The most recent of incident of Cultural Marxist commissars refusing to admit that dissidents are to be treated as fellow citizens is the crazed female professor who accosted the NPI’s Richard Spencer while he was exercising at a Alexandria gym. She, recognizing him from coverage of the election campaign, started haranguing him and calling him a “Nazi.”
Instead of having her ejected for this behavior, the gym’s management terminated Spencer’s membership. [Georgetown professor confronts white nationalist Richard Spencer at the gym — which terminates his membership , By Faiz Siddiqui May 21, 2017]
Back in 2011 VDARE posted a commentary of mine on the legitimacy of the “Cultural Marxist” concept. (I reluctantly accepted the term only because I couldn’t think of a better one.)
As I pointed out, this ideology was very far from orthodox Marxism and was viewed by serious Marxists as a kind of bastard child. Yet many of those designated as “Cultural Marxists” still viewed themselves as classical Marxists and some still do.
Exponents of what the Frankfurt School called “critical theory”— like Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, and Erich Fromm—were considered by orthodox Marxists to be fake or ersatz Marxists. But they did adopt orthodox Marxist-Leninist theory in key aspects:
- Like orthodox Marxists, they viewed the bourgeoisie as a counterrevolutionary class.
- Like orthodox Marxists, they viewed the world, arguably simplistically, in terms of interest groups and power relationships.
- Like orthodox Marxists—whose break from Victorian classical liberalism in this respect was shocking in a way that is easily overlooked after the totalitarian experience of the twentieth century—they explicitly eschewed debate in favor of reviling and if possible repressing their opponents. (This is fundamental to the Marxist method: although it claims to be “scientific”, it is in fact an a priori value system that rejects debate and its concomitant, “bourgeois science”. Hence Political Correctness—the most prominent product of “cultural Marxism”.)
- Like orthodox Marxist, they supported, at least in principle, a socialist i.e. government-controlled economy.
- Like orthodox Marxists, they inclined, in varying degrees, toward the Communist side during the Cold War. (Marcuse, who cheered the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian uprising in 1956, was an outright Stalinist—as I can confirm from personal knowledge as his onetime student.)
These disciples of the Frankfurt School, like Marx, were eager to replace what they defined as bourgeois society by a new social order. In this envisaged new order, humankind would experience true equality for the first time. This would be possible because, in a politically and socially reconstructed society, we would no longer be alienated from our real selves, which had been warped by the inequalities that existed until now.
But unlike authentic Marxists, Cultural Marxists have been principally opposed to the culture of bourgeois societies–and only secondarily to their material arrangements. Homophobia, nationalism, Christianity, masculinity, and anti-Semitism have been the prime villains in the Cultural Marxist script.
This is especially true as one moves from the philosophy of the interwar German founders of the Frankfurt school, like Theodore Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse, to the second generation. This second generation is represented by Jürgen Habermas and most of the multicultural theorists ensconced in Western universities.
For these more advanced Cultural Marxists, the crusade against capitalism has been increasingly subordinated to the war against “prejudice” and “discrimination.” They justify the need for a centralized bureaucratic state commanding material resources not because it will bring the working class to power, but to fight “racism,” “fascism,” and the other residues of the Western past.
If they can’t accomplish such radical change, Cultural Marxists are happy to work toward revolutionizing our consciousness with the help of Leftist moneybags– hedge fund managers, Mark Zuckerberg etc. Ironically, nationalizing productive forces and the creation of a workers’ state, i.e. the leftovers from classical Marxism, turn out to be the most expendable part of their revolutionary program, perhaps because of the collapse of the embarrassing collapse of command economies in the Soviet bloc. Instead, what is essential to Cultural Marxism is the rooting-out of bourgeois national structures, the obliteration of gender roles and the utter devastation of “the patriarchal family.”
Not only does Cultural Marxism exist, but it now appears to be taking over Conservatism Inc. Thus even with Paris burning, National Review was still attacking the Right. In the second round of the French election, Tom Rogan urged a vote for Emmanuel Macron on the grounds Marine Le Pen is insufficiently hostile to Vladimir Putin and is a “socialist” because she “supports protectionism.” Macron’s actual onetime membership in the Socialist Party, and his view that there was no such thing as French culture, apparently was not a problem [French election: American Conservatives Should Support Macron, April 24, 2017].
Conservatism Inc. goes along because these goals are partially achieved through corporate capitalists, who actively push Leftist social agendas and punish entire communities if they’re insufficiently enthusiastic about gay marriage, gay scout leaders, transgendered rest rooms, sanctuary cities etc.. Wedded as it is to a clichéd defense of the “free market,” the Beltway Right not only won’t oppose this plutocratic agenda, but instead offers tax cuts to the wealthiest and most malevolent actors.
It is because Cultural Marxism can co-exist with our current economic and political structure that our so-called “conservatives” are far more likely to align with the New Left than the Old Right. The behavior of our own captains of industry shows the rot is deep and that multiculturalism is very much part of American “liberal democratic” thinking, even informing our bogus conservatism. “Conservatism” is now defined as waging endless wars in the name of universalist values that any other generation would have called radically leftist. And Cultural Marxists themselves now define what we call “Western values”—for example, accepting homosexuality
The takeover is so complete, we might even say “Cultural Marxism” has outlived its usefulness as a label or as a description of a hostile foreign ideology. Instead, we’re dealing with “conservatives,” who are, in many ways, more extreme and more destructive than the Frankfurt School itself.
Many conservatives seem to believe Cultural Marxism is just a foreign eccentricity somehow smuggled into our country. Allan Bloom’s “conservative” bestseller The Closing of the American Mind [PDF] contended that multiculturalism was just another example of “The German Connection.” This is ludicrous.
Case in point: unlike Horkheimer, or my onetime teacher Herbert Marcuse, leading writers within Conservatism Inc. are sympathetic to something like gay marriage.
