X
Xantippe
Guest
I’m seeing 41.4% approval, 53.1% disapproval.
Is cultural marxism just a myth or conspiracy theory created by right wing conservatives?
- Status
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Then you will want to listen to Jordan B. Peterson’s lectures. He has studied this extensively.
It is. But I will say that in a time of legitimate war, deceiving the enemy is acceptable in Catholic teaching.
I don’t think we are there yet, and our best bet is to stick with the Truth.
I’m not sure you understand the technique being employed by them.
First, they deny labels not because they hate labels (as I said they do it probably more than anyone else) or because they don’t nominally agree with what the label says but in order to blunt criticism of their critics.
Your assessment is correct if you were to say they don’t even know they’re doing it in a lot of cases.
But as someone said “fascism will come to the West in the name of anti-fascism”. The socialist party leader said the same thing in 1940: “Americans will never accept socialism, but through the cause of liberalism, America will become socialist without even ever realizing how it happened”.
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
Rules for Radicals has this covered.
Rule 6 reminds us that a good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
Trump ran a campaign that was implicitly pro-white and pro-male, he is a populist president for specific groups, the ones that originally made America great.
The GOP pre-Trump has more or less collaborated with the left in their assault on white, Christian America. They deserve to lose.
Say what you will about the Populist Right, we do not gleefully promote the slaughter of children.
Rule 6 reminds us that a good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
Trump ran a campaign that was implicitly pro-white and pro-male, he is a populist president for specific groups, the ones that originally made America great.
The GOP pre-Trump has more or less collaborated with the left in their assault on white, Christian America. They deserve to lose.
Say what you will about the Populist Right, we do not gleefully promote the slaughter of children.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
No, they deny a single label because it’s stupid and does not describe things as they are. “Cultural Marxism” tries to describe as a single, united political agenda with a clear goal things that are actually separate social trends. It’s a conspiracy theory. It’s taking every political and social trend conservatives don’t like and trying to attribute some insidious goal to them.
As I said, Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory. It’s trying to take broad social trends that conservatives don’t like and depict them as a single political agenda being consciously promoted by left-wingers. On top of this it’s attributing an absurd end goal to these trends - somehow abortion, diversity quotas and LGBT rights will lead to fascism or socialism. There’s no need to justify this, of course, because a vague historical figure said so!
It’s a conspiracy theory, and a uniquely American one at that. It’s nothing to be taken seriously. Honestly Americans need to escape their bubble and consider the fact that Europe has existed outside of the USA’s absurd and incredibly right-wing politics for a long time without becoming a totalitarian fascist superstate.
X
Xantippe
Guest
–It doesn’t matter if they enjoy it if there aren’t enough of them and if they alienate other voters.
–White males are something like 31% of the US population. If 1/3 of even them voted for Hillary Clinton (and they did), we’re talking about attempting to get to 50+% with only 20% of voters going forward. That’s not a winning number. Neither Trump nor the GOP can win with only white men, and especially not with only 2/3 of white men.
–Where do you think Trump is taking you? Because I guarantee you that whatever it is you want from Trump, you’re not going to get it, unless you just want entertainment–that you’ll get. Trump has a long record of overpromising and underdelivering.
–The only thing I needed to know during the 2016 election year was these three sets of numbers: 4-6 bankruptcies (depending on how you count), 3 marriages (none of them faithful), and 6 different voter registrations (Republican-Indepence Party, Democrat, Republican, no party, and finally Republican again in April 2012). Trump has historically had a lot of trouble with loyalty, consistency and follow-through–on Twitter he is famously vulnerable to shiny objects.
–“From 2009 to 2013, the billionaire Trump’s charitable foundation gave just $57,000 to veterans organizations while providing more than $100,000 to the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation.” (That’s from the Weekly Standard below.) He was famously chummy with the Clintons before turning on them (google Trump Clinton golf and you’ll find many pictures of Bill and Donald golfing together).
–I really don’t understand people who think Trump is going to be their vehicle to political victory, no matter what their cause is–he’s just not that reliable a person, and his loyalties are prone to dramatic about-faces.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...tcy-four-or-six-times/?utm_term=.a8c291e93525
P
pnewton
Guest
The left and the right. You just finished calling people SJW’s as if that had any real meaning, or somehow fighting for social justice is a bad thing. This is the very essence of hypocrisy, which is pretty strong evidence that you have little interest in logic, as you just picked a target, froze it, personalized it, and polarized it. You are your perceived enemy, using the same abandonment of reason in favor of polarizing rhetoric.
The threat to democracy is not liberalism. It is extremism, both in the extreme liberal form and this new conservatism. People will never agree and will always be divided. The only resolution will come through compromise, not one side winning over the other. It has not happened and will not happen. Increased polarization and entrenchment is not conducive to discussion, democracy, or progress. A minority of America, even a slim majority will never “make America great.” It will take most Americans to do this and this will never happen until we return to the principle of moderation and compromise.
