The Reasons Why People Hate Cultural Marxists

[Wombaticus Rex]

So Cultural Marxists are all connected by the fact none of them are connected, rally around a philosophy few of them even know they have, and while "they are everywhere, but they are few," there's also "mobs" and "hordes" of them.

This all sounds like very rational, useful stuff. I especially like how the author doesn't explain anything, instead urging us to "research as much as possible."

How do you expect people to "break down this rhetoric" when there's nothing here but rhetoric, Sounder? This seems like a golden example of the Law of Bullshit.

If I wrote an essay about how Neo-Platonists are destroying civilizations around the world without offering any real description of who Neo-Platonists are and insisted that you "debunk" it rather than dismiss it, you might have a moment of self-awareness about wasting time. What is there to engage with in the OP? It is scholarship without content.

[jakell]

So Cultural Marxists are all connected by the fact none of them are connected, rally around a philosophy few of them even know they have, and while "they are everywhere, but they are few," there's also "mobs" and "hordes" of them.

This all sounds like very rational, useful stuff. I especially like how the author doesn't explain anything, instead urging us to "research as much as possible."

How do you expect people to "break down this rhetoric" when there's nothing here but rhetoric, Sounder? This seems like a golden example of the Law of Bullshit.

If I wrote an essay about how Neo-Platonists are destroying civilizations around the world without offering any real description of who Neo-Platonists are and insisted that you "debunk" it rather than dismiss it, you might have a moment of self-awareness about wasting time. What is there to engage with in the OP? It is scholarship without content.

Yes, he does tend to over-solidify the concept as if there are particular individuals this can be attached to, mixing the general and the particular is always a bad idea, and gives naysayers an easy angle of critique. Still this happens in all conspiracy theories, Left and Right ones.

On here I've seen some fairly strong denouncements of the idea of Cultural Marxism. At the time I mused that it seems ok for the Left to have all shades of conspiracy theories from strong to flimsy, and they are all mostly received with a degree of interest..... however, when the Right does a similar thing it is treated automatically with derision, a fairly unsymmetrical attitude.

When it is addressed at all, the idea of CM is usually critiqued by questioning its historical roots, but to me that doesn't matter, it does seem to describe something in modern times and for that reason alone it is a reasonable label to use.

(just heading off the usual posse)

Keep it as an idea though and we still have something that can be worked with. He says this though, so he seems to realise this on some level:

..... what I would call a sociopolitical theology.....

[JackRiddler]

So Cultural Marxists are all connected by the fact none of them are connected, rally around a philosophy few of them even know they have, and while "they are everywhere, but they are few," there's also "mobs" and "hordes" of them.

This all sounds like very rational, useful stuff. I especially like how the author doesn't explain anything, instead urging us to "research as much as possible."

How do you expect people to "break down this rhetoric" when there's nothing here but rhetoric, Sounder? This seems like a golden example of the Law of Bullshit.

If I wrote an essay about how Neo-Platonists are destroying civilizations around the world without offering any real description of who Neo-Platonists are and insisted that you "debunk" it rather than dismiss it, you might have a moment of self-awareness about wasting time. What is there to engage with in the OP? It is scholarship without content.

Yes.

I assume "scholarship" is irony on your part. However, it has a content. Everyone is enemy who does not fit this guy's profile of the normative human being - white, male, individualist, "producer," believer that "traditional" values are also natural - or who is not in agreement that this is normative.

[jakell]

So Cultural Marxists are all connected by the fact none of them are connected, rally around a philosophy few of them even know they have, and while "they are everywhere, but they are few," there's also "mobs" and "hordes" of them.

This all sounds like very rational, useful stuff. I especially like how the author doesn't explain anything, instead urging us to "research as much as possible."

How do you expect people to "break down this rhetoric" when there's nothing here but rhetoric, Sounder? This seems like a golden example of the Law of Bullshit.

If I wrote an essay about how Neo-Platonists are destroying civilizations around the world without offering any real description of who Neo-Platonists are and insisted that you "debunk" it rather than dismiss it, you might have a moment of self-awareness about wasting time. What is there to engage with in the OP? It is scholarship without content.

Yes.

I assume "scholarship" is irony on your part. However, it has a content. Everyone is enemy who does not fit this guy's profile of the normative human being - white, male, individualist, "producer," believer that "traditional" values are also natural - or who is not in agreement that this is normative.

Not a bad approach, but still rhetorical, use the author's idea of cultural Marxism against him, however, what you state here are deductions you have made and aren't really stated in the article. His only solid 'enemy' seems to be those who subscribe dogmatically to CM.

[Sounder]

If I wrote an essay about how Neo-Platonists are destroying civilizations around the world without offering any real description of who Neo-Platonists are and insisted that you "debunk" it rather than dismiss it, you might have a moment of self-awareness about wasting time. What is there to engage with in the OP? It is scholarship without content.

I already wrote that essay, but I better add a few new paragraphs.

Alright, good replies Wombat and Jack.

I don't relate to the term Cultural Marxist, cause it's a dog whistle phrase.

Still there is a loud minority of people around that seem dedicated to undermining the value of nation states, and from my POV at any rate, looking to replace nation states with some kind of corporate super-state.

I call them Trans-nationalists or Globalists.