- Jonah Goldberg [Gay Marriage vs. goodwill, USA Today, April 1, 2013]
- Jamie Kirchick, published at National Review and borderline hysterical on the issue
- John Podhoretz [Why John Podhoretz is Wrong on Gay Marriage, by Matthew Schmitz, First Things, November 21, 2012]
- David Brooks [The Power of Marriage, by David Brooks, New York Times, November 22, 2003]
Indeed, homosexual liberation is so central to modern conservatism that the Beltway Right’s pundits urge American soldiers to impose it at bayonet point around the world. Kirchick complains we haven’t pressed the Russian “thug” Vladimir Putin hard enough to accept such “conservative” features of public life as gay pride parades. [Why Putin’s Defense of “Traditional Values” Is Really A War on Freedom, by James Kirchick, Foreign Policy, January 3, 2014]
Another frequent contributor to National Review, Jillian Kay Melchior, expressed concern that American withdrawal from Ukraine might expose that region to greater Russian control and thereby diminish rights for the transgendered. [Ukrainians are still alone in their heroic fight for freedom, New York Post, October 8, 2015]
If that’s how our Respectable Right reacts to social issues, then it may be ridiculous to continue denouncing the original Cultural Marxists. Our revolutionary thinking has whizzed past those iconoclastic German Jews who created the Frankfurt Institute in the 1920s and then moved their enterprise to the US in the 1930s. Blaming these long-dead intellectuals for our present aberrations may be like blaming Nazi atrocities on Latin fascists in 1920. We’re better served by examining those who selectively adopted the original model to find out what really happened.
At this point we should ask not whether the Frankfurt School continues to cast a shadow over us but instead ask why are “conservatives” acquiescing to or even championing reforms more radical than anything one encounters in Adorno and Horkheimer?
Admittedly, Conservatism Inc. has drifted so far to the Left that one no longer blinks in surprise when a respected conservative journalist extolls Leon Trotsky and the Communist Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War. Yet it’s still startling to see just how far left the Beltway “Right” has moved on social issues. Even more noteworthy is how unwilling the movement is to see any contradiction between this process and the claim they are “conservatives.”
And let’s not pretend that Conservatism Inc. is simply running a “Big Tent.” Those who direct the top-down Beltway Right are eager to reach out to the Left, providing those they recruit share their belligerent interventionist foreign policy views and do nothing to offend neoconservative benefactors, while purging everything on their right.
This post-Christian, post-bourgeois consensus is now centered in the US and in affiliate Western countries and transmitted through our culture industry, educational system, Deep-State bureaucracy, and Establishment political parties.
The Beltway Right operates like front parties under the old Soviet system. Like those parties, our Establishment Right tries to “fit in” by dutifully undermining those to its the Right and slowly absorbing the social positions and heroes of the Left.
Occasionally it catches hell for not moving fast enough to the Left. But this only bolsters the image of Conservatism, Inc. as defenders of traditional America against the Left—an image that it won’t lose even as it veers farther in the direction of its supposed adversary.
In short, Conservatism Inc. is not just a scam—but it’s become a Cultural Marxist puppet. And the Dissident Right consists of those who can see through it.
Paul Gottfried [ email him ] is a retired Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, PA. He is the author of After Liberalism, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt and The Strange Death of MarxismHis most recent book is Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America.
“Kirchick complains we haven’t pressed the Russian “thug” Vladimir Putin hard enough to accept such “conservative” features of public life as gay pride parades.”
Well, he’s a homo himself, so that’s not surprising.
How fitting would it be if John O’Sullivan himself were to designate National Review‘s final descent into Cuck Marxism as the latest example of O’Sullivan’s Law?
It’s ok. The animals are already devouring their own at a critical pace. Consider, after all, that “white” women (the substantive core of feminism) must now apologize for their “privileges”.
Cultural Marxism or whatever it’s called, does it matter?
Once the printing press came along, knowledge wasn’t no longer monopolized by the scribes in the cathedrals.
Colleges once used to monopolize ideas, and MSM monopolized dissemination of ideas stemming from colleges and favored institutions like ADL and SPLC.
But now, we can have real discussion of all sorts of ideas and issues OUTSIDE the institutions and with full independence.
Tom Woods and Stefan Moly won’t be invited to any college but 150 million views a year isn’t bad.
College commissars and their minions think they are control heaven because they hold the ivory tower. But internet has given wings to everyone, and flight has become universal. It’s like anyone can buy a drone and get a bird’s eye view of everything.
It’s a game of the Tower vs the Drones.
What we need is more organization among the drones, which have been thus buzzing around without coordination. A worldwide network of independent thought and knowledge independent of the Tower.
I’m not talking of online college or some such courses offered by many colleges.
I mean an online virtual ‘Alexandrian Library’ where many independent voices can converge and form a community.
This Alexandria can break the arrogance of colleges that have the experts but no integrity and independence because, as Justin Murphy said, there are strings that come attached with the privilege of careerism.
Now, there are some areas that can only be served properly in a well-funded college setting.
Like nuclear physics or rocket science for instance.
But on most matters of history, philosophy, arts, humanities, and literature, you don’t need careerist stake in an institution to gain access to most relevant materials and form an opinion.
If Donna Zuckerberg and her ilk are any clue, much of the institutions have been taken over by nitwits and batwing specialists.
You can call support for marriage equality “far left” if you want. But its support in the latest poll of Americans is 62 in favor to to 34 against. For those under 40, it is more like 75-20.
I think the vast majority of private businesses would not want Nazi cosplaying media whores as members, at least not publicly known members.
And what is the underpinning of this nonsense?
You guessed it, the so called & absurd ‘holocau$t’. After all, discussions with leftists always end up at Auschwitz.