P
pnewton
Guest
If someone said it, it has to be true? This is the problem with labels. One quote made by one person at one time is seen as more than it is. Is there some truth to this statement? Absolutely. We should be vigilant. However, a quote does not a movement make, much less a conspiracy. Our “enemies” are our brothers and sister, our fellow citizens, and our neighbors. We must not see them as an enemy to be fought, but as part of what we are as a nation. The only people who have nothing to contribute are the few so firmly entrenched that the will accept no outside view. We have these for all political viewpoints.
Last edited:
X
Xantippe
Guest
I really hesitate to call the new right “conservative,” as it’s not clear what it’s conserving.
I’d caution that compromise-above-all makes one vulnerable to negotiators who ask for twice what they actually want, but in principle you are correct that compromise is how electoral politics works. I want A and you want B, and we produce a bill with both A and B (even though both of us are not entirely happy with the product). Those kind of choices have to be made when any large group of people (and the US is very large) make decisions together–nobody is ever going to get everything they want, but with any luck, we’ll all get something we like.
I think there is reason to believe, though, that 300 million people is too large and diverse a group to be making all of our governing decisions together.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Whether or not the term ‘Marxism’ is appropriate or not, what has become known as ‘Cultural marxism’ does exist, I believe. It is a creeping totalitarian form that generates social-liberal dogmas (around sex, gender, marriage etc) introduces them slowly under the cloak of tolerance of alternate views and lifestyles, then bit by bit gains ground with an aim to enforce these views and brand dissenting views as hate-speech. In the UK, I think it can be tracked back to the late 1980’s when the concept of ‘political correctness’ started being promoted seriously.
It really does seem to follow a pattern of pleading for tolerance to introduce an unfashionable liberal view, promote this view vigorously, establish it as the
norm, brand dissent as hate-speech, introducing laws to enshrine this…then start the process again with a related view that pushes the boundaries even further, go through full process with this then start again with something one step further.
It seems to be a process of totalitarianism of thought by stealth, and I think it is very real. Is that Marxism? I can’t really see the connection with Marx’s teachings, but I think it is happening.
It really does seem to follow a pattern of pleading for tolerance to introduce an unfashionable liberal view, promote this view vigorously, establish it as the
norm, brand dissent as hate-speech, introducing laws to enshrine this…then start the process again with a related view that pushes the boundaries even further, go through full process with this then start again with something one step further.
It seems to be a process of totalitarianism of thought by stealth, and I think it is very real. Is that Marxism? I can’t really see the connection with Marx’s teachings, but I think it is happening.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The fact that google served up this hit to you at the #3 spot while when I did the very same google search I did not find this hit among the first three pages of hits is indicative of what silo google has put you into. Besides, isn’t it the least bit suspicious to look for an objective definition from a webside called “destroyculturalmarxim…”?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The economic value derived from forced slave labor was far greater than the economic value of all the northern industrial factories and non-slave-related businesses. If you want to go back in history, enslaved Africans made America great.
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
Which is why Southern economic strength successfully funded their bid for freedom during the 19th century. Not!!!
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That’s because the North benefited indirectly from the slave trade too. Economists agree. Without slavery America would not be where it is today. Your claim that whites have exclusive claim to making America great is just wrong.
Last edited:
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
The slave trade was banned in 1808, plenty of states banned slavery before that. Add the fact that the South traded their goods with Europe and tried to avoid tariff increases which benefited the North, and there is no evidence that the entire nation got rich from slavery.
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
No, SJW’s made a bad name for themselves. If not for their different behavior to liberals from the past (they had more class), there would be no need for a new name for them.
As for democracy, I am not a worshipper of the system. Therefore arguments that claim something is bad based on it being a threat to democracy have no power here.
As for democracy, I am not a worshipper of the system. Therefore arguments that claim something is bad based on it being a threat to democracy have no power here.
D
DarkLight
Guest
Also some things don’t really work on a compromise system very well, and you end up doing two things halfway and neither works.
J
JHC
Guest
For CM to be a conspiracy theory, the claim that it was birthed at the Frankfurt School then exported to Columbia U would be false.
http://www.law.columbia.edu/contemporary-critical-thought/about-us
The mission of the Columbia Center for Contemporary Critical Thought is to nourish, explore, encourage, and support critical re-examination of the received wisdom of our time.
Far too often we are confronted with claims to science, to objectivity, to common sense, to empirical certainty that, when questioned or challenged, reveal themselves to be little more than historically situated products of our social and political relations, practices, and institutions. Looking back, with historical distance, it is much easier to unmask and expose the work that certain forms of knowledge and received wisdom accomplished—whether they related, for instance, to the science of phrenology, to a belief in natural order, or to the idea of dangerousness. Yet, it is so much harder, often practically impossible, to dig beneath asserted truths that hold today—in large part, because they are integral to the very fabric of our ways of knowing, talking, and thinking. They are ingrained in our rationality and discourse.
Contemporary critical thought aims to break that hold of the present. The task of contemporary critical thought is to question and challenge the authority of established truths and falsehoods, to challenge their empirical foundations, and to engage in forms of practice that test the limits of knowledge.
