This is 1984 in action folks

Derivative is right, current social justice theory has about as much relation to critical theory as Posadism does to Marxism.

...

For the longest time they didn't even "know" what Cultural Marxism was. They seemed to think it was about anti-racism and pro-primitive cultural relativitystuff. When I pointed out that Marx was a racist and his writing objectively called western civilization superior, they said the ideology changed. they were completely incapable of seperating it from it's judeobolshevik roots into something presentable to anyone who isn't already a Nazi.

Sometime later they settled on the "Frankfurt school" as the embodiment of Cultural Marxism, which still doesn't make any sense, but atleast had a wikipedia page they could link to.

T B H fam if you knew anything about critical theory youd know that it was co-opted by German academics in the 70s and perverted by the anti-american interests that were hip in those days

Hi Langley!

Who cares what the exact definition is. Adorno is much an exception anyway so why keep bringing him up. Are you saying Marcuse's "repressive tolerance" has no bearing on our current situation?

Does not contradict what I said.

my gott

so youre implying German academics in the west were KGB shills or what

Ok

Well, it demonstrates how critical theory and SJW 'theory' have nothing to do with one another?

More at 11

It was and is utilized in different forms by different interests at different times for different purposes. Were West German academics in the 1970's often sympathetic to their neighbors in the East? Yes.

please just go back to Holla Forums

Are you being serious?

What source?

source?

Hang on I'll compile a reading list on Active Measures. This link here is more tenuous, admittedly. But the KGB had an interest in pushing anything that challenged US and liberal hegemony. They also agitated on behalf of anti-government right in the US, for example.

...

'revolutionary minorities' is about vanguardism, nothing to do with social issues, it's got nothing to do with social justice. They're obsessed with tolerance, whereas Marcuse calls tolerance meaningless (granted he meant it in terms of tolerance to Marxists). It's simply a statement on how bourgeois cultural concepts like freedom of speech for those with the deepest pockets inhibit class consciousness. Other than a criticism of free speech it has no relation to social justice, and you could just as easily relate SJWs to fascist theory.

Actually I'm going to make an effort post on this with reading materials so I'll come back to another thread becasue I'm sick of these same trivial arguments and I gotta do some other stuff now, later haters

I believe he spoke about both, but I will come back to this.

I do.

I will say this: What you don't understand is the smarter rightist have a lot more sophisticated arguments than you give them credit for. The thing is they don't want to argue with you openly. They'd much prefer to debate among themselves and puppeteer their dumb cultural shock troops, who are given dumbed down distilled versions. Their rank and file are the ones who breeze over here with "leftypol btfo posts" and shitpost all day on pol. Why would they come here to debate with you? They despise you. I'm just forcing you to treat these claims with some measure of intellectual honesty, as I believe the truth comes before ideology, and misunderstanding your opponents is the first step to losing (and if you don't think the left's been in serious trouble for a long time now, you're deluded.)

the left's problem is not the right but the left itself tbh

You commies are too far gone.

Just calling them what they call themselves

The left is a product of capitalism just as the right is. Get that through your skulls, realize everything political threads through capital, even your ivory towers, then start to realize why the left is in permanent fragmentation and crisis.

Don't see the difference tbh. If the fruits of the first (academic) usage are critical theory, country hegemony and cultural studies then the two definitions are just two ways of saying the same thing, given the very premise of counter hegemony/critical theory is to attack aspects of the normative culture.

Yeah the left refuses to see itself as embedded in the structure, a product of, and an agent in the structure. So the bourgeoisie is not a conspiracy theory it's just a class, but their direct program of cultural war is just a conspiracy theory, as if anyone with a brain who criticizes it believes in a comically stupid moustach twirling hush hush overt conspiracy, rather than something more akin to their own structural critiques.

Read zizek

...

Arguing about cultural marxism with a right-winger is like arguing with a religious person.

The more you know about the topic and the more you force them to extrapolate the more abstract the conspiracy will get.

Cultural Marxism is just a method used to achieve revolution, nothing more.

It was born as a result of a desire to try to archive a socialist revolution after previous methods from Leninism to Maoism (if anyone has and could post that flowchart, that would be great) failed. The goal to distablise and destroy capitalist society by fueling and promoting idpol and then rebuilding into a Marxist society.