The ‘6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:
No name calling, level playing field debate here:
laughable Auschwitz ‘gas chambers’ scientifically debunked here:
Let us put it simply.
Cultural Marxism is the instrument used for the enforcement of globalism by the AngloZionist/NeoCon/Corporate-Banking olgarchy/Internatuional Jew.
It is the mechanism of those who already own our governments to take control of our very minds.
It is Satan pretending to be God.
This is a great article — with a few reservations.
I appreciate this comment:
“Back in 2011 VDARE posted a commentary of mine on the legitimacy of the “Cultural Marxist” concept. (I reluctantly accepted the term only because I couldn’t think of a better one.)”
Cultural Marxist is not the best descriptor — simply calling them “”progressive” is probably better: it encapsulates the total vagueness of the ideas, (& works as an opposite to “conservative”).
Knowing little about the Frankfurt school I’m not in a position to judge whether Mr Grottfield is correct in rooting current progressivism in that school of though: I suspect Marcuse is definitely a source.
My view is that Postmodernism (PM) is the rank fertiliser upon which progressivism has grown: its rejection of not only ethics, but of “truth”; its reduction of reality to “discourse”; its sheer intellectual arrogance are all indicators of guilt. (Note, please, Marxism itself is flushed away by PM: it’s merely another “totalising”(totalitarian) system of thought that seeks to impose bogus “categories” upon reality: reality is merely the infinite “play” of discourse, of signifiers. All is subjective — we don’t think about reality, reality comes into existence by thinking through us’!)
“They justify the need for a centralized bureaucratic state commanding material resources not because it will bring the working class to power, but to fight “racism,” “fascism,” and the other residues of the Western past.’” This is basically correct. Of course, they never see the connection between the “protecting” state & the “security”state. (I think many progressives secretly love the security state, such is their fear of some threat in their “LIFESTYLE”.
Finally, lets be clear about the so called values that progressives hold so dear: feminism, diversity, gay/marriage etc. Neoliberals & neocons could give a shit about these values (or any other values beyond power & money) — however, they are very useful. While the 99% is fighting over transgender toilets, they’, the Elites, are making money. Don’t like immigration (which is the other side of the coin of öff-shoring) ? Tough. It weakens Labour & lowers wages. Do neoliberals care who they do business with ? If a transgendered Arab from Miami is a business opportunity so what ? It’s not like they have to live next door to them … And if all this destroys your culture — all the better: an alienated, infighting, disillusioned, confused 99% is the best kind of democracy.
The conservatism of Reagan through to Bush — & probably Trump, is a fraud. Neoliberals have NO values, conservative or otherwise. Whatever is EXPEDIENT.
The US conservative tradition has been Marxist from the start. When you take the crazy counterfactual nonsense “All men are created equal” as a self-evident truth, you’re a Marxist.
No idea what Marxism has anything to do with this. People are attaching words Marxism, communism and socialism to things and processes that has nething to do with either.
Using the dishonest propaganda term “marriage equality” is self-discrediting.
Gottfried doesn’t use the term “far left”, unless I’ve missed it. He says that support for gay “marriage” is part of the cultural Marxist agenda, which he points out includes: “the rooting-out of bourgeois national structures, the obliteration of gender roles and the utter devastation of “the patriarchal family”, and part of a “leftist social agenda”, which would seem indisputable.
The fact that elite propaganda has achieved general opinion poll support (albeit superficial and incorporating a hefty chunk of “social desirability bias”, imo) for one of its platforms merely emphasizes the scale and scope of the threat. In other words, it confirms the whole thrust of Gottfried’s piece.
The use of dishonest, intentionally misleading terms like “marriage equality” has been one of the methods used to achieve this situation, along with the presence of propagandists at the top of both the left and “conservative” media and political establishments.
And businesses discriminating against people whose opinions you don’t like is fine, it seems. And of course businesses are forbidden by law from discriminating against people you don’t think should be discriminated against, and that’s fine as well, because that’s majority opinion as well. Presumably because your opinion is majority opinion, and always will be.
How nice for you.
People didn’t change their minds about State solemnized sodomy in under a decade. They’ve become tired of the constant cajoling and believed – falsely – that if they gave the babies their binkies they’d be satisfied and leave people alone. To the extent that your polls reflect public opinion (they certainly do not correspond to how people vote on the issue when given the opportunity to do so), it is a millimeter deep.
To the contrary. There are many Nazi media whores that are quite acceptable to the left. Among these people are Chucky Shumer, Feinstein, and a cast of millions more, all DimoKKKRats. You’re among that rather large number.
Thank-you for the great piece Prof. Gottfried.
I agree the term “Cultural Marxist” doesn’t fit anymore, for the reasons you gave. Prof. Jordan Peterson — and others, I’m sure — uses the term “Postmodernism” to label the SJW and Establishment consensus. That works but I think “Deconstructivism” is an even closer fit. Have a look at the works of that school of architecture, check out their intellectual pedigree and you might agree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstructivism Brutalism is another architectural style that mirrors the political thinking of our time.
Conservatism Inc, on the other hand has no architectural style to call its own. The closest equivalent to Jeb Bush or Paul Ryan in the world of architecture are the dorky, conformist normies who agree to pay for the new Brutalist, Postmodern and Deconstructivist buildings than abuse our cities. “I think it’s great!” is the mating call of the cuckservative.
I’m glad people are finally noticing what an utter fraud modern American ‘conservatism’ really is. The time has come to replace it with nationalism.
That’s a feature and not a bug, self-flagellation is a popular activity amongst WASPs. We can’t take it for granted that the status quo will fall on its own, and we will have to fight hard to gain ground at every opportunity that presents itself.
Imo the inevitable collapse of the education bubble and the potential for machine learning to automate at least some of finance, intelligence, journalism, and other bourgeois institutions will result in major pushes towards sanity.
