We need to do more to end the lie of cultural marxism

Former libertarian-centrist here. Just wanting to say that I was irrationally scared of Marx and his teachings because of all the useful idiots spreading da evil marxist frankfurt school meme everywhere.
Here are some good videos about them.
hbomerguy's video is what made me realize this was all stupid. (yes i'm a retard)

Other urls found in this thread:

pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina Folder/kell24.htm


I blame the faggot foucault

also the sad thing is the Marx and Engels where more cultured than 90% of the right wing twats.

A lot of people are scared of our movement because of stupid conspiracies. You're right OP, we should always debunk them.

that's ironic, considering Foucault was a self styled 'classical liberal' and admirer of Hayek.

I agree

b-but they were trying to destroy the white race

it's been debunked a million times, but we don't own youtube and the media like the right does

only recently found left youtube and it's great. Although their videos are usually longer than right youtubers'.
Might be good to work on short videos for people with small attention spans.

I dunno, I was converted precisely because people kept parroting this obviously-propagandish phrase and it made me finally decide to go look up actual Marxism.

Cultural Marxism

Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

Erich Fromm, Judaism and the Frankfurt School
pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina Folder/kell24.htm

Frankfurt School

The Frankfurt School: Conspiracy to Corrupt

Frankfurt School of Social Research

The Frankfurt School & Cultural Marxism

The Frankfurt School of Social Research and the Pathologization of Gentile Group Allegiances

Frankfurt School - Satanic Judaism in Action

Freud, the Frankfurt School and the Kabbalah

The History of Political Correctness

How a Handfull of Marxist Jews Turned Western and U.S. Culture Upside Down

The Jewish Frankfurt School and the End of Western Civilization

The New Dark Age: The Frankfurt School and "Political Correctness"

Who Stole Our Culture?

I rather not.


What is this even supposed to mean? I imagine even if the creator explained their intentions to me it would still be completely retarded.

that would require people to not associate marxism with satan and actually give a fuck about what's fact and what's not
even if the first condition was met the second will never be

But there's a connection, no?
I mean, Marxism started the critical theory school, which is highly influential to sjw studies. Or i am wrong?

Holla Forums has been EXPOSED as the kike communist shills they are!

Why would we do this?
They keep telling themselves we are all such-and-such a thing and get bold, then get their shit pushed in when they fight us.
They keep being surprised and shocked when we don't do as they expect us to.
They are our mortal fucking enemy, don't you see the value in it to let him believe whatever bullshit he wants and remain consistently unpredictable as targets?

these dense tinfoil stormfags are so ignorant it's barely conceivable for me

Also bankers on the top, it's like some abstract combination of actual marxism and antisemitic nazi shenanigans what de fug

I know the last days are being very good to you, but you may be asking for a miracle here. Can't you just pick someone who doesn't ooze with ideology?

Well, Frankfurt School is a jewish product, and a lot of us are in a state of denial or suspicious dodging.


Man, I have argued a lot of times against it, repeating the same arguments several times, and I always won the discussion for whatever it was worth, but I've never seen one of them admit to their mistake or change their opinion. They keep coming back to the same old propaganda. I have come to the conclusion that debunking reactionary bullshit is not only difficult because it takes much more time and effort to debunk bullshit than to create it. It's also pointless, because they just plain don't care about dialectics. You can't reason with people who abandoned reason. Fascists and their generic clones come to a conclusion with their guts, then use their diminutive brains to come up with sophistry, lies and even delusions to defend it. The few of them who are both smart and sane know full well they're spreading bullshit, but they don't care because that's what reactionaries do.



Good thing it's not the nazi you are arguing with you need to convince. It's everyone else that sees the argument.

emphasise the shared interests of the working class against capitalism, avoid virtue signalling and identity politics. paint rightism and fascism as lies/divisive tactics perpetuated by the ruling classes. I've found this strategy works quite well even with right leaning edgelords and fence sitters.

if an alt right faggot starts claiming the left is about hating/attacking whites, don't play into their game. turn the tables on them, it is the right that is being manipulated by the ruling classes. nazis tend to become outright baffled when you do this, as their whole rhetorical strategy relies on painting the left as tumblr sjw strawmen. talk about the importance of real, local sustainable community vs. the imagined community of 'race'. Don't bother defending liberals. highlight the fact the left is against liberalism.

I guess that arguing online sort of lacks that incentive of seeing the crowd.

It has always amazed me how they are able to make the absurd cognative leap necessary to conflate a bunch of atheists who seek the destruction of capital with religious bankers. It is a hilarious absurdity.

it's not about religion, it's about jews being scary alien scapegoats that feel biologically compelled to destroy the white race. Nazism is a high capitalist paranoid fantasy, a malignant counterpart to David Icke's reptoid narrative. In a way it is a natural and understandable, almost instinctive reaction to accelerated deterritorialisation brought on by capitalism.

