Marxist explains that cultural Marxism isn't a thing

It's just another name for critical theory or the associated intersectional theories stemming from the Frankfurt School. Leftists think that Cultural Marxism is some kind of conspiracy when there's nothing conspiratorial about it, or else Gramsci and Habermas wouldn't be so open about their (largely fulfilled) goals.

Adorno and Horkheimer were right on the culture industry though.

this, with the addition of Soviet subversion of the West.

"alt-right" isn't a thing either, but no one ever shuts up about it.

>Anything you say Shlomo.

Attached: Saul-Alinsky’s-12-Rules-for-Radicals.jpg (530x353, 95K)

>what is Critical Theory
>what is the New Left (which was tied to the CIA)
>what is Weather Underground (who suspiciously got off scot-free and have prestigious careers in academia)
There might not be a group of people who call themselves cultural Marxists, but there has been a major shift in Marxist circles from using class warfare to bring about their dystopian hell to using warfare of race, gender, sexuality, etc.

Attached: 1527368864062.jpg (226x255, 16K)

>using class identity equality
that's not what marxism is about you smooth brained mongoloid

>Marx moves in mysterious ways

Yeah it's funny they think this works, although I guess they thin everything they believe is pure Marxist science and everything others believe is fake ideology by definition of Marxism. I thought they were euphoric atheists who were smart enough to not fall for "my ideology said my ideology is true and all others false so it is" guess not haha

dont forget georg lukacs. he implemented his "cultural terrorism" policy which lectured children to deride and reject christian ethics.

Yea but cultural Marxism is closer to describing what it actually is so I think it's still valid. Critical theory sounds like meaningless jargon even though it makes sense if you describe it a the opposite of normative theory or something, normie don't get it. It's also not just critical theory proper, but parts of other movements.

Probably the smartest thing I've ever heard a hue say.

>Listening to an open mouth soiboi
Wew

it all leads back to the frankfurt school, these leftists can't deny recent history and the reality of the frankfurt school

It's cultural liberalism more than cultural Marxism, really. Note how eager major corporations usually are to follow the ideological agenda of the "New Left" - that's because it suits them well, homosexual "marriage", abortion, mass immigration etc. - it's no threat to them - on the contrary, it's creating the border-less world of rootless, deracinated consumers (and cheap labor) that the wealthy also want to see. Most of the activists promoting it are not real Marxists (actual Marxists are insignificant today), but they are liberals. (The ideas tend to flow from left-liberals to right-liberals over time.) The problem with the label "cultural Marxism" is that it shifts all blame away from the mainstream right, the cuckservatives, who are definitely also very complicit in all of this

The secret is that the liberalism of the enlightenment directly causes Marxian thinking. It's why people are only taught so much from enlightenment philosophers. It's why they propagate Burke, who still supported things like Parliament, rather than De Maistre. The plan was to put people into a certain way of thinking, and then allow them to naturally pull that into the globohomo dystopia. They don't even need absolute control. The Jews, Freemasons, etc aren't kings that are pulling us down the hill and into the valley of trannies and black people. Rather, we are a snowball naturally falling down, and (((they))) poke us with a stick every once and awhile to make sure we're going in the right direction. I've gone off on a bit of a tangent, but my point is that there isn't actually a difference between liberals and marxists. One is simply more accepting of their beliefs, the other is like an OP trying to repress his homosexuality. It's a bullshit defense tactic by both liberals and marxists to differentiate themselves, and call anyone embarrassing one of the other. It's a trick. It is fake. They are one in the same.

Always the same with leftist scum:
>it doesn't exist
>even if it does, that's actually a good thing

I have never once seen this steel manned. They all know we are talking about intersectional feminism, but like a good postmodernist, the entire conversation is about semantics

When you don't have a leg to stand on, you can only discuss what the meaning of words is.
youtu.be/j4XT-l-_3y0

>muh jewish bolsheviks

Attached: executioner.jpg (500x378, 155K)

so funny story. i have a useless philosophy degree i got back in 2010. i was taught from the greeks, to the romans, to modern phil (locke, hume, berkeley, etc...) to contemporary analytic phil. fast forward to about 1 month ago where my little sister is now in college and was telling me about her phil. 101 course taught by a young black guy. my sister knows a bit about the history of philosophy cause i would tell her about it here and there and come to find out this guy rails on the enlightenment thinkers for their "primitive beliefs" on race. he apparently took out kant from the syllabus because he was a racist and loser for never having left his hometown. i couldn't fucking believe it. kant is arguably the most important thinker in his period and some fuckhead refuses to teach his metaphysics/morals because he was a "raciss". this is a symptom of bad, bad things to come.

