The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby jakell » Mon Apr 11, 2016 6:03 am

One more detail before this thread fades into obscurity (possibly to be unearthed in a few years by some wag)

The author of the OP article talks of Third Wave Feminism. Rightists especially don't often make this distinction, so it indicates to me that the author has been doing some thinking above and beyond the broad category that his critics may place him in. As to TWF itself, I don't feel the need to comment except to point out that plenty of women, who would latterly have called themselves feminists, voted with their feet, and here we may come back to that thing that some might call Cultural Marxism, the pressing of a set of ideas in spite of grassroots discomfort/disengagement with them.

Coming back to Rightists/Leftists and generalisations. A mirror image can be found in the way the Left (displayed here in AD's threads) fail to make distinctions between various flavours of alt-right stuff and naziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby American Dream » Mon Apr 11, 2016 1:33 pm

Image
"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."
-Malcolm X
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 18935
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby jakell » Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:00 pm

It would have been nice to hear some comparisons of lived experiences of 'multicuturalism' and how they differ from the glittering ideal. As far as I can see, this ideal has not been adequately laid out, but that sort of goes with territory I suppose, too much detail and we start to see through a glass darkly.

jakell » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:21 pm wrote:
Luther Blissett » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:08 pm wrote:
jakell » Thu Mar 24, 2016 4:11 pm wrote:
Luther Blissett » Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:47 pm wrote:I don't know, I live in a multicultural neighborhood and it's worked for approximately 4-5 decades.


Oh yes, it's 'working fine' where I live too. As long as the welfare state, the NHS, emergency and civil services hold up, the just-in-time supermarkets manage to keep their shelves filled, people will rub along just fine. Funny money from above keeps that illusion going.

At present we have Slovaks (probably the most dynamic group at present), Somalis, Pakistanis, and a few other disparate cultures, plus those with no culture, all sucking on the same teat whilst all mostly ignoring each other and sticking to their own languages, cultures and traditions.
So, we already have tribalism, which is what we get when multiculturalism is done badly, only a small push is needed to amplify all that, and I don't mean a push from the far right (the traditional boogeyman), I mean the inevitable falling away of bread and circuses.


I meant to reply to this earlier as well —

Where I live, we're seeing a lot more attempts at post-capitalist ideas than "sucking on the same teat" luckily. You don't have anyone testing out communes, co-ops, free libraries, tool libraries, seed libraries, free stores, guerrilla publishing, community gardens, free hot meals, or community orgs in your multicultural neighborhood? My perspective might be myopic but I always thought future structures were a hallmark of multicultural neighborhoods.


Our realities here are probably quite different as we are in different countries, our welfare state is so overdeveloped that a lot of those grassroots initiatives you describe aren't deemed essential enough to get off of the ground, they are attempted but the welfare state provides too much of a tempting alternative.
I think we also may have a differning perspective on multiculturalism. Where I live it is definitely very different peoples living (for the time being) in a sort of uneasy proximity. there isn't even a common language which is arguably the basis of getting along together. Only the state seems to provide the glue, hardly anything at ground level
Your 'peoples' might have more in common.

A while back I remarked on how I admire the Slovaks around me and I think if any one distinct culture survives it will be theirs. They are used to being transient and yet holding it together and haven't yet entered the halfway house of multiculturalism, although they do have welfare dependency which is the thinner end of the wedge.

Luther Blissett » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:01 pm wrote:
....Thesis: it is not a thing.


Would you say it could be belief system? My position is that it can and therefore can develop legs and become a 'thing'. As the author mused '....a sociopolitical theology'



This probably deserves its own thread, but the topic does follow on from the above conversation, and has led me to read wider than my current opinions on the subject.

This is part one of a long article, apart from the bolded part he remains mostly factual, possibly he will expand on this in part two. The comparison between Britain and Germany is interesting and could hopefully lead to comparisons between Europe and other continents.
Hopefully the pattern of this thread will continue: a single pasted article followed by discussion thereon.