It's actually a fairly simple argument when you trim away the strawmen/kooks and ideological bias (which is to be expected when, as an identity, you are aligned with the concepts/beliefs the Western Marxists espouse). You would obviously expect a neo-conservative to be blind to a lack of substantive evidence justifying an invasion into foreign land or support for some crusade against global terrorism.
The 'kooks' and strawmen I referenced above being the whole "Jacob Schiff financed the Jews to x, y, z and you have feminism now which is why I can't get laid" or "Bush is actually a Marxist plant". It is very convenient to make gross leaps of logic and misrepresentation when it comes to framing a historical argument or to fixate on unsupported arguments steeped in some weird complex of 'everything is ___'. While it is true that Schiff did play an influential role alongside many Jews all across the globe, from a board member on the NAACP to (as the chairman of Kuhn, Loeb & Co.) an important financing agent for the Bolshevik movement (which he makes reference to here: query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B04EFDD143AE433A25753C2A9659C946696D6CF), alongside Israel Lazarevich Gelfand (through Hans Freiherr von Wangenheim). But he isn't the reason 'feminism' or 'anti-racism' exist, it is more nuanced than that.
The main argument is that critical theory exists (and is referenced/utilized as a lens of observation/analysis within the works of the Western Marxists who immigrated to the US), it is multi-faceted and observably applied to other social patterns/analysis as a school of thought, and that the founders were kicked out of Germany for two primary reasons.
To the first, it's obvious that the body of work, from 'the Authoritarian Personality' to 'Authority and the family', clearly exists. The main issue is how to interpret them and a centralized theme among them which has been applied further. That leads into the second point, which finds the answer in 'critical theory'. It's simply a cultural analysis as a means to solve the 'worker's revolution', by definition of its first usage/coinage. Examining the current social/cultural paradigms and coming to a conclusion from a Marxist lens. All 'Cultural Marxism' really 'notes' is how you can observe critical theory and its various derivatives, such as critical race theory, black feminism, gender studies, queer theory, and other forms of social criticisms (one famous example being the positivism dispute). The point isn't that 'these Marxists invented feminism'. It's simply observing the body of work and its purported goals as a derivative of critical theory/its methodology applied to cultural/societal trends (albeit with different goals). It's just pointing out that critical theory is a tool utilized by more than one revolutionary group instead of arguing out of a deliberately narrow historical mindset.
On the third, it's another historical fact that the members of the Frankfurt School were primarily Jewish and Marxist (although they fell out of favour with some Marxists for their interpretations, but that isn't the point I'm making here); this made them doubly unwelcome in the new German Reich, so they were forced to leave and settle in the US, where they operated as a 'think tank'.
It's only a 'conspiracy' if you assume it's some hidden and unpublished fact, which is not the case, and if you give credence to the kooks using the term incorrectly.

this is why you're losing

To add, just looking at one (as even the wiki describes him, "a leading scholar of critical race theory") example of a critical theorist (of the racial derivation, that is) like David Theo Goldberg, we can examine some of the main points raised while 'trimming the fat', like I said.
On the critical race theory page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

Same link, the 'key elements' category really drives home the point.

It goes on, but to dissociate critical theory and claim its analysis has only been used in one sense (i.e. not derived and further utilized as a tool that is fluid, used for cultural analysis) is not supported by any evidence.

Just like Darwinism can be applied to a hundred different things, so can Marxism.
Its straightforward and bland enough to fit a lot of issues, so people use it.

I don't get your issue, just say you are an economic Marxist or whatever.

'economic' marxism is the only marxism thats actually marxism, if you want to call adorno a marxist even tho he didnt even believe in the LTV or that capitalism exploited workers, you might as well call spinoza and hegel and aristotle 'proto marxists' or 'idealist marxists'. see how stupid that sounds? For that matter by their own logic the alt right is derived from post modernism(of nick land, etc) and therefore they are by their own logic cultural marxists. see how stupid that is?

plus darwininism can't be applied to many things its to explain evolution 'Social darwininism' is just a retarded attempt to map biology onto social issues, it doesn't work and its not darwinism


