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

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.