What is wrong with multiculturalism part-1. Kenan Malik

It is somewhat alarming to be asked to present the European perspective on multiculturalism. There is no such beast. Especially when compared to the Canadian discussion, opinion in Europe is highly polarised. And mine certainly is not the European perspective. My view is that both multiculturalists and their critics are wrong. And only by understanding why both sides are wrong will we be able to work our way through the mire in which we find ourselves.

Thirty years ago multiculturalism was widely seen as the answer to many of Europe’s social problems. Today it is seen, by growing numbers of people, not as the solution to, but as the cause of, Europe’s myriad social ills. That perception has been fuel for the success of far-right parties and populist politicians across Europe from Geert Wilders in Holland to Marine Le Pen in France, from the True Finns to the UK Independence Party. It even provided fuel for the obscene, homicidal rampage last year of Anders Behring Breivik in Oslo and Utøya, which in his eyes were the first shots in a war defending Europe against multiculturalism. The reasons for this transformation in the perception of multiculturalism are complex, and at the heart of what I want to talk about. But before we can discuss what the problem is with multiculturalism, we first have unpack what we mean by multiculturalism.

Part of the problem in discussions about multiculturalism is that the term has, in recent years, come to have two meanings that are all too rarely distinguished. The first is what I call the lived experience of diversity. The second is multiculturalism as a political process, the aim of which is to manage that diversity. The experience of living in a society that is less insular, more vibrant and more cosmopolitan is something to welcome and cherish. It is a case for cultural diversity, mass immigration, open borders and open minds.

As a political process, however, multiculturalism means something very different. It describes a set of policies, the aim of which is to manage and institutionalize diversity by putting people into ethnic and cultural boxes, defining individual needs and rights by virtue of the boxes into which people are put, and using those boxes to shape public policy. It is a case, not for open borders and minds, but for the policing of borders, whether physical, cultural or imaginative.

The conflation of lived experience and political policy has proved highly invidious. On the one hand, it has allowed many on the right – and not just on the right – to blame mass immigration for the failures of social policy and to turn minorities into the problem. On the other hand, it has forced many traditional liberals and radicals to abandon classical notions of liberty, such as an attachment to free speech, in the name of defending diversity. That is why it is critical to separate these two notions of multiculturalism, to defend diversity as lived experience – and all that goes with it, such as mass immigration and cultural openness – but to oppose multiculturalism as a political process.

To make my case I want to begin by questioning three myths of immigration. Three myths at the heart of the discussion about multiculturalism. Three myths created by the confusion I have just described. Three myths that have also helped maintain that confusion. The first is the idea that European nations used to be homogenous but have become plural in a historically unique fashion. The second claim is that contemporary immigration is different to previous waves, so much so that social structures need fundamental reorganization to accommodate it. And third is the belief that European nations have adopted multicultural policies because minorities demanded it. Both sides in the multiculturalism debate accept these claims. Where they differ is in whether they view immigration, and the social changes it has brought about, as a good or as an ill. Both sides, I want to suggest, are wrong, because these three premises upon which they base their arguments are flawed.

* * * * *

The claim that European nations used to be homogenous but have been made diverse by mass immigration might appear to be common sense. In fact, most European nations are in fact less plural now than they were, say, a hundred years ago. The reason we imagine otherwise is because of historical amnesia and because we have come to adopt a highly selective standard for defining what it is to be plural.

Consider France. At the time of the French Revolution, less than half the population of France spoke French. The historian Eugene Weber has shown how traumatic and lengthy was the process of what he calls ‘self-colonisation’ required to unify France and her various populations. These developments created the modern French nation. But they also reinforced in the elite a sense of how alien was the mass of the population. Here is the Christian socialist Phillipe Buchez addressing the Medico-Psychological Society of Paris in 1857:

Consider a population like ours, placed in the most favourable circumstances; possessed of a powerful civilisation; amongst the highest ranking nations in science, the arts and industry. Our task now, I maintain, is to find out how it can happen that within a population such as ours, races may form – not merely one but several races – so miserable, inferior and bastardised that they may be classed below the most inferior savage races, for their inferiority is sometimes beyond cure.

