Talk:Cultural Marxism/Archive1

Re-write needed?
I don't think Cultural Marxism is a conflation of cultural studies and Marxist analysis. Whenever I've seen the term employed, it's usually in reference to the and the PC Police it (allegedly) spawned. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the problems of this wiki is people writing off the top of their head, instead of after doing some research... :(--ZooGuard (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed a lot of content, but at least the rewrite is accurate. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why McDonald's work is considered anti-semitic? That is one of the concerns about Cultural Marxism - you cannot criticize any group activity because you will be considered "racist", thus silencing any debate before it can get off the ground. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Orpheus7777 / talk / contribs 22:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Silenced". Oh, those delicious white cishet dude tears. Maybe the debate doesn't get off the ground because the "criticizing" side only spews BS, not because of "you cannot criticize them!!!1" or other silly straw men? Own up to it, "Cultural Marxism" is just code for da joooooooz. --91.7.23.182 (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism: The Documentary
Get the popcorn! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's produced by James Jaeger, who on his own website writes:
 * "every major Hollywood motion picture is green-lit by the same 21 politically liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage who police the screenplays to make sure 'androgyny' and 'critical theory' are properly implanted in the writing." His career sucks because of the juice in Hollywood (it's got nothing to do with him being a kook, it's the juice!) --60.241.86.130 (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

What is it supposed to mean as a snarl word?
From what I've read, it's usually used as a synonym for the already abused "multiculturalism".--ZooGuard (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * We're really abusing the term "rationalwiki", when we're just hurling invective and buzzwords like this, instead of properly formulating counterarguments. It might feel good, but it just looks like cheap demagoguery to the outside observer.

The article needs a complete rewrite.108.173.214.4 (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What is wrong? 23:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Self-defined Cultural Marxist
Can anyone name an actual Cultural Marxist who identifies that way? I know Marxists have used the term Cultural Hegemony but I've only ever heard people on the right of politics use this term. What I'm getting at is - is this is a real term, or is this used exclusively by the right side of politics as a strawman? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 60.241.86.130 / talk / contribs 12:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Only ironically - David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since none exist, I believe that's the reason Wikipedia removed their page. "There are no reliable sources that state there are people who describe themselves as 'cultural marxists', and there is no 'school of thought'. The 'school of thought' was tagged as the beginning of 'cultural marxism' by right-wing conspiracy theorists. Mostly those of the Neo-Nazi persuasion."  via the old talk page.  --Frybread (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And now a bunch of Gamergaters and neo-Nazis from Stormfront and elsewhere managed to make enough noise about it that Jimbo himself re-opened the discussion (Jimbo loves the balance fallacy). But remember guys Gamergate is about ethics in game journalism! --Ymir (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The term is not associated with identity, its a classification of an ideology and to be a "cultural Marxist" is similar to be Bourgeois. By communist classification if you are a "owner of the means of production", the You are bourgeois regardless if you self-identify as one or not. So, if You follow the ideology of cultural Marxism, by definition you are a cultural Marxist. Dworkin is however a Cultural Marxist who uses the term: "...the countercultural and student politics of 1968, and the feminist and antiracist politics of the 1970s. Cultural Marxists used their skills as intellectuals..."
 * Dworkin, Dennis (2012). Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural StudiesAntimarx (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

We're #1!
Upset Twitter right-winger to other upset Twitter right-winger. So, what can we do to polish this article up? What more can we add? - David Gerard (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I just tested this: from the UK, on a not-logged-in copy of Opera, we're Google #5, DuckDuckGo #6, Yahoo #7, Bing #8. So what actually happened is that outraged dude's just been reading RW a lot and Google remembered. "Top kek," as the kids say these days - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sidebar: communism or conspiracy?
Should the sidebar be communism or conspiracy theory? - David Gerard (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think conspiracy theory is more appropriate given the content of the article. Also, while the concept is used in academic works, the term is almost never used.--TiaC (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * And I've just written up the actual history of the conspiracy sense. So conspiracy it is! - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That Wikipedia bit looks like a lump on the side
Does it really belong in Gamergate? I mentioned GG here because they've been throwing the term around so much - David Gerard (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's also pretty ironic for the Gamergaters to be throwing it around considering their vulgar, nihilistic behavior and the violent, sexually explicit video games they enjoy. One could point out that they and their games are the products of "cultural Marxism" themselves. --Nabil (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

See also: Critical legal studies "has very little to actually do with this"
From critical legal studies: "Critical legal studies builds on the "critical theory" championed by the cultural Marxist Frankfurt School of sociological thinkers." Critical legal studies is very much a specific application of cultural marxism. AgingHippie (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK - I was thinking of the conspiracy theory - David Gerard (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I figgered. I edited the "what cultural studies is to academic a-holes" section of this article to make it a little clearer/punchier. Thought about putting that first, but, no, the article is really about the snarl term... AgingHippie (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See, cultural studies and critical theory exist in the real world. "Cultural Marxism" basically doesn't as a term in present-day usage. They looked high and low on Wikipedia for non-cranks using it and couldn't find any - David Gerard (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I encountered it pretty often in grad school, but largely through a prof who was around a time and a place where the term was still pretty much standard usage. Dennis Dworkin's book on the intellectual history thereof is worth reading. AgingHippie (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, Google Scholar gets 1800 academic hits for the term, and the first few pages don't look cranky at all. Surprised the Wikipedia brain trust didn't see that. AgingHippie (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This is why rationalwiki will never be taken seriously
Subversion is a real form of warfare, the USSR mostly took ground through subversion. multiple agents were arrested in US, this isn't a conspiracy.

Denying cultural Marxism is denying half what led up to WWII and a good chunk of the cold war.

Entire articles only focusing on ridiculing opposing arguments of the writer's ideology; this is merely conservapedia in the other side of the political spectrum.


 * OTOH, the Beatles - David Gerard (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you're confusing rationality with the plot to the 1984 movie Red Dawn. An easy enough mistake to make I suppose. --60.241.86.130 (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. So you bought into this conspiracy theory, and you're annoyed at us for pointing that it's a conspiracy theory?  I'd invite you to reconsider what led you down this path, and the assumptions you have to have made to believe that cultural Marxism is a real thing, but it seems like that would be a fruitless pursuit.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Denying cultural Marxism is denying half what led up to WWII"... Okay even for a conspiracy theorist that's effin' dumb, or possibly someone is rehashing old Nazi propaganda - in either case it's pretty stupid. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You know how when people say "Rationalwiki is not rational" and the goatherd responses by drinking? I am wondering whether or not a reaction to "Rationalwiki is just the opposite Conservapedia!" should also be responded to with a drink. Why not have more excuses to drink? --Aile Dhoo (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory, or intellectual history?
While the people who hate "cultural marxism" are generally insane, and probably think in terms of conspiracy theory, a lot of liberalism historically borrowed from Marxist insights in the early 20th century leading up to about mid-century. More often they were a blend of Christian ideals of social justice and labor unions (Marxist in only a few places) but the influence was there. Most of the liberalism (in the non-radical sense) of the West is owed to the tradition dating from Locke and his ilk, not the Marxists, but the Western liberals of, say, Lenin's era, were usually quite sympathetic, and read what Marxist literature they could. I don't actually see cultural marxism as a bad thing--more a spirit of egalitarianism especially in terms of class, which has been desperately needed in America and Europe for centuries now, and a distaste for middle class life (a theme in literature for two centuries for the last two centuries). The political correctness aspect has always been an aspect of society, as most people have had, and tried to culturally enforce, their ideals as opposed to the ideals of others. The puritans believed in political correctness. The bitterness comes in when old men who experienced segregated society have aged for decades and can still remember a time when "racism" wasn't a term much used, or when the various sexual liberations happened. They just mistake cause for correlation, such as conflating the 80s-90s crack epidemic with Dr. MLK's system, or the current vogue for impoverished single motherhood (of which I am a product) with collectivism.

Beware of people who say "cultural marxism" but don't think they're all that far off the mark as to intellectual history. I've read much of the Frankfurt School and have published work on Theodor Adorno's theory of administration--they were influential, culturally, and the theory they themselves upheld wanted to spread their worldview through cultural institutions. They believed Western society was repressive, which it was, and fascistic, which was hyperbole. You can read the article here, although it doesn't much explore the Frankfurt School's removal to America. If you read Dialectic of Enlightenment or some of the socialist literature from Verso treating Adorno you can clearly see they wanted to treat culture with Marx in the same way Marx wanted to treat economics. I think that crazy right-wing lunatic who killed those social democrat kids actually read their work, and found it profoundly at odds with how he thought the world should be, which is sort of what the Frankfurters *wanted.* He, after all, was a fascist, and was thus the perfect image of what they thought they were fighting. Culture is a powerful thing as any radical knows. As for subversion, the Frankfurters were intellectual philosophers with few ties to the Soviets. They read Marxism, they didn't practice it. Which is how culture works, sort of like white middle class Americans reading old spiritual literature from the Native traditions...

http://numerocinqmagazine.com/2015/05/05/the-administered-world-of-theodor-adorno-jeremy-brunger/

50.153.132.129 (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * And how does this relate to the RW entry, exactly? The point isn't that cultural Marxism wasn't Marxist, or that it didn't exist as a school of thought in intellectual history, but simply that the term has been appropriated by conspiracy theorists and that this usage of the term is probably the one you're most likely to come across on the Interwebz (unless you're moving in some very highbrow circles). An imperfect analogy is the UN's Agenda 21, a term which has also been appropriated by conspiracy theorists and reinterpreted to refer to a sinister NWO plot. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * IP has a point - we could do with a bit more history of when the term was alive. This is pretty much the go-to article on the conspiracist usage, but it wasn't always that - David Gerard (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the Frankfurt School was a real thing, but Cultural Marxism never found a solid academic definition (for good reason, it is an Oxymoron when compared to what Marx ACTUALLY talked about - he was not a Cultural Analyst, he was an Economic Analyst). So whilst The Frankfurt School was a real thing, and Cultural Marxism has even been used in academic documents - it's never been well defined, and has mostly been understood as wikitionary puts it, to refer to: "The early influences of The Frankfurt School on the development of cultural studies and critical theory."


