Anyone who uses the term is a moron and not worth engaging with. It is literally nonsense.
Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon
- Thread starter kithnou
- Start date
- Status
Anyone who uses the term is a moron and not worth engaging with. It is literally nonsense.
It's a real problem though, the numbers of these morons are growing.
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
Towards a Grand Lib/Con Bargain: The Death Penalty, but only for Microaggressors
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Yep, we Trumped them.......
Smh at the term Cultural Marxist
£10 says he gets impeached.
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism
“"Cultural Marxism?" What the holy hell are you talking about?"
—Any liberal when exposed to the term for the first time
Cultural Marxism refers to two things:
- First — extremely rarely — "Cultural Marxism" refers to the general application of Marxist ideology and/or Critical Theory to the social sciences.
- Second — about 99.9% of the time — "Cultural Marxism" is a snarl word used to attack anyone with progressive tendencies. The term alludes to a conspiracy theory in which sinister left-wingers have infiltrated media, academia, and science and are engaged in a decades- or centuries-long plot to undermine western culture.
If anyone rants about "Cultural Marxists taking over culture!", feel free to remind them that they're literally spouting Nazi propaganda updated for the modern era.
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim
'Cultural Marxism': a uniting theory for rightwingers who love to play the victim
Jason Wilson
The culture war that so defines current debates between the left and right sides of politics has its history in the barmy theory of ‘cultural Marxism’
‘Anders Breivik killed young social democrats because he believed that their party was involved in a cultural marxist plot to undermine traditional European values by means of mass immigration from the Islamic world.’ Photograph: Frank Augstein/AP
Monday 19 January 2015
What do the Australian’s columnist Nick Cater, video game hate group #Gamergate, Norwegian mass shooter Anders Breivik and random blokes on YouTube have in common? Apart from anything else, they have all invoked the spectre of “cultural Marxism” to account for things they disapprove of – things like Islamic immigrant communities, feminism and, er, opposition leader Bill Shorten.
What are they talking about? The tale varies in the telling, but the theory of cultural Marxism is integral to the fantasy life of the contemporary right. It depends on a crazy-mirror history, which glancingly reflects things that really happened, only to distort them in the most bizarre ways.
It begins in the 1910s and 1920s. When the socialist revolution failed to materialise beyond the Soviet Union, Marxist thinkers like Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs tried to explain why. Their answer was that culture and religion blunted the proletariat’s desire to revolt, and the solution was that Marxists should carry out a “long march through the institutions” – universities and schools, government bureaucracies and the media – so that cultural values could be progressively changed from above.
Adapting this, later thinkers of the Frankfurt School decided that the key to destroying capitalism was to mix up Marx with a bit of Freud, since workers were not only economically oppressed, but made orderly by sexual repression and other social conventions. The problem was not only capitalism as an economic system, but the family, gender hierarchies, normal sexuality – in short, the whole suite of traditional western values.
The conspiracy theorists claim that these “cultural Marxists” began to use insidious forms of psychological manipulation to upend the west. Then, when Nazism forced the (mostly Jewish) members of the Frankfurt School to move to America, they had, the story goes, a chance to undermine the culture and values that had sustained the world’s most powerful capitalist nation.
The vogue for the ideas of theorists like Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno in the 1960s counterculture culminated with their acolytes’ occupation of the commanding heights of the most important cultural institutions, from universities to Hollywood studios. There, the conspiracy says, they promoted and even enforced ideas which were intended to destroy traditional Christian values and overthrow free enterprise: feminism, multiculturalism, gay rights and atheism. And this, apparently, is where political correctness came from. I promise you: this is what they really think.
The whole story is transparently barmy. If humanities faculties are really geared to brainwashing students into accepting the postulates of far-left ideology, the composition of western parliaments and presidencies and the roaring success of corporate capitalism suggests they’re doing an astoundingly bad job. Anyone who takes a cool look at the last three decades of politics will think it bizarre that anyone could interpret what’s happened as the triumph of an all-powerful left.
The theory of cultural Marxism is also blatantly antisemitic, drawing on the idea of Jews as a fifth column bringing down western civilisation from within, a racist trope that has a longer history than Marxism. Like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the theory was fabricated to order, for a special purpose: the institution and perpetuation of culture war. We can even nominate an author for this lunacy: William S Lind, a polymath of the American hard right, who sought to put rightwing activism on a new footing as the cold war drew to a close.