One only has to read the novels of Émile Zola or the works of Count Arthur Gobineau, one of the leading racial scientists of his day, to recognize how widespread was this sentiment.

The social and intellectual elite in France, far from viewing their nation as homogenous, regarded most of their fellow Frenchmen not as ‘one of us’, but as racial alien, and so inferior that they stood below the ‘most inferior savage races’ and were ‘beyond cure’.

In Victorian England, too, the elite viewed the working class and the rural poor as the racial Other. A vignette of working class life in the Saturday Review, a well-read liberal magazine of the era, is typical of English middle class attitudes:

[indent] The Bethnal Green poor… are a caste apart, a race of whom we know nothing, whose lives are of a quite different complexion from ours, persons with whom we have no point of contact… Slaves are separated from whites by more glaring marks of distinction; but still distinctions and separations, like those of English classes which always endure, which last from the cradle to the grave, which prevent anything like association or companionship, produce a general effect on the life of the extreme poor, and subject them to isolation, which offer a very fair parallel to the separation of the slaves from the whites.[/indent]


Modern Bethnal Green is not home to warehousemen or costermongers, but lies at the heart of the Bangladeshi community in East London. Today’s ‘Bethnal Green poor’ are often seen as culturally and racially distinct. But only those on the fringes of politics would compare the distinctiveness of Bangladeshis to that of slaves. The sense of apartness was far greater in Victorian England than it is contemporary Britain. And that’s because in reality the social and cultural differences between a Victorian gentleman or factory owner, on the one hand, and a farmhand or a machinist, on the other, weremuch greater than those between a white resident and one of Bangladeshi origin living in Bethnal Green today.

However much they may view each other as different, a 16-year-old kid of Bangladeshi origin living in Bethnal Green, or a 16-year-old of Algerian origin living in Marseilles, or a 16-year-old of Turkish origin living in Berlin, probably wears the same clothes, listens to the same music, watches the same TV shows, follows the same football club as a 16-year-old white kid in that same city. The shopping mall and the sports field, the TV and the iPod, have all served to bind differences and create a set of experiences and cultural practices that is more common than at any time in the past.

There is nothing new, then, in plural societies. From a historical perspective contemporary societies, even those transformed by mass immigration, are not particularly plural. What is different today is the perception that we are living in particularly plural societies, and the perception of such pluralism in largely cultural terms. The debate about multiculturalism is a debate in which certain differences (culture, ethnicity, faith) have cometo be regarded as important and others (such as class, say, or generational), which used to be perceived as important in the past, have come to be seen as less relevant. Why this has happened I will come to later.

* * * * *

The second myth I want to challenge is the claim that contemporary immigration to Europe is different, and in some eyes less assimilable, than previous waves. In his much-lauded book Reflections on a Revolution in Europe the American writer Christopher Caldwell suggests that prior to the Second World War, immigrants came almost exclusively from other European nations, and so were easily assimilable. ‘Using the word immigration to describe intra-European movements’, Caldwell suggests, ‘makes only slightly more sense than describing a New Yorker as an “immigrant” to California’. According to Caldwell, prewar immigration between European nations was different from postwar immigration from outside Europe because, ‘immigration from neighboring countries does not provoke the most worrisome immigration questions, such as “How well will they fit in?” “Is assimilation what they want?” and, most of all, “Where are their true loyalties?”.’

In fact, those were the very questions asked of European migrants in the prewar years. In 1903, the British Royal Commission on Alien Immigration expressed fears that newcomers were inclined to live ‘according to their traditions, usages and customs’ and there were fears that there might be ‘grafted onto the English stock… the debilitated sickly and vicious products of Europe’.

