Message from @Borzo
Discord ID: 506303507901448195
Or how nazism is between national communism, statism, communism and totalitarianism
https://en.rightpedia.info/w/Cultural_Marxism https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism
http://www.smashculturalmarxism.com/
books:the secret of communism(david duke) the culture of critique(david mcdonald)
http://www.renegadetribune.com/?s=cultural+marxism
https://namethejew.com/category/studies/jewish-studies/communism/
http://smoloko.com/?tag=cultural-marxism
https://www.europeanknightsproject.com/smash-cultural-marxism-uk/
Cultural Marxism takes Marx's concept of class struggle, one of the most rigorous theories of social behavior, and applies it to something it was never meant to describe. Marx's theory is based in materialism and the relationships of power as they exist in the material world. Marx wrote about what's going on in reality behind the ideology. Critical theory pins the whole system on ideology. They are in no way Marxist, although they pretend to be, by sloppily applying Marx's class analysis to relations of race and gender (spooks) rather than the relations of production. This is why "Cultural Marxism" gets applied to them - they are taking the essence of Marxism and applying it to culture, which is completely nonsensical.
It tries to replace dialectic materialism with its own vague brand of mysticism. Suddenly class struggle isn't the center of conflict but instead a collection of metanarrarives without an objective truth. Critical theory is the source of identity politics.
Identity politics distract the working class and serve is a way for middle class academics to enrich themselves and preserve the status quo will pretending to be revolutionary. Class struggle is central to Marxist theory.
Cultural Marxism (also known as Freudo-Marxism, or Neo-Marxism) is what the Communists created in 1919 when they found that regular Marxism wasn't convincing people. Marxism made the people under it poor and many of the top people who promoted Communism were rich so Communists needed a new scapegoat. They made this scapegoat Europeans and European culture. They proclaimed that a complete white genocide and cultural genocide of all European influence would make the world a utopia. The people who came up with these all were Communists of Jewish ancestry, making Cultural Marxism a Jewish ideology.
Cultural Marxists came from the Soviet Union, went to Germany, then fled because of Hitler and went to the USA where they incubated and grew. Regular Marxists still existed. Communists still attacked the rich in the 1950s such as in Mao's Cultural Revolution where the wealth and descendants of wealthy had everything from sewing machines robbed from them and many were tortured and killed[1], but over time as Communists basically became rich Globalists of which Mark Zuckerberg✡ and George Soros✡ are perfect examples. Both are basically the richest men in the world and push the Cultural Marxism in an Orwellian fashion (along with their ties to the US government) of attacking Europeans based on their culture rather than wealth. One quote that shows the Communist shift in scapegoating is when Bernie Sanders✡ said in 2016, "If you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor."
What the USSR started in 1919, the Jewish Frankfurt School further developed in Weimar Germany until Hitler came to power, then they fled. The Frankfurt school decided on several things to scapegoat rather than class and wealth:
Europid/White people (gentiles only)
Men
Christians
People with standard sexuality of society. (For a while this was only heterosexuality but then when deviant sexuality became the norm, Cultural Marxists shifted to promoting Islamic prudery.)
So what is politically correct and is claimed to be anti-racist, is in reality extreme bigotry and persecution of white gentiles, men, whoever is normal in society. This was not just pursued by the Cultural Marxists in First World countries, but by the Soviet Union itself. For instance the USSR started "Operation INFEKTION", claiming that white gentiles created HIV to kill off black people. Communists also have heavily been making black leaders their puppets, including Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King.
Shut up
No, it critiques culture as culture. It ignores the base and applies the oppressor/oppressed dynamic between socially constructed identities like race. It completely ignores the material dynamic of oppressor/oppressed between the bourgeoisie and proletarians to focus on the ideological dynamic of oppressor/oppressed between, say, whites and blacks. These distinctions only exist in the first place as artifacts of history. Nothing about blackness (ethnically speaking) puts people into an oppressed class other than the history of which parts of the world dominated which other parts. An alternate universe where dark-skinned people went through a period of global colonialism that involved an institution of white slavery is possible. The reason history played out the way it did is because the material conditions set the stage the way it was (largely to do with geography and presence of resources). Critical theory ignores this.
humans will always identify first with our biology .do you even look in the mirror to like brush your teeth do you touch your body? do you cut your nails? do you put on cloths on your body? do you have eyes?can you hear? can you smell?
theres no escaping or ignoring truly this psysical reality that we live in
Even though critical theorists may correctly identify "blackness" as a social construct that developed under the specific circumstances of history, they tend to miss that this blackness isn't inherent to the trait of being dark-skinned. They focus on the dynamic in ideology without recognizing it as ideology. The true function of the sort of racism inherent to the ideology of "blackness" would not be there if history had played out such that the peoples who colonized most of the world were black. Instead, "blackness" would be associated with "black guilt" like with white people.