 * So where does the Frankfurt School end, and Cultural Marxism the conspiracy start? - The line between the two can be found the most common claims of the founding sprukers of the theory (namely those who popularized it during the 1990s Culture Wars, the likes of William S. Lind. Pat Buchanan and Anders Breivik) - in their claim: that Cultural Marxism (to them, the same thing as the Frankfurt School) is somehow responsible for "Political Correctness and Multiculturalism" - when in fact the Frankfurt School is demonstrably NOT responsible for these phenomena. I'll paste a bit from the Frankfurt School talk page on Wikipedia to explain why:


 * One of the key and consistent claims of the Cultural Marxism theory is that "The Frankfurt School are responsible for political correctness which will lead to the downfall of society". Now hyperbolic conclusion aside, it's documented that the French philosopher Michel Foucault gave a definition of what is now the modern usage of the term political correctness in a 1968 correspondence with Jean Paul Sartre in the French fortnightly journal La Quinzaine littéraire in which he wrote "a political thought can be politically correct ("politiquement correcte") only if it is scientifically painstaking" and yet, he states explicitly and specifically in Duccio Trombadori's Remarks on Marx that the Frankfurt Schools influence on him, "remained a retrospective one". So this very basic, very consistent, very widespread "fact" from the popular WP:DUE consensus of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is FALSE... and this isn't the only example! There are many!


 * ^So that is the guy who coined the modern usage of Political Correctness, specifically saying he wasn't aware of the Frankfurt School (ergo they can hardly be said to have devised Political Correctness to destroy western society).


 * I would caution rationalwiki away from falling too much into this one. Many conspiracy theories start in fact then proceed from there - but that doesn't make them true. The Frankfurt School was real, the claims about it's influence, intentions, or responsibilities are hyperbolic false theorizing about a conspiracy. Or to put it another way, The Frankfurt School is real, Cultural Marxism is not (Marxism must win it's bread and butter like any idea out there, mass brainwashing is a highly implausible cause of Marxism's weight/influence). --60.241.86.130 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You aren't making your intended point clear. This is a bit like a 5 paragraph essay missing that essential first thesis paragraph.  What specifically is the problem?  I rejected your earlier change to the article because it adopted some really wishy-washy language that obfuscates the point of the summary.  I'm not sure deleting that paragraph was the right choice either, but I'll let some other editors weigh in.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No no fine, don't listen to me, keep claiming that Stuart Hall is part of The Frankfurt School - keep buying into the conspiracy theory that the Frankfurt School set up society as we know it, what would I know about it: http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?word1=Stuart+Hall+Frankfurt+School&word2=Stuart+Hall+Birmingham+School --60.241.86.130 (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What part of that post said "I'm ignoring what you're saying" to you? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone had put in that Stuart Hall was part of the Frankfurt School of Cultural Studies - I don't know why, it's frankly academic - I corrected that to make it clear he's part of the Birmingham School as there seems to be an effort (by David Gerard) to include the "intellectual history" for some reason. Rather than get into the politics of RW - I thought I'd just correct it to an academic standard (which being a researcher is what I do). You came along and reverted that saying "no thanks" leaving me the conclusion you were being dismissive and lazy, and couldn't be bothered researching the subject - preferring to just rever for no reason. That's not my fault. That's yours. I suggest RW doesn't try to be wikipedia on this subject (see Wikipedia's lengthy Frankfurt School talk page for details). --60.241.86.130 (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * RW is about reporting conspiracy theories. Reporting them doesn't mean users believe in them.  You get that, correct?  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed - let's stick to reporting the conspiracy theory, not the academic usage. --60.241.86.130 (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A paragraph of background is reasonable, BoN. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want a paragraph on background, then at least have it be accurate. All I did was correct it using established academic facts, I even included sources. Yet you're kicking me around like I'm in the wrong. Do some bloody research for once. Stuart Hall is NOT part of the Frankfurt School he was part of the Birmingham School, Marx was primarily concerned with Historical Materialism. The Frankfurt School themselves debated whether they were Marxist. Geez. I'm only trying to correct other people's falsities on the subject. --60.241.86.130 (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are quite frankly wrong (even books about it). It's no more kicking you around then saying that 2+2 does not equal banana.  That's about 2 seconds of research.  Getting angry that people are pointing out, correctly, that you are mistaken is precisely what you are projecting onto the people around you.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * From the very link you've posted (ie your "Frankly"): "The Centre was the focus for what became known as the Birmingham School of Cultural Studies, or, more generally, British cultural studies. Birmingham School theorists such as Stuart Hall emphasized the reciprocity in how cultural texts, focusing on the idea of Encoding/Decoding even mass-produced products are used, questioning the valorized division between "producers" and "consumers" that was evident in cultural theory such as that of Theodor Adorno and the Frankfurt School." <- see that there, how it says that what Stuart Hall was a part of became known as THE BIRMINGHAM SCHOOL and see a little bit after that, how it brought into question the "valorized division" found in the competing FRANKFURT SCHOOL - which Stuart Hall is NOT a part of, and was specifically part of breaking away from? See that? How whilst you were kicking me about there you were wrong? See? --60.241.86.130 (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I admitted my mistake re: Hall in an edit summary. Where did I kick you, exactly? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies AgingHippie, just started to feel like I was being kicked around with multiple users reverting against the factual corrections I was making, and simultaneously arguing against them (in error mind you) on the talk page. Nothing personal, just felt ganged up on and dishonestly so - I'm sure it wasn't intended that way. Sorry for the dramaz. --60.241.86.130 (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (EC) Pause: How is disagreeing with you "kicking you about"?  It also became so, more recently now to when he left, so I don't see how that's wrong he belonged there before leaving in 1979.  He did belong to it, then it became named something else, then he passed away in 2014 so he IS no longer part of either.  If you want to nitpick little sematic things please get them right as well.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sexual Bolshevism
Pretty sure sexual Bolshevism belongs as a see-also, not in the body text. As far as I can tell, the term "sexual Bolshevism" is only used by literal neo-Nazis, not by the more respectable (if ridiculously wingnut) people who popularised "cultural Marxism" - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Seriously?
"Rational Wiki" pretty biased tho 04:19, 24 June 2015
 * Of course it is, but this is one of the better articles.--Arisboch (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 11:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Drink"? You think everyone's an alcoholic here??--Arisboch (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

A few facts
Culture Marxism was first used by radical(Left Wing) intellectuals in the 1980's, people like:


 * 1) Richard R. Weiner
 * 2) Professor Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson
 * 3) Professor Dennis Dworkin
 * 4) Fredric Jameson
 * 5) Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome
 * 6) Professor Douglas Kellner

First in the 1990's did conservative intellectuals start to use the term. Nobody is using Culture Marxism in terms of "conspiracy". Its a left wing scientific fraud in order to discredit the term and easy to expose. Both radicals and conservatives use the term in the same way, to define a branch of marxism that focus on culture, not class. An extension of Gramsci's concept of cultural hegemony, a strategic distinction, between a War of Position and a War of Manœuvre, where "War of Manœuvre" is classic armed revolution and "War of Position" is cultural war aimed at replacing the classic intellectuals imposed by the bourgeoisie with marxist organic intellectuals. Its also known as "the long march trough the institutions of power", coined by Rudi Dutschke, a strategy to conquer institutions like academic, education, media, rationalwiki and wikipedia from within and then incorporate them to the revolution. Just check the talk page of Wikipedia on the subject and you will see cultural war in practice and how the marxist warriors violates every rule in wikipedia in order to slander the term.

A quote from Herbert Marcuse from the Frankfurt School:

"Marcuse proposed throughout the 1970s less dramatic concepts of social transformation, calling for a "long march through the institutions" and the development of "counterinstitutions." In a 1974 address at the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Marcuse championed "intelligence in opposition" and called for the development of a "counter-psychology," "counter-sociology," "counter-education," and radical therapy."

Marcuse, "Theory and Practice," pp. 32ff

Marcuse, Herbert (2004-10-14). The New Left and the 1960s: Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse, Volume 3 (Herbert Marcuse: Collected Papers) (p. 36).

The accusations of "conspiracy" is totally without evidence. How can there be a conspiracy when nobody conspires? Antimarx (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If I follow you correctly (and I'm not sure I do, because you're ranting, and not writing), you are correct: folks like Jameson, et. al. wrote about "cultural Marxism" as a way to talk about the non-economic dimensions of the class struggle. But in recent years, and Goolgle is you friend here, the term has been co-opted as a snarl word by reactionaries as a means by which to portray progressives as part of some massive conspiratorial threat to general well-being. This article describes that use of the term. However, it does so in the hope of revealing the current, non-academic, use of the term to be nonsense. Hope this helps. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe Google is great in picking up gossip, but if you check the sources you will find a different story. There is no right wing conspiracy. Non of the primary sources claims conspiracy, read the books by conservative intellectuals or check their websites. Its only a few left wing extremist that have manufactured a false allegation. Don't take my word for it, check the sources and it will come clear. The conspiracy claim comes from the left, not from the right. Antimarx (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm suspecting that a No True Conservative/Right Winger argument/claim is imminent... ScepticWombat (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, but pleas provide me with an citation from Buchanan, Lind or Gottfreid where conspiracy is claimed. Book, page and passage please. But You cant do that because there is no such thing, right? Antimarx (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

While i wait for Your answer i give you two quotes:


 * 1) "absorbed the ideology of cultural Marxism"; William Lind, “Turn Off, Tune Out, Drop Out: A Cultural Conservative’s Strategy for the 21st Century,”
 * 2) cultural Marxism will succeed where Soviet Marxism failed; Buchanan, Patrick J. The Death of the West.