That's because they aren't "Marxists" (if by that you mean to equate Luxemburg with Adorno), there is a nuance when it comes to analyzing the viewpoints these individuals/groups held. They were referred to as "Western Marxists". If you ideologically disagree with their viewpoints because they weren't "true Marxists" like "__", that's fine, but you cannot dispute the terminology as it is apt considering the origin/influence on the school of thought.
Just because an individual is not perfectly aligned with a set of ideals doesn't mean that he cannot be aligned with such a platform. For example, you can support gay marriage but disagree with marijuana legalization, that will still make you pro-gay marriage (and, to an extent, in favour of the government letting marriage proceed without restriction). You just have to analyze the nuance, like the Western Marxist positions regarding various concepts/beliefs.
To the same point, the 'alt-right' is also a very broad term and there is some nuance that is dismissed. It can just as equally contain paleo-conservatives as it can neo-conservatives. You have to examine what specific viewpoints you're discussing and how they can relate to post-modernist schools of thought.
Social Darwinism isn't actually really just 'mapping biology onto social issues', that's an over-simplification. It's basically pointing out that societies can be dysgenic in what they promote/dismiss. Arbitrarily maintaining people with learning disabilities through means of taxpayer dollars (i.e. providing healthcare to them in order to allow for their survival) is a manipulation of the events as they would unfold without the aforementioned restriction (imposed on the taxpayer). Those traits are societally selected to survive, even if it is for one generation, even though without the lifeboat providing assistance, they would not be around for long. Welfare is another example. Any societal safety net or collective fund is allowing for the promotion of those who are disenfranchised instead of letting them fail. It's wrong to do so just as it was wrong to bail out the banks during financial crises: let them fail as they should. That's the position. If you let them fail, it will be for the best on a long-term time scale.

When you know Karl Marx called people jewish nigger and mexicans lazy and he said the religion of the jewish is money and you still have not see jews took over Marx ideas because you are to stupid.


Luxemburg actually was a marxist she belived in the LTV and died fighting in a communist revolution.
Furthermore the reason we are so triggered by this retarded everything i don't like is marxism meme is that rightist usually try to say not merely that the frankfurt school existed but that its part of some grand probably jewish conspiracy to degrade culture and the Hwhite race. Its to the fucking point where we're getting into debates with retarded rightists where they claim miley cyrus twerking her ass to degenerate Hwhite society = """Marxism""". Its fucking infuriating, none of this shit has anything to do with anything marx remotely wrote!
Adorno is just neohegelian trash and any connection he had with marx is tenuous at best. He rejected the enlightenment while marx/engels saw socialism as a fulfillment of liberal values where capitalism couldn't actually do it. He rejected the LTV, he rejected exploitation theory and thought capitalism was good for workers, and that its true crime was degrading authentic pre capitalist culture (which is basically an inversion of marx as well) Face it, if Holla Forums wasn't so obsessed with jerking off to the fact that he was an evol joo, they would realize that his ideas are actually proto fash and pretty far removed from 'marxism'. Richard Spencer is basically a fucking adornoist


Another inconsistent set of beliefs. Then the criteria include: dying in a revolution and believing in the LTV. That doesn't make somebody a Marxist. You do not have to be in unanimous decision with an ideology or set of beliefs/principles to believe in it, in part. You can believe in small government but also believe in large government intervention, that doesn't mean you can't be described as a small-government advocate when it comes to, for example, gay marriage but also described as a big-government advocate when it comes to things like marijuana. Those two things can be true at the same time because in reality, individual opinions and beliefs are inter-connected and exist on a spectrum, not mutually exclusive at all times.
You're missing the main point I just emphasized: the Western Marxists were not Marxist in the same sense that Luxemburg was a Marxist. Read the excerpts I linked here and the full page, there is a clear distinction that I made from the link itself:

You're also missing the three central points I made on the argument itself here:
It's not so much "Marxism" itself because I've already explained the school of thought known as Western Marxism and what it purports to examine/how it does so (i.e. conflating my assessment as equating the point to Marxism as a whole is a strawman). It's critical theory and its derivatives. That's the entire point and origin/influence I was referencing. Again, by definition, it isn't a conspiracy because it isn't some unpublished and hidden issue: it's clear as day and free for everyone to see. If by 'degrade', you mean promote concepts like reparation payments, black nationalism, white muh privilege, and so on, then yes, critical theoretical derivatives, such as critical race theory, purported by prominent scholars within the field (such as David Theo Goldberg) are, in part, influenced by Jews and 'degrading' the white race. The creation of the 'tool', as I call it, was overwhelmingly Jewish. That lies on the third point I made.
Can you provide me an example of such a statement, where somebody said that CM is Miley Cyrus twerking? What should be said is that gender studies, critical of traditional culture setting societal standards of male/female sexuality, has resulted in behaviors like Miley Cyrus being able to twerk on national television. It's not calling that 'Marxism', it's pointing out that Western Marxists developed the tool that is utilized to examine/analyze culture and extrapolate conclusions based on who/what is oppressing a group of people/by what means.

