Is Cultural Marxism Real?

Do you think that "Cultural Marxism" is a legitimate term? If so, what's its endgame?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=_Iz3VjoHXLA
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory
youtube.com/watch?v=ASiblawQ7_w
discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7522
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Is Cultural Marxism Real?

YES

Telling cultural marxism is not real, is like an atheist telling christianity is not real just because god doenst exist

Is Obama Cultural Marxist?

Yes. Setting everyone up to hate white men means they will get eliminated once a brown majority takes power. White women can stay long enough to breed the next brown generation and then they are done too. They don't try to hide it. They have made their intentions clear.

Cultural marxism works like this :
tell a group of people that share similarities that they are opressed (easyest way to do it : you are poor because your boss explores your work force, you must seize the means of production). You can use the feminist discourse, the racial discourse, the lgbtqwepqrtuwoifhdfbx,mcvbz discourse. Everything fits. The idea is to make lots of people fit in this discourse. I call it an articulation of a socialist oriented party. The party needs this, for many and many reasons. The first and obvious one, voters. Then once this party is in power, they will use the populist articulation, creating programs to help women succeed in jobs, free housing for the poor, quotas to blacks and gays in jobs and universities. And the necessity to this programs is that they keep those useful idiots engaged and dependent on the government. The endgoal (and the harderst part) is to controll the political opostition. By that i mean create means to make the oposition feel guilty and cooperate with you. On the governamental scale, they have 2 ways to do it. You can like in brazil buy the congressmen in the oposition to do your bidding, therefore transforming the democracy in a subtle dictatorship that will function if the market keeps sending money to the socialist party. This eventually breaks, the market turns inneficient and the government cant keep the programs. A huge deficit shows up, the opposition stop cooperating, the congressmen stop receiving bribes and the party looses it place, leaving a destroyed economy and a legion of retards without jobs.

It's not marxism but it does exist

the second way to do it is once the economy breaks, close congress and become a gommie dictatorship like venezuela.

This is the democrat party right now. It's a Ponzi scheme.

Cultural Marxism is the PC term. Call it what it is, the Jewish end-game. Revenge for the holocaust.

Yes but it's not marxism, it's called neo-liberalism.

Some guys like Adorno would feel at home in Sup Forums, calling everything they didn't like "degeneracy".

When Sup Forums associate the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism with multiculturalism, gay agenda and feminist bullshit, they are thinking about Herbert Marcuse, who was pretty much kicked out of the Frankfurt School very early on. This was the one who promoted gay liberation, feminist and african-american civil rights movement as a strategy to gain support to communism after the working class became non-revolutionary. And of course, his criticism of positivist science is at the basis of post-modern discourse of "everything is a social construct".

No, it's a meme.
What right-wingers think when they say cultural Marxism is simply Progressive stack and "privillege theory". It has nothing to do with actual Marxism, it's intersectionality postmodernism bullshit.

>Some guys like Adorno would feel at home in Sup Forums, calling everything they didn't like "degeneracy".
this, he criticized how capitalism was degenerating art

The end result is the same though. And making every brown person dependent on gibs, poorly educated and propped up by the govt means that eventually when the system breaks, they have their revolution. It's the long way around but takes out pesky white people in the process.

>And making every brown person dependent on gibs, poorly educated and propped up by the govt means that eventually when the system breaks

yeah, this already happens everywhere
capitalism is failing worldwide

>Do you think that "Cultural Marxism" is a legitimate term?
Cultural marxism is a fact.
>If so, what's its endgame?
Just look at what is happening in Sweden now and imagine it accelerating indefinitely until there is no Sweden left and there is no opposition against a world union.

It's total fucking trash. An insane conspiracy theory not grounded in reality at all.

What people call cultural marxism is simply what happens in capitalist, progressive liberal democracy, which is a system always run by the """banks""". In communist countries the banks do not get to set course for society, since they are publicly owned. This is why Eastern Europe which was communist just a few decades ago is 99% white, while Western Europe is overrun with Hollywood promoted degeneracy and immigrants.

It stems from Marxist theory applied to culture. Do you deny the Frankfurt school who pioneered this way of thinking weren't a Marxist think tank?

its end game is to destroy nationalism and ensure jews aren't eradicated.