Continuing to focus on the socially-constructed differences rather than recognize them as artificial and immaterial is counterproductive. Racism and other forms of identitarianism serve primarily to justify the class struggle. "Black people are slaves poor and miserable because that's what blackness is." It doesn't matter whether "blackness" is being defined by the racists or supposed anti-racists. Acknowledging it as a legitimate concept gives it its power. If tomorrow the bourgeoisie start exploiting left-handed people more, we would call it out as a superficial distinction that's irrelevant to productive value. That's because there's no historical precedent for it, and like it or not people tend to be irrational and like to fall back on heuristic thinking like appeals to tradition/history.
Black people aren't oppressed because they're black. They're oppressed because they're proles. They usually have it worse than the average prole because they usually have ancestors who were slaves. Their ancestors weren't slaves because they were black (mostly); they were slaves because their ancestors were slaves and their ancestors were slaves and so on. The ultimate cause wasn't that European descendants saw some black people and decided to make them slaves. They saw slaves already for sale when they visited Africa and bought them. Racism against black people wasn't the cause here (slaves were of course bought from other Africans); the cause was that the slaves were there to buy. It's just a matter of what the material conditions were. Racism against blacks and our idea of "blackness" evolved over centuries of slavery. Did racism (superstructure) feed into the exploitation (base)? Yes it did, but it wasn't the cause of the exploitation. It did not create it; it merely shaped it. Slavery did not continue for as long as it did in the United States because of how racist Americans are. Slavery continued as long as it did because of how profitable slavery is.
Meanwhile in the present, "blackness" is used to address the supposed problems of black people. This is harmful because it's misleading. Most of the racism swirling around in the superstructure relates to the lot of blacks as poor people. Supposedly they're indolent. Supposedly they have a propensity toward crime. The negative stereotypes surrounding black people also surround poor people in general. The same sorts of stereotypes surround poor latinos and white trash, though the flavor is usually different. This is because those stereotypes are responses to the same conditions and coping mechanisms common to all poor people. Liberating the poor will liberate blacks, insofar as blacks are poor, but focusing on one specificdemographic of poor people ignores the material and systemic causes of those problems andleaves out the other demographics facing similar problems. And this doesn't get better when you have advocates for all the different groups. All that accomplishes is keeping people distracted. They can't see the forest (class) for the trees (identities).
what
what a copy and paste
so obv
Forget about dividing different identities against each other for a second - which is more effective: one large group fighting for one cause that everyone rallies behind or many smaller groups rallying for superficially different versions of the same cause, but failing to work together? Now add on top of that a conflict between these identities that are said by critical theorists to be in conflict like whites and black. They're going to impede each other and get even less done. And now add that even groups who aren't supposed to be in conflict even according to critical theorists now are because they're jockeying for who is the most oppressed in situations where this determines who gets to speak (progressive stack). Instead of a unified working class who can be effective and get what is in our interests, critical theory gives us a jumbled mess of infighting that gives Porky plenty of leeway to turn the screws tighter and tighter.
Idpol can best be described like a virus, or like 'The Borg' if you've seen Star Trek. It infects movements and actions and projects that would otherwise actually accomplish anything in functionality or practicality, brings it down to a halt with astonishing speed and power that seems to come from nowhere, eats it from the inside out, wears it's skin, and then demands it's respect. I've seen absolutely nothing ever be able resist it. Whether or not it's an FBI COINTELPRO operation, it is certainly doing the same work an actual COINTELPRO operation, and with great success.
Political correctness and Cultural Marxism are like a religion.
Another problem with idpol besides weakening leftist movements is that it had found it's way into the mainstream and thus gives the (alt-)right arguments about "the left" being a dominant force, while economically right-wing policies are pushed without limits.
The way to counter IdPol is to occupy their topics. Don't get into discussion like "class or race first", "class or gender first". This is shit-tier political discourse. Show, that the topics are intertwined and counter reductionist arguments from both sides. For example: capitalism relies on a lot of unpaid labor (carework, parenting). Women are expected to do this labor. Talk about how capitalism in itself is a system that needs this kind of exploitation and that the invisibility of unpaid carework is because it doesn't fit into the capitalist ideology of contracts betweens equals. Or talk about how the institutionalized racism and nationalism made the lower working class colored in its appearance and that subsequently most of "race struggles" are in fact "class struggles" in disguise.