In the end, what was supposed to happen is the useful idiot idpoling bourgeois "leftist revolutionaries" would get shot by the true revolutionaries. Unfortunately what ended up happening is the whole revolution getting hijacked, losing its way, and leftism becoming a bunch of milquetoast socdems with social justice theories that are completely off the mark when it comes to the core of Marxism. They're still destructive to society for sure but they truly believe their social justice idpol idiocy instead of using it to collapse capitalism and achieve a true worker's revolution.

In the end, at least there goal was in the right place, even if their methods weren't.

They do. You can't deny this.

So you're familiar with Rothbard then?

Cultural Marxism is the project of counter-hegemony to transform liberal society under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in its cultural centers in the West after they failed to fall to the global proletarian revolution after Russia. This was their explicit project, to socialize the proletariat so they were capable of making the revolution (reminder that Russia and China were agrarian, not proletarian countries, and did not have strong Protestant values of individualism already strongly culturally valued), and has informed generations of students who then went on to become faculty, staff, or cultural architects having internalized their learnings. This has had subtle, slow, but noticeable overall effects on Western society, culminating in SJW culture which the bourgeoisie and counterintelligence have jumped on as it is perfect for fostering class collaboration and disunfiying the working class. Can you deny this?

Maoism came after the Frankfurt School by decades.

And no where did the Frankfurt School argue this. Probably one of the most common criticisms against the Frankfurt by leftists was their total lack of interest in any kind of praxis. Look at Adorno who was far more invested in wallowing at how awful and degenerate capitalism had made our culture.

You're either blindly repeating memes on a topic you have not actually investigated (i.e. actually reading anything put out by any member of the Frankfurt School) or you're lying.

source

Even so, you can't just blame it all on Marxists. It is literally the degenerate bourgeois doing those things. Only the bourgeois benefits under "multiculturalism" and other ilk.

Almost all big commercial media in the EU and USA for example are the property of only a few international corporations, which are supporting multicultural propaganda.

I ask that you murder the bourgeois and not Marxists. You can kill the SJWs or whatever because they ruin everything but not Marxists who only have the interests of the exploited workers by what you call Mr. Shekelberg majority shareholder and CEO of Degenerate media inc.

Read their books, and the books they inspired, dumbass. What do you think the profusion of X studies courses is motivated by?

We know.

Is something not marxist when it becomes so successful that corporate media embraces it?

Does that mean that Zizek is no longer a marxist because he appears in corporate media?

Where did I mention the Frankfurt School? Not even once. I was merely explaining why it really was and it is. There's no intricate theories, it was just a method that transpired after the revolutionary movement of 1968 failed us.

Zizek isn't really Marxist so much as his own man, to be honest. He rejects everything, every single other Marxist ideology, even Marx himself and at most borrows some core goals from him which are common to some other non-Marxist ideologies as well. If anything, we should follow Zizekism so people don't get confused or at least we don't get lumped in with the modern "Marxists".

You're missing the point.

If you, a true marxist, were to be embraced by bourgie mass media, would that mean that you are no a longer marxist?

Is marxism no longer a signifier when it loses it's underdog position?

Why would SJW "progressive" culture emerge organically under the epicenter of global capital, the heart of the bourgeois dictatorship? Riddle me that, so-called actual Marxists? It's neither good nor bad, progressivism has acheived some good things as well, it's just something that must be accounted for, as it happened. It's not an explicit conspiracy, but opportunists will bend anything useful to them to their own purposes as well.

The few time he appears, they mock and ridicule him.

This is very completely different to the attitude they have towards multiculturalism, which they support wholeheartedly en force which makes sense because they benefit from it so much. The bourgeois lust for cheap labour and slaves is insatiable.

Which books? Which are the cultural marxist books that, in your words, explicitly stated their project was to overthrow capitalism through weaponised trannies, idpol etc

Pic related

In a sense, yes. A Marxist should always be skeptical of why on earth they would be supported by the media and if they are they might not be very Marxist at all after all because somehow your ideals align and benefit the bourgeois someway and that's unacceptable. Look at the way they treated OWS for example before it was destroyed by idpol that they only started parading after that fact. That's how it you know it was real at first and the second isn't.

Doesn't deserve a response.