If not for marxism, nationalism would have continued to evolve and progress as the dominant theme in civilized society and the jew would have been deported again and again until they no longer have a place wanting them and the jews 1000 year reign of terror is finally brought to an end.

Here's a simpler version:

1. Find groups that feel oppressed. They are your puppets.

2. Promise "equality" and "social justice"

3. Create the concept of an enemy (bourgeoisie, privileged people).

4. Tell your groups the enemy is the oppressor and they need to fight him.

5. Use your puppets to overthrow (or slowly transform) the system in a marxist revolution.

6. You now created anarchy and chaos. Use the oppurtunity to get in control of society.

Enjoy your marxist totalitarian system. No guns allowed.

thats south america right now. brazil and argentina just got out. we almost got gommietized.

>If so, what's its endgame?
Subversion. a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system and society by persons working from within

Also a cause of overthrow or destruction

It's called postmodernism nowadays

"Degenerating" is not a transitive verb, young rare-flag fellow. You can't "degenerate" things. Things degenerate (intransitive) by their own dynamic.
Also, Adorno held pretty much the opposite view from the one you say he held. Like many "Western Marxist" theorists - an older and more precise designation of the current of thought he belonged to - he held both the view that capitalism, as a stage in history in which the bourgeoisie was the dominant class, was close to collapsing and being superceded and that all art of any value had been produced by and for the bourgeoisie. (Unlike "Eastern Marxists" like Brecht, he had a low opinion of "popular culture" be it a product of socialist or capitalist populaces and he had little interest in "classical", pre-modern art, which he considered to be nowadays effectively beyond our reach, and never to be "brought back").

>intersectionality
I lose a year of my life everytime I hear that term

there is also congress. congress is pivotal to the change. Brazil only scaped because our politicians are so corrupt, that when the gommie party stopped giving the opposition money, the system collapsed.

I heard an user use a good analogy.
Of course the left, or most Overton-window bound normies will call it a conspiracy theory (while simultaneously disapproving racial differences, especially cognitive differences), but nobody is claiming that Adorno or any other of the kikes (2% of the population, mere coincidence goyim!) were whining about xir's oppressive tantrums.
"Imagine an environmental scientist puts out a report about the possible dangers of a certain root. He does not make any definite claims about its nature, but lays a framework for what the root could one day be. Fast-forward, and a bunch of radical environmentalists are uprooting the species in the name of tolerance, without a care in the world for who wrote about it in the first place. They just heard about it through the grapevine by the Jews who improved upon the superstition. Now when that root created all civilization, you have a problem."

Actually, let me also throw this out here:
Wouldn't "Cultural Nietzschianism" be a far more accurate and useful term for the ideology that has pervaded Western universities - and, through universities, Tumblr, Facebook etc. - in the past twenty years than "Cultural Marxism".

Few of these "non-cisgendered", "non-racially-binary" etc. SJWs have been seriously exposed to Marx, even at second hand. Already the college professors who corrupted the minds of today's millenials received their own education post-1980, by which time nobody "hip" in the academic community was still reading Marx (or Marxists like Adorno or Gramsci). The "names to conjure with" already in the 1980s and 1990s were Foucault, Derrida, Lacan and co., all of whom were much more interested in Nietzsche than they were in Marx.
The whole "There is no reality, everything is a social construct, I can make myself whatever I want to be if I can convince a community of like-minded people to accept me as such and if my community can impose its worldview on those who oppose us" is pure Nietzsche, NOT Marx.

Yes and no. It's a convenient catchall to describe the current crop of leftism but you shouldn't use it when arguing with normies because it makes you sound like a right-wing conspiracy nut.

There isn't a Cultural Marxist leadership and headquarters, this isn't a movement. It isn't even an ideology, it just means seeing everything through the prism of oppression.

Nowadays college campus leftism is a joke anyway. They don't even mention class anymore, they focus exclusively on gender and race issues, dying their hair blue and shoving dragon dildos up their ass. It is dying now that people caught on and are getting sick of their bullshit.

NO.
The mechanism i displayed here is a guilty trap. It shows the object of hate of the opressed as the (lord) and the pride in being opressed (pride of the slave). Therefore its not Cultural Nietzschianism. Once nietzsche depicted this behaviour and he said this mechanic of lord and slave was not good for life. Neither being pride of being a lord is what he praises. HE states that both of them are creating values to justify their own desires. He proposes that each one of them reevaluate their own values, and create new values from it. Knowing that just like sciences, a theory should not be set in stone, a set of values should be also be object of criticism.

could you elaborate. names and parties?

