True Left

Counterculture should strictly be about ridiculing every smallest detail of Western civilization:

Fascinating! The word "Progress" engraved into the statues base on the last image...

Why 99% Of Movies Today Are Garbage - Chris Gore

Chris Gore is a writer, comedian, author and television personality who has built a solid reputation as a hilariously outspoken voice in the entertainment world. As a teenager, Chris founded the brutally honest magazine Film Threat, which began as a fanzine while he was a college student in Detroit. As Film Threat evolved into a respected national magazine, he relocated to Los Angeles. The print magazine was retired in 1997 when it was re-launched as a web site. FilmThreat.com found a huge audience online and was named one of the top five movie web sites by the Wall Street Journal. Chris has appeared as a film expert on MSNBC, E!, CNN, Travel Channel, and Reelz Channel. Chis has also hosted shows on FX, Starz, IFC and G4TV’s Attack of the Show as the show’s film expert. His weekly movie review segment DVDuesday was among the most popular on G4. Chris is also an author, having written The 50 Greatest Movies Never Made and The Complete DVD Book. His book The Ultimate Film Festival Survival Guide is considered the bible of the industry and is required reading at film school.

Gore makes some excellent points in this interview he did I feel. He speaks alot about the corporate studios and how they are only interested in making films for the world, rather than American films for America. In that sense I believe his argument is on solid ground when he speaks of how America is losing it's identity to corporate interests who only care about money and political agendas first and foremost, instead of good entertainment firstly, which is what films are supposed to provide before anything else.

Lest we forget, globalization would not have happened had the industrial revolution and western colonialism not preceded them. Globalization is merely an extension and furtherance of both.

Continuing from:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/counterculture-era/counterculture-and-western-civilisation/msg10112/#msg10112

our enemies do our work for us again:



Western architecture vs American architecture (anyone can tell which is which):

...
it’s pretty easy to come up with objective ways to rate the subjective happiness inducement of functionally comparable but architecturally distinct buildings, such as how much do brides want to have their wedding pictures taken at Boston City Hall (a 1968 concrete brutalist upside-down Aztec human sacrifice platform) versus San Francisco City Hall (a 1915 Beaux-Arts extravaganza that Tom Wolfe admiringly called “this Golden ****’s dream of paradise”).

When I try to look up “Boston City Hall wedding” I can’t find a single photo of a bride online at the 1968 City Hall. (There are, however, quite a few taken at Boston’s 1865 Old City Hall that now contains a Ruth’s Chris Steak House.)

The 1865 version is of course Western also:



and it goes without saying that steak is Western:

The word steak originates from the mid-15th century Scandinavian word steik, or stickna' in the Middle English dialect, along with the Old Norse word steikja.[4] The Oxford English Dictionary's first reference is to "a thick slice of meat cut for roasting or grilling or frying, sometimes used in a pie or pudding; especially a piece cut from the hind-quarters of the animal."

so the fact that it contains a steakhouse fits its architecture.

Continuing:

In contrast, there are countless bridal photos online featuring the San Francisco City Hall:



In the argument over architectural taste and city hall architecture, the brides have spoken: the San Francisco city hall is just plain better for wedding pictures than the Boston city hall.

Our enemies call this "objective"? It's a mere survey of popular preference! Popular =/= superior.

Besides, since all the brides are wearing Western wedding dresses, Western architecture backgrounds can be expected to be more compatible with their clothing choices. At most the conclusion can be: the SF city hall is more compatible with Western-style weddings. It tells us more about the wedded than about the buildings:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/counterculture-era/counterculture-and-western-civilisation/msg10157/#msg10157

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/counterculture-era/counterculture-and-western-civilisation/msg10259/#msg10259

Not to mention that anyone who wears a Western wedding dress is not an American but a Western occupier:

The first documented instance of a princess who wore a white wedding dress for a royal wedding ceremony is that of Philippa of England, who wore a tunic with a cloak in white silk bordered with squirrel and ermine in 1406, when she married Eric of Pomerania.[1][2]
...
White became a popular option in 1840, after the marriage of Queen Victoria to Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, when Victoria wore a white gown trimmed with Honiton lace. Illustrations of the wedding were widely published, and many brides opted for white in accordance with the Queen's choice.[6]

On the other hand, what clothes are most compatible with American architecture? Hint:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/counterculture-era/counterculture-and-western-civilisation/msg10219/#msg10219

You would think this meme was tweeted by a rightist. But no, it was a False Leftist who tweeted it:

A good example of Counterculture-era Red politics:

https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1613769456475594754

Then westerners like Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Mark Zuckerberg came along:

Did Newt Gingrich wreck American politics?

[...]Still, Gingrich did not singlehandedly coarsen our political oratory. Radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, for example, was a master of provocative language and was heard by far more people than Gingrich. By 1990, Limbaugh’s show aired on close to 300 radio stations and boasted more than 5 million listeners weekly. His success helped boost the careers of other conservative commentators, like Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson, who are watched by millions of Americans every day.

The rise of rightwing political commentary is just one of several external factors that have encouraged harsh political speech. Modern congressional elections are another. Gerrymandered House districts lead to less competitive elections, with one party holding sway over a particular district for years. Fewer swing districts mean that lawmakers are more likely to lose a primary election than a general election. As a result, they are incentivized to position themselves as more extreme on the assumption that this is what primary voters will prefer.

Another factor is affective polarization – negative attitudes towards people of the opposite party – which is sizable and growing among citizens, creating an additional incentive for politicians to bash their political opponents. And the rise of social media, which is dominated by hateful and angry rhetoric, has almost certainly done more to encourage lawmakers to speak negatively about the opposing party than anything Gingrich may have done three decades ago.
Milbank and others note that Gingrich made baseless, conspiracy-like claims about his opponents, but such behavior has a pedigree that far precedes Gingrich’s time in Congress. Conspiratorial language was a hallmark of the John Birch Society, for example. In a New York Times essay, Robert Draper interviewed a far-right Arizona state party leader who cited as her influence not Gingrich but instead the 1950s Red-baiting Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.)...

Entire article: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3609952-did-newt-gingrich-wreck-american-politics/

How Newt Gingrich Shaped The Republican Party

The hyperbolic descriptions President Trump has used to describe his political opponents — “the radical left, the Marxists, the anarchists” — come straight out of the playbook of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Historian Julian Zelizer makes that case in his new book, "Burning Down The House: Newt Gingrich, The Fall Of A Speaker, And The Rise Of The New Republican Party,” which chronicles Gingrich's rise as a young and unknown congressman who utilized cable television to shape the Republican Party in ways still seen today.

Entire article:

Our enemies attack Carter, so we will take it as a tribute:

Carter was fully on board with what would later become the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA).

See:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/counterculture-era/counterculture-and-western-civilisation/msg17172/#msg17172

Continuing:

Let us not forget Carter’s support for refugees over Americans with the United States Refugee Act of 1980.

The United States Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212) is an amendment to the earlier Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 and the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, and was created to provide a permanent and systematic procedure for the admission to the United States of refugees of special humanitarian concern to the U.S., and to provide comprehensive and uniform provisions for the effective resettlement and absorption of those refugees who are admitted.[1]The act was completed on March 3, 1980, was signed by President Jimmy Carter on March 17, 1980, and became effective on April 1, 1980.
...
The Act recognizes that it has been the historic policy of the United States to respond to the urgent needs of persons subject to persecution in their homelands and to provide assistance, asylum, and resettlement opportunities to admitted refugees. The goal of the Refugee Act was to create a uniform procedure with which to provide these opportunities to refugees.[1]

More about Carter here:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/name-decolonization/msg18006/#msg18006