OT- does anyone else find that VDare articles have WAY too many inline links? I find it extremely distracting.
Nationalism is dead.
Time to accept reality.
The Beltway Right live in a subculture dominated by the Left — Charles Murray’s Beltway superzips, if you will. Their sense of where the center is has been maladjusted by a permanent shift to the Left. That’s why the 2016 election caught them so completely flat-footed. They have no idea what the rest of the country is thinking.
People are attaching words Marxism, communism and socialism to things and processes that has nething to do with either
Guilt by association, it’s likely the best and most powerful polemic.
Better inline links than embedded videos. I actually find inline links helpful as potential extensions of the topics under discussion. One can always ignore them or follow them up later. Embedded videos are almost always an invitation to switch your attention to something OT (like vaguely-related pop songs) or long-winded. That said, yeah, VDare is link-happy.
Karl Marx: (1818-1883) From Capital, vol. III
Freedom, Necessity and the Shortening of the Working-Day
“…, the realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases;
thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production.
Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilized man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production.
With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants;
but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase.
Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature;
and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favorable to, and worthy of, their human nature.
But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity.
Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis.
The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite”.
Cultural Marxism seems to be a strange sort of ‘bump’ in the otherwise full march of Liberalism to its eventual end of complete nihilism, the destruction of all community bonds and the isolation of the individual as a ‘freedom FROM everything’.
The expedient of harnessing post protestant guilt and using a sort of inversion of values (anything non Christian, non European is good) seems to have been folded into the march to dissolution as a temporary expedient that helps destroy culture more quickly that a simple vanilla ‘freedom from everything’.
But there will come a time in this march where those inverted values that Cultural Marxists hold dear will have to be destroyed as well. Because true Liberalism cannot suffer even the bonds within minority communities and ‘victim groups’ to exist, much less gender or alternate gender.
In the end there will only be the individual. And then the next phase will begin, where even the concept of the individual is viewed as facist and must be reduced. Dugin sees this in the rise of the transhuman and posthuman, but I think it will be the reign of blood.
Cultural Marxist is not the best descriptor — simply calling them “”progressive” is probably better:
How about we drop both terms and start using post modernism?
I figured out a long time ago that those who make up Conservative, Inc. are actually not conservatives at all, they’re right-wing progressives (i.e. Marxist). They have no connection whatsoever to the conservatives of the past and are more interested in making money putting out their dreadful missives than in preventing European socialism from taking over the country.
Excellent comment. I think this process of secondary destruction has already started, by means of ever-new minority communities and victim groups for whom the existing minority communities and victim groups must continually make way. First there was blacks vs. gays, then gays and women vs. Muslims, and most recently women vs. transgenders. By constantly changing the rules of who has to swallow their bile in deference to whom, the Elite keep the inverted values weak and rootless.
The SJW’s are Mao not Marx. Conservatives have been accurately and hilariously renamed Cuckservatives. The political divide now is between the ruling globalists with their zombie army of SJW’s and Nationalists with their powerful red pill. The globalists have the whip hand at home but are encountering resistance abroad from Russia, China and Iran. If you are not a stateless billionaire monopolist pray for the Nationalists. When the .001% has everything the rest of us will have nothing.
(((Cultural Marxism))) didn’t occur in a vacuum and we have the Jewish mind to thank for it or damn it depending on one’s political orientation. It’s obvious it’s contemporaries now feel comfortable enough to drop all pretense that it’s merely an equalitarian movement meant to tell the story of the persecuted non-whites and “poisecuted” Jews and win them a measure of respect and affection.
Cult Marxism flipped the script on whites and the mild white race chauvinism that existed pre-1965 has been supplanted by a two fisted black and brown racial chauvinism while instilling a paralyzing racial guilt complex in whites. It now constitutes the intellectual, moral and historical framework for disenfranchising, dehumanizing, persecuting and even killing the founding white racial stock and their descendants en masse.
Looking around it’s hard not hard to conclude that it has now evolved into the de facto state religion. Even some stalwart conservatives pay obeisance to some of its tenets (like the worship of MLK and the so called civil rights movement). This contagion is now raging through the historical European homelands of the U.K., Europe and Scandinavia, but Eastern Europe has been immune, thus far.
Cult Marxism is the 21st century bubonic plaque and it’s an open question whether European racial stocks will be able to recover from it and rebuild our civilization. It may prove far deadlier than the real thing.
I seldom read an article that made so little sense to me.
No idea what the writer tries to say.
I always mistrusted Humanities, that must be it.
Fully agree, however what is meant by ‘this’ is also beyond me.
The NWO is dead. You just don’t know it yet.
At least one black man agrees with you: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/27/antiracism-our-flawed-new-religion
Conservatism, by it’s mindless support of the RNC, served the Oligarchy. Much as the SJW’s mindless support of the DNC also serves the Oligarchy. Democrats and Republicans ruined the country. Democrats and Republicans might think they are Liberal and Conservative respectively. They are in reality Anglo/Zio Imperialists.
I agree with you but would carry it further. The time has come to replace Democrats and Republicans with Nationalists.
Sure pal. And Donald Trump is going to make America great again.
How well is that going, by the way?
May 5, 2017 The Reproduction of Real Life. The Privatization of Politics – Michel Chossudovsky on GRTV
From political and social chaos to economic instability and global warfare, the crises created by the privatisation of politics are increasingly spinning out of control.
Thank you, for the share Priss Factor. I have been a fan of both gentlemen for many years now.
Many Trump voters used him to defeat Hillary, suspecting that his rhetoric was largely BS. Mission accomplished. We’ll see what happens next.
Nationalism is far from dead. Between nationalism and “globalism,” it’s obvious which is hollow and destructive.
Another great piece by the great Dr. Paul Gottfried.