I know, I'm not saying it did. Unless you can show me where I referenced such a conclusion, it's just your implications run wild. Within the first paragraph, I made it clear that the 'kooks' making such weird comparisons ought to be dismissed upfront.
That doesn't mean he wasn't a Western Marxist. This assertion that schools of thought cannot be moulded by different time periods and influenced by different environments is preposterous. Neo-liberals are not equivalent to liberals, but that doesn't mean that, in part, neo-liberalism does not draw its origin/influence from the original liberal movements (for example, the principles of French liberalism). It's simply a remodelled movement with a different viewpoint with common ancestry to the starting point (in my example, liberalism).
This flies in the face of the conspiracy point you made above. By definition of a conspiracy, the average Joe like you or me would not even have the slightest clue that he was Jewish or what his motivations/beliefs were. That's the point of a conspiracy: that it's some grand scheme under the covers to rule over something/someone that the general public is kept in the dark about. The literature/its influences is public knowledge.
You mean 'proto fascist'? I thought you were sitting here talking about how remodelling a set of beliefs that take partial influence from an original set of beliefs was not possible, or that a set of beliefs could not evolve over time and adapt to a set of various climates/societal changes? Please explain, with proper citations with respect to the historical context, the difference/application of 'fascism' and 'proto-fascism'. In what way can you categorize Adorno as the precursor to the fascist movement (as a 'proto' fascist) if the movement predates him?

muh sjw idpol has nothing to do with western marxists or the frankfurt school and everything to do with for profit corporate 'diversity consultants' in post 60s USA.

Then that's not fucking Marxism. Yes it was a tool used by Marxists who let go of many core principles of Marxism but are still regarded as Marxists. That doesn't mean that they are literally the same as the academic "left". On the other hand, people like Gramsci and members of the Frankfurt school started a longer process of moving away from Marxism by focusing more on culture and thus the superstructure. This went so far later, the term Marxism itself was ditched and the whole base-superstructure relationship which is the basis of the Marxist and thus materialist view of society with people like Foucault who wanted to free our worldview from Hegel, which of course means Marx too. The postmodernists totally broke away from Marxism and did a great job of eradicating from academia, and they are the ones who are still defining it.
Let's say you have a 0,5 liter glass. You pour 0,1 liter vodka and 0,05 liter cola in it. Now you have a pretty thick vodka cola. Now you pour 6 liters of cola in the glass. Let me tell you one thing: I'm sure that now the drink has nothing to do with vodka.

I think you're missing the point I'm making. I'm not saying that it is "Marxism" in the sense that you are: it is an 'off-shoot', so to speak. Western Marxism has a "common ancestor" in Marxist ideology. If you are ideologically opposed to them, that is besides the point to the similarities, in terms of worker's plights (only dealing with it in different ways and approaching the issue from with different viewpoints than yours).
Sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't a branch of Marxist thought. For reference: britannica.com/topic/Marxism/Variants-of-Marxism

Never claimed such a thing.
Well, that's not honest. They didn't "move away" from it, they approached the issue at a different angle. Again, it is not uncommon for a set of beliefs to adapt with respect to dynamic environments/over time, and simply because you ideologically reject the revised set of beliefs does not mean that they are not influenced by some original movement.
Are you the same person who called Adorno a 'proto-fascist'? If so, respond to the point I made about your judgement on why you can call him a 'proto-fascist'.
In what way?
According to? If you mean that they are not Marxists like the individuals you agree with, then that's what I've been saying this entire time. Doesn't mean they don't constitute a revised variant of Marxism.
Do you understand how dilution works? You will still have 100 mL of vodka, so when you finish the 6.15 L of vodka/coke, you will still consume 100 mL, it will just be watered down and you'll have to go to the bathroom. A more apt analogy would be to compare the divide between paleo-conservatives and neo-conservatives. Both are still 'conservative' (in that they follow a conservative set of principles), they just disagree on how to reach common goals.

postmodern liberals are not commies, they are capitalists who have nothing close to the same goals as communism. They think Marx was another dead white male and his historical theories are eurocentric

I never called them Communist. Stop putting words in my mouth.
If you ideologically disagree with their revised approach and methodology, that's fine. It doesn't mean that Western Marxism isn't a variant of Marxism. I've already addressed the point on societal/cultural changes when approaching a new set of principles over time. I'm not calling neo-libs equivalent to libs, I'm examining the common ancestry in both viewpoints.

For example, on the same link I referenced above on Maoism:

It continues within the link above. Like I said before, the societal/cultural environment and context in which the principles are applied may have just cause to revise said beliefs in certain ways while still maintaining the analogous nature (with respect to the 'original set of beliefs'). Maoism isn't not a variant of Marxism just because you disagree with their revised application for the same reason that Western Marxism cannot be dismissed as a variant of Marxism.

That's great, I'm not berating Marx's ideas: they were. My point has already been stated, quite clearly if I might say.

Targeting hardened ideological opponents for conversion is a waste of time and resources.

I've demonstrated my arguments clearly and presented supporting evidence for the claims precisely because it's common knowledge. You're more than welcome to address what reasonable issues you have with the three main points I've raised. At a cursory glance, Duke's link also discusses the main issue I raised: the derivatives of political correctness and its usage as a tool first developed by Western Marxists.


