a great post…

SDF

ah, i will assume that your not joking. However, start with russeau, nitsche, marx, engels, then throw in marcuse, brown, adorno. there is actually a massive list that makes up the entirety of this area of thought.

however, marxism is not falsifiable. i call it an adobo ideology, like feminism (a child of it now), its supposed to make everything better (through socialism).

from their i would then suggest reading the stories and tales of those who discovered they were usefil idiots and then turned around. start with neo’s articles on her conversion. while not the same as a useful idiot waking up to their being used, its none the less very similar.

and to get an idea of the kinds of things that you can read today that then came out of all that otehr stuff (and much of it created by fellow travelers. often they are tagged and paid for the purpose. otherwise who would want histories that are not real histories?)

go the the belmont club and they have a nice piece there called “half the battle”.

fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2008/05/half-battle.html

its a classic example of modern revisionist (stalinist) history. there is actually a recent parade of these since the left is now being affected by the fact that the people who are useful idiots have nothing really to reference that they can say is “their” authority… which is why there are so many front publishers (a while back i put the link of the forbes article interview with oleg shenin (?) pointing out that russia has purchased 4000 publishers all over the world, 45 of the largest. so they control much of what we read)

in the belmont piece you will find out that the allies were as bad as hitler… its history from the point of moral relatavism… (of course to be convenient they probably wont point out the mayhem of rapes as the russians raped jewish, and even russian camp guests).

if you go to capitalism magazine now, you can find a piece by a person that belittles the sacrifices of our military as a waste, and tries to make the case that the world would have been much better if the US had pretty much behavied isolationist and never got involved.

such authors have to cherry pick examples, conflate the details, shift the timelines, and generally confuse their readers so that they give up and just accept that a smarter person is an authority… then they go out and act like parrots. (the school system helps in this regard as they no longer can form cogent interelated concepts in the abstract).

i even have read recent pieces that claim that the cold war never happened and is modern right propaganda to manipulate the left with untrue scare stories… gulags never existed… the kulaks never died of starvation… the kgb never assasinated foreingners and terrorised their own in brighton beach (which they still do under the surface). [and dont say no. i have been to mroe than one barbecue where who i ended up eating with was clearly known because when they took off their shirts the tatoos told you all you needed to know).

you can find examples of such revisionism, minimization, apologetics, etc all over the left today.

its one of the reasons you cant hold a conversation. they believe that your facts are propaganda, so your crazy if you tell the truth. they will always end the argumetn short before yuo can get to the proof. and for some reason the admitted plots (like aids) is still touted (wright being a recent spigot).

so good luck… but i would first learn history withuot the revision… you dont have to agree with conclusions, but at least get the facts…

And as I’m sure you’ll agree, China’s cultural revolutionists never compromised their core values. Authentic confrontation and total destruction of the enemy was their stock in trade. Negotiations were, to them, for the weak.

When comparing two different things, their likeness is discerned by noting matches in their defining characteristics, not the similarities of ephemera.

The relative youth of China’s cultural revolutionairies is shared by movements as disparate as the Enlightenment, the Republican Congress of 1994 and Japanese pop music scene of the 2000s. And, yes, apparently, it’s a trait it also shares with Obamanationists.

China’s cultural revolutionaries were also ruthless, irrational, emotionally desperate, spiritually bereft and violent. These are the traits that define them and, obviously, make them polar opposites with the Enlightment and, yes, Obamanationalists.

“Exit polls show Hillary is destroying Obama among voters without a college education. That explains a lot.”

Memorizing names / terms and dates are called education… most of which are promptly forgotten btw…

I could write down some logic and thinking rules… that would take less than three pages… that if followed, would lead to being a rational thinker…

This pedestal of ‘education’ would fall into one of the rules… it is an appeal to authority.