The left side shows a Cultural Marxist culture. This is contrasted with a regular culture so one can better understand the difference.
The left side shows a Cultural Marxist culture. This is contrasted with a regular culture so one can better understand the difference.
Goal
One purpose of Cultural Marxism was that for nations where the population itself is resistant to Communist revolution, that Cultural Marxism would gradually destroy the culture of the nation until it is ripe for overthrow. Mass immigration/demographic genocide is one main way of destroying a nation's culture. Corruption through the mass media is another method. For example, the IDF seized control of several television networks in Palestine. Israel then broadcasted pornography all the time on them to corrupt them.[2][3]
Main aspects of Cultural Marxism
Anti-white racial hatred
Degenerate art and degenerate music
Feminism -- The attack on fathers and the encouraging the breakdown of the family.[4]
Huge demographic genocide of white countries to destroy identity and create tension.[4]
Miscegenation
Orwellian hate speech laws for criticizing nonwhites and religions other than Christianity while at the same time spewing endless hate speech toward whites and Christianity.[4]
Political correctness (it is based on Orwellian Marxism after all)[4]
Continual change in society to create confusion.[4]
The teaching of different sexuality to children. First it's homosexuality then transexuality then when people accept that, push extreme pruditry of Islam.[4] One of the founders of Cultural Marxism, Georg Lukacs, who as Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun government in Hungary, had his first act to introduce sex education into Hungary’s public schools. He knew that if he could destroy the West’s traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying Western culture itself.[5]
The undermining of schools and teachers' authority.[4][6] An ancient Chinese proverb goes: "A strict teacher produces outstanding students."[7]
The promotion of excessive drinking. The Bible allowed drinking but not drunkeness.[4]
Emptying the churches.[4][8]
An unreliable legal system with bias against the victims of crime.[4][9]
Dependency on state or state benefits.[4]
Control and dumbing down of media and TV.[4][10]
Multiculturalism.[4]
The creation of trauma through injustice.[4]
Destruction of the economy through banking, mass immigration and globalism.[4]
Cultural Marxism is like the Holy Roman Empire. Neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire
Frankfurt School
In the Jewish-controlled degeneracy of Weimar Germany, the Frankfurt School emerged in 1922. The Frankfurt School is shorthand for the members and allies of the Institute for Social Research of the University of Frankfurt. The Frankfurt School combined Marxism with Freudianism✡ where equality was made not just about economic issues but about all of society, and they did it in the standard way that Marxism did it, by destroying the best and replacing it with the worst. Like Marxism, Cultural Marxism, the Frankfurt School, and the former Soviet Union, they were all founded by Jews. Though they were typically secular Jews, people of Jewish ancestry who were atheists and only Jewish by blood and culture. Even with all the flaws of Judaism, the Torah (Christian Old Testament) forbade the degeneracy that is Cultural Marxism. It had rules against being a pervert. It had rules about cleanliness and hygiene. It also had rules against drunkenness (or intoxication) and Cultural Marxism promotes drugs and people behaving like wild animals. Cultural Marxist beliefs had been common among Jews since at least a century before. For example, Emma Lazarus✡ wrote the pro-immigration poem on the Statue of Liberty.
Cultural Marxism is Marxism as applied in the cultural sphere and the analysis and control of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in society, often with an emphasis on class, race, and gender. As a form of political analysis, Cultural Marxism gained strength in the 1920s, and was the model used by a group of intellectuals in Germany known as the Frankfurt School; and later by another group of intellectuals at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, England. The fields of Cultural Studies and Critical theory are rooted in and influenced by work of Cultural Marxism.
Cultural Marxism seeks to destroy everything good about a society, what holds it together, what helps it to advance, what promotes intelligence and beauty. It seeks to degenerate society and take it to a lower form where people are less intelligent and more animal. It's based on the Marxist lie that everything good about society is all a form of oppression. Every time anyone promotes Cultural Marxism, they use the same line claiming it is about freeing people from oppression. These common cultural Marxist themes all are promoted by the same lie that they are done in the name of freedom and equality: radical social change, modern art, degenerat
And just like national socialism isn't socialism, cultural Marxism isn't Marxism
haha what a joke you are pretty obvious your a cultural marxist first and the whatever other communist ideology you follow second
Yes we believe in unreadable text
You got us
Frankfurt school is autistic
^
How The Frankfurt School went to infect Cultural Marxism upon the West.