Probably retarded idea but asking doesn't hurt.

Start and update a large online FAQ/question database elucidating common misconceptions of leftism or bullshit peddled by reactionaries regarding leftism. Question would be polled,and answers would be "crowdsourced" to avoid misinformation or bias, in a cycling thread for example.

So when you run into some dumbass in the wild spouting idiocy, instead of getting into the argument for the millionth time or just plain cussing at them, just politely send the link. If they have any interest in dialogue, they'll get back to you, if they don't you just saved youself a lot of time.

It sounds good in theory but probably almost pointless in practice. People who have any intention to change their mind and inform themselves already have almost limitless options. People who don't will look into alternative facts.


Nobody believes this and opting to examine unverifiable claims that can easily be dismissed doesn't actually demonstrate the non-existence of critical theory as it has been applied to other fields. This is exactly what I warned of above: guilt by association and dismissal of the central points on the basis of the unverifiable conspiracies. And I don't mean 'conspiracy' as a pejorative, I mean the exact definition. How do you prove the Bohemian grove or whatever rules over the world? What does it mean to rule over the world and how do they do it, with examples that are properly cited? The response will always be appealing to the unknowable because it's under the covers: making it a conspiracy to scheme that can't be proven. But that's not the central argument. The main point can really be condensed into an observation that critical theory is a tool for cultural/societal analysis and doesn't necessarily have to be restricted to one niche.

To be truthful, I have no idea what the fuck "cultural Marxism" is suppose to mean or what people are even trying to say when they say it.

I unironically support whatever it is though, sounds sick.

It's the most intellectually dishonest fallacy in the right, and that's saying something. Just check Youtube for it and I'll see.

Have you read your own link? It expands on the definition and precursors. It's an assessment, not a refutation. If it's a refutation, presupposing the conclusion and working backwards is intellectually dishonest. For example, "The definition subscribers of the conspiracy present is often rather crude: cultural Marxism is Marxism transposed from the domain of economics to that of culture. Such a proposition, at first glance, appears preposterous to those even vaguely familiar with Marxist theory."
"It's a conspiracy because it isn't Marxism" isn't an argument. None of the terms are even properly defined. By definition, it isn't a conspiracy: it's a method of cultural analysis by means of a tool (namely, critical theory). Reducing the conclusion to the extreme, it's simply claiming that Marxism is static and unchanging, as it is an ideology without nuance or dynamic elements that revise themselves depending on the circumstance/era. I've already addressed the ridiculousness of this argument by pointing out that the Western Marxists were not "Marxist" in the classical and restrictive sense of the phrase here:

In your link, another preposterous and biased passage: "But such a conclusion is unjustifiable considering Moses
Hess’s nationalism was not as a doctrine of ethnic chauvinism. On the contrary, Hess was a lifelong
humanist who believed that national identity, while a legitimate source of self-identification,
in no way eclipsed one’s ethical commitments to members of other nationalities."
Hess was THE proto-Zionist. From his wiki: "You may don a thousand masks, change your name and your religion and your mode of life, creep through the world incognito so that nobody notices that you are a Jew yet every insult to the Jewish name will wound you more than a man of honour who remains loyal to his family and defends his good name."
"From 1861 to 1863 he lived in Germany, where he became acquainted with the rising tide of German antisemitism. It was then that he reverted to his Jewish name Moses (after apparently going by Moritz Hess) in protest against Jewish assimilation. He published Rome and Jerusalem in 1862. Hess interprets history as a circle of race and national struggles. He contemplated the rise of Italian nationalism and the German reaction to it, and from this he arrived at the idea of Jewish national revival, and at his prescient understanding that the Germans would not be tolerant of the national aspirations of others and would be particularly intolerant of the Jews. His book calls for the establishment of a Jewish socialist commonwealth in Palestine, in line with the emerging national movements in Europe and as the only way to respond to antisemitism and assert Jewish identity in the modern world."
I fail to see how "the establishment of a Jewish socialist commonwealth in Palestine" is humanist in any sense of the word, as it is fundamentally racialist and nationalist.

The conclusion is just as flawed, too.
"In the final analysis, the conservatives heretofore critiqued have matters exactly backwards:
cultural liberalism (deceptively termed “cultural Marxism”), at least in its current incarnation, is
not corrosive to capitalism; it is its ideological compliment. It accommodates and expands the
opportunities for accumulation, while contributing to the mass delusion that all things are possible
in life except transcending class relations and generalized commodity production."
'Cultural liberalism' could not exist, what with its white guilt and female emancipation narrative, without the critical theory (as a derivation to that specific field). I've expanded on that point above. In summation, critical theory is not static and evolves to revive itself as a tool for cultural examination within a society to push a victim-complex on groups.
For example:
On the critical race theory page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