But I never mentioned any books. Are you confusing me with another poster?

which books user

Here's a starter:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony

Not me.

I only posted this

Not at all. He isn't paraded around like a curiosity either.

This isn't true as a rule. Take Germany for example, a corporatist country that is the most bourgie controlled of all of Europe, with the opinions of the bourgies being expressed through foundations. The most prominent of those foundations, the Bertelsmann foundation, is a strong supporter of the refugee inflow even though the refugee inflow has been a net loss for Germany and only a couple of hundred refugees found work in Germany's corporations.

You think from principle, not from observation.

This assumes that media and newspaper bosses and editors are automatons who only think in game theory. According to such class determinism, marx and engels themselves should have been anti-marxists.

If you're this disingenuous, ignorant, or stupid, go fuck yourself.

thats because zizek is the trump of philosophy

Does this mean Trump is the Zizek of world leaders?

They wholeheartedly believe it will eventually benefit them, because it does. They expect a payoff in years if you've read any of the pro refugee articles in corporate media. The whole argument around letting them in revolves around it increasing their GDP, which it will, but ignore the fact it will make life worse for the average prole overall as well because they are the only ones who must personally deal with the brunt of them.

Didn't you read when Marx said over and over again capitalism will end when we make more black people and white women CEO's of fortune 500 companies?

Adorno made it crystal clear the struggle of the trans people will be the gateway to seizing the means of production. I mean it's clear as day.

It's inherent that Diamat will only come about after all the brocialists have been purged. I believe both Engels and Trotsky belabored this point in their works.

Wrong.

Getting predictable. It's like you know it's true you're just scared if people find out they'll defund your precious universities. It's already happening, it's called neoliberalism. The thing you claim to hate.

Hilarious my man, thanks.

It doesn't. The Somalians who came in the 90's haven't delivered a profit yet, and neither have the Eritreans or the Afghans, not even the Turks, Moroccans and Algerians who came in the 60's have. If the whole argument was about raising GDP, then those of whom it is obvious they will be a net loss would be refused, so no Somalians or Afghans.

The opposite is true, the European countries with high welfare, high taxation and lenient sentencing attract the worst of the immigrants, for the simple reason that it is in the interest of criminal migrants, I've even heard immigrants themselves complain about this. The refugee policies of countries like Germany and Sweden therefor directly contradict economic interests.

If your logic was correct, it would also lead to the question why not every capitalist country is letting in massive numbers of refugees.

Okay.

I have read some Gramsci. The "Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci".

He does not say anything remotely close to what you're arguing. He was primarily concerned with bourgeois cultural hegemony and how they maintain it. At most he encouraged leftists forming their own culture, independent (i.e. not through the infiltration) of bourgeois culture.

He is also not that influencial a figure and seldom read by fucking anyone.

Honest question. Have you read Gramsci or are you just pretending you know about a topic on an anonymous image board. If you are I at least hope you're being paid for your subversive efforts.

idpol explicitly rejects marxism though. a fucking reformist socdem was rejected as being a "class reductionist" and a liberal bourgeois warmongering politician was held up as the true """"progressive""""" candidate.

how out of touch can you fucking be man.

Nice debunking

No, it adds to it, using it's own logic. There's always more oppressions, it's a logical consequence of marxisms incremental nature.

I'm aware of that, if you followed the thread. It has been seized on by bourgeoisie and state interests. That doesn't change the fact that the motivations initially came from a Marxist school of thought, but who cares? That's not even important. The Marxist angle just explains much of the initial impetus: reform the culture and the Western arch-liberal proletariat will become socialized enough to be amenable to revolution.

To the two-four people arguing in this thread, you're both right. It's not just 80+ years prior and '68 but both. Here's what happened.

Europe 1920’s:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1917–23

Paris, 1968:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_of_1968
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1968_events_in_France

>On the 30th May, 1968, over 400,000 citizens protested AGAINST the red radicals, the conservatives won in the elections.

Young Marxists at the time distanced themselves from the old communists (what Holla Forums is) and The New Left (what redditumblr is) was born.

For the New Leftists in the the West there was a great barrier…
…That old Christian, conservative and patriotic society had no sympathy with them.

So, the New Leftists decided to disrupt and break this society first:

This isn't theorizing or analysing user. This is speculation and conspiracy. Give me concrete facts to work with here.