As you can see its described as an form of Marxism, an ideology just as the left-wingers describes it. 15:57, 19 July 2015
 * Eh, those quotes sound very much like conspiracy theory lingo, so your point is...? ScepticWombat (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To describe something as an ideology is to conspire? I thought there had to be secret meetings and a hidden agenda...My point is that if you claim that an author in a book describes a conspiracy, then to prove it you have to provide on what page and a quote. So where is it? Antimarx (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you being deliberately obtuse? I was pointing out that it sounds as if Messrs Lind and Buchanan were using conspiracy theory lingo, i.e. that they were talking about cultural Marxism as a sinister influence that would take over from the Red Menace (Buchanan) and undermine the God-fearing US of A and probably steal some precious bodily fluids in the process. Braving Godwin's Law I suggest you replace "cultural Marxism" in these quotes with "Zionism" or, for that matter, "Islamofascism" and the parallels with other conspiracy theories about amorphous collectives of sinister, yet strangely faceless, ethno-social groups or ideologies that supposedly threaten or have threatened Western CivilizationTM should become rather obvious. Lind simply seems to have made a rather odd allegation about cultural Marxism being an "ideology" which is either misguided because Marxism is an ideology while cultural Marxism would simply be either a Marxist interpretation of cultural phenomena (and thus not an ideology in and of itself), or it would refer to such traditions as the Frankfurt School which may have been inspired by notions of class struggle but was not composed of doctrinaire Marxists and simply used the concept of classes to get a handhold of struggles for dominance in cultural and social fields.
 * Hell, even Wikipedia only lists as the conspiracy theory version of the Frankfurt School, but I can see from your first comment that you apparently think WP is part of the Sinister Left Wing ConspiracyTM. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Inline citation needed
For the "snarl word" and the "conspiracy" no source is provided (and don't exist). Provide a correct first hand source or remove the material. Antimarx (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The JAQing off is strong in this one.--Arisboch (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a whole fucking section on this if you look down a bit - David Gerard (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to suspect that Antimarx is either trolling or doesn't understand what conspiracy theory means (or possibly both...) ScepticWombat (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no inline citation to support the claim of conspiracy. Any statement that has been challenged, or any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged. must be verified with an inline citation or be removed, that's the Wikipedia rules, but maybe they don't apply here? To verify another statement than the one challenged is not to verify the challenged statement. "In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." - Karl Popper


 * A conspiracy requires the act of conspiracy, or its no conspiracy. There have to be a secret plan or plot. To publish a strategy i a book openly sold is the opposite of conspiracy, and that is exactly what Marcuse and the others did. Nobody claims that to be a conspiracy and that is why you cant find a first hand source to verify the statement.


 * "The science of history should not judge the past, neither lead humanity to a better future. It should only try to find out "wie es eigentlich gewesen", what actually happened. " — Leopold von Ranke
 * Antimarx (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There doesn't have to be an inline citation because there's a whole fucking section of the article detailing how people claim this is a conspiracy. That it isn't one is why it's a conspiracy theory. Learn words or fuck off and stop being annoying - David Gerard (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Its all about verifiability of the sources. A statement about a primary source must always be verified with just that primary source, or the reader cant know if the secondary source is cherry-picked for pov-push or not. A secondary source can only verify that the allegation exist, but can not verify if the allegation is correct or not. Only when the reader have access to both the primary source and the secondary source is falsification possible. If You are familiar with source criticism You should know that "primary sources reflect the true meanings and ideas put forth by authors". The correct way would be:
 * Primary source to verify that claims of conspiracy exists.
 * Secondary source to verify that the primary source is wrong.
 * Just like quotations, never use a secondary source to represent a primary source, because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. In this case its quite clear that the secondary sources are wrong and misleading. That's why neither the article, nor the secondary sources have proper references to the primary sources, because then the fraud would be obvious. Now you have to make a choice, science or propaganda? Antimarx (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Antimarx, like many young people in academia, for someone who is such a methodological stickler, you are very poor at expressing your ideas in a clear manner. Is your problem that the article fails to demonstrate that a so-called conspiracy exists, or is your argument that article the fails to show that people talk about a conspiracy existing, independently of it actually existing or not? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To not make a long argument; i have read the firsthand sources and there is no claim of conspiracy in them. I have read the secondary sources and they carefully sidesteps god science by neither describe the first hand sources, nor compare them to what is scientific consensus in the matter. The claim conspiracy don't exists and the proof is in the first hand sources (and the deliberate lack of them). Buchanan don't write about any conspiracy, Lind don't write about any conspiracy and Gottfereid don't write about any conspiracy. Those who regardless of that still claims they do, they cant produce any references, because there is none. If you lie about whats in a book, you cant let anyone get access to the book, or you get exposed. Antimarx (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're better at being a smug, Ranke-quoting douche than a passive-aggressive troll. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (EC)He asked you to address the article, and what it failed to deliver, not the fact that you think some people don't frame this conspiracy theory as a conspiracy. This isn't a debate about cultural marxism, and whether it's bullshit, because that's an unwinable argument from your side.  It's about the article.  Focus.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just splitting hairs. Anyone with more brain cells than teeth can figure out the intention but trying to be an absolute literalist like this is absurdly silly.  Like I didn't steal that guys wallet, I just creatively appropriated it without his knowledge.  People use euphemisms, people lie, people use creative language like dog whistles...this person needs a welcome to the real world at 50 what most people learn before 10.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So, present name of books and pages where the conspiracy is defined in the original sources or admit that the allegation is unfounded :) Antimarx (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm pretty sure that's a stupid requirement. And "admitting" untrue things in some random-ass debate would do very little for this article.  Here's a better choice: you provide pointed meaningful objections to the article or get out.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This was something described directly to you earlier today in the section above and earlier in this section. Why rehash the same thing over and over again when you don't give a shit about the answer?  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I did read the answer and something is so wrong with that answer. You state again and again that you have second hand sources that verify the first hand sources as containing a conspiracy theory. Fine, i agree. You do. But the thing You avoid to address is that it does not matter if you staple books from the earth to other side of the galaxy with secondhand sources making just that clam. As long as the first hand sources don't contain the conspiracy they don't, and no number of second hand sources can change that fact as long as the first hand sources are available and they are. Unless You burn all first hand sources and purge the internet from then the attempt of deception is obvious. Maybe not what an Marxist warrior want's to hear och even care about, but that's the truth. But with a deconstructed moral and the use of repressive tolerance, what is truth? Antimarx (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that we need to get a primary source (e.g. Buchanan or Lind) in which its author describes his own ideas as a conspiracy theory? ScepticWombat (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Question
What is the reverse of 'cultural Marxism' - cultural/chav fascism, right-wing-Tory-geezer-spouting-off, capitalist oiks, downmarket ripoff Marxism or what? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there even a reverse?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Inverse perhaps - there is a saying to the effect that if the inverse/reverse of a statement is nonsense you are being insulted. (The signs saying 'Fresh food' and 'Latest fashions' (ie new clothes shops) - would anyone buy 'State foods'/'Outdated fashions'?) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What about Reactionary Sexism, Classism and Racism. After all, that is what most people complaining about "cultural Marxism" tend to believe in Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Cultural Marxism is actually free speech (yes, free speech extends pro-feminist statements, pro-marxist statements, pro-civil rights statements, and sex positive statements). So I guess censorship is the opposite to Cultural Marxism. --60.241.86.130 (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism is not exactly conpiracy theory
Cultural marxism is a school of thought, saying it doenst exist is like saying that either scientology or catholic religion must not exist since one doenst believe in the god of the other. What may or may not exist are the ones implementing the ideas that cultural marxism preach. But the school of thought itself exist. 201.78.128.120 (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please sign your contributions on talk pages with four tildes. (this ~ symbol) like this: ~ Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Rothschilds and the Illuminati are/were real too, but that doesn't mean we can't say there are conspiracy theories surrounding them. There is a difference between the "real" concept of cultural Marxism and the conspiracy theory, and the page already makes the difference clear.  Frederick ♠♣♥♦ 18:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "But the school of thought itself exist." the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy doesn't list it. They must be part of the communist agenda, right? --60.241.86.130 (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it does have an article Critical Theory, which says "the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School", which is also known as "cultural Marxism". (Not endorsing the conspiracy theory though - I think all this "cultural Marxism" talk significantly overstates the Frankfurt School's actual real world influence.) Blacke (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Adorno (the other members of the Frankfurt school not so much) does have some enduring influence. But most normal people can't quote more thaen a few short snippets of his writings and few people know what he was all about... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Schroyer originally coined the term as an accusative, being of the mindset that some theorists were failed Marxists (Cultural "Marxists" who had been subsumed by middle class capitalism). Later people like Jameson went so far as wanting Cultural Studies to be referred to as "Cultural Marxism" in order to bring it back to Marxism (even though the Birmingham School was moving away from Marxism by then, and towards post modernism)... but both of Schroyer and Jameson were just individual academics (and fairly radical), and I don't think the term "Cultural Marxist" ever found it's way to the academic mainstream. But yeah, it started as a pejorative within the left, and now lives as a pejorative in the right. --60.241.86.130 (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Birmingham what? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Birmingham School (now known as The Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies), it became the main influence in the academic discourse of Cultural Studies when the Frankfurt School started to fall by the way side (somewhere between the 70s and the 90s). But where as The Frankfurt School saw the consumers of culture as alienated non-participants (essentially the lumpenproletariat) the Birmingham School acknowledged consumers of culture as vital and interacting with culture, and at times producing parts of the culture they were consuming. This meant acknowledging cultural context and the ever changing multifaceted aspects of cultural identity and diversity, which led to Post Modernism and later to identity politics... which is why The Birmingham School is less well written about, and shorter lived in terms of influence (academia loves new toys). But The Birmingham School was still very crucial to this shift. If you google "Frankfurt School vs Birmingham School" you can find some brief descriptions (to make sure I'm not talking out of my hat). In a way they were competing to push the ball forwards, and The Birmingham School pushed it further, so ultimately won influence over The Frankfurt School as the dominant mode of analysis and discourse in Cultural Studies. --60.241.86.130 (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you actually know the details and stuff, please do fill in the non-crank section of the article some more - David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can cite that, that'd be awesome for the non-crank section of the article nvm, i lurn reed beter - David Gerard (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Where is Beatles band?
Oh boy, filling a much-needed gap! CHECK THIS SHIT OUT: Ctrl-F to "adorno". There is a literal conspiracy that Adorno was the power behind the Beatles and wrote all their songs. This definitely rates a section - David Gerard (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