Attached: kant.jpg (600x400, 30K)

>Why are these economic marxists not defending intersectionality

I don't know how you even manage to post on this website.

Kant is Anti_Semite. Don't forget to remind your children of this before you teach them at home. better yet, send them to public school!

Attached: 1549728365445.jpg (900x900, 529K)

Economic Marxists can't expect to just shed responsibility for intersectionality. They were all for it back when
>Straight white males are the reason we still have capitalism
>A brown gay female led future is a socialist future
was in vogue as strategy for pushing socialism. Just because they aren't dumb enough to actually believe the bullshit doesn't mean they weren't opportunistically exploiting it at every chance the got as a means of pushing what they actually wanted.

>but the paid propaganda of kike industrialists from the 1940s literally making up shit in order to preserve their unearned status in society is self-evident bible truth
Jow Forums actually thinks this

>A brown gay female led future is a socialist future
If originators were responsible for their movements being hijacked, shouldn't the alt-right be responsible for the continued existence and supremacy of kikes?
Your attempt to assign responsibility reeks of opportunism, not reason.

how come foucault's the order of things doesn't have a preface warning the reader that he like to get a fist up his ass like a puppet?

True. It's cultural Jewry

Attached: happymerchant.png (1027x1200, 510K)

Jews burned Notre Dame:

Attached: dyludyuds.png (1303x355, 74K)

Attached: bvnmbvnbvnmbvnm'.png (1728x303, 606K)

>British man
>he's 56%
imagine my shock

/Thread

i can post a marxist that says it is a thing
i mean thats their thing, moving goalposts when convenient

Alarming anecdote

The Bircher cucks refurbished muh gultural bolshevism and you circumcised suckers bought it. How does it feel to be laughed at?

Attached: intredasting.jpg (685x567, 64K)

Neoliberals don't believe in honesty.

It's true though. There is no such thing as cultural marxism because marxism is the destruction and absence of culture.

Thanks for providing elevated and original analysis here.

even if "cultural marxism" isn't a thing, "critical theory" is

And there isn't a damned thing wrong with critical theory. Without it, you're just cuckolds to dead people.

It's crazy how they apply modern standards to the past like that. They're so selective about it too. They won't apply that standard to Marx, for example. It's only when they have an opportunity to remove something that would cause critical thinking or to destroy goy history that they do so. I was a business major, so I didn't get to take many philosophy classes, but they were very unimpressive. It's essentially "think for yourself, but do it within the confines that we've carefully and subtly laid out." Introduction to philosophy was pretty much like this

>"What is philosophy?"
>Some Plato, mostly theory of forms, maybe it'll touch on the Republic, and it'll talk about the death of Socrates
>Some Aristotle, usually rushed through
>Rationalism vs Empiricism, one page of the textbook is on Descartes and a dozen on Hume
>Kant, but never actually explaining transcendental idealism or any of his other theories
>Some literal who feminist

I remember that one saying. You get someone to believe something by making them think they came up with it. They sort of do that politically in universities. They get you into a more atheistic mindset with radical skeptics and then conveniently lead that into their leftist shit. They just try and pretend that a lot of the other stuff became obsolete. In fairness, however, I think they do a good job giving you a basic overview of philosophical history. But you got a bachelors, so I'm curious to hear if you have any stories from your college days.

what's this guy's race? he looks part southeast asian or something. Maori or whatever.

>I was a business major
Literally a sociopath. Kill yourself.

>shouldn't the alt-right be responsible for the continued existence and supremacy of kikes?
piss poor analogy. Jews invented the alt-right

Ridiculous Marxsplaining

Based. But I should confess that I was more than a business major. In fact, I studied something even worse than business administration, I studied - may Allah forgive me for uttering this word - Accounting.

literally the posts

>"Cultural Marxism" is unironically a shibboleth for unsophisticated urban and suburban retards.
In your opinion perhaps, I view it more as a self-explanatory pejorative term for neo-marxism used by its detractors.
It easily explains the concept to non-initiates: marxism as applied to culture.
Remember that this is the age of cultural memetic warfare, you are not the only ones capable of creating and using high-inference terms and 'loaded language'.

It never fails. It is the Jewish way

Fpbp

maybe not fundamentally, but ideas evolve over time. There are unarguable marxist roots in critical theory, which is the basis for everything we see today re: identity politics.

Marxism has nothing to do with identity politics in the same way catholic doctrine has nothing to do with raping little boys.