You say they explicitly state this is their goal I say where. You say read their books. I say read which ones. You imply I haven't heard of Gramsci. I say I've read some Gramsci.

You're giving me nothing.

Are you implying it doesn't?

Modern "progressive" politics just demonstrates the total dissolution and commodification of """radical""" politics into an entirely toothless arm of capital. Pic related.

Well that or a dumbass peddling a conspiracy about books he's never read. Which one do you want to be.

Here is where I disagree. Cultural marxism isn't a plot designed to bring communism through other means, it's simply the ideological evolution of marxism from premises that were present from the start.

Cultural Marxism is an accurate description of muh privilege-obsessed idpolers the way that social Darwinism is an accurate description of Nazis.

Even a basic understanding of materialism would improve right-wing analysis.

Even though I've explaining how it's not a really conspiracy. Like I said earlier, but probably don't know it was me, I'm too lazy right now to compile a reading list and juicy quotes, but the wiki page on "cultural hegemony" is a good starter. I'll effortpost with substantive evidence at some point.

That's precisely what you do with capitalism.

Oh and btw I'm one of the arguers in this thread, and I consider myself a Marxist, and socially progressive to an extent. I don't really mind that it's happened to a large degree, and think it's probably net positive, it's gone batshit now though.

No, no it isn't. Even in the goddamn communist manifesto it's explicitly spelled out even the bourgeoisie, rather than all being nefarious masterminds orchestrating the oppression of the proletariat, are on the contrary a slave to logic of capital.

Like I said, precisely.

I have no idea how that happened. *Counter hegemony.

Where has anyone said this is the result of nefarious masterminds plotting monolithically, rather than the sum of many factors averaging out over time to create a (partially self-reinforcing) trend? This is a structural, cultural critique, I might suggest your mind recoils at the implications of it though, as you are locked into your left/right paradigmatic way of thinking and cannot accept any argument that seems like it originated from a political opponent to contain any merit.

DO you honestly think this is a good, smart or funny answer? If you're being sincere that Zizek counters user's point then how about you reiterate for the class?

samefag

_____read______________zizek_________

Only 80% of them were me. Posting a lot doesn't mean samefagging. Turn on ID's if you don't like it, I'm too lazy to put a flag on or some shit whenever I'm in a posting frenzy

And here's the beauty of the conspiracy. When pushed you'll simply reshape it to be more abstract. "Judeo-Bolsheviks are trying to destroy western society" becomes "oh i'm just trying to note some social trends" all the while still trying to peddle it as the result of Marxists, communists and jews.

Beautiful.

If this were true, it'd debunk all politics. Nope, I've consistently argued it's not "Judeo-Bolshevism" 2.0. But you cannot honestly admit what I've argued, and all I was doing ITT is explaining what the argument actually is. You are the one being perennially evasive.

You're operating on another level man because that is in no way comparable.

but haha leftists btfo amirite?

Yes, like I said you've tried to pass it off under the guise of "noting some social trends" all the while still citing the theory of "cultural marxism" as a correct analysis from the right.

Trying pass it off as some piss poor general explanation of some vague social trends and all the while still crediting the judeo-bolshevik conspiracy. Having your cake and eating it too.

What have I avoided user.

The argument made, as explained. You just stereotyped and strawmanned, as you appear to have presupposed its illegitimacy. You seem also awfully fixated on the Jewish angle, which I never mentioned.

Why isn't it comparable?

You take capitalist conspiracies to a more abstract level to do away with the need for plots as an explanation.

So, if I'm getting what you're saying right, both in this post and throughout the thread, guldural margsism is a so to speak organic porky plot?

No idea what this is supposed to mean. But probably not. In anycase, you have shown yourself to be fundamentally incapable of intellectual honesty, and I'm moving on.

It's inherent to the conspiracy user.

Like I said. You're trying to have your cake an eat it to.

Also Not me. I'm not samefagging. Unlike you.

mate I'm not the guy you were arguing with, it should have been clear since I replied to your first post.

What I meant is that "cultural Marxism" is just the natural outcome of the state of affairs, perpetuated by the bourgeoisie hegemony to break worker unity.