/pol/ doesn't like it, surprisingly
https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/61724883 15:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Including an invocation of the balance fallacy by (deludedly, as usual) claiming that RW tries to be balanced but fails ... unlike the GG's own wikis (and other outlets), presumably. Riiight; gators show us the model to aspire to, as they manage to be completely objective (which just comes naturally to a manly dudebro – can't argue with biotroofs, lol), avoid wearing their bias on their sleeve, and totes rawk this "fair and balanced" thing. ... In opposite land, perhaps. --91.7.23.182 (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Old but angry
http://nwioqeqkdf.blogspot.com/2015/06/is-rational-wiki-rational.html 21:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't see how anyone could fail to respect a URL like that - David Gerard (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Everyone get their tin foil hats out. --Fearless (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

KIA doesn't like it
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/48sp89/oh_rational_wiki_how_the_mighty_have_fallen/

Unsurprisingly. Lol:

But then:

No irony. 17:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Flowchart
Contrary to their flow chart - the KGB couldn't have funded The Frankfurt School's creation - as the Frankfurt School pre-dates the KGB by 30 years. --60.241.86.130 (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point! However, though my inner historian really loves this anachronism, let me just play the devil's lawyer and point out that the flow chart doesn't contain any dates with regards to the funding and so it could refer to the "KGB era" from 1954 onwards. Another counterargument would be that "KGB" is simply an easily understandable shorthand covering the various names under which the USSR intelligence services operated (e.g. Cheka, GPU, OGPU, NKVD and so on and so forth) and thus covers any of these prior incarnations as well. Anyhow, the sheer vastness of this conspiracy flowchart is perhaps the best evidence against its validity as it clearly suggests a Unified Conspiracy Theory with all the necessary warning lights that entails. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed that it isn't complete, as I think the levels of conspiracy from the globalist cabal are much deeper than the diagram suggests - I think it needs to show a lot of the funding coming from New York/US/The West as Marxism actually originated in the west. The Bolshevik revolution in 1917 was funded from New York, and then later that nuclear and space technologies were given to the Soviet Union from those within the West. At the top of the chain is the globalist elite and unregulated globalist central banking system under their control, which has funded Marxist/Communism in other countries to subvert any countries which aren't under its control. I think this must be too close to the truth for comfort to the globalist elite as globalist-controlled Google are censoring the top-rated posts on the Yuri Bezmenov video: See my censored post here Counter-Gramsciite (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Silver? What's missing?
This page is pretty much the go-to on the subject. I'd quite like to silver this, but it may be a bit short. What's missing? - David Gerard (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Text. Lots and lots of text. This page is simply too short to be silver.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * yeah, that's really helpful thanks. I suspect a few kilobytes of "asdf asdf asfd dsalfdsadsafsad s" would not be the thing, so do you have any more specific ideas? - David Gerard (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

LaRouche
Weren't Lyndon LaRouche and his Schiller Institute heavily involved in promoting this conspiracy theory? This wouldn't be the only idea that started out in La-La-(Rouche)-Land and ended up being parroted by mainstream conservatives; the whole idea of George Soros being a sinister puppetmaster also originated among LaRouchies, as did the "deather" canard that Obamacare would lead to death panels. It's rather odd that American conservatives would get so many (if not the majority) of their most sensationalistic talking points from a guy who himself grew up spouting Marxism and never really repudiated it. BoggleYourMind (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If you can find some refs ... I couldn't in 5 secs Googling - David Gerard (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No picture of Saul Allinsky?
I thought that was the guy who personally founded Cultural Marxism, just before having a wild passionate love affair with Hillary Clinton while teaching Barack Obama how to build Molotov cocktails. At the very least we can have an image of him sacrificing a pig to Baphomet in order to gain favor with the demons of subversion. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * We have Saul Alinsky  and his name is often invoked by the sort of people who talk about cultural Marxism, but we'd need something to nail it down on - David Gerard (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This page is potato.
Yes, it needs a complete rewrite.

Someone is not using science, only PC words and mythology as hypothesis and premise contrary to fact. Someone is very emotional about that which requires no emotion to correct. Facts dont care about PC or your feelings. Whoever posted those captions beneath each cartoon image is incredibly misinformed. First, the obvious; the poster continually refers to the images as implying racism towards Jews. The term Semite is a language group consisting mostly of Muslims, with less than 15% of those who identify as a Jew even able to speak Hebrew fluently with the DNA of Eastern European and Northern African genetic markers to qualify as such. They have kidnapped a term, that factually would be applied to far more Arabs and other Middle Eastern peoples.

Though they have tried much pseudoscience for a Jewish genetic marker, some ability to trace the maternal side of a few Hasidic Orthodox families of inter cousin marriage is available, but in no way is it a race. It is as much a race as being a Scientologist, Mormon or in a Harry Potter Fanclub Cosplay group that LARPs to the story 24x7, except on fri evening to Sat night. The latter being the most analogous. The Jew club and the Islamic or Christian cosplay groups are no different except in the ideas they indoctrinate into LARPing with them and their funny hats.

This isn't racist at all, unless you subscribe to the Trotsky/Marxist ideology regarding subversive 1984 Orwellian doublespeak. Like the word Semitism meant when used in 1845, a policy or predisposition favorable to Jews, usually in participation in collusion or monopolistic business practices or unfair usury. First used in 1845. The Anti-(to that description) of bad business ethics was not used until 1905, when Jews decried the many European and Eastern Pogroms taking place due to the crushing interest, inflation of goods, monopolistic jewish merchants in collusion when conducting business. So, that term itself is tainted in suspicion. The religion? Around 52% identify as Atheist. Not a race, ethnicity or religion, then what's left that you would identify as Jewish for? Their nation was just gifted from our charity to them as they failed to find the land title or deed that the burning shrubbery was reported to have bestowed upon their book club and cosplay group. It apparently had one hell of a statute of limitations on it. Lets how that fire-shrub doesnt talk to any of Genghis Khan's family or any Cherokee. Not a race. A fanclub of a few books with bad ideas and terrible ways to behave, the practice of which has gotten them kicked out of 109 countries since 345 bc and a few pogroms including one sizable one from a German guy of conviction that bought the race scheme...to their unfortunate sacrifice (Shoah); they called it that, a sacrifice because the Zionists needed to make, at the prophesied number, the 17 prior attempts at getting everyone to buy 6 million have been found out or failed. They shouldn't have declared war on Germany by proxy, just over shekels.

To be fair to Germany, Hitler was the same perceived clown as my Uncle Andrew Jackson, who removed a Central Bank in the US owned by foreign ownership. which the founding fathers warned of and is why they came here. My Uncle beat his assassin with a cane needed from victorious duels, he called the kikinator 9001. That wasn't racist either, but I made up the name of the cane to illustrate my point. Offensive? Maybe, unless you are Christian and know history. I myself have no feelings in the matter.

In closing it's not racist, but the captioned writer has a genders studies degree from Columbia, I see.(whatever it sexually prefers to be identified as, let's say..mayonnaise}. Where are the skeptics and rational people to point the facts out, because someone has many feels and zero critical thought on the problem of the Jew, Muslim and other such superstitious cosplay groups still using the rituals of violence, genital mutilation, funny hats and whatnot.

Are there many entries such as this blatant semitic practice? The only racism here was the white cis comment. Which, was also sexist; per definition, minus feels. I am, disappointed in the lack of a superior cosplay group behavior, like from the Vulcans; they are rare because we made them up. Like the Jews did when inventing their LARPing games (10% a year plus the tip of your penis entry fee). One can just as easily stop being a jew or muslim as I did when I ceased being a Methodist. Any apologist that stammers a yeah-but should be ignored, unless extraordinary evidence minus any emotional 6 million remark or a racist ad hominem as a red fish to avoid these uncomfortable facts. It may feel racist, but no one cares how you feel.