In the late 1980s, Lind wrote a couple of monographs arguing that there was an emerging mainstream political consensus on free-market economics (due in part to the “disarray” of the traditional social-democratic left), but that many Americans across the political spectrum were dismayed by the decline in traditional values, the family and middle-class life. If conflict with the left could be shifted to the ground of culture, there was a chance of binding the right and even claiming some socially conservative voters who had traditionally voted for the Democrats.
When the Berlin Wall fell, it was time for Lind’s strategy of “cultural conservatism” to become a central strategy for US Republicans: it identified a new kind of social enemy for the right to mobilise against. The changing parameters of economic debate and the beginning of American decline demanded that conservatives embrace a politics “centred more, not less, on cultural issues” – the family, education, crime and morality. The fairytale of cultural Marxism provided a post-communist adversary located specifically in the cultural realm – academics, Hollywood, journalists, civil rights activists and feminists. It has been a mainstay of conservative activism and rhetoric ever since.
While Lind has recently become a more marginal figure, his story of cultural Marxism has proved durable and useful across the spectrum of right-wing thought because it offers so much.
It allows those smarting from a loss of privilege to be offered the shroud of victimhood, by pointing to a shadowy, omnipresent, quasi-foreign elite who are attempting to destroy all that is good in the world. It offers an explanation for the decline of families, small towns, patriarchal authority, and unchallenged white power: a vast, century-long left wing conspiracy. And it distracts from the most important factor in these changes: capitalism, which demands mobility, whose crises have eroded living standards, and which thus, among other things, undermines the viability of conventional family structures and the traditional lifestyles that conservatives approve of.
The story of cultural Marxism is also flexible and can be tailored to fit with the obsessions of a range of right-wing actors. As such, it’s one example of an idea from the extremes which has been mobilised by more mainstream figures and has dragged politics as a whole a little further right.
Anders Breivik killed young social democrats because he believed that their party was involved in a cultural Marxist plot to undermine traditional European values by means of mass immigration from the Islamic world. Prominent voices in the #Gamergate movement have invoked it to warn of what is really motivating the feminist and queer critics of game aesthetics and culture – a desire to purge the culture of “proper” masculine values. It can even chime with Cater’s dreary, pedestrian moaning about how a “graduate class” seeks to remodel authentic, “egalitarian” Australian culture.
The idea of a cultural Marxist conspiracy has also endured because, in the absence of a genuine clash of ideas about the way the economy should be run, it provides an animating idea for the political contest. For Cater to claim that Bill Shorten is a Marxist of any kind is laughable precisely because to the extent that the opposition leader is explicitly offering anything, it’s plainly just a slightly more cushioned version of the same underlying economic orthodoxy embraced by Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey. Until that changes, the right will always be able to offer their story of victimhood and conspiracy with some hope of success.
'Cultural Marxism': a uniting theory for rightwingers who love to play the victim
Jason Wilson
The culture war that so defines current debates between the left and right sides of politics has its history in the barmy theory of ‘cultural Marxism’
‘Anders Breivik killed young social democrats because he believed that their party was involved in a cultural marxist plot to undermine traditional European values by means of mass immigration from the Islamic world.’ Photograph: Frank Augstein/AP
Monday 19 January 2015
What do the Australian’s columnist Nick Cater, video game hate group #Gamergate, Norwegian mass shooter Anders Breivik and random blokes on YouTube have in common? Apart from anything else, they have all invoked the spectre of “cultural Marxism” to account for things they disapprove of – things like Islamic immigrant communities, feminism and, er, opposition leader Bill Shorten.
What are they talking about? The tale varies in the telling, but the theory of cultural Marxism is integral to the fantasy life of the contemporary right. It depends on a crazy-mirror history, which glancingly reflects things that really happened, only to distort them in the most bizarre ways.
It begins in the 1910s and 1920s. When the socialist revolution failed to materialise beyond the Soviet Union, Marxist thinkers like Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs tried to explain why. Their answer was that culture and religion blunted the proletariat’s desire to revolt, and the solution was that Marxists should carry out a “long march through the institutions” – universities and schools, government bureaucracies and the media – so that cultural values could be progressively changed from above.
Adapting this, later thinkers of the Frankfurt School decided that the key to destroying capitalism was to mix up Marx with a bit of Freud, since workers were not only economically oppressed, but made orderly by sexual repression and other social conventions. The problem was not only capitalism as an economic system, but the family, gender hierarchies, normal sexuality – in short, the whole suite of traditional western values.