No, this is you trying to tout a worthless vanilla "observation" as the true theory of "cultural marxism" while still desperately trying to pin it to marxists and dishonestly avoid the judeo-bolshevik nonsense.

Which is what you have been pretending to do user.

Wasn't Zizek booted from his university for not being Marxist enough?

and those agents being?

reminder that intersucctionality is our enemy and it needs to crash before we can begin to talk about class politics.

Okay, this is stupid. Here:

archive.is/YzkIS

Anyone who wishes to criticize the contents of this article based on its merits or lack thereof is welcome to do so.

Doesn't change the fact that nothing in its contents could be considered a conspiracy theory (except one explanatory paragraph at the end), arguing against it with examples of the worst nutjobs using the term is so obviously fallacious that it can be dismissed outright, and the persistence in removing its contents from the "sum of human knowledge" or deny the existence of its subject is, in fact, evocative of 1984.

There, I said it.

This is ridiculous! Who is deleting the fucking posts? The log show nothing.

Absolute autist mod deleted all my posts in this thread, thus proving my argument was so good he got scared of it, even though it was from a non-racist and Marxist critical perspective. QED

I for one am shaking in my boots. You showed how identity politics somehow came from seizing the memes of production.

You know except showing that.

Easy for you to say now that the posts are gone. If the argument was bad, why delete the posts? If I was samefagging and trolling why not ban me?

kek

Me again (turn on thread ID's)
Hrmmm, your alternative hypothesis seems unlikely.

wut

Posts on leftypol have randomly generated expiration dates. If its timer reaches 0, it gets automatically deleted. This is standard communist protocol.

Can anyone actually defend deleting the posts except "fugg this argument SEEMS too good, might convince some ignorant proles who havent even read borgida, even though my gut tells me it's just friggin WRONG as heck, shit, panic, better delete them, then act smug about it actually being bad after all?"

Proof you are assmad liberal larpers:

He's kind of correct. It was originally used as an insult lobbed at the critical theorist for not being materialist enough.

Mods shouldn't of deleted it, but from the looks at it you were doing the "it originates in critical theory", not citing critical theory, and then going on to call this "Cultural Marxism".

Yes I can. They did not explain that cultural marxism originated as an insult lobbed at critical theorist, and the fact that it's a repurposed Nazi meme in the last paragraph. Cultural Marxism has never been used as a name for critical theory except when used as an insult.

But yeah I can: what works did you cite in support of your thesis that idpol adds, or is rooted in philosophy, specifically Marxist philosophy?

Why would I continue the discussion when an assmad autist is going to delete it again if it doesn't massage their ideological prostate?

Cultural Marxism is like social Darwinism. It's based off a misunderstanding of the theory posed in the first place.

This argument is astonishingly bad.

Literally

Idpol tier non-arguments justifying a mod's hissyfit. Not going to respond to misremembered caricature's of my argument, I consider the censorship proof positive that there was something to my (hypothetical) argument until you can demonstrate otherwise.

I'm going to posit you were shitposting, I just want to know: did you cite any of the critical theorist directly. Did you quote them?

I haven't seen a bigger whiner in all my time on these boards holy shit. I want to ban you, but only because i know it will send you into a shit flinging autistic rage in real life.

Not whining, gloating. Ban me if your emotions tell you to.

"Cultural Marxism" is quite literally, the modern reincarnation of the Nazi meme. There is nothing more to it.

I don't know what a fallacy is: the post.

When did I say spontaneously? On the contrary, it was promulgated by the likes of people such as yourself. Why don't you answer my question: did you ever cite a specific quote, or book + passage by the critical theorist to support your conclusions? It's yes or no question. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory

Encapsulates exactly how the term is used, and in what context - to refer to a conspiracy theory.