Everyone can relax, I am here now.- Stacy T. Stacy Turner (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's talk about 'feelings'. I've never 'felt' that my life, my existence, way of life etc. is threatened by a half-dead nation (race, group, whatever, call them what you like) like the Jews and for those that 'feel' this way, I can only 'feel' sorry about. Mythologizing is an unmanly thing. It is a mark of a puerile, immature mind. And yes, treating 'the Jew' as a 'problem', an 'evil', or an 'ill', is superstition itself. Demonization and ghost-hunting is nothing more than that: superstition.
 * Yes, racism is not a creation of the Nazis, yes, anti-Jewish racism predates Nazism by many centuries. But ever since anti-Jewish racism (or any other kind of racism) appeared it was no less stupid than it is in modern times because indeed all kinds of national or social or religious discrimination suffer from endemic naivete. Myths might be useful for forming social cohesion. But other than that, they're dumb stories.
 * Ok, so some Jewish merchants and financiers were exploiting their clients. Nothing new there. Simple primordial, unadulterated human greed. My baker around the corner does the same thing. Simple facts of life; you either deal with them or you blow your brains out.
 * By the way, the Jews helped the social configuration we call capitalism be created. In that, they did more good than harm. And the Nazis themselves by killing a harmless lot for no other reason than being Jewish, were stupidly harming their war effort. They could have used the western, central, southern and eastern European Jewry as workers and soldiers. Also, their thinning the ranks of mathematicians and engineers because of politicization of academia and racial laws was detrimental to weapons development and other crucial fields of research. Sometimes, all too often, myths get in the way of 'realism'. They can be harmful to those who believe them if they don't manage to resist them. You are no 'realist'. You are a myth-maker and a myth-consumer. You gave up on Methodism in order to engage other kinds of superstition. Like giving up on heroin to take on meth. But that doesn't change anything. You're still a petty junkie. Gewgtweg (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * For the record, this has to be the first time I have been privy to the literal marriage between a Gish gallop and a word salad. ...And so, the Gish salad was born. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, whining about political correctness, twisting of the word "antisemite" and from that it goes downhill... --The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC) 16:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well we are all well known Semitists. I sure am. I don't know what that means, but I still am. Card carrying, dues paying member of the Semitist Union and Alliance. I am not the Ombud's man 17:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a Jewish propaganda website masquerading as "science". Don't expect a shred of honesty. Richard Chepstow (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "I know what will give my position credibility!" Said the alt-righter. "If I attribute every other position in the universe to a tiny religious minority that has already faced repeated hateful campaigns throughout history, then suddenly everyone will join my side."  He stewed in his mastery of rhetoric, certain that there were no flaws in his plan.  "No one will ever mistake me for a hateful, and utterly brainless twit.  I've solved argumentation forever."  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In that at least the alt-right is similar to certain Islamists and their brethren in spirit... I am not the Ombud's man 18:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

/r/AltRight unironically posts a picture from here
[https://www.reddit.com/r/altright/comments/5fw7ai/the_semitic_stairs_of_cultural_marxism/ They read the article and only understood their own propaganda. *sigh*] 22:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Opinion: Generally Not Anti-Semitic
From what I have seen, I have noticed that most people who discuss Cultural Marxism never mention Jews as orchestrating it. At least, the people on the sites I go to don't go into the International Jewish Conspiracy(TM).

As for leftists (not Jews, but leftists) infiltrating and controlling the media and universities for decades, that's no conspiracy. It's statistics: most journalists lean left (I found an academic study and opinion paper here) and so do most college staff.

I get it, this is the right-wing bashing Wiki, but still, the idea of "Cultural Marxism" in its more infamous sense is not that far off. Actual Marxists very much believed that the revolution could not be achieved without controlling the media, culture, and narrative. The USSR was very much a propaganda machine.

In fact, this exact claim ("cultural Marxism") was spelled out in 1934 ad, BEFORE the newly formed Nazis got any traction in American circles. I counter this article with the proposition that Cultural Marxism originated parallel to Nazism and was used by both Nazis and non-Nazis who were fundamentally against Marxism.

You are beyond right to mock the IJC (I don't enjoy Stormfront and white supremacy any more than you do), but to lump every single person who uses "Cultural Marixsm" into bigots that loathe Jews and support Hitler makes you look irrational. I thought it would be worth injecting a little rightism into the RW. Merry Christmas. --99.157.108.186 (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good to know you have a soul spectrometer capable of reading thoughts. Quiet hint: absolutely nobody gives a shit about a racist's inner thoughts, just their observed behaviour, which is why the observed behaviour is cited here - David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The above poster never mentioned anyone else's thoughts. He was only sharing his observation that the vast majority of commentary using the term "cultural-Marxism" does not have an anti Semitic element to it. This entry's author creates a misleading impression about the prevalence of anti Semitism by selectively picking out all the anti-Semitic examples they could find and suggesting without evidence that these are typical rather than exceptional. The whole modus operandi here is to poison the well by inaccurately associating a term that the author doesn't like as closely with fringe groups as possible. To this end, the article is replete with sloppy history. For instance, "Cultural Bolshevism" as used by the Nazis almost exclusively referred to their hatred of modern art like Dada and Bauhaus, which has nothing to do "Cultural Marxism" as understood by almost all people who use it today as a criticism of politics after the rise of the new left in the US. To accuse the latter of "spouting Nazi propaganda" is so shrill and baseless so as to be hardly deserving of sober commentary. This article is a great example of a self-induced spotlight fallacy. K155 (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course — we can't be trusted, because we're riddled with bias. Thus, let me provide you with some citations from.


 * What you are arguing for above seems to be the shortsighted perspective of the post-1990 appropriation of the term:


 * Speaking of William S. Lind:


 * Indeed — and here's the shocker, kid:


 * Not neutral (but still right), Jason Wilson of The Guardian also wrote:


 * Good luck facing the music! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your cited passages are a classic example of trying to bury someone in sources and hoping they don't get checked; well, I checked them. 57 loosely cites Adorno, hardly a "neutral source." Trent Shroyer (56) is a critical theorist himself, and that's not even the punchline. The author bizarrely cites an entire book of his, but the irony is that Shroyer actually demolishes the author's narrative by explicitly arguing that there is an internal concept of Marxism's influence on culture that has nothing to do with Paleoconservatives or any other right-wing group. Since no one is actually going to read the entire book, I'll link a Summary and Commentary that argues this concept enjoys use among prominent scholars of the left, many of them associated with the Frankfurt School or fellow travelers. In fact, there is grounds to suppose that even Adorno toyed with this idea in his writings. Marcuse was a post Marxist whose Critique of Pure Tolerance presented a cultural argument. Instead of source-hunting to craft a partisan narrative, I would encourage everyone here to read these works and then decide for themselves if they have a cultural component that has been influenced by the post-Marxist paradigm.


 * Jamin (53) is, again, hardly a neutral source given his ideological commitments as an academic; this would be like someone citing Mark Regnerus on a Gay Rights issue with a straight face. Jamin completely ignores the supply-side features of cultural-Marxism, and commits the same spotlight fallacy as the author by fixating on people like Nick Griffin and Anders Breivik while ignoring droves of mainstream figures like William Buckley. It's an interesting essay if you want to learn about how "cultural Marxism" is used by the most fringe far-right groups in the world, but it certainly doesn't paint a whole, fair picture of the term in totality. As for Feldman's statement and citation of Lind (92), it does nothing to prove deep-seated anti-Semitism and actually undermines it by showing that Lind's intellectual approach to cultural Marxism predates the Nazis by 3 decades. Throwing Pat Buchanan in there conflates Anti-Israeli sentiment with Anti-Semitic sentiment; the left has warned us for decades not to conflate the two, as doing so would mean that every campus pro-Palestine group is anti Semitic. The ADL, for its part, explicitly denies this notion (see linked article). Buchanan has said some generally racist things, sure, but that doesn't mean you get to slap on anti-Semitism for good measure just because you think you can. So, all you have to show for your extensive copy-pasting is something William Sind allegedly said according to the SPLC; hardly convincing if you're looking to prove charges of widespread anti-Semitism.


 * I'm not going to speak for every article on this Wiki, but your cited passages are rife with shoddy research. They are anything but neutral and certainly can't be trusted. K155 (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To just toss in a quick reply (which is not an attempt to ignore your other claims) — let me just point out that I never claimed that the sources used by Wikipedia are "neutral" — how could they be? I claimed, however, that Wikipedia is a generally trusted encyclopedia, which maintains a neutral point of view. These  about Wikipedia are well known. I also pointed out that RationalWiki is not neutral — though we try our best to remain factual, and encourage discussion. Specifics aside, you claim that my "cited passages are rife with shoddy research. They are anything but neutral and certainly can't be trusted.". I'm curious — does this allegation of lacking neutrality and warning against trust pertain to the quotes from Wikipedia? If so — why do you think that is? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Western Marxists like Adorno, Marcuse or Lukács were philosophers who were generally considered untrustworthy by the USSR and very few of their ideas found their way into the ideological orthodoxy of the USSR. That a majority of academics (excluding economists) are liberal is true but a modern US 'liberal' is basically a left-wing libertarian. The way you guys use the term 'left' denotes a conflation of left-wing libertarianism with left-wing anti-libertarianism. The modern New Atheists/rationalists/skeptics/humanists/progressives etc. are philosophically-speaking fans of Russell, Popper or Huxley who were rabidly anti-socialist and anti-Marxist and economically-speaking are Keynesians at best.


 * The idea that Marx was a dangerous lunatic and poor thinker with few worthy ideas if any at all and that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian hellhole or a failed experiment are nearly universal here. So calling RW 'left' is misguided and myopic and if anything just proves your biases and not those of the community. It's true that not all anti-Marxists or anti-communists have been anti-Semites but anti-Semitism (in various forms) among the modern radical right is extremely common and trying to insinuate that it is not is also myopic and misguided. That some intellectuals (used to be) Marxists before the end of the cold war in the west doesn't mean that culture in the west of today or yesterday has been influenced by 'Marxism' in any meaningful way. Marxism is itself a product of the west (Europe) instead.