It is also fundamentally opposed to capitalism. Pushing towards social equality is absolutely opposed to capitalism, by every definition. It relies on an authority to act as an "equalizer" of sorts, to break down the alleged 'structure of oppression' keeping the minority/dispossessed groups down. So, examining the cultural impacts and the origins of those stereotypes against blacks, then enacting social programs aimed at arbitrarily inflating their worth in a marketplace, is fundamentally opposed to capitalism.
Another point of contention: Hence we find that the purportedly “Marxist” element of cultural Marxism solely concerns its emphasis on struggle—in contradistinction to conservative theories of class collaboration and hierarchical social harmony. Yet analysts have examined cultural matters from a Marxist perspective for well over a century; there is nothing particularly unique about the Frankfurt school in this regard, sans the relative weight its theoreticians placed on culture as an explanatory factor for social behavior and the broadly Freudian theory of mind they upheld. This, on its own, is of no societal consequence."
Just a side-note, "yet analysts" is a perfect example of the following: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word. There is no citation afterwards, either. Who, and on what grounds is their conclusion legitimate?
The entire premise is a conflation of Western Marxism with Marxism, something that is not done beyond the strawman that is set up. It's simply an ideological disagreement, not actually a substantive refutation of anything. If I want to debate the principle of neo-liberalism, I don't just attack it for not being as liberal as I want it to be. The entire issue at-hand is that their existence as a think tank and the subsequent influence was of societal detriment because of the precedents set forth after their arrival. It's missing the entire point of the argument.

Another misrepresentation: "Given his outspoken opposition to finance capital in general, and Jewish financial practices in particular, it is a mystery how Nazi ideologues like Anton Drexler and Dietrich Eckart—and indeed many neo-fascist adherents of the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory—could seriously accuse Karl Marx, or his subsequent followers, of being in league with those very banking dynasties."
Again, with no supporting citation to prove such a claim is made. It's kind of odd that this piece is lauded around as an academic work if it does not bother to properly cite the allegations it raises against the "neo-fascists". Where are the citations that Drexler has claimed that Marx is both the wealthy Jewish financier and the dishevelled Jewish socialist?

Another example: "In truth, the only individual with whom Marx was capable of maintaining steady and amicable dialog was Friedrich Engels, a German gentile—who the ‘left-wing’ Nazi Otto Asser once alluded to in a futile effort to convince Adolf Hitler that the origins of socialism were not at all Jewish, incidentally. Engels’s critical role in the development of Marxism as a distinct school of thought is, as one might expect, frequently omitted by those who would have people believe Marxism is a Semitic instrument of domination. In the few instances Engels is mentioned without being trivialized, it is not uncommon for him to be accused of having also been a Jew, albeit of the crypto variety."
Who is claiming that the "origins of socialism were all Jewish"? This is a childish misrepresentation of factual information. By pointing out Jewish individuals within a group, that does not equate to the organization being "all Jewish". It is an observation of a pattern. This is, quite literally, a "not all" argument, and a poor one at that. "Look, Engels isn't a Jew!" That's fine, but that isn't actually the assertion. The assertion is that Marx is of ancestrally Jewish descent. That statement makes no claims on behalf of Engels' ancestry. Stating that Marxism was of Jewish origin in that it was the result of Jewish political philosophers doesn't mean that non-Jews were not involved, like Engels. Of course Engels played a relevant role, but the point is to examine Marx and the influence other ancestral Jews had. Claiming that other people also existed and were relevant doesn't negate the central point.

On the following point: "Mass immigration’s benefit is obvious: it saturates the domestic market with surplus labor, thereby putting downward pressure on wages in certain sectors of the economy and erecting barriers to the formation of class solidarity. Speech codes, affirmative action, multiculturalism, and general ‘political correctness’ can best be understood as liberal mechanisms to regulate behavior in a manner which fosters racial tolerance while simultaneously solidifying the belief that capitalism’s class divisions are structured along genuinely meritocratic lines—meritocracy being the bourgeoisie’s principal self-legitimating ideological construct in the 21st century."
Mass migration is only beneficial if you believe that the alleged 'mutualist' nature of migration is actually mutualist, which it is not. The entire premise purported above is that mass migration is meant to be continual: a brain drain from the third world, drawing out their vital resources that they need to benefit their own nation. If you simply import all the engineers from some foreign land, you are never alleviating the conditions that promoted the migration in the first place, you're just siphoning brains that could be put to better use in solving the main problem, like a lack of education or proper healthcare. The argument is also pro-slavery, because importing slaves to work will also depress wages, next to nothing, so that the businesses will thrive. But that isn't capitalist because the work is meant to be voluntary. It also completely bypasses the issue of what the work is worth with respect to the economy of the region. The 'sweat shop' jobs are in high demand because it is labour that is better than the other job prospects in the region. They lift people out of poverty, and act as intermediaries between economic growth and failure.
The intellectual dishonesty is really made clear, as the author lacks knowledge of a free market and freedom of association. If I force you to higher somebody, are you free to do as you please? If you don't want to hire Asian people, that is your choice. If I force you otherwise, you are not operating in a free market. Quotas and diversity hires under affirmative action are not a part of free markets no matter how hard you want to strawman it. By any stretch of the definition, they are not "free" to do as they please, unless you think subservience is freedom.