Do you guys believe there is a consumer culture?

Yes youtube.com/watch?v=_Iz3VjoHXLA

Argentina => Kirchner
Brazil => Da Silva & ...

Yes it's the march through the institutions and subversion of society to make it ripe for a communist revolution.

Well. Sup Forums is probably not the best place to debate the finer points of the work of Friedrich Nietzsche.

But in the right place, there IS a fascinating and important paradox to be debated here.

As regards his contributions to ethics and politics, there is no doubt that Nietzsche is "our guy" and one of the most important of "our guys". His denunciation of "slave morality" and glorification of the "blonde beast" are crucial weapons in the struggle against Western civilization's collective suicide (whether "suicide by Islam", "suicide by nigger-worship", "suicide by transgenderism" or whatever).

The first fifty years of Nietzsche-reception - up until the adoption of many of his ideas by the Nazis - concentrated almost exclusively on this aspect of his thought.

It was really only the attempt by the left, from 1950 on, to "salvage" Nietzsche from the Nazi use of him - Adorno was part of this, but Derrida, Foucault and co are the main culprits - that pushed into the foreground Nietzsche's EPISTEMOLOGY, which really undermines all that he had to say about "slave morality" and "master morality" by pushing the line that NOTHING IS ACTUALLY REAL ANYWAY, everything is a construct, a "bid for power", including "masters" and "slaves" themselves.

take for instance the SJW. they feel they are opressed. And that the white male is the opressor. Then they take pride on being opressed, and start enforcing guilt into the white male so that they can coerce the state to fulfull some of their desire. What is happening is : the SJW are using the moral of the slave. Nietzche shows us that the class fight once in history had only lords, and slaves. Once the slaves realized that they could change the perception on themselves, and that the lord needed them to plant, do stuff and produce shit, they started to be proud of being slaves. The secondary consequence was to try to ashame the lords, because they were rich but pigs and lazy. so the Good and Bad switch places. Save becomes good and lords become bad or evil. Nietzche goes beyound it (thats the title of the book), Re realizes this shift can happen freely, and if does, what should be the best way to do it ? If we could reevaluate what is good and evil, how should we do it ? Thats the reason nietzsche could not be Marxism. He is not taking moral laws from a superior instance (a lord, god, a dicatator) neither he is happy on being a slave, a sheep or poor. His ethics is about trying figure out for yourself what is good and what is bad.

It sounds to me like you've read some sort of secondary text by a trendy cultural theorist who has chewed a bit of Nietzsche together with a bit of Hegel ("master and slave dialectic") and spewed them back to you as "basically the same thing".
Try going to the actual texts. You might learn something.

i actually read nietzsche, thats why i can be sure to tell you there is no dialectics here, he goes beyound it. he shows that this dialectic is just clothes people can put on, and can change places. He denounces it, destroy it and say : you can create values, like an artist paint. This is no way easy, the "ubermench" is not something mediocre people can stand. I know i dont have what it gets to support his ethics. but i know how to identify some of this master/slave pattern and how to denounce it. thats what i got from him, and i think Sup Forums could get also.

you see. in thus spoken zaratustra, nietzche shows the 3 states of the spirit. The first one was the "tanking" phase he called it camel. The camel is the animal that supports the desert, he never creates, but he endures. Thats all of us, he supports the desert dont change his current situation, but it survives. The second one is the Lion, The lion can say no, and destroy values. Thats where i think i find myself. The next state is the child , the child is able to say YES, and create values. This part here is hardcore shit. i dont have the knowledge or the stomach do endure it.

Of course it is. Just have a go at the history of psychology as a science, the rest is easy to interpret.

Yeah, sorry, but you got it wrong. The whole "slave morality" / "morality of the masters" thing doesn't turn on a "reversal" exactly, whereby what was "good" becomes, as you mistakenly put it, "bad or evil". The whole point of Nietzsche's argument is that "bad" and "evil" ("schlecht" and "boese") belong to two different INCOMMENSURABLE systems of valuation. One system divides the "good" from the "bad" - that's the "masters'" system, that judges on the basis of real qualities like strength and beauty - and the other divides the "good" from the "evil" - that's the "slaves'" system that demonizes the beautiful, strong beings they are envious of as "essentially morally evil". Nietzsche does not believe that there is any dispute at all about what is good and BAD. And he sees the dispute about good and EVIL to be an attempt by the "bad" - in the sense not of the "evil" but just of the weak and ugly - to muddy up the whole debate with resentful fictions.