 * The only truth to this is that communism provided indirect pressure to the west to become more liberal and facilitated the destruction of the colonial system which effected a change of official rhetoric on race in the west. By the way, Marx himself didn't believe that nations or cultures are equal but he understood this inequality historically or sociologically not biologically. I challenge anyone to prove to me using concrete evidence how exactly 'Marxism' and which exactly Marxist ideas exert decisively their influence on the modern west. NEVER has anti-Marxism been more popular than it is today. Gewgtweg (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The Frankfurt school were not Orthodox Marxists, and no one ever said that they were; for all intents and purposes, Orthodox Marxism is dead in the contemporary west. However, it has been replaced by a powerful brand of Post-Marxism that takes the worker-capitalist dialectic and externalizes it onto every relationship in society. Whites are oppressing Blacks, men are are oppressing women, cis-gendered people are oppressing transgendered people, neuro-typical people are oppressing neuro-atypical people, skinny people are oppressing fat people, etc., and the oppressed must wage a class struggle of self-emancipation to create a society based on "equality" (which almost certainly involves either the partial or complete abolition of private ownership over the means of production, according to leading Social Justice advocates like Catharine Mackinnon) This ideology, called "Social Justice," is a variant of Post-Marxism that dominates academia, the media, entertainment, and the civil service. Marcuse in particular was instrumental in shaping the New Left, significant parts of which were then absorbed into the mainstream American left.

K155 (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * We live in a pluralistic society of mass production and mass consumption. Universalism, relativism and tolerance against everyone and everything as well as individual self-fulfillment form the complex of the official and dominant ideology. Agreed. Western Marxism, industrial progress and the indirect pressure of the Soviet threat helped this happen. Agreed.


 * 'Social Justice' however is merely a reflection of that pluralism or is at least the caricature that signals the historical death of the left. They are the manifestation of a society in which 'classes' in the old sense do not exist anymore and where social mobility is higher than ever. The clashes between various brands of social justice on the left, the skeptics on the middle (which is the position this site more accurately represents) and the right (all the various brands countering 'social justice' including but not limited to Anti-Semites) make up the intellectual physiognomy of our mass society. The groups I described are the 'proletariat'. The establishment is dominated by a thinking of economistic liberalism. I find it hard to imagine that a figure like Hillary Clinton is very much 'Social Justice'.


 * To give our culture a name I would choose a more value-free description like mass-democracy. 'Cultural Marxism' or 'Neo-Liberalism' are essentially polemic terms or what we call here 'snarl words'.


 * At any rate I would be interested to hear what you think. What is the negative impact of social justice and what can be done to counter it? What do you personally support exactly? What are your philosophical, social and political views?


 * I have written some extensive essays on Marxism that might perhaps interest you. I am myself not a Marxist or even a leftist at all. I am neutral and nihilistic. Gewgtweg (talk) 22:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur that buzzwords like "neoliberalism" and "cultural-Marxism" obfuscate more than they reveal. My point is not so much that cultural Marxism is a useful term from the standpoint of fine scholarly interpretation, but that it's unfair and misleading to paint it as an intrinsically anti-Semitic concept.

I do think we disagree about the nature of the establishment. Where you see economic liberalism, I see a Media-Academia-Entertainment-Civil Service complex bound together by a Progressive consensus: hyper-egalitarianism, repressive tolerance, trigger warnings and safe spaces, ochlocracy, diversity is our greatest strength (but only biological and not intellectual diversity), breakdown of all traditional social structures (recall Betty Friedan calling the nuclear family a "comfortable concentration camp"), and more generally the New Left-Social Justice class warfare mindset whereby people of color/women/fat people/mentally ill people/ transgender people/muslims/the poor are the oppressed and white people/men/skinny people/cisgender people/christians/the rich are the oppressors. This complex has utter contempt for private property rights and market principles, going back to their Cold War era Soviet apologia. Hollander's Political Pilgrims and Tom Wolfe's Radical Chic are great resources for just how widespread Left-Collectivist sympathies were and are among American intellectuals. I'm sure that Hillary Clinton doesn't give a lick about Social Justice on a personal level, but her policies were very much in line with the Progressive consensus. By the time she secured the Democratic nomination, she even found herself in opposition to NAFTA and the keystone pipeline.

As for my personal beliefs, I am a recovering Marxist who is now a Spenglerian of sorts. I think we are at the final stage of western civilization; Winter, to use Spengler's term. The Social Justice movement is a mark of a dying society (the Roman Empire also degenerated into a cesspool of ressentiment-fueled identity politics in its latter days), the symptom of a social disease that cannot be cured. The best we can hope for is a quiet, dignified descent into the annals of history.

K155 (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that we're approaching the finale. But I don't think we live in a western age anymore. We live in the global age. The west won't go into the night before the rest of the world also stands in ruins.
 * I don't understand the Roman-era parallel or what 'identity politics' could mean in that context. Please explain. As far as I know, Roman unity collapsed because foreign warlords working from within took over the western half while the Greek-speaking east (Anatolia) became autonomous. It's true that what was born must die and that includes our civilization. But beyond that commonplace I cannot see how Spengler's rather crude notions on history and civilization have much to offer. Gewgtweg (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

On Rome, Christianity, the Celts, Norse etc.
On the Roman question, let me give you Spengler's narrative. I don't agree with every detail, but I find it generally compelling. The Punic Wars bankrupted large swathes of the Roman Republic, as the Fabian strategy meant that Rome simply waited as Hannibal terrorized the fertile countryside. Most of these failing farms were then bought at a discount by the Patricians, and the ones that weren't were destroyed by competition from cheap slave labor. The destitute and unemployed then flooded into Rome, leading to the birth of Roman identity politics. They voted themselves benefits, and were abetted by opportunistic demagogues like the Gracchus Brothers. Tradition and stability gave way to vulgar populism under the usual slogans: "equality," the greater good," "the working man." Civic life further stratified and deteriorated even as the economy sagged; the Senate became mired in squabbling, which transferred power to the consul. The toxic core of Roman society was deflected outward in foreign conquest, and so strong military men were viewed as the only competent actors within society and most fit to rule. This paved the way for the ultimate populist, Julius Caesar, who seized power in a coup. The aristocrats killed him to restore the Republic, but were defeated by Octavian and Mark Anthony. Augustus became his great-uncle and eventually surpassed him in administrative skill, but the foundations of Roman society were already destroyed in the transition from Republic to Empire. This set into motion a process of ethnic, cultural, and intellectual decline until Rome was nothing more than a chaotic Babylon lorded over by an absolute dictator. Republican introspection and philosophy was replaced by Imperial expansionism and positivism; Rome went from a place of learning and scholarship to a sprawling but intellectually stagnant metropolis. Rome's boundaries were overextended and became indefensible. Realizing the danger of an increasingly non-ethnically Roman Army, Augustus instituted a strict policy that soldiers must be Roman citizens who speak Roman, and cannot marry. These norms broke down as the Roman Empire found itself increasingly starved for manpower, to the point that most legionaries were Germanic tribesmen with no connection to the culture they were tasked with defending (often against their fellow Germanic tribesmen). The illiterate, populist body politic then became susceptible to and eventually infected by the egalitarian virus that is Christianity, which destroyed any remaining semblance of Roman values that were historically predicated on strength, pride, virility, and a will to power (i.e. the exact opposite of new testament teachings, which glorify the Slave as the Platonic ideal to which we must all aspire). The rest is history. With every facet of society spiritually obliterated, the military chockfull of mercenaries in the odious Machiavellian sense of the term, and finances in shambles, Rome collapsed. K155 (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Moralistic slogans have provided legitimacy to every historical power structure before Christianity as well. The prominent notion featuring in older historiography and literature whereby morality was supposedly understood differently i.e. more 'heroically' and 'virtuously' before Christianity is false. It doesn't explain the astonishing success of Christianity or that it became itself a catalyst of conflict and annihilation. The idea that the Germans living within the Empire were a culturally alien element is true only in the days before Augustus. The empire itself was multi-ethnic and multi-cultural (as evidenced by extreme cultural syncretism, e.g. as reflected in our days of the week, a system loaned off Hellenistic astrology) but when in later centuries (some) Germans fostered closer relations with the empire they necessarily adopted Roman cultural features. This is evident in that Christianity became spread not only among the lower strata but among soldiers including the by-then dominant German component in it. Different variations of Christianity became catalysts of conflict.


 * This signifies that we must cease to understand Christianity as a force of degeneration in a moral sense. The warlords that took over the empire (severely weakened by the scourge of Attila, the most militarily successful of all warlords) didn't understand themselves as (just) a foreign element exercising control over (just) a foreign population, but as Romans (which was a multi-ethnic designation, just like 'Soviet' for instance and after all national consciousness in the modern sense didn't exist back then given the tribalist loyalties) trying to re-unite and to re-conquer the empire from within under their own personal absolute rule. None of them achieved this goal. Besides, they failed to capture all of the empire and captured only the west part, failing to capture the east or hold onto Africa. Yet in those regions Christianity was quite strong which fails to account for why (if we assume it was just 'the mentality of the slave') these were the only regions which effectively resisted those warlords.


 * Germany, Poland and Scandinavia were back then gigantic reservoirs of manpower engaged in constant (small-scale, lessening the damage) fighting with each other. The west part of the empire collapsed because it ceded power to these robust elements which used this position to boost and further the interests of their own particular tribe against other particular tribes as well as in the pursuit of personal enrichment in a place offering a higher standard of living. Originally the Romans set up a kind of protection racket in Germania after they had failed to conquer it decisively (just as they had also failed to conquer other places like Parthia or Persia. The Rhine boundary, straining logistics, the tumultuous Atlantic seas and the thick forestry played as much of a crucial role in protecting it as native fighting skill honed by incessant small-scale warfare).