Britain’s first immigration law, the 1905 Aliens Act, was designed primarily to bar European Jews, who were seen as unBritish. The Prime Minister, Arthur Balfour, observed that without such a law, ‘though the Briton of the future may have the same laws, the same institutions and constitution… nationality would not be the same and would not be the nationality we would desire to be our heirs through the ages yet to come.’

In France, nearly a third of the population in the 1930s were immigrants, mostly from Southern Europe. Today we think of Italian or Portuguese migrants as culturally similar to their French hosts. Seventy years ago they were viewed as aliens, given to crime and violence, and unlikely to assimilate into French society. ‘The notion of the easy assimilation of past European immigrants’, the French historian Max Silverman has written, ‘is a myth’.

One of the consequences of postwar migration has been to create historical amnesia about prewar attitudes, just as it has created historical amnesia about the divided nature of European societies before such immigration. From a historical perspective, there is little that is unique about contemporary migrants, or in the way that host societies perceive them.

* * * * *

The third myth that underlies much of the discussion of European multiculturalism is that European nations have become multicultural because minorities wished to assert their differences. The question of the cultural difference of immigrants has certainly preoccupied the political elites. It is not a question, however, that, until recently, has particularly engaged immigrants themselves.

Take Britain. The arrival in the late 1940s and the 1950s of large numbers of immigrants from India, Pakistan and the Caribbean, led to considerable unease about its impact upon traditional concepts of Britishness. As a Colonial Office report of 1955 observed, ‘a large coloured community as a noticeable feature of our social life would weaken… the concept of England or Britain to which people of British stock throughout the Commonwealth are attached’.

The migrants certainly brought with them a host of traditions and habits and cultural mores from their homelands, of which they were often very proud. But they were rarely concerned with preserving cultural differences, nor thought of it as a political issue. What inspired them was the struggle not for cultural identity but for political equality. And they recognized that at the heart of that struggle was the creation of a commonality of values, hopes and aspirations between migrants and indigenous Britons, not an articulation of unbridgeable differences.

This is equally true of the group whose traditions, beliefs and mores are widely perceived to be most distinct from those of Western societies, and hence the group that is supposedly most demanding that its differences be publicly recognized: Muslims.

The patterns of Muslim migration have, in fact, been little different to that of other communities. The best way to understand it, as of much postwar migration to Europe, is in terms of three generations: the first generation that came to Europe in the 50s and 60s; the second generation that were born or grew up in the 70s and 80; and the third generation that has come of age since then. This is, I know, a somewhat crude characterisation, but it is also a useful to have a broad-brush understanding of the changing relationships between migrants and European societies. The illustrations I am giving come primarily from Britain. But the structure applies to immigration to other European countries too.

The first generation of Muslim immigrants to Britain, who came almost entirely from the Indian subcontinent, were pious in their faith, but wore it lightly. The British writer and theatre director Pervaiz Khan, whose family came to Britain in the 1950s, remembers his father and uncles going to the pub for a pint. ‘They did not bring drink home’, he says. ‘And they did not make a song and dance about it. But everyone knew they drank. And they were never ostracised for it.’ No woman wore a hijab, let alone a niqab or burqa. His family ‘rarely fasted at Ramadan’, Khan says, ‘and often missed Friday prayers. They did not boast about it. But they were not pariahs for it. It is very different from today.’

Khan’s experience was not unusual. My parents were very similar. And those of most of my friends. Their faith expressed for them a relationship with God, not a sacrosanct public identity. Islam was not, in their eyes, an all-encompassing philosophy.

The second generation – my generation – was primarily secular. I am of a generation that did not think of itself as ‘Muslim’ or ‘Hindu’ or ‘Sikh’, or even often as ‘Asian’, but rather as ‘black’. Black was for us not an ethnic label but a political badge. The ‘Muslim community’, in the sense of a community that defined itself solely, or even primarily, by faith did not exist when I was growing up. Neither did the Sikh community, or the Hindu community.