There's no Wikipedia entry for "Cultural Marxism", so it's not real.

In fact, it's mentioned in the Wikipedia entry for "Frankfurt School" under conspiracy theory.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory

>The first fifty years of Nietzsche-reception - up until the adoption of many of his ideas by the Nazis - concentrated almost exclusively on this aspect of his thought.

i really dont know what to belive in this. Most of the use on the nazi prerrogative was will to power, that according to the majority of people was subverted by his sister´s husband after niet was dead. But i agree that there is an appeal to it, once all the exemples of the ubermench i found were Emprerors, the most fit to create values, and live as free spirits. Since as i dont get his ethics, i can tell who is right in this. And im not very found of this X supremacism. I could not possibly belive it since im mixed myself.

i see, you are probably right. I read it years ago, mabe i should get ir refreshed now that im older. Thanks for this refreshing correction. Still can you see this slave morality in the SJW ? or do you think its the appropriation of Nietzsche´s philosophy by the SJW ?

What makes cultural Marxism powerful is capitalism. The only way to end cultural Marxism is to end capitalism.

One important aspect of cultural marxism: the dissolution of any kind of identity (family, culture, religion etc.). The neo marxists realised, that they have to destroy western identity and break up every social group to control the people.

I definitely think there are people who have views consistent with cultural marxism. I don't believe they are being manipulated by people from the Frankfurt school who have been dead for decades.

I think it is just a social phenomena from the more extreme left wing.

>t commie scum

Capitalism is a word invented by godless commies, kill yourself.

...

>and the jew would have been deported again and again

Do they keep getting kicked out of societies because they are too smart and rise to the top and exploit other people, or because they are perpetual outsiders and are thus not organically invested in the local society and community, which breeds resentment, hostility and eventual reaction?

I've noticed that on Tucker Carlson's new show on Fox, he has a lot of Jew guests. He is generally very civil, but they are often quite vicious, aggressive, rude and dishonest. There seems to be a very real cultural difference.

Nietzsche, if I recall correctly, argued that the revolt of the slaves was led by the ancient Jewish priestly class, and eventually became Christianity. Christianity was, in his view, a slave morality based on resentment against the masters or elites who, in today's terms, were possessed of certain "privilege," such as wealth, beauty, valor in battle, and so on.

So there seems to be a link between the Jewish mindset and the resentment of the SJW crowd today.

I think Nietzsche was picked up by the poststructuralists and postmodernists due to his theory of "perspectivism," which posits that we can never see the truth or the world from a single objective or transcendental point-of-view, only from or own particular subject position.

In any case, Nietzsche was ultimately a conservative elitist, so he would not have been the best model for the Cultural Marxist assault on Western capitalistic societies. However, he was useful as a tool to critique traditional Western values such as the truth and reason, so he was sort of the opening wedge through which Cultural Marxism could then advance throughout the West.

bump

I think when right-wingers like Breitbart (RIP) or Derbyshire talk about Cultural Marxism, they mean the plan to destroy America and replace it with pure socialism.

But the question is this: Is there a smoking gun in which the commie left consciously decided to replace class with race and gender wedge issues, in order to attack and undermine the system?

I think Obama and his backers, like Bill Ayers, genuinely want to overload the system until it crashes, so that they can then install pure socialist dictatorship. But is their plan consciously a reworking of Marxist class warfare along social-justice or cultural-racial identity lines?

>consciously decided to replace class with race and gender wedge issues, in order to attack and undermine the System

sure, think of the whole "White privilege" movement. It's the new "Bourgeoisie".

...

...

>Give Church 10%
>US tax rate at 26%
>Losing 36% of your income in a given year

Cuck-a-doodle-doooo!

Marxism = extreme left on economic policy
Cultural Marxism = extreme left on social and cultural policy

Obama's political mentor was Bill Ayers. Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground, most of whom were Jews. They bombed a lot of government buildings, including the Pentagon. In the following video, a person describes attending a meeting in which they literally say that killing white babies would help advance the revolution:

youtube.com/watch?v=ASiblawQ7_w

Ayers is also on record saying that he thinks America is "evil."