 * But all that doesn't change the fact that the single most important reason the empire collapsed is no other than its conquest. This has been obscured because this process was not as linear as most conquests have been in history, e.g. in the Hunnish conquest, the Turkish conquest of Anatolia or the Mongol conquests. The migration era is the birth certificate of feudalism. Gewgtweg (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I would raise a few points. I agree that territorial overreach is a significant factor in Rome's collapse, but we have to ask ourselves what motivated Rome's perpetual expansionism in the first place. Spengler's conclusion is that this is the byproduct of a culture becoming a civilization, which goes back to the neutering of the Senate and populist victory that I described earlier (which predate and and partly paved the way for the Christianization of Rome). The astonishing success of Christianity is quite easily explained by its servile character-- it is a religion for the herd, by the herd, that has amassed such a huge following by appealing to some of the basest, easiest human instincts more readily than the meritocratic religions of old. It excuses failures and dismisses successes (Lenin was fond of quoting Jesus: "the last will be first, and the first will be last"); it teaches the kind of obedience and self-denial that later governments picked up on because they found it useful as a tool of social control (the doctrine of divine right is a great example of how Christianity was used to rationalize and consolidate temporal power). The reason why the eastern half held out more effectively is partly because it was significantly wealthier based on the natural resource distribution of how Rome was divided. This is a much bigger discussion, but an examination of Christian doctrine and values and their averseness to achievement would invite a debate as to whether Europe didn't become what it was despite, rather than because, of Christianity.

On the German question, I think it's a mistake to treat the Germanic tribes as yet another group in multi-Ethnic Rome. Unlike many others to the South and East, the Germans were never quite pacified and were hardly assimilated into Roman society as an aggregate. This was a problem because, unlike the Britons, they were quite numerous and close to Rome's core. Some others who were "Romanized," like Arminius, never developed a loyalty to Rome but instead used Roman Imperial concepts of autocracy to try to make themselves, and not Rome, king over their people (a concept foreign to the Germanic tribes before coming into contact with Rome).

Other than that, I think your geopolitical analysis is perfectly reasonable and more or less complementary to my narrative. K155 (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As to the question of perpetual expansionism I find Machiavelli's patricians vs. plebeians narrative compelling. Expansionism ceased when the Empire became more socially mobile and introverted. In the year 1 AD the Germans (a geographically much more spread group than it is today) were an alien element but by the year 200 this was only partly true. That's what I was actually trying to say. Many Roman heathens (apologists for paganism) believed that Christianity was to blame for all catastrophes, like the 410 plundering of the city by the troops of Alaric the I. But Alaric and his Gothic troop (they were not only Goths by the way, they were rascals from all over) were Christians.


 * In fact, the most famous and successful Germanic warlords active in the south were Christians (and that's by itself a cultural loan). Was that because they had a slavish mentality? In fact Christianity was useful as a tool of power because it called for the reformation (i.e. rule) of an establishment associated with Heathenism. In Anatolia Christianity was useful because it helped the region become autonomous, the only region which not only 'held out' but in fact conquered areas back from the western warlords though failed to keep onto them permanently. Spengler's view of Christianity is in addition false, outside of the Roman context, because simply, Christianity in its two thousand years of existence never really tamed human nature a bit. It became itself an instrument to further the demands of human nature. Gewgtweg (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You're right in pointing out that the German vs. Roman conflict was not a conflict of religion; my argument (and that of Gibbon) is more that Rome was socially and culturally undermined by the introduction of Christian values that were at adds with traditional Roman values. Rome's fate was long sealed by that point, but Christianity catalyzed the decay. Spengler didn't spend to much too time on this, but his his general argument is that culture is inborn and pervades every facet of our lives. This doesn't mean that a warlord is going to be turned into a pacifist; the effect is more subtle and long-term than that. Also, it would seem that the Southern Germanic tribes borrowed quite a bit from Rome culturally without becoming a part of Rome; one of those borrowed traits might've been a lust for expansion and conquest (as you know, it's one of the great myths of history that all the Germanic tribes were prone to plunder, pillage, and war).

I think (this is my opinion, not Spengler's) that "human nature" is simply the internal logical relations of human mind that shape the field of strategy. While human nature constrains human action and funnels it into a narrow set of optimal behaviors from the standpoint of survival (realists from Thucydides to Hans Morgenthau have observed this in one form or another), it also amoral or value-free. I do think ideology matters in that it informs long-term goals and aspirations, and there is a stark divide between collectivist-egalitarian ideology of Christianity and many of the meritocratic pagan religions. Take the concept of pride as an example. We as 21st century western men (I presume) are taught to practice a false humility about all of our outward endeavors. Centuries ago, we would have been taught that pride is sinful and Lucifer's downfall; today in our Secular Puritan Culture, we are taught essentially the same thing except with a positivistic, rationalist veneer, with the concept of "sin" having been replaced with Christian-influenced ideas of "politeness" and "decency." For a Roman or a Viking, pride was not only acceptable but expected, and I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that real differences of societal outcomes stem from these differences of principles. It's an interesting counterfactual to speculate on how Europe would have developed had it remained pagan. K155 (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * My argument was that Christianity was so spread among those German warlords and their people (a fact often forgotten today, perhaps because of anachronistic conflations with the Norse traders and raiders (the so-called 'Vikings') and our simplistic view of antiquity as pagan), because it was useful in undermining an establishment ideologically associated with heathenism, an establishment in which emperors sometimes would claim to be Gods or have godly lineage. If Christianity undermined the foundations of Roman power, it definitely empowered the various enemies of Rome in the North as well as in the South and East.


 * Christian humility and love to one's neighborhood was a polemic idea. It didn't mean to to erase power in general from the world (because in that way Christians would have to give up on power themselves) but the power of the idolaters. It served to legitimize (Christian) power. Love was supposed to mean here providence and care. The powerful gives them and the subject receives them. It's not right for us to treat these ideas and notions as just cute or foolish as modern anti-Christians, especially of the far-right variety, often do.


 * The mass brutality and abuses, the darkness of a slavery that made even the Gilded Age or the American South seem almost pristine by comparison, the sheer magnitude of the riches and lushness of the Imperium had a great psychological impact on the 'proletarian', so to speak, nations of the Empire and the experiences of the various Germanic peoples (not the mention the Celts who were driven to near annihilation by Caesar and survived only in what is now Central and South Germany) with the Republic and the Empire were quite often, as careful study shows, more humiliating and more scary than our silly folkloric Conan-the-Barbarian concepts of those people (introduced by the ideological bashing of the medieval era in post-1500s historiography) or the recent prestige and impact of the nations of the North suggests to us. In those days Rome was a savage oppressor, constantly looming in sight.


 * In the modern west, religious apathy would not have been what it was without the disastrous unremitting religious wars spanning a century. Comparatively, counting from AD 1 the Empire took about 5 centuries to break down completely. We have to remember the psychological impact the Roman presence had to foreign nations. You are right that ideas play a crucial part. But intellectuals, which is basically what Spengler was, i.e. an anti-bourgeois intellectual of the right, have often flawed views as to how ideas take actual, historical effect. Gewgtweg (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Many Germanic tribes began to convert at around the same time or after western Rome fell; these include the Franks and Alumanni. The Goths and Vandals started earlier, but the process wouldn't be complete and Christianity wouldn't become the dominant ethos until at least a century after Rome's fall (and that's being generous). I would say that the military empowerment of these tribes came not as a result of Christianity but as a consequence of exposure to Roman forms of hierarchy and bureaucracy conducive to making war. I completely agree that the popular image of the Germanic tribes is a grotesque caricature that is disproportionately influenced by the vikings (who were culturally sophisticated in their own way but were, to be fair, quite a brutal people), but I wouldn't characterize the Roman Empire quite so negatively. By the standards of its time, it treat its compliant subjects relatively well; it pioneered the concept of citizenship and identity in a multi-ethnic empire.

Oh, I certainly don't regard christian values as cute or foolish. To the contrary, I think they're very real and it's an open question as to whether or not they proved meritorious in the west's development. I think all models of history, including that of Spengler, are essentially abstractions that can never hope to fully capture the complexity of life. I do, however, continue to marvel at the remarkable predictive and explanatory power of Spengler's ideas. K155 (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Christianity itself really started to catch on late into the empire in the first place. I didn't say that the political impact of those groups was due to Christianity yet on the other hand, the fact that it spread among them and moreover precisely at the time leading up to collapse when one would rather think the Empire would lose its ability to influence foreigners, has got to be explained in some manner different than the role you presented Christianity as having. It had to have a different role and the impact that centuries of living under the shadow of an illustrious power structure associated with paganism facilitated the spread of an anti-Pagan values narrative across the Imperium. It didn't have something to do with some supposed fundamentally slavish or anti-life and anti-honor mentality that supposedly had progressively gripped Rome after Caesar and that supposedly Christianity had arrived to express.


 * I don't see the 'predictive and explanatory' power of Spengler's interpretation here. Not to mention that his treating the Empire as the late stage of a distinct 'Greco-Roman civilization' going back many centuries prior is basically arbitrary. The Empire needn't happen at all. There are no quasi-teleological or deterministic necessities forcing history such as alluded to by Spengler. The reason his theories were deemed fit for adoption by occultist groups such as the ONA is an indirect attestation to the non-scientific nature of almost everything Spengler wrote.


 * Personally, the idea that the Norse traders and raiders were more 'brutal' than others simply because they engaged in raiding seems hyperbolic to say the least (and reminds me of those entertainment documentaries, which no matter who or what is being talked about, they never fail to moralize for dramatic effect). Anyone who has studied for example Byzantine history over the same period as the Vikings were active, couldn't fail to notice the striking intensity of civil upheaval and mass brutality habitually present there.