[Rory]

I just thought it was a steaming heap of horseshite. It's pseudo-content, copypasta. The people defending it here would be up in arms if AD posted something similarly vapid.

[semper occultus]

well I think Mr Dodgin' Cougher could probably have written something alot better himself had he been so inclined but who's got the time and energy in these enervated times ?

Cultural Marxists certainly have no respect for freedom. Their only concern is artificial “equality,” because forced equality makes collectivism possible. This often means grinding down the best the world has to offer to match it with the worst the world has to offer...

...I really see nothing remotely racist in that as a statement tbh..I'm reminded of the concert pianists being beaten up & thrown in prison by Mao's Red Guards during the Cultural ( geditt ? ) Revolution & Pol Pot's Year Zero as much as the .....20 university professors, 300 physicians; several hundred lawyers, engineers, and teachers; and more than 100 writers and journalists.... amongst the corpses in Katyn Forest

At the Red Guard rallies, Lin Biao also called for the destruction of the "Four Olds"; namely, old customs, culture, habits, and ideas.

..uh-huh...sounds like a fair summary of a Marxist programme to me .....doesn't a true blue Marxist want to overturn society & transform it - isn't that the whole bleedin' point - what justification would they have in getting a big bug up their ass if someone points that out....no matter how cack-handed the effort may be....

So Cultural Marxists are all connected by the fact none of them are connected, rally around a philosophy few of them even know they have...

Well why not...I'm further reminded of the Keynes quote : ( * )

“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.”






( * )

..and enjoyed a diverting few minutes looking up some his quotes :

“It is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong.” 

“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.” 

“When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done” 

[JackRiddler]

Arguing with TayTweets would be higher on my priority list.

http://www.inquisitr.com/2922070/micros ... d-groupme/

[IanEye]

"DILUTE! DILUTE!! OK?" - Doctor Bronner

[jakell]

If I wrote an essay about how Neo-Platonists are destroying civilizations around the world without offering any real description of who Neo-Platonists are and insisted that you "debunk" it rather than dismiss it, you might have a moment of self-awareness about wasting time. What is there to engage with in the OP? It is scholarship without content.

I already wrote that essay, but I better add a few new paragraphs.

Alright, good replies Wombat and Jack.

I don't relate to the term Cultural Marxist, cause it's a dog whistle phrase.

Still there is a loud minority of people around that seem dedicated to undermining the value of nation states, and from my POV at any rate, looking to replace nation states with some kind of corporate super-state.

I call them Trans-nationalists or Globalists.

It seems we are in agreement then and, as I said in post 2, it it is merely the phrase that is problematic and and it actually describes a useful set of ideas.

The article can then be reread (or rewritten) using this knowledge and maybe those allergic folks can breathe again. More intelligent folk can read the article as is and do an internal translation.

[Rory]

If I wrote an essay about how Neo-Platonists are destroying civilizations around the world without offering any real description of who Neo-Platonists are and insisted that you "debunk" it rather than dismiss it, you might have a moment of self-awareness about wasting time. What is there to engage with in the OP? It is scholarship without content.

I already wrote that essay, but I better add a few new paragraphs.

Alright, good replies Wombat and Jack.

I don't relate to the term Cultural Marxist, cause it's a dog whistle phrase.

Still there is a loud minority of people around that seem dedicated to undermining the value of nation states, and from my POV at any rate, looking to replace nation states with some kind of corporate super-state.

I call them Trans-nationalists or Globalists.

It seems we are in agreement then and, as I said in post 2, it it is merely the phrase that is problematic and and it actually describes a useful set of ideas.

The article can then be reread (or rewritten) using this knowledge and maybe those allergic folks can breathe again. More intelligent folk can read the article as is and do an internal translation.

LoL

[jakell]

I should add, in the light of previous mentions of white supremacism (still not shown BTW), that my mention of 'more intelligent' does not make me an intelligence supremacist, and that more is not necessarily better.

Those of higher intelligence should either find a way to reduce theirs to the mean (certain drugs are a proven method, if not always permanent) or at least have the good manners not to display it in public.

(written in the spirit of CM)

[Luther Blissett]

I should add, in the light of earlier mentions of white supremacism (still not shown BTW),…

The author believes reverse racism is real, argues against multiculturalism, is sad that people can't be openly racist and xenophobic for fear of losing their jobs, uses the term Hispanic in place of Latino, laments that people have discovered that there is white privilege and institutional racism, believes that Black Lives Matter serves only to make racial tensions worse, and lastly, specifically equates multiculturalism with knocking "the best" down "to match it with the worst the world has to offer".

It's taking me some mental gymnastics to imagine how that multiculturalism stance means something other than what it clearly means. That cultural Marxists force (FORCE!) Oglala Lakotas to live with some of the dregs of society - like white hedge fund managers - "injecting" the Rez with these jerks in order to destabilize it.

[Sounder]

The people defending it here would be up in arms if AD posted something similarly vapid.

There is a lot in this life that is vapid. But one difference here is that the 'defenders' are willing to speak to critics without screaming; 'you, you Cultural Marxists', as distinguished from AD who posts vapidity, then will not speak to critics, and does nothing more than scream; 'youse guys are fascists'.

[tapitsbo]

Without reading the article I just think it's funny that "cultural marxist" and "white supremacist" which people now don't call themselves (demanding explanations of what the terms they are being called mean) - were once self-identifying terms.