What I’ve noticed is that the more the liberals move to the left, the more the adherants of Conservatism Inc. moves with them, one or two steps behind.
The less and less difference there is between “liberals” and “conservatives,” the more “conservatives” harp on the minor differences that remain. I’m thinking of the modern “conservative” obsession with abortion.
Even 40 years ago, the conservatives who wrote for magazines such as The National Review opposed abortion, but also opposed subsidizing illegitimacy and self-indulgence. They wrote thoughtful pieces on the morally and culturally destructive effects of the welfare state and egalitarianism. They didn’t worship Big Business and were critical of unrestrained capitalism (that dates from Robert Bartley and the Reagan administration). There was an uproar about the Martin Luther King holiday.
Forty years ago any conservative who advocated exporting democracy (a form of government and type of society that few people favored before the 20th century) would have been laughed at or scorned.
Not anymore. Spawning bastards on the taxpayer’s dime is not ideal, but acceptable. Even the issue of repealing Obama is based on the assumption that people not only have a right to medical care, but unlimited medical care at other people’s expense for any reason.
The Marxists have won: it’s only a difference between pro-life, pro-gun and pro-big military Marxists (aka conservatives) and pro-choice, anti-gun and shrink the military Marxists (aka liberals). They are all Marxists.
What a joke.
You are right that state votes on gay marriage usually run about 5 points behind polls. That is because these issue polls are typically All Adults or Registered Voters. Actual voters tend to be older and more like to attend church.
I agree also that it was MSM propaganda that did the most to change minds. I just don’t care about the whole issue.
I do not favor regulations on who a business can serve outside of public accommodations and monopolies (like the power company or a private bus line). A gym does not meet this test unless it is the only one in town, not the case in NoVa.
I’m not white but I have no problem with an all-white state. If this is truly a free country then people should have a say in what kind of community they want to live in. What’s wrong with a state where only whites are allowed? Anyone who has a problem with that should simply vote with their feet and not live there or visit. Let people choose. Why is the left so afraid to give people choices? Is it because they’re afraid people will choose what they don’t want them to choose? Just like they are afraid to let people think for themselves, because they’re afraid people will think differently than them. Most of us thinking people are sick and tired of being told what we should say or do, how we should think or live at all times. Just leave us the heck alone! Cultural Marxism needs to go die a swift death for the west to survive.
Agreed. Trump was definitely the lesser of two evils. Will he deliver? That remains to be seen. I’m not optimistic, however.
There is no going back. The world is hopelessly interconnected. Nationalism is obsolete.
“Cultural Marxist” is today a term of denigration, not an accurate descriptor, and really needs to be retired. The Identity Politics theorists, almost by definition, give scant attention to Marx’s prime mover of history-Economic Determinism. They posit a host of other power relationships ( race, gender, sexual orientation, what-have-you ) virtually ignoring economic class and wealth inequality.
Thus the Ivies and colleges like Middlebury can act as prep schools for Goldman Sachs while accommodating trendy avant garde “social justice concern”. You can be a daring warrior with no fear that if your side is victorious, your personal financial future would suffer in the slightest. The Identity Politics folks simply want the Oligarchy to pay them off handsomely-not overthrow it.
Terms like Right and Left are also becoming obsolete and more a source of confusion than clarification.
The dissolution of all ties certainly works in the favor of the Oligarchy by destroying any potential resistance.
Ultimately I’m not sure even they will be able to stop it at just the right moment.
My ultimate conspiracy theory is the one with horns and a red tail 😉
Can’t happen soon enough, and expect much gnashing of teeth and melted snowflakes. Creative destruction presents in another form.
What a brilliant essay.
Leave it to Dr. Gottfried to spell it out so clearly.
Cultural Marxism has infected all aspects of our culture, and the traitorous bastards who write for the National Review under the banner of being conservative are putrid examples of how far this leftist disease has spread.
The fortune 500 financial services firm I work for have put up posters for upcoming presentation on raising an LGBT children. Oh yea, and I can self identify at the HR portal. Of course none of this bothers the National Review as long as my company makes money.
So have you gone back yet?
You have to go back, after all.
Do you have any serious followers? Do people really believe anything that you write? Readers do not appear to be responding favorably to anything that you offer.
Or, are you a troll collecting site visitor information to identify potential enemies?
When was the last time you read Communist Manifesto? Remember the chapter on marriage, wives, sanctioned prostitution? What about first glorious years after the Bolshevik revolution and activities of Alexandra Kollontai?
Very good comment. Thanks.
Unfortunately the courts have held that any organization, business or entity that has any kind of government permit cannot discriminate. This gym is on land that was bought and sold and the deed is recorded in th local county records.
A building permit was issued to build the building or remodel an existing building. Zoning, health, fire department and health inspectors periodically inspect.
Any person with a professional or occupational license cannot discriminate.
That’s how the government got private clubs. They have permits to exist. The only entity that can get away with discrimination is a private organization that meets in private homes.
Any and all businesses, organizations can and do discriminate against hetero White men. The courts and the Federal Civil Rights Commission have held that the 14thbamendment does not apply to straight White men.
Is Spencer were gay he might be able to do something but as a hetero White man in America he can be discriminated against
In fact both federal laws and numerous court rulings have mandated discrimination against hetero White men.
Good review of cultural Marxism, but I’m surprised you omitted Antonio Gramsci, who understood why it was important to socialism to destroy the cultural institutions of liberal democracy.
Also, it seems very strange indeed for anyone to refer to National Review as a “conservative” magazine. Neocon; of course. And Republican (ho hum). But not at all conservative.
When Neocon Inc. was developing support and working to take over the Republican Party, it made common cause with social conservatives in general, and with Bible Christians in particular. Now that the Republican Party is their property, neocons have returned to their roots.