On the following point: Hypersexualization is another feature of contemporary culture groundlessly accredited to
cultural Marxism. Interestingly, Freudianism does bear some accountability in this development, although definitely not in its quasi-Marxian, Frankfurt school manifestation. Instead it can be traced to Sigmund Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays. Often heralded as the “father of public relations,” Bernays was hired by several large corporations throughout the course of his life to consult on ad campaigns, and one of his main contributions was to recommend that these companies appeal to mankind’s baser instincts in order to more effectively instill in the public a desire for their commodities. His advice resulted in greater sales, and since then sexual themes have become a cornerstone in the capitalist marketing effort. But this Freudian connection is purely coincidental, as the commodification of sex—horrendously inhumane and distorting as it is— was just as inevitable a development of capitalism as labor power being mediated through the cash nexus. Nothing is sacred before the laws of accumulation…"
Again, misrepresenting critical theory and its derivatives as being one and the same. Interestingly enough, Bernays was also Jewish. I guess the author glossed over that fact, now he will follow up with all the non-Jews who also assisted in the field of public relations (so I guess calling him "the father of public relations" is bad because of the generalization, until you learn that he is Jewish: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays#Family_and_education).
In fact, prior to lax sexual morals and the breakdown of traditional views on marriage, these views were not commonplace. The entire point is that these morals were subverted and replaced, and that these events were accelerated with the analysis of structures of oppression against minority groups (in this case, females and sexual liberation acting to free them from archaic views of sex and marriage, replacing female sexuality with male sexuality). Prior to, as the author's point, a Jewish "father of public relations", these advertisements were not acting in the hyper-sexual role. That isn't related to 'cultural Marxism' or critical theory, it's just a Jewish person utilizing, as his wiki says, "the masses as irrational and subject to herd instinct".

All in all, a poorly structured examination more concerned with the history of Marx's colleagues/their anti-Semitism than it is with the work of the Frankfurt school/critical theory, as well as its subsequent derivations, like gender studies and critical race theory. It seems to be attacking a strawman nobody actually asserts while taking tangents that eat up most of the work. The only 'substantive refutations' occurred when the author called people anti-Semites and racists. Isn't exactly making the case that leftists are distinct from the socially progressive narrative of modern liberals, but I digress. I suggest engaging in debate that is relevant to the issue at-hand for future reference.

You failed to understand the picture
It's a caste system for the capitalist society (which these cultural marxists are trying to overthrow)

You're being mendacious. You know full well that what reactionaries mean when they say "cultural Marxism" has nothing to do with the boring academic discipline it actually was.

He doesn't necessarily mean an independent, racial country like Israel is now, especially since the Ottomans would cave in the skulls of anyone who tried. The point was simply to have a home territory, from which jews could be free from the usual expulsions, pogroms and such. It's about self-determination of the peoples, without needing to be at the expense of of others. Among a people's rights, it's perfectly undersandable to have a home governed by them.

Oh this again. I wish I lived in this world where the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy didn't exist until critical theory. It always existed, and awareness of it is ancient as well. This is a facile, reactionary handwave, like saying America would stop being racist if only people would stop talking about race. Surely the record of the Roman Servile Wars is proof enough. As long as there's a power differential, there's latent conflict.

Further, CRT has literally zero to do with critical theory. The hack who created it, Derrick Bell, had no ties to socialism, and first named it "racial realism". Yes, like David Duke. Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, who also wasn't involved with socialism, renamed it to CRT in order to pilfer academic recognition.

Capitalism is only fundamentally opposed to economic equality. In any other field, inequality can be a tool to further capitalism (e.g. Atlantic slave trade), but so can equality (e.g. liberal democracy). Capital is highly adaptive and extremely subversive.

>Just a side-note, "yet analysts" is a perfect example of the following: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
It appears all of once in the document, and it's very justified: tho Marx almost ignored the role of culture, Engels wrote on the topic, obviously from a Marxist perspective.

Well in its defense, I'll say the paper is not academic. It's geared towards the general public, and it's not a peer-reviewed publication. Regardless, I confess I can't find a source for Drexler and Eckart themselves making these claims – cheap propaganda by half-forgotten bigots doesn't attract many translators. But neo-fascists aplenty do it, and Google is enough to find it, and besides, that duo said plenty of other nonsense. And while I'm at it, the supposed claim is that Marx is in league with jewish bankers, not that he himself was rich.

