Cultural Marxism is often misunderstood as having, or wishing to create, something new, it isn’t, it is a wrecking ball with no further purpose than to destroy. This is why its internal logic is so often paradoxical and, generally, an incoherent mess. One example of this is the way the modern Left claim to stand simultaneously for Islam and Gay Rights. It doesn’t make sense, it isn’t supposed to, what matters is that both gays and Muslims are groups lining up to attack the traditional society Europeans have created. Placing blacks as aristocrats, or coming soon, characters in Beowulf, opens up yet another paradox in New Leftist thought. If blacks are a historically oppressed and abused group at the hands of racist Europeans then by the Left’s own logic it is absurd to cast them as being a historically integral part of European civilization, as aristocrats and viking warriors etc. If we are now supposed to believe that blacks made up the classes of the British ruling elites are they, then, culpable and guilty for slavery too? what do today’s blacks think of this?.
If they can convince you into insanity once, they never need do it again.
Asch’s lines. How many lines do you see?
Or Moscovici’s blue/green study appropriately dubbed “minority influence”.
In many of the conformity studies described so far it was a minority group who were conforming to the majority. Moscovici (1976, 1980) argued along different lines. He claimed that Asch (1951) and others had put too much emphasis on the notion that the majority in a group has a large influence on the minority. In his opinion, it is also possible for a minority to influence the majority. In fact Asch agreed with Moscovici. He too felt that minority influence did occur, and that it was potentially a more valuable issue to study – to focus on why some people might follow minority opinion and resist group pressure.
They want all histories on a wiki so they can edit as times go on as is expedient.
Moscovici made a distinction between compliance and conversion. Compliance is common in conformity studies (e.g. Asch) whereby the participants publicly conform to the group norms but privately reject them. Conversion involves how a minority can influence the majority. It involves convincing the majority that the minority views are correct. This can be achieved a number of different ways (e.g. consistency, flexibility). Conversion is different to compliance as it usually involves both public and private acceptance of a new view or behavior (i.e. internalization).
Why does that push for “awareness” and “acceptance” sound familiar?