Mfw mccarthy was right all along and people unceasingly shit on him

We probably had more spys in the Soviet Union than Soviets had spys in every country glonally, simply to the fact that we can afford it so

I would add to this that american espionage and infiltration actually succeeded.

Poland's Lech Walesa, who played a large part in the failure of the warsaw pact and the collapse of the soviet union, was thought to be funded by the CIA.

There was also the fact that individuals from the Soviet Union would occasionally defect over when they had the chance. Hardly anybody from the US ever defected to the SU, although you could make a case that Oswald was effectively a soviet agent by the time he shot Kennedy.

>This is a list of people who may or may not have

Literally the very first sentence. Well done.

Lol you guys completely infiltrated the SU hard. Like extremely hard and on top of that the Kremlin acknowledged how fucking prone it was to spies and how infiltrated it was.

>The American neocons are more of a destructive force than communist spies have ever been.
LOL
This is what the average American leftist ACTUALLY believes!

What's forgotten is how many American journalists, scientists, intellectuals, and yes, politicians were sympathetic to Communism and the Soviet Union well into the 1950's. After the crimes of Stalin and friends became too hard to ignore many intellectuals became anti-Soviet if not exactly anti-communist. These ex-Communists gradually became part of the New Left in the 1960's, and the rest is history. The double standards in our culture towards Nazism and fascism versus that of Communism is proof of that.

Most liberals and "progressives" who decry McCarthyism would support a similar purge of "fascists" or "Nazis" had those groups similarly infiltrated the government in similar numbers, but the shoe was on the other foot, so they didn't/couldn't.

>What's forgotten is how many American journalists, scientists, intellectuals, and yes, politicians
Please, I know you're dying to type "jews," so let's get this shit over with.

>Soviet spies pushed the US into Vietnam
>Soviet spies pushed the US into Iraq

You´re goddam right.

I'm right wing you fucking idiot.

neocons are the subversion of the true right.

Many Eastern European Jews were in fact Communists or socialists, but I tend to subscribe to the Moldbug theory that American progressivism (which was sometimes a synonym with "Communist" in the first half of the 20th century) is a homegrown ideology dating back to the Puritans and predates the arrival of large numbers of Jews by a few centuries. Britain has had similar movements like the Fabian socialists which to my knowledge was more associated with low church Protestants.

In any case just because it's a /pol/ meme doesn't mean there isn't any truth to it. I mean are you denying that vast numbers of prominent Americans were:

1. Actual members of the CPUSA

or if not literal card-carrying members

2. Sympathetic to the cause if not the Russian or Chinese attempted implementations?

You're a fucking joke, dude.

so why didn't mccarthy go after these people, instead of hollywood?

He was right, but not farsighted enough. He focused too much on Soviet spies and unpatriotic people, and not enough on the subversion that was growing irrespective of the Soviet Union. The takeover of Academia by "Cultural Marxists" has far exceeded anything the Soviet spies could have done. You can just fry the latter, and bam, done for; but the former, as has been seen, has had a lasting affect.

You realize the CPUSA disavowed the USSR at a time when the actual US government was shipping them arms at a breakneck pace.

>cultural Marxists
Can someone explain this ideology to me? Do they view Muslims and Jews as the proletariat and secular westerners as the bourgeoisie?

>Can someone explain this ideology to me?
The basic idea of cultural marxism was to try and understand why the worldwide proletarian revolution envisioned by Marx failed to materialize after ww1, only taking off in Russia of all places. They concluded that the reason for this failure was that the culture of western european countries did not allow for a proletarian revolution to take place.

So the basic goal of cultural marxism is to remove all cultural elements which might impede worldwide proletarian revolution. These includes things such as patriotism, religion, the family unit, etc.

I personally make a distinction between the original Frankfurt school and their retarded descendants. Basically, Cultural Marxism is Marxism mixed with Psychoanalysis. Cultural Marxists proclaim that despite regime changes and radical labour movements in the early 1900s, communism failed to take root or have any lasting affect. They believed that Communism could not take hold unless Western Culture was altered or otherwise subversed.

fuck off back to with your bullshit Yuri Bezmenov conspiracy theories

Wikipedia states that the CPUSA denounced the war between September 1939 and June 1941 (coinciding with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Barbarossa), before switching back to supporting the war against Nazi Germany.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA#Opposition_to_foreign_involvement_.281939.E2.80.931941.29

As I said, these people gradually became disillusioned with the Soviets and Stalin, later on with the actual ideology and centrally-planned socialist economies in general. In the 1960's they switched their focus and directed their energies into social/cultural issues, which gave birth to the New Left.

I remember when Cultural Marxism meant something instead of a shitty buzzword that has been disproven by people across all parts of the political spectrum.

>disproven
How exactly do you disprove a word?

I said that the shit was going on irrespective of the Soviet Union, the exact opposite of what Yuri believes (although I'm not sure, because I never did watch that whole video or read anything by him).

>durrrr socialist subversion is a conspiracy durrrr #imwithher

Fuck off cunt, go to any major college campus in the US, and tell me there hasn't been some form of takeover.

It still does mean something, it's just that anyone with a brain has an aversion to such an ideology.

>idealistic young college students that never truly suffered a day in their life don't naturally tend toward socialism, it's because the kgb used mind control rays to convince college professors to do it at the height of the cold war just like yuri says
kys

Hey man, we have to suppress the resurgence of the KKK Nazis, which is sure to problematically oppress billions of black bodies with their green frog hatememes if we don't indoctrinate unsuspecting privileged young people with Tumblr propaganda.

Surely you aren't a racist, user?

>blacks were never lynched
>blacks were never redlined into ghettoes
>blacks were never subjected to Jim Crow
>blacks were never systematically denied the right to vote
>WE WHITES WUZ GUD BOYS WE DINDU NUFFIN

layl (laughing at your life) famalamadingdong

There you go again with Yuri. You aren't worth addressing
If there was a real threat of a Nazi revolution, sure. But unlike Communism of the past, there isn't. The fear of millions dying in a Communist revolution is not the same as people posting Frogs on Australian fitness blogs and voting for an unpopular candidate.

What has that got to do with anything. Way to change the subject. Also for how much longer will we hear this whining?

>Fuck off cunt, go to any major college campus in