 * The judgment of Rome has been positive for the same reason that the judgment of the middle ages has been negative. The European modern period was supposed to strike at traditional authority, therefore also at the age that authority marked the most. In reality many aspects of the centuries of history spanning the Roman establishment featured rank brutality and abuses that outperformed the comparatively more provincial middle ages. There is no doubt that the harsh realities of social and foreign domination back then have been extremely underestimated in the popular image. Instead, only the stereotype of sexual license and decadent hedonism remains alive.
 * But I would like to talk about such and similar matters more. If you plan to reply please do so on my talkpage. Gewgtweg (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)



My post is half commentary, half looking at what I consider erroneous claims in this rather hefty thread on history. So, I've numbered and sub headlined the topics for easy reference and further comments. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

1. The Fall of Roman Empire and the influence of Christianity
Here, there is a load of conflation of the end of the empire and the republic, so I'll stick to the the former question only and give the demise of the republic it own, separate section, not least because Christianity is only relevant to the former question. Why the Roman Empire fell is a classic historical topic, similar to discussing the causes of WWI in that there are multiple factors involved and it is often used as a springboard to discussing "macro historical trends". Linking the fall of the Roman Empire with the growth of Christianity ( has already been mentioned) is not one you'll find to be widespread among historians of (late) antiquity today, as far as I'm aware — but I freely admit to not being a specialist in the field. The problem with making this link is that the Roman senatorial elite largely remained Pagan and that the spread of Christianity into the Roman elite more broadly was due to the favour shown by successive emperors. Hence, while Christianity had spread during the Roman Empire, the explosive growth that turned the Eastern Roman Empire into the thoroughly Christian Byzantine Empire was very much due to top-down imperial favouritism, not bottom-up pressures. The survival of the eastern half of the Roman Empire for a millennium after the western half collapse also means that the "Christianity as a herd religion"-argument is not very much used among current historians. Imperial overstretch is a typical explanation, but I think we also need to look at the institutional weaknesses of the Roman Empire, first the Augustan which led to its eventual demise in the  and how these were addressed (or not) by the subsequent.

Augustus never really solved the question of succession and the fact that his personal auctoritas and the loyalty of the legions were the pillars on which his status as emperor (veiled as "first citizen") rested. While the charade of the emperor as simply primes inter pares was dumped in the Dominate, the status of the emperor as the one who could depend on the legions' support became even clearer, meaning that any ambitious general could potentially oust the reigning emperor and promote himself to this position. Periods of prolonged civil war were thus a clear danger and given that Roman civil wars were particularly bloody, sustained civil wars would risk seriously depleting not only the legions' manpower in general, but also its seasoned officer corps, particularly the centurions, that were needed to maintain the high level of training and professionalism that made the legions such a terror on the battlefield. Slap on such general demographic pressures as the various plagues (e.g. the or the ) and you have a recipe for widespread disruption and the eventually irresistible temptation to not only recruit "barbarians" into the ranks of the legions, but whole contingent of barbarians fighting under their own kings/chieftains who then are in the same positions as their ambitious Roman officer colleagues of being able to play "who's gonna be emperor next?".

The eastern half of the Roman Empire was able to weather this storm because it was simply wealthier and it had the almost impregnable anchor point of Constantinople, especially once the city was ringed by the in the fifth century (built when the Eastern Roman Empire still had the resources to complete such a prodigious feat of engineering). ScepticWombat (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

2. The Demise of the Roman Republic
This is of course another classic historical discussion topic and one not likely to be solved by a simple, single answer. I doubt that Hannibal's depredations of the Italic countryside was a huge factor, though, because what really bankrupted the Roman farmer citizen soldiers were simply the lengthy campaigns which kept them away from their fields for years and the competition from the large-scale slave-based of the Roman elite which were also able to buy up the land of distressed Roman farmers. The solution of settling all of these veterans on was rejected (not least due to concerns about which Roman families would be able to "take credit" for this and thus dramatically expand their number of clients and by extension their political power).

In the end, the result was a professionalisation of the Roman legions in the sense that the created a standing army whose legionnaires fought for the eventual booty and lands they would receive as the reward from their service, rather than land being the prerequisite for joining the legions. Basically, the glory and rewards from the Roman elite of expanding the "Roman Republican Empire" was irresistible, but also entailed a redistribution of power that would concentrate it within an ever shrinking number of "super partrons", an army that would in the end be loyal to its commander and his promises of rewards, rather than to the Republic, and an increasing risk of the super patrons relying on the legions to resolve their internal conflicts.

What finally did in the Republic was the series of extremely bloody Roman civil wars which led to a situation in which both the elite and the general Roman populace was willing to accept a new mode of government as long as it promised to bring these civil wars to an end. The number of super patrons eventually dwindled to one, Augustus, who commanded the vast majority of the legions (20) with the rest being under the senate (5-6). Augustus' brilliance was disguising this de facto military dictatorship as a restitution of the Republic and thus playing to the innatetely conservative Roman reverence for the and explicitly avoiding any association of his rule with kingship. The final ingredient in Augustus' success was simply his longevity and by extension the length of his reign of 40 years which made the Principate the "new normal" by the time the "first citizen" finally gave up the ghost. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

3. The Barbarians
No, the Celts were emphatically not "driven to near annihilation by Caesar and survived only in what is now Central and South Germany". The Gauls were still in Gaul but were simply slowly assimilated into a Roman way of life and the same goes for Roman Britain with the distinction that Celtic culture survived with less impact from a Rome in Wales and thrived outside Roman control in Ireland and Scotland (i.e. what would later be known as the Celtic fringe).

As for the Germanic tribes (incl. the Norse) who is arguing that they were especially brutal? I can't see this argument being made anywhere in this thread. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

What on earth
does any of the above have to do with the article? - David Gerard (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing, really. But it springs from the discussion between and  which I found interesting as I'm a history nerd. I inserted the off topic headlines to separate the initial thread which started on topic from the subsequent historical musings. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Is anti-semitism relevant to contemporary opposition of "Cultural Marxism"?
Well, regarding the very word "Cultural Marxism" itself, you have to realize that definitions of terms vary. For example, the site SmashCulturalMarxism.com argues that "Cultural Marxism" is just another word for "Critical Theory" (and Critical theory is obviously a real phenomenon). Notice also that they pinpoint the (verbatim) "Judeo Frankfurt School" as responsible.

And before you argue that "the roots of Cultural Marxism" predate Nazism by three decades, note that this is the exact conclusion drawn by actual Nazis today.

Please note that the argument I'm making isn't that the primary descriptive term for anyone who assigns belief to, and is critical of, "Cultural Marxism" should be "anti-semite". But the connection to blatant anti-semitism is undeniable, and various attempts at whitewashing it all by replacing the overt anti-semitism with subtler dog whistles have been countless.

And personally — a someone who isn't even a fan of Critical theory to begin with — I know that there is no need whatsoever to phrase criticism of the Frankfurt school through the lens of "Cultural Marxism", nor to even touch the phrase with a ten-feet stick. There is simply no non-crank basis for trying to "reclaim" or "rejuvenate" the terminology of "Cultural Marxism". The spheres of "valid criticisms against Critical theory" and "resistance to Cultural marxism" are worlds apart, partially because they mean completely different things in a fundamental sense.

I think the Southern Poverty Law Center puts it best:

They rightly sum up "cultural marxism" as "a conspiracy theory with an anti-Semitic twist". Indeed — you'll likely agree that:

For example, the Nazis behind the Daily Stormer make the connection quite overtly, writing:

They also post one of the images we use in our article, which makes the same connection. That's what nazis think, like it or not. A world away from the fringe, The New Stateman also notes that:

We Hunted The Mammoth also notes that:

Just my two cents. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly believe that ideas deserve to be treated on their own merit regardless of how tendentious the source is, but I would be remiss not to point out that almost all of your citations are from Progressive advocacy organizations that have a clear ideological stake in portraying "cultural Marxism" in a certain way. It's just as in-optimal for Conservatives to cite Breitbart as it is for Progressives (and I'm not necessarily grouping you in that category, since I don't know your politics) to cite We Hunted the Mammoth. Now, a few brief points.


 * I never questioned that some usages of "cultural Marxism" are tied to anti-Semitism. My contention is that there is no evidence that anti-Semitism either predominates or comprises the negative heuristic of "cultural Marxism" as a concept. Just because some anti-Semites do something, doesn't mean that the thing itself is anti-Semitic or that most people who do it are anti-Semitic. Much like this RationalWiki article, your SPLC source ignores supply-side inputs into cultural Marxism, its many mainstream Conservative proponents, its expositors on the left like Shroyer, and jumps straight to two fringe figures that they cynically use to make sweeping and damaging generalizations about droves of perfectly decent thinkers who are trying to have good-faith discussions. Like I wrote before, this a typical case of trying to poison the well by subtly or perhaps not so subtly hinting that anyone who dares to use a certain term is "spouting Nazi propaganda" and should be suspected of anti-Semitism. Unless they can present statistical proof claiming otherwise, the author of this RationalWiki article has no basis on which to suggest that Cultural Marxism is predominated by or ineluctably intertwined with anti-Semitic thought. They are free to point out that anti-Semitism is one of many factors that sometimes crops up in treatments of cultural Marxism, but to suggest that it plays an inexorable, central role is completely unfounded and maliciously misleading.


 * "There is simply no non-crank basis for trying to "reclaim" or "rejuvenate" the terminology of "Cultural Marxism"."


 * You're begging the question here. By using the word "reclaim," you suggest without any basis that "Cultural Marxism" is an anti-Semitic concept rather than a concept that is sometimes used by fringe groups for anti-Semitic purposes. There is nothing to "reclaim" Cultural Marxism from, because the mainstream Libertarians and Conservatives who use it are in no way responsible for what the Daily Stormer does with it. This smacks of an attempt to shut down criticism into the perceived culture of the left by baselessly trying to tar all your political opponents with the brush of anti-Semitism instead of engaging their arguments. K155 (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What you're explaining here is that you sense there is association fallacy. So what do you suggest? A more factual subsection dedicated to a subgroup or a separate article? --Fearless (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I also wonder what K155 is actually suggesting here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Content hinting at antisemitism

 * The Jewish High Commissaries
 * Smash Cultural Marxism logo "smashing" a Star of David --Fearless (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)