Unlike our parents’ generation, who had largely put up with discrimination, we were fierce in our opposition to racism. But we were equally fierce in our opposition to religion and to the traditions that often marked immigrant communities. Religious organizations were, in my youth, barely visible. The organizations that drove migrant communities were primarily secular, often socialist: the Asian Youth Movements, for instance, or the Indian Workers Association.

It is only with the generation that has come of age since the late 1980s, that the question of cultural differences has come to be seen as important. A generation that, ironically, is far more integrated than the first generation, is also the generation that is most insistent on maintaining its ‘difference’. That in itself should make us question the received wisdom about how and why multicultural policies emerged.

The shift in the meaning of a single word expresses the transformation I am talking about. When I was growing up to be ‘radical’ was to be militantly secular, self-consciously Western and avowedly left-wing. To be someone like me. Today ‘radical’ in a Muslim context means the very opposite. It describes a religious fundamentalist, someone who is anti-Western, who is opposed to secularism.

What I have said of Britain is true also of other European countries, Germany, for instance, or France. The irony in France is that, for all the current hostility of the French state to Islam, and to public displays of Islamic identity, such as the burqa, for most of the postwar years, while migrant workers were defiantly secular, successive governments regarded such secularism as a threat and attempted to foist religion upon them, encouraging them to maintain their traditional cultural identities. Paul Dijoud, minister for immigrant workers in the 1970s government of Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, declared that ‘The right to a culture identity allows the immigrant, despite his geographical distance, to stay close to his country.’ The government sought in Islam ‘a stabilizing force which would turn the faithful from deviance, delinquency or membership of unions or revolutionary parties’. When a series of strikes hit car factories in the late seventies, the government encouraged employers to build prayer rooms in an effort to wean immigrant workers, who formed a large proportion of the workforce, away from militant activity.

The claim that minority communities have demanded that their cultural differences be publicly recognized and affirmed is, then, historically false. That demand has emerged only recently. The myth that multiculturalism was a response to minority demands gets cause and effect the wrong way round. Minority communities did not force politicians to introduce multicultural policies. Rather, as I shall show later, the desire to celebrate one’s culture identity has itself, in part at least, been shaped by the implementation of multicultural policies.

* * * * *

The three myths I have talked about are important because they underlie so much of the discussion of immigration and multiculturalism in Europe, and shape both sides of the debate. Having hopefully laid them to rest, I want now to rethink both multiculturalism and the criticism of it. And to begin to do that by looking at how multicultural policies historically have developed.

This is, however, not a single story. Throughout Europe, multicultural policies have developed in response to mass immigration. But they have done so in different ways. Britain and Norway, Sweden and Germany, Holland and Denmark – every country has its own specific multicultural history to tell. What I want to do, therefore, is to look at two contrasting histories – that of Britain and Germany – to understand what these histories have in common despite their differences.

Let us begin in Britain. While the question of cultural differences preoccupied the political elite in the 1950s and 1960s, it was not one, as I have already suggested, that particularly troubled immigrants themselves. What preoccupied them was not the desire to be treated differently, but the fact that they were treated differently. Racism and inequality, not religion and ethnicity, were, for them, the key issues.

Throughout the Sixties and Seventies, four big issues dominated the struggle for political equality: opposition to discriminatory immigration controls; the struggle against workplace discrimination; the fight against racist attacks; and, most explosively, the issue of police brutality.

These struggles politicised a new generation of black and Asian activists and came to an explosive climax in the riots that tore through Britain’s inner cities in the late Seventies and early Eighties. The authorities recognized that unless black communities were given a political stake in the system, their frustration could threaten the very stability of British cities. It was against this background that the policies of multiculturalism emerged.