“The courts and the Federal Civil Rights Commission have held that the 14thbamendment does not apply to straight White men.”
This is a huge claim. Do you have a court citation for me?
Replaced with ethno National Socialism.
The first order of business being the nationalizing of the Federal Reserve and the creation of Treasury dollars backed by GDP.
Hopefully, the present system will expire soon, from all the dead weight and venal grifting by the ruling class.
We need a man without formal education, without family background or connections, without money [!]
A man who- surrounded by officers, gentlemen by birth, scholars,intellectuals, petit royalty, government officials and long time administrators of this regulatory dictatorship- will be unassailable!
He’s out there, and he’s not just:
– business acumen
– physical bravery
Leadership is all Personality!
In the US leadership is successful lawyers and business men- the most rotten in the history of the world.
Let’s stick with Cultural Marxism.
Marx was a lazy sack who never worked a day in his life- this describes the current tribe to a ” T “.
I don’t think being forced to apologize will alienate and change white feminists. Just look at how the feminist movement has allied with Islam. Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
It’s true, for topics in the humanities, you can learn more from motivated self study than from taking a college course taught by an incompetent TA.
I don’t like Richard Spencer. The question isn’t whether you like Richard Spencer–many here do, some don’t. The question is whether you think he should have been kicked out of his gym for his beliefs.
And if you do think it was OK that he was kicked out of his gym, what makes you think the PC police will stop with Richard Spencer?
Marxists thought they were doing a service to humanity in saving the self in the face of the problems of modernity. They didn’t seek out to destroy society, they thought society needed to be corrected. The circumstances of modernity were an attack on the self: alienation, loss of identity, purpose, and on and on were the outcome.
Rick Roderick: The Self Under Siege
Is an 8 part lecture series on the modern philosophers. Highly recommend these, the lecturer is very entertaining.
your comment cuts straight to the issue. profit over the good life.
run a google search of “protected class”. the concept is an explicit proclamation in the law that only positively defined “classes” (groups) of people meeting specific criteria (sex pref, gender, minority race) may claim to be victims of unlawful discrimination. Literally white males (straight not gay) cannot be discriminated against.
Mar 20, 2015 The Cycle of The State (by Daniel Sanchez)
Daniel Sanchez combines the theories of Robert Higgs and Hans-Hermann Hoppe to form a theory of the cycle of the state.
Of course Republicans are in league with the Left.
And, that is NOT caused by Jews. Jews have simply exploited the situation better than any other group.
In 1860, who did the vast majority of Abolitionists vote for? Republicans. In 1860, who did the vast majority of Liberal college professors, Protestant pastors, and journalists vote for? Republicans.
“And, that is NOT caused by Jews. Jews have simply exploited the situation better than any other group.”
“Shameless” and “treacherous” better describe what Jews have done/are doing politically.
Also, I don’t think you can compare Jewish tribal politics that are often toxic, tribal and traitorous to what abolitionists did. We live in a different nation, unfortunately.
Of course the 14th amendment no longer applies to white males.
Discrimination against white men is the fashion of the day. And it has been enshrined into law through affirmative action, hate crime laws, and disparate impact follies.
What universe are you living in?
This is getting better and better.
Lies + Righteousness = Cultural Cancer.
Lies are just lies but when lies are armed with righteousness, it emboldens other liars, fantasists, and nutjobs to follow suit and make similar demands.
Someone needs to create an Online Community of free thinkers who’ve been expelled by Proglodytes. This community would not be political or ideological. Its only rule would be Free Debate and Free Discussion.
It would be a Sanctuary for Free Speech and Free Thought, what the academia is really supposed to be about, independent of the Mobs with pitchforks and Globs with checkbooks.
This Sanctuary should be open to:
1. Academics and intellectuals exiled from ‘respectable’ community.
2. Academics and intellectuals working in ‘respectable’ community but offering forbidden views behind pseudonyms.
3. Learned amateurs who know extensively about certain fields.
This community needs some kind of structure and organization. And once it is established, it can pose a real challenge to Academia and bogus intellectual sites like Big Think that just shill out to Establishment Talking Points.
And this Community needs a Code of Ethics, the first one being, “It will never cave to outside pressure and do something like what Heritage Foundation did with Jason Richwine”.
Isn’t that what Unz.com is supposed to be?
I’m thinking more of a multi-media format loaded with videos.
Also, Unz.com has fixed number of writers.
I’m thinking of an Open Forum worldwide.
Unz.comis an online zine.
To combat PC culture of colleges, we need something like an online Library of Alexandria.
this is wrong….cultural marxism only rose to dominance because it makes the rich richer…a more diverse population is less unified and cannot unite against the elite…mass immigration and racial integration increases the supply of labor and suppresses wage growth….mass immigration increases consumer demand, thus propping up the consumer-driven ponzi economy, thus ensuring those at the top of the corporate/academic/govt structure keep getting rich…
the frankfurt school etc was just a tiny speck in a sea of ideas out there…but their ideas (and ideas held by other, similar academic schools of thought) were pushed to the top…who selected those ideas? who pushed those ideas to the top? The rich and powerful…why? Because they knew that mass immigration and racial integration would help them get richer…
Victim class supremacy as exist today in the US and Israel is cultural Judaism, not cultural Marxism.
Cultural Marxism is class supremacy of the proletariat (poor people) and the Nomenklatura.
The nomenklatura (Russian: номенклату́ра; IPA: [nəmʲɪnklɐˈturə]; Latin: nomenclatura) were a category of people within the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries who held various key administrative positions in the bureaucracy running all spheres of those countries’ activity: government, industry, agriculture, education, etc., whose positions were granted only with approval by the communist party of each country or region.
Im getting sick of you alt right guys
you Nazis are usually the same folk who spew “political correctness is ruining our world”, then get their tender snowflake feelings hurt by folks calling them (correctly) racist Nazis to their faces.
