@DA GOMMIE JOO no they're not. There's no such thing as subhuman. Unless you count pakistanis.

I do due to their goatfucking

@Mr. X FUCK U

LOL

🍿

fucking irish ape

go gag on a potato

No such thing, and go gag on goat cock, goatfucker

https://www.wizyakuza.com/

my favourite artist

@DA GOMMIE JOO stfu

@DA GOMMIE JOO that's a strawman

What’s going on?

Dumb ass teacher posted this shitty and inaccurate political compass

Where fucking anarchism was really right wing

Communism was really authoritarian

Mutualism was also right wing

same i also feel pissed with your teacher and the graph .he didnt add cultural marxism to the graph

Progressivism is also right wing btw

And whatever the fuck ultra capitalism is

Or "anarcho socialism"

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