Local authorities in inner city areas pioneered a new strategy of making black and Asian communities feel part of British society by organising consultations, drawing up equal opportunity policies, establishing race relations units and dispensing millions of pounds in grants to minority organisations. At the heartof the strategy was a redefinition of racism. Racism now meant not simply the denial of equal rights but the denial of the right to be different. The old idea of British values or a British identity was defunct. Rather than be expected to accept British values, or to adopt a British identity, different peoples should have the right to express their own identities, explore their own histories, formulate their own values, pursue their own lifestyles.

Scepticism about the idea of a common national identity arose in part from cynicism about the idea of ‘Britishness’. There was widespread recognition among blacks and Asians that talk about Britishness was a means not of extending citizenship to all Britons, whatever their colour and creed, but of denying equal rights to certain groups. But the new strategy did not simply challenge old-fashioned ideas of Britishness. It transformed the very meaning of equality. Equality now meant not possessing the same rights as everyone else, despite differences of race, ethnicity, culture or faith, but possessing different rights, because of them.

In 2000, the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain, chaired by the philosopher Bhikhu Parekh, published its report that famously concluded that Britain was a ‘community of comunities’ in which equality ‘must be defined in a culturally sensitive way and applied in a discriminating but not discriminatory manner’. The Parekh report has come to be seen as defining the essence of multiculturalism. But the arguments at its heart had emerged out of the response, two decades earlier, to the inner city riots. The consequences of these arguments I will come to later. But first I want to turn to the question of multiculturalism in Germany.

* * * * *

Germany’s road to multiculturalism was different to Britain’s, though the starting point was the same. Like many West European nations, Germany faced an immense labour shortage in the postwar years and actively recruited foreign workers. Unlike in Britain, the new workers came not from former colonies, but initially from Italy, Spain and Greece, and then from Turkey. And these workers came not as immigrants, still less as potential citizens, but as ‘guest workers’, who were expected to return to their country of origin when no longer required to service the German economy.

Over time, however, immigrants became transformed from a temporary necessity to a permanent presence. This was partly because Germany continued relying on their labour, and partly because immigrants, and more so their children, came to see Germany as home. But the German state continued to view them as outsiders and to refuse them citizenship. There are nearly 4 million people of Turkish origin in Germany today. Barely half a million have managed to become citizens. Nor is it just first generation immigrants who are denied citizenship; their German-born children are excluded too.

Instead of creating an open society, into which immigrants were welcome as equals, German politicians from the 1980s onwards dealt with the so-called ‘Turkish problem’ through a policy of multiculturalism. In place of citizenship and a genuine status in society, immigrants were ‘allowed’ to keep their own culture, language and lifestyles. The consequence was the creation of parallel communities. The policy did not so much represent respect for diversity as provide a means of avoiding the issue of how to create a common, inclusive culture.

First generation immigrants were often secular, and those that were religious wore their faith lightly. Today, almost a third of adult Turks in Germany regularly attend mosque, a far higher rate than among Turkish communities elsewhere in Western Europe, and higher than in most parts of Turkey. First generation women almost never wore headscarves. Many of their daughters do. Without any incentive to participate in the national community, many did not bother learning German.

At the same time as Germany’s multicultural policies encouraged immigrants to be at best indifferent to mainstream German society, at worst openly hostile to it, they also made Germans increasingly antagonistic towards Turks. The sense of what it meant to be German was in part defined against the values and beliefs of the excluded migrant communities. And having been excluded, it has become easier to scapegoat immigrants for Germany’s social ills. A recent poll showed that more than a third of Germans think that the country is ‘over-run by foreigners’ and more than half felt that Arabs were ‘unpleasant’.

In Germany, the formal denial of citizenship to immigrants led to the policy of multiculturalism. In Britain, the promotion of multicultural policies led to the de facto treatment of individuals from minority communities not as citizens but simply as members of particular ethnic groups. The consequence in both cases has been the creation of fragmented societies, the alienation of many minority groups and the scapegoating of immigrants.