Obama certainly seems friendly with the BLM crowd. Does Sup Forums think he secretly hates white people and wants to destroy America, in order to defeat US imperialism forever and establish a mixed-race socialist utopia on our once great land?

Yes, there exist proudly self identifying cultural Marxists who follow the basic tenants of the ideology. It's endgame is social/political subversion and an overthrow of what Cultural Marxists believe to be an inherently flawed and malevolent system (Capitalism in the case of original Cultural Marxists, and now with Intersectionalism specifically White supremacist Capitalist Patriarchy) and presumably the replacement of it with what they believe will be a superior society (in spite of the fact that all socialist/communist nations never seem to last very long or preform very well), this will include vast expansion of government power, disempowerment of buisnesses, the silencing of political and social dissidents, the forced redistribution of wealth from the identified privileged classes to the identified victim classes.
Not necessarily, I think he's just a snake politician who will happily sell this country out for his own personal power and glorification. He'll consort with any kind of person and do whatever is necessary to get his name written down in the history books as a president who built something lasting. Too bad he'll go down as a poor/mediocre leader who only continued older policies and got everything he ever created removed or rewritten by someone else during their first term.

OMG, I am from San Francisco, but haven't lived there for twenty years. They literally want to demonize anything "traditional American." They are injecting the resentment of slave morality into their impressionable young students, which will ruin them for the rest of their lives.

See "Kalergi Plan".....

it's more of the same from the psychological weak minded
the gommies are gonna take my culture
the muslims are gonna make me convert
the feminist are gonna take my balls
and the gays will make us all suck cocks

all while yammering on about survival of the fittest

>Yes, there exist proudly self identifying cultural Marxists who follow the basic tenants of the ideology.

But they don't use that nomenclature themselves, do they? Has the term spread beyond the right-nativitist crowd?

"SJW" is also a pejorative term used mainly by critics. What do Cultural Marxists broadly call themselves these days?

I am sure you can write the donation off which mean you do not pay a tax on that 10%

plus the "Cloward-Piven Strategy"?

discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7522

The current protests against Trump, financed in part by Soros and expected to intensify and climax during the inauguration, also seem in line Cloward-Piven Strategy, as they seem aimed at inducing systemic crisis and delegitimizing the new Trump administration.

I think the leftist should sit the fuck down and shut up, if trump is as bad of a fuck up as they think he'll be no one will wanna listen to them in 6 months

You speak common sense, but they will probably double down and go for broke, with the (((legacy media))) aiming them on. Hell, they're even going to name a black Muslim as the new head of the DNC. It's like a giant middle finger to Middle America.

>What do they call themselves these days.
Well it is hard to pin down, obviously as with any political ideology there are multiple different sub-groups. There are people who just flat out admit that they're Marxists, there are Intersectional Feminists who basically just apply the Marxist Oppressed/Oppressor dynamic to as many groups of people as possible, using that as an excuse to demand some form (usually political) of revolution against the oppressors (In this case that "revolution" is basically entitled rich women demanding they be allowed to be in charge). There are non-Marxist socialists who just want gobberment gibs as expediently as possible, corrupt democrats have worked to keep their community as shit as possible and at this point they can no longer even imagine a world where they are not reliant on big government for survival.

Most of the admitted Marxists are in academia here where it's more socially acceptable to be retarded, there are some factions of Bernibots who also seem to embrace the label, at least from what I've seen they're fresh out of university where those previously mentioned Marxist academics had a couple semesters to fill their brains up with garbage. They would probably all be amenable to being labeled Progressives (this is obviously a deliberately manipulative label designed to associate them with improvement of society) although the gibsmedats wouldn't even care because as I mentioned earlier, their primary interest is simply survival on the dime of someone who isn't them, they don't care who gives out the welfare as long as it comes. If Trump offered them expanded social safety nets and easier to abuse welfare they'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

So can we say that most of these folks are "useful idiots," in the sense that they help foment and spread social alienation and break down, which in turn allows the state to step in and administer ever greater control, and thereby allows wealth redistribution from the productive taxpaying middle-class to the economic elites as they ultimately control both parties, including the "progressive" Democrats?

I have a white male friend in his thirties who does YouTube videos. He literally believes that if you are white you are automatically "racist." They've really done a job on his head, that's for sure.