I said I'd come back with quotes later, and that my purpose was to present the argument in its form from the perspective of someone who actually knows and reads anything outside of wikipedia, rationalwiki, reddit and the like. None of you will listen to it though, because your minds are permanently closed to anything potentially triggering to your sacred cows, as evidenced most clearly here, and you demand extensive breakdowns and substantive evidence that you otherwise do not require from almost all other posters here who talk entirely out of their recta. None of you even understand Marx yet are running yourself in circles to distance Frankfurt school from Marxism, because it's the wrong flavor, unlike metaphysical winners like DiaMat. Breddy gud

It IS a conspiracy theory. Wikipedia was right to overt it to the conspiracy theory. that is exactly what it's popular usage refers to.
Kill yourself, it's because people who've actually read the Frankfurt school realize that the right wing usage of it is nonsense that we dismiss you as nonsensical when you try to promulgate it. Now I see, why your post were deleted, you make unsubstantiated claims and then try and play logic games to justify your perpetual shitposting. I'm not sure if we should ban you or keep you around, you're a good laugh even if you are incessant and childish.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with casual sex, homosexuality or modern art.

Why do you think Capitalism is called Capitalism? Because it's devoid of Capital? Or because it is built on it?

Even though I spoke about critical theory, Gramscian counter-hegemony, and later adaptations and offshoots, rather than "muh Adorno"! Stay mad, you bunch of liberal frauds.

Capitalism is doing all of that. It is actually quite stunning really. The same companies that were promoting the stifling conformity of the 1950s and 60s are now coming out in support of gay shit and free love.

Have you read a single text from the Frankfurt school? It's all available online, you can find it in your library. Don't even bother to answer.

No, it's wrong to have an article on wikipedia that redirects to a cultural marxism page if the popular usage is as a conspiracy.
Logic games implies you doing shit like "argumentum conspiracy theory", "problematic cuck!" to get around the fact the assertions you're providing without evidence are being dismissed without evidence.

So when Zizek is talking about Garfield, do you go, uhm, actually Garfield never even said he hates Mondays, source???

Yes, the real life PostModern Bolsheviks from the early 20th century are pushing Art Exhibitions in San Fransisco, to the bemused cry of the statue of liberty, hiding under a manhole

Yep, Adorno, Marcuse, Habermas, Horkeheimer, and Benjamin. Related scholars like Baez and Gramsci. It's been a while though, my memory's a little rusty so I didn't have a back catalog of gotcha quotes.

There is no Capitalist "conspiracy", only people maintaining the material relationships of Capitalism. Was there a serf conspiracy? Or a slave one? No, there was serfdom and slavery.

Am I the only one who thinks Adorno is kind of sexy?

Hi actual Cultural Marxist exposing Cultural Marxsm here. To clarify, this is not completely accurate. While the material basis is dominant, there are ALSO overt conspriacies to maintain and advance capitalism, the bourgeoisie already tend to be class conscious and organized, that's one of the problems. The entire history of the CIA is just one example. Just as there were conspiracies to maintain chattel slavery in the US, the so-called Slave Power in the South. Power without transparency is inherently conspirational.

I'm pretty sure you complaining about being called a racist and being opressed by SJWs is marxism. It's only one step from "rich people are being mean to us working class" to "the jews are oppressing us whites in the most long-term and secretive conspiracy in human history"
you marxist

Do you honestly not realize how tremendously stupid this ad populum argument is?

Maybe, I don't know, wikipedia should redirect "communism" to "totalitarianism". Or "anarchy" to "chaos". This is exactly what their popular usage refers to, after all.

Good

even tho the nazis were gigantic faggots who loved fucking cross dressing young men and worshipped naked men in art and were enamored with young male bodies and were anti-christian

there is no school of thought that exists called cultural marxism it doesn't fucking exist. what exists were people who were not marxists who wanted marxist analysis to be used in the social sciences and social spheres. that's it

That's not a law of logic at all, its a rule of thumb and since there is no evidence justifying it according to its own rules it can be refuted using its own statement

hitchens razor is the autistic circular reasoning of someone who feels their presuppositions about reality are preemptively justified by way of appeals to authority and muh REASON (which again isn't justifiable at all, one man's reason is another man's irrational nonsense)

Its time stop denying scholars like Gramsci and socialist circle around Frankfurt school exists.
This embarrassing really.
BOOKS ARE THERE, POSTMODERN FEMINISTS HAVE PROMOTED THESE IDEAS.

i would say kys but honestly you faggots are way funnier alive and screaming into the abyss

CULTURAL HEGEMONY and ideas around it, are included in the current theories.

Listen you dumb stupid snow nigger

None of us advocate idpol

None of us care about BLM or oppression olympics

None of us want to ban guns

Most of us have no desire to exterminate the huwhyte race

Fuck off