I'm a lazy paster, for images and nicer editing here's the link:

https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... sm-part-1/
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby General Patton » Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:18 pm

lmao, I've never seen an antifa photoshop of right wing propaganda that uses a caricature of a jew before.

Are they going to do happy merchant capitalists next?
штрафбат вперед
User avatar
General Patton
 
Posts: 958
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby American Dream » Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:24 pm

Yes, even the Devil quotes Scripture once in a while, but always for his own purposes...
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 18935
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby Iamwhomiam » Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:57 pm

General Patton » Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:18 pm wrote:lmao, I've never seen an antifa photoshop of right wing propaganda that uses a caricature of a jew before.

Are they going to do happy merchant capitalists next?


Interesting that you see one of the characters in the cartoon as being a Jew, General.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 5708
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby General Patton » Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:57 pm

American Dream » Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:24 am wrote:Yes, even the Devil quotes Scripture once in a while, but always for his own purposes...


I'm flattered that you rate me so highly, but being the Devil requires quite a bit of groundwork. Give me 20 years.
штрафбат вперед
User avatar
General Patton
 
Posts: 958
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby General Patton » Tue Apr 12, 2016 1:04 pm

Iamwhomiam » Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:57 am wrote:Interesting that you see one of the characters in the cartoon as being a Jew, General.
\

It's been awhile since I've seen the original but it's frequently used in anti-semitic drawings as a placeholder for a Jew.

But the Jew is a capitalist, so it's okay :^)
штрафбат вперед
User avatar
General Patton
 
Posts: 958
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby Iamwhomiam » Tue Apr 12, 2016 1:09 pm

Well, if you say so, it must be true.

But it's not ok.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 5708
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby jakell » Tue Apr 12, 2016 1:10 pm




Ok image jockeys...

what's the Samurai Brownshirt thing about?
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby General Patton » Tue Apr 12, 2016 1:16 pm

It's a spin-off of a few different right wing memes, and is completely incoherent unless you're familiar with all the original right wing drawings it copies. But these kinds of things aren't used to communicate with outsiders, they're an in-group message.

Normally in place of our Jewish capitalist friend would be an asian happy merchant who is brainwashing our fat aryan kid there to watch anime and never reproduce with a (white) woman. Class traitor would be replaced with race traitor, or something to that effect.

So a similar line of thought as neo-nazis, just a different packaging.
штрафбат вперед
User avatar
General Patton
 
Posts: 958
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby NeonLX » Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:13 pm

The previous 2 posts in this thread caused me to write: I love this place. I'm hopelessly ignorant and would not have known any of this if not for RI, and the massively intelligent/knowledgeable people who post here.

Thanks to all of you. I mean that in a most sincere fashion.
America is a fucked society because there is no room for essential human dignity. Its all about what you have, not who you are.--Joe Hillshoist
User avatar
NeonLX
 
Posts: 2267
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Enemy Occupied Territory
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:34 pm

(I appreciated the deciphering. I thought it rather crude, but your explanation makes it clear that it's an attempted parody of something even cruder.)

Patton, what's shtrafbat? Google translates your sig as "schtrafbat forward." Troops? Soldiers?

Image

Ah, never mind, Soviet penal battalions. "Cannon fodder, attack!"

The first image hit is a graphic you posted here, by the way:

Image
To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

Top Secret Wall St. Iraq? & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 13116
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby General Patton » Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:41 pm

If you want we can make a thread on the anti-semitic implications of anime girls dancing on a pizza with Donald Trump in the background.

Yes, it refers to the Soviet penal battalions. I've come to think of modern politics in a different light since I read about them.
Last edited by General Patton on Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
штрафбат вперед
User avatar
General Patton
 
Posts: 958
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

Postby Iamwhomiam » Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:45 pm

I bet you could!
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 5708
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 14 guests