And you also have to realize, per White Supremacist philosophy, what’s good for the goose (Whites) is NOT good for the gander (“others”). Superiority, inequality, discrimination, racism, bigotry, sexism, and hatred are the name of the game for you gene pool dropout freaks.
I wish the government would outlaw this ideology and penalize those who espouse it
That was why we were crying when Trump won because we thought we were about to punish you guys once and for all
That day is coming
Victim class supremacy as it exists today in the US and Israel:
Here’s a sampling of current women’s federal entitlements:
So you would have no problem with a gym that excluded Jews?
Then f**k off. We’re sick of you too, idiot.
I really dislike lumping Adorno in with ‘cultural marxism’. He surely would have detested identity politics in all its forms. A subtle critique of consumer capitalist culture that holds up late Beethoven as the epitome of radicalism is not the same, is not even on the same planet, as dumb, gender studies professors propagandizing bureaucratic political correctness.
The genealogy of ideas is also flat out wrong. Judith butler and watered down Derrida are the ideational founts of contemporary ‘critical theory ‘ , not Adorno who was always suspect with the academic left.
Anyway I believe the intellectual ‘right’ could benefit from appropriating left thinkers much as the left has with the likes of Nietzsche and Schmitt and Adorno would be a good place to start.
Spencer is a cancer himself no paleo or traditionalist should associate with him … he is the ultimate trojan horse racialism like nationalism is the product of ideology an enlightenment ideal that is the mirror of those propagated at the French revolution
You do realize that Professor Gottfried is Jewish, right?
To say nationalism is obsolete is to say reality is obsolete.
Do you really think we’re going back to a time when everyone lives in his 99-100% homogeneous ethnostate? It’s impossible. We live in a globalized, interconnected world.
Your people are responsible for this. Had you stayed in Europe, none of this would be happening. This is the world your ancestors created. Now you must live with the consequences.
Incoherence would be a step up from where you are now.
My ancestors created a terrific country. Communists, socialist loons, multiculturalist toads, open borders traitors, and fools who fall at the feet of foreigners have all but destroyed it.
The presence of foreigners in a country is not necessary for a workable society. Think China and Japan.
And, there is no reason why every last foreigner who stole across our border can’t be sent home. No race has to submit to slow-motion suicide. Traitors set this up but there is no reason why we have to just forget that and live with their treachery.
Your ancestors let them in and listened to them. The blame rests with you. You didn’t have to listen.
Never said it was. But can you really call modern China and Japan “functional?”
Ok, sure we can strip the non-whites of their citizenship and send them back. But if you do that, why can’t we send back the Italians? Or the Irish? Or the Slavs? They did not assimilate, they changed the country. Their presence was not welcomed or desired by the “historic American nation.” This country was created by white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. The founders created this country for “us and our posterity.” These non-Anglo white groups are not part of that posterity. They too are foreigners, and must be sent back as well.
All slopes are slippery, are they not?
Shut up, Corvinus.
“I think the vast majority of private businesses would not want Nazi cosplaying media whores as members, at least not publicly known members.”
Regardless of your views of him, Richard Spencer is not a “Nazi”. A little more precision in speech and writing would be nice. You immediately reduce your own credibility with the name-calling. Nazi, Fascist, Racist…blah blah….it is a lazy way of saying “shut up”.
You nailed it.
Haven’t we already been through this?
Easily enough done.
*adds “rw95” to list of ignored commenters*
We were equal in the eyes of our Creator when we were created. After that, we’re on our own. With a little help from our friends.
“That is because these issue polls are typically All Adults or Registered Voters. Actual voters tend to be older and more like to attend church.”
You’re ignoring (possibly knowingly and deliberately) the shy Tory effect.
Tiny Duck and Art Deco have both returned.
“Cultural Marxism is the instrument used for the enforcement of globalism by the AngloZionist/NeoCon/Corporate-Banking olgarchy/Internatuional Jew.”
Corrected for accuracy –> Cultural Marxism is a made up term created by the Coalition of the Right Fringe groups to characterize a group of people who are independent thinkers on a wide range of social issues.
The name of that worthless fish wrap is National Review; it is NOT “The National Review”;
Ok. What about Western Marxism, is that a made up term, as well?
You do realize the terms Cultural Marxism, Western Marxism, and the New Left are virtually interchangeable, don’t you:
You truly lack the ability to understand context. That is other than surprising.
This was your original statement:
This was my response:
And your rebuttal is I got the context wrong?
I thought the “context” is a rather simple one – i.e., Cultural Marxism is a made up term, it’s a conspiracy theory propagated by the Alt-right? Right?
Then I come along and point out that there are several other lesser known terms, like Western Marxism/The New Left, that are interchangeable with Cultural Marxism that have not been disparaged as conspiracy theories. That these theories, like Cultural Marxism, have as their core element the work of the Frankfurt School:
So, in light of this information, do you maintain that terms such as Western Marxism, The New Left (terms interchangeable with Cultural Marxism) are made up?
Horseshit. That language refers to equality in an abstract, legal sense.
Nothing for me to add to this, Mr. Gottfried. You’ve said it all.
C Christine Fair is the professor who provoked the conflict that resulted in revocation of Spencer’s membership at the gym in Alexandria.
In addition to her teaching gig at Georgetown, Fair is:
Senior Political Scientist, RAND Corporation
Senior Research Associate, Center for Conflict Analysis and Prevention, U.S. Institute of Peace
Program Officer, South Asia, U.S. Institute of Peace
If it’s not too inconvenient for Spencer, he might take his exercise at the Alexandria YMCA; it is only 2 miles from Old Town Sport & Health. The Alexandria Y is adjacent to the ball field where someone shot U S Congressman Scalice. In view of the outpouring of “can’t we all just get along-ery” gushing from Congress and the usual suspects, it’s likely the Alexandria YMCA will be pretty carefully guarded — one caller to C Span this morning suggested that a CIA sniper was on the scene yesterday, just to show how intent the US government is on keeping people safe at that location — and surely the Y will be eager to demonstrate its get-along bona fides.