Attached: 56835551_10213417277522093_5981246605452378112_n.jpg (413x550, 33K)

gonna guess it's either
>cultural bolshevism was a nazi conspiracy therefore anyone claiming cultural marxism is wrong and to believe it exists is rayciss/fascist

or
>marx himself wouldn't buy the current brand of identity politics based on my reading of him therefore the current political/cultural situation has nothing to do with him and marxism

>catholic doctrine has nothing to do with raping little boys.
It is the Marxist/leftist doctrine of Tolerance that introduced that problem, by getting the church to let faggots into the priesthood.

Add in Post- Modernism. The euro braphog that was part of that group that published the fake dog rape paper to expose the lack of standards in "scientific" journals has a really good explanation - i think when she was on Rubin's show. Basically critical theory and post-modernism self-annihilated into nihilism (not much to do after you claim everything is relative and has no meaning, durr), but it left a husk of interpretive framework of power struggle which was immediately infested by socialist academics.

Why them? She doesn't go into that but I'll note most of the famous intellectuals in both those movements belonged to the same academic/homosexual circles.

sure, not my point though. It's funny how the same people wanting to look at "whiteness" in context etc never want to do the same with marxism, with marx it's always "well what does he explicitly say" and pretend that's all that exists in the intellectual tradition.

>famous intellectuals in both those movements belonged to the same academic/homosexual circles.
They belong to the same ethnic circles, more importantly. At any rate it is not real nihilism, it is targeted at Western/European/Christian culture in particular as part of a campaign of subversion. The critique was never being done in good faith.

>by getting the church to let faggots into the priesthood.
because they never admitted to being gay to begin with

Maybe if they lifted the ban on straight married leaders this wouldn't be a problem

>liberalism of the enlightenment directly causes Marxian thinking
Yes you are right, the west implemented socialist ideas and it didn't exactly work leading to mass unemployment and failing industries.

Reagan, Thatcher and Douglas among others had to do the dirty work of reversing the damage Marx caused.

I called it Cultural Bolshevism, since that is what it really represents. But Cultural Marxism is still a decent term of Critical Thinking.

After Vatican II they started letting 'celibate' homosexuals into the seminaries. A decade after, right around when all of the first batch of fags had been in parishes for a bit, is when all the abuse started coming out. The church cannot deal with the problem because it would require admitting that gays are the problem.
There had always been occaisonal instances of it but that's what started the serious issues. And once it became clear that the church would not really punish them, it got much worse and you even got some straight priests preying on girls because they knew they could get away with it.
>Maybe if they lifted the ban on straight married leaders this wouldn't be a problem
A good idea, the Orthodox Church's position on clergy marriage is much better, but it wouldn't stop the problem of faggots being tolerated.

so if we destigmatize gayness then the closet homos will stay away from our children and churches and fag away elsewhere with other gay adults?

No, you have to run them out of society altogether.

but then they'll just go into hiding and keep touching kids in churches

why would you need to explain something this obvious though

Not how it works, they aren't born that way, they reproduce by molesting. You can get rid of them all.

but about all those gays who were gay but never molested?

They were abused by the parents in some way instead, and were still initiated into faggotry by existing faggots. It is a disease, it can be gotten rid of.

Do you have data to support these claims?
This would be huge if there were information to back it up

>Marxist explains that cultural Marxism isn't a thing
>my enemy wont define
>capitalism
>neoliberal
>neocon
>Antisemitism (not invented by jews)

Critical theory, especially critical race theory which is the basis of all the SJW shit you see today, spawned entirely from the Frankfurt School academics which criticized both capitalism and communism. Specifically, they criticized Stalinism.

The stats on homos and being abused are easy to find and not even contraversial. For the few ones that claim they were not abused it is a fuzzier thing, because they tend not to disclose how young they actually aim.

So then how you plan on prevent ALL abuse to prevent gayness based on this logic?

also I googled and found this
"Prevalence of Childhood Sexual Abuse among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual People: A Meta-Analysis.
Xu Y1, Zheng Y.
Author information
Abstract
In order to determine the prevalence of childhood sexual abuse among gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals, we conducted a meta-analysis that compiled the results of 65 articles across 9 countries. The results revealed no significant difference in the prevalence of child sexual abuse between homosexual and bisexual people for both sexes. The prevalence of child sexual abuse among female sexual minorities was significantly higher than that among male sexual minorities. The lowest prevalence was found in South America, followed by Asia. The definition of child sexual abuse, dimension used to measure sexual orientation, year of data collection, and the mean age of participants at the time of assessment influenced the estimated prevalence of child sexual abuse. We conclude that many variables influence the reported prevalence of child sexual abuse among sexual minorities."