The conspiracy theorists claim that these “cultural Marxists” began to use insidious forms of psychological manipulation to upend the west. Then, when Nazism forced the (mostly Jewish) members of the Frankfurt School to move to America, they had, the story goes, a chance to undermine the culture and values that had sustained the world’s most powerful capitalist nation.
The vogue for the ideas of theorists like Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno in the 1960s counterculture culminated with their acolytes’ occupation of the commanding heights of the most important cultural institutions, from universities to Hollywood studios. There, the conspiracy says, they promoted and even enforced ideas which were intended to destroy traditional Christian values and overthrow free enterprise: feminism, multiculturalism, gay rights and atheism. And this, apparently, is where political correctness came from. I promise you: this is what they really think.
The whole story is transparently barmy. If humanities faculties are really geared to brainwashing students into accepting the postulates of far-left ideology, the composition of western parliaments and presidencies and the roaring success of corporate capitalism suggests they’re doing an astoundingly bad job. Anyone who takes a cool look at the last three decades of politics will think it bizarre that anyone could interpret what’s happened as the triumph of an all-powerful left.
The theory of cultural Marxism is also blatantly antisemitic, drawing on the idea of Jews as a fifth column bringing down western civilisation from within, a racist trope that has a longer history than Marxism. Like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the theory was fabricated to order, for a special purpose: the institution and perpetuation of culture war. We can even nominate an author for this lunacy: William S Lind, a polymath of the American hard right, who sought to put rightwing activism on a new footing as the cold war drew to a close.
In the late 1980s, Lind wrote a couple of monographs arguing that there was an emerging mainstream political consensus on free-market economics (due in part to the “disarray” of the traditional social-democratic left), but that many Americans across the political spectrum were dismayed by the decline in traditional values, the family and middle-class life. If conflict with the left could be shifted to the ground of culture, there was a chance of binding the right and even claiming some socially conservative voters who had traditionally voted for the Democrats.
When the Berlin Wall fell, it was time for Lind’s strategy of “cultural conservatism” to become a central strategy for US Republicans: it identified a new kind of social enemy for the right to mobilise against. The changing parameters of economic debate and the beginning of American decline demanded that conservatives embrace a politics “centred more, not less, on cultural issues” – the family, education, crime and morality. The fairytale of cultural Marxism provided a post-communist adversary located specifically in the cultural realm – academics, Hollywood, journalists, civil rights activists and feminists. It has been a mainstay of conservative activism and rhetoric ever since.
While Lind has recently become a more marginal figure, his story of cultural Marxism has proved durable and useful across the spectrum of right-wing thought because it offers so much.
It allows those smarting from a loss of privilege to be offered the shroud of victimhood, by pointing to a shadowy, omnipresent, quasi-foreign elite who are attempting to destroy all that is good in the world. It offers an explanation for the decline of families, small towns, patriarchal authority, and unchallenged white power: a vast, century-long left wing conspiracy. And it distracts from the most important factor in these changes: capitalism, which demands mobility, whose crises have eroded living standards, and which thus, among other things, undermines the viability of conventional family structures and the traditional lifestyles that conservatives approve of.
The story of cultural Marxism is also flexible and can be tailored to fit with the obsessions of a range of right-wing actors. As such, it’s one example of an idea from the extremes which has been mobilised by more mainstream figures and has dragged politics as a whole a little further right.
Anders Breivik killed young social democrats because he believed that their party was involved in a cultural Marxist plot to undermine traditional European values by means of mass immigration from the Islamic world. Prominent voices in the #Gamergate movement have invoked it to warn of what is really motivating the feminist and queer critics of game aesthetics and culture – a desire to purge the culture of “proper” masculine values. It can even chime with Cater’s dreary, pedestrian moaning about how a “graduate class” seeks to remodel authentic, “egalitarian” Australian culture.
The idea of a cultural Marxist conspiracy has also endured because, in the absence of a genuine clash of ideas about the way the economy should be run, it provides an animating idea for the political contest. For Cater to claim that Bill Shorten is a Marxist of any kind is laughable precisely because to the extent that the opposition leader is explicitly offering anything, it’s plainly just a slightly more cushioned version of the same underlying economic orthodoxy embraced by Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey. Until that changes, the right will always be able to offer their story of victimhood and conspiracy with some hope of success.