Would Germar Rudolf, https://codoh.com/library/document/331/
Mark Weber of Institute for Historical Review (IHR)
and Jeff Gates
be welcome in your Open Forum/ online Alexandria Library?
Adolf Hitler benefitted from his own “Alexandria” in Viennese cafes and flophouses. He could read cheap pamphlets in them blaming the Jews for everything, and later applied his “learning”.
Cultural Marxism refers to The Frankfurt School’s critiques of The Culture Industry (a term they came up with).
They were specifically against propaganda and the manipulation of culture on an industrial scale. Here are some quotes which sum up what their critiques of mass-culture were about:
“The Culture Industry not so much adapts to the reactions of its customers as it counterfeits them.” -Adorno
“The ruthless unity in the culture industry is evidence of what will happen in politics. Marked differentiations such as those of A and B films, or of stories in magazines in different price ranges, depend not so much on subject matter as on classifying, organising, and labelling consumers. Something is provided for all so that none may escape”
“…this bloated pleasure apparatus adds no dignity to man’s lives. The idea of “fully exploiting” available technical resources and the facilities for aesthetic mass consumption is part of the economic system which refuses to exploit resources to abolish hunger.”
…of course nowadays there’s more BS out there about and how they were “conspiring to destroy western civilization” than there is good info about their (anti-capitalist and anti-fascist) critiques.
I suggest reading this Adorno chapter entitled “Enlightenment as mass deception” if you want to know more.
…I think they believed that capitalism, liberalism and fascism sort of went hand in hand in a weird way. They saw Hitler’s rise to power and it sort of messed with their heads.
Mind you, they also critiqued Soviet Marxism (for the US state department):
…and were involved with the de-nazification of Germany:
What facts are in cultural Marxism? Is there any verifiable truth or just propaganda?
If no truths, then why are people still writing volumes about dead issues?
München, bad typist.
Never was, and is not now, a universal statement.
“All” means all English subjects. “Men” means exactly that.
It was about their rights as Adult Male English subjects. The Colonists were getting short-changed.
So they picked up guns and killed the King’s enforcers.
The Founders did not play games.
You are deranged.
In what way is “A private bus line” a monopoly?
What is the major problem you have with Spencer? And,for the record:
What do you make of the community-based welfare stealing holocaust fomented by the hideous slobs of the Jewish community in Lakewood,N.J?
Well, interesting, but…
A simpler explanation is this: the rich and powerful are doing what they always do, playing divide-and-conquer amongst the working classes. All this focus on LGBT ‘rights’ and ignoring economic rights is by design. We are to be stirred up and distracted by issues the rich don’t give a fig about while the big money drains the rest of us dry.
Amen about embedded videos! I don’t even see them most of the time, having plug-ins disabled.
The VDARE links are a double-edged sword: interesting and informative but distracting too.
They were apostate Jews; Cultural Marxism (or whatever one wants to call the brand of radicalism under discussion here) is anathema to Judaism. To simply have enough accuracy and honesty to acknowledge that much should not require having any love for Judaism or Jews.
Yes, that seems rather manifest to me. (Along with “LGBTQ” worship– see below.) John Derbyshire and others have spoken of it.
I have also observed that “anti-racist” pieties would appear, with but few possible exceptions, to be, by necessity utterly sanctimonious and hypocritical. For almost invariably, Goodwhites reveal through their choices of where to live, where to send their children to school, who to socialize with, etc., that they do not really believe in and certainly do not practice, at least much of what they preach.
Other than the point I made initially, I don’t know that I would dispute or disagree with anything that you wrote. But you have focused entirely on the racial aspects of the plague,
What about “stalwart conservatives” paying obeisance to tenets of buggery worship and the so-called “LGBTQ” movement/ Buggery Brigades? The article cited a number of cases of just that. Did you read it?
Also, I would contend that merely using the word “racism” without putting it in quotation marks or otherwise making it clear that one is not conceding its legitimacy, is already conceding victory to the “anti-racists” and SJWs. And certainly, to respond to charges of “racism” by denying that one is guilty of them, is to effectively concede their legitimacy. I cringe when I see people do this. The one who sets the terms of the discourse, who controls the language, has already won.
I have several ways in which I respond to charges of “racism”, one or more of which I will choose depending upon circumstances and context. I not only challenge the legitimacy the the charge itself but also, when given the right opportunity, will challenge the one using the term to define it, specifically, in the context it is being used.
Here is a response that I recently prepared for an insufferably arrogant and self-righteous SJW who infests another site that I frequent:
I have and will often make a statement such as the following,
I may then to go on to state that I consider it reprehensible to wish harm upon, and certainly to /do/ harm upon, anyone merely for any of the aforesaid reasons.
Most actual leftists as opposed to “liberals” (or cultural Marxists) say very much the same thing about the Beltway Left. Everyones fighting a rancid center that exists to protect a technocratic elite that controls the two loci of modern power: the intelligence collection apparat and the money creation system.
Reading through much of the commentary about the Frankfurt School, I’ve become curious about the links between that group and the Rhodes-Milner/Atlanticist network which has given us “Fabian Socialism”. The Tavistock Institute seems to be one name that comes up in association with both of these social engineering groups. The mad science practiced there upon impoverished children ought to cause easily as much revulsion as the crimes laid at the feet of “Nazi Doctors”.
Perhaps the Atlanticists celebrated by Prof Quigley found the Frankfurt School a useful way to insinuate phony “Marxists” into American academia?