Contemporary critical thought is located at the intersection of the humanities, social sciences, arts, law, and letters. It bridges philosophy, political theory, sociology and social theory, anthropology, classics, law, art criticism, and cultural studies. It represents an epistemological approach that is reflected in a wide range of disciplines and approaches, including critical theory, post-structuralism, critical race theory, critical legal studies, post-colonial studies, critical feminist theory, queer theory, and other strands of contemporary thought.
Contemporary critical thought can be traced to several traditions of intellectual thought, but is not limited to any one; it is, instead, nourished by these different traditions. Along one well-recognized path, contemporary critical thought traces to the term “critique” that was central to the work of Kant and Hegel. This strand traces to the Kantian idea of the critical limits of reason, of morality, and of aesthetics, a tradition that would be developed in Hegel’s writings, especially his Elements of the Philosophy of Right and Phenomenology of Spirit. These, in turn, would lead to Marx’s various critiques of Hegel and of classical economics. Marx practically always used the term “critique” in the title or subtitle of his works to express this critical relationship to the German idealist tradition. This particular line of thought would be developed and flourish in the Frankfurt School in the mid-20th century, in part at Columbia University, in the writings of Walter Benjamin—who would influence aesthetic criticism—and in the writings of Hannah Arendt in the field of political theory.
http://www.law.columbia.edu/contemporary-critical-thought/about-us
The mission of the Columbia Center for Contemporary Critical Thought is to nourish, explore, encourage, and support critical re-examination of the received wisdom of our time.
Far too often we are confronted with claims to science, to objectivity, to common sense, to empirical certainty that, when questioned or challenged, reveal themselves to be little more than historically situated products of our social and political relations, practices, and institutions. Looking back, with historical distance, it is much easier to unmask and expose the work that certain forms of knowledge and received wisdom accomplished—whether they related, for instance, to the science of phrenology, to a belief in natural order, or to the idea of dangerousness. Yet, it is so much harder, often practically impossible, to dig beneath asserted truths that hold today—in large part, because they are integral to the very fabric of our ways of knowing, talking, and thinking. They are ingrained in our rationality and discourse.
Contemporary critical thought aims to break that hold of the present. The task of contemporary critical thought is to question and challenge the authority of established truths and falsehoods, to challenge their empirical foundations, and to engage in forms of practice that test the limits of knowledge.
Contemporary critical thought is located at the intersection of the humanities, social sciences, arts, law, and letters. It bridges philosophy, political theory, sociology and social theory, anthropology, classics, law, art criticism, and cultural studies. It represents an epistemological approach that is reflected in a wide range of disciplines and approaches, including critical theory, post-structuralism, critical race theory, critical legal studies, post-colonial studies, critical feminist theory, queer theory, and other strands of contemporary thought.
Contemporary critical thought can be traced to several traditions of intellectual thought, but is not limited to any one; it is, instead, nourished by these different traditions. Along one well-recognized path, contemporary critical thought traces to the term “critique” that was central to the work of Kant and Hegel. This strand traces to the Kantian idea of the critical limits of reason, of morality, and of aesthetics, a tradition that would be developed in Hegel’s writings, especially his Elements of the Philosophy of Right and Phenomenology of Spirit. These, in turn, would lead to Marx’s various critiques of Hegel and of classical economics. Marx practically always used the term “critique” in the title or subtitle of his works to express this critical relationship to the German idealist tradition. This particular line of thought would be developed and flourish in the Frankfurt School in the mid-20th century, in part at Columbia University, in the writings of Walter Benjamin—who would influence aesthetic criticism—and in the writings of Hannah Arendt in the field of political theory.
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
Assuming we still work within a democracy, things are not entirely lost. 50% of white women voted for the God Emperor. As diversity increases, whites will shrink as an overall share of the population but will vote as a bloc, the South is an example of this phenomenon.
Also, white liberals are having fewer kids. White guilt alone is a suicidal strategy which is why its proponents import the 3rd world en masse. The next few generations of whites are going to be very right wing indeed based on the above factors.
My personal opinion is that we are not voting ourselves out of this mess. It will be settled with blood and iron one way or the other.
As for voting for Trump, I will give you 3 reasons why (in my opinion) we backed him .
Also, white liberals are having fewer kids. White guilt alone is a suicidal strategy which is why its proponents import the 3rd world en masse. The next few generations of whites are going to be very right wing indeed based on the above factors.
My personal opinion is that we are not voting ourselves out of this mess. It will be settled with blood and iron one way or the other.
As for voting for Trump, I will give you 3 reasons why (in my opinion) we backed him .
- He was not Hillary Clinton.
- He was our best chance at getting our worldview into power.
- He was a middle finger to an establishment that is hostile to young white men.
D
DarkLight
Guest
I thought the God Emperor was the one where they had to keep feeding him psychics so he could guide spaceships so they don’t get eaten by chaos demons.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
There is no evidence that only white men made America great. And the economic benefit I was referring to is the human labor of the slaves, not their value as traded commodities.
- Status