Back story first. I am not part of the so called "liberal elite", I was born and brought up in one of the most deprived areas of the South Wales Valleys to a mother - that due to illness - was unable to work, and a 'arl man that worked in middle management in a factory for crap pay.
The use of the term "Cultural Marxism" is something that's really beginning to take off, and I can tell you that from experience. My long term partner originates from Macau, formerly a Portuguese colony in the South China sea, now a Special Administrative Region of the Peoples' Republic of China. She's Asian, and I'm white.
Now, I'm not some sort of special snowflake when it comes to our relationship - and neither is she. I do squirm a bit at the jokes by friends, but I take it on the cheek - as does she. However, since June 26th I've noticed a drastic shift in how people approach us - especially the older generation (40+, I'm 23 so that's old to me - sorry). In the time we spent going out prior June 26th, I had no problems with holding her hand in public or showing any kind of affection outside.
Sadly, this is not the case now.
I get nasty PMs on Facebook from people I don't even know, informing me of my treasonous decision to "fornicate with another race, ignoring the fact that my own race is dying in front of me". When we're shopping, people stop, stare and tut. They speak under their breath things such as "look at that, it's disgusting - should keep to their own" and how "awful it is" that we're together.
That's nothing compared to the group of guys that decided to confront me on it, in broad daylight in a packed shopping centre whilst people just walked by and ignored it. (For those of you wondering, they all got cautions and I haven't heard anything since from them.)
I never realised how much I loved my country until it changed. We used to be so accepting, tolerant and conscious of other people.
The use of the term "Cultural Marxism" is something that's really beginning to take off, and I can tell you that from experience. My long term partner originates from Macau, formerly a Portuguese colony in the South China sea, now a Special Administrative Region of the Peoples' Republic of China. She's Asian, and I'm white.
Now, I'm not some sort of special snowflake when it comes to our relationship - and neither is she. I do squirm a bit at the jokes by friends, but I take it on the cheek - as does she. However, since June 26th I've noticed a drastic shift in how people approach us - especially the older generation (40+, I'm 23 so that's old to me - sorry). In the time we spent going out prior June 26th, I had no problems with holding her hand in public or showing any kind of affection outside.
Sadly, this is not the case now.
I get nasty PMs on Facebook from people I don't even know, informing me of my treasonous decision to "fornicate with another race, ignoring the fact that my own race is dying in front of me". When we're shopping, people stop, stare and tut. They speak under their breath things such as "look at that, it's disgusting - should keep to their own" and how "awful it is" that we're together.
That's nothing compared to the group of guys that decided to confront me on it, in broad daylight in a packed shopping centre whilst people just walked by and ignored it. (For those of you wondering, they all got cautions and I haven't heard anything since from them.)
I never realised how much I loved my country until it changed. We used to be so accepting, tolerant and conscious of other people.
We're already killing people over parking tickets.
There are times when a jester is a prophet who uses comedy as a delivery vehicle for dangerous truths. Perhaps that’s what happened decades ago when Steve Martin, in one of his stand-up routines, suggested that the crime rate could be radically reduced if we imposed the death penalty for traffic violations.
That bit of ironic whimsy is now official policy for many police departments, where traffic stops for failure to wear a seat belt or other trivial violations can quickly escalate to the use of deadly force.
Last May, Florida resident Marlon Brown was pursued by a police officer who saw that he wasn’t wearing a seat belt. After reaching a dead end, Brown left the car and fled on foot. By that time, three police vehicles were on his tail. Two of the officers stopped after Brown left his vehicle. Officer James Harris continued his pursuit in a grass lot, eventually running over the terrified man.
The city of DeLand pilfered $550,000 from local tax victims to pay off Brown’s family, while refusing to admit wrongdoing. The State Attorney for FLorida’s 7th Judicial District, R.J. Larizza, declined to file charges. A grand jury, acting on the principle of qualified immunity for state-licensed killers, refused to indict Harris.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/capital-punishment-for-traffic-violations/
It's not just an old comedy routine. Let's deal with what's real. There's plenty out there.
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
Dreadful, mate. I strongly feel that this country has become diminished by the nasty dog-whistle racism of the Right during the referendum campaign and the subsequent "result."
I actually think family and marriage is one of the bedrocks of Western society.
Do you think the following family and marriage is as much of a bedrock of our society as the family you pictured?
I'd be even more interested what his thoughts would be on the same family being of mixed race.
- Status