He's talking about the benefits from the point of view of the bourgeoisie.

On hindsight, I agree with the author that the exploitation of sex in capitalism was inevitable, simply because everything is exploited by it sooner or later. Bernays was sort of in the right place at the right time, as his proximity to Freud let him see just how strong a force sexuality is in the human unconscious, and he got dibs on it. And being a jew is likely simply by virtue of him being a close relative to a jew.

Regardless, the author mentions this because "spreading a culture of fun" is one of the many sins misattributed to the Frankfurt School. The more prudish morality was subverted alright, but by capital, not Marxists or jews.

No, I'm examining the purpose of the term and its application in the context it is used. Knowledge that is open and public CANNOT be a conspiracy. You can refine your terminology, but you can't misuse words without properly defining them. "You just know" isn't a point.
Substitute 'Jews' with literally any other group of people, and that's racist to have "a homeland governed by 'them'".
The 'oppressor-oppressed' dichotomy doesn't exist, full stop. It never did. It's always been the mighty and the weak. If you are weak enough to be 'oppressed', then you will fail. It's telling when you identify them as 'oppressed', you're only following in their footsteps by identifying with them: a loser's philosophy, if you will. Your subjective interpretation is irrelevant because, in essence, it's the unequal thriving over each other.
But America isn't 'racist'. Again with the 'oppression' narrative. People who have power will exercise it over those who do not. It's 'oppression' if you are in the group who don't have power. If you don't take a side and just observe it as truthfully as possible, it is those who are unequal thriving over each other.
It's irrelevant if he was 'socialist' or not. Socialism cannot exist until revisionists determine it necessarily exists to be used as a beneficial example. There are no negative examples of socialism because it is beyond experience. Yes, and Reagan wasn't a free market capitalist, but that doesn't mean he did not express elements of capitalist thought in his policies. Critical race theory is not an economic model. Her attitude towards markets or the economy is irrelevant.
Also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory#Subfields.

I've already touched on the absurdity of assuming concepts and ideas cannot evolve and branch off without being semi-related to the place-of-origin above.
Because the agents within are not equal.
Agree to the first, but not the second. Morally and within a social setting, it is as 'subversive' as the agents within. You're speaking more on human instinct than anything else and it's preposterous to hint towards some nirvana wherein these circumstances are completely avoidable.
That's not what a weasel word is. Who are the analysts? Cite your claims or don't, not my problem. But don't expect to write a research paper and have anyone take you seriously if you just allude to 'analysts' as being valid without actually citing their claims first.
Self-evident, really.
Okay, so here you admit to not having any evidence and just using the character as a sticky for whatever quotes you want to assign to them.
Yet here you appeal to "neo-fascists" even though the paper was talking about Drexler and Eckart, not some big 'neo-fascist' group. You can't say that somebody said something, then back away from the false quote, only to jump back onto it and blame 'neo-fascists'. Fascism doesn't exist anymore, it has been defeated for decades. Who are you talking about? Just cite your claims if you are so sure of yourself. I don't have to google your claims if I don't even know which "neo-fascists" you're talking about. It isn't Drexler, you couldn't even find the quote!
Well, that's retarded. He was middle-class, sure. He wasn't a banker, though. I agree, that's dumb. But just because Marx wasn't a banker doesn't mean that influential Jewish banking families didn't exist, like the Warburg family.
Well, I'm not bourgeois or elitist, so pardon me if I don't see the benefits in brain drain.
As I said above, you're speaking more on behalf of human instinct than the system at-hand. If you think the inner demons of humanity will not manifest themselves within an ideology, then please, tell me what magical unicorn you've found that is beyond such manipulation because many millennia of human existence has led up to this moment.
But that's not the claim I'm making. I've already made my three central points clear, but I'll repeat them anyways (full description here: ).
"The main argument is that critical theory exists (and is referenced/utilized as a lens of observation/analysis within the works of the Western Marxists who immigrated to the US), it is multi-faceted and observably applied to other social patterns/analysis as a school of thought, and that the founders were kicked out of Germany for two primary reasons."
It isn't a culture of fun, I don't even know what that means. It is the egalitarianism of race, sex, class, etc. that has arose from the narrative of 'oppressor and oppressed'. And not just from the Western Marxists, but from Marxism in general.

Expanding on the point, by 'them', I mean the dominant ethnic group. Watch the following video and substitute 'Jew' with any ethnic group within Israel, or its neighbouring nations: youtube.com/watch?v=isUT8lKHvXk.

Yes, but why did the slave trade happen? Why didn't the Africans utilize gunpowder and fight back against the Europeans and Arabs? Why didn't the Chinese fight back and repel the Mongols? Why did any people become subjugated by others? The agents within the setting were not equal and were bound to come into conflict. If you hold power over another, you will dominate him. That's the description of human history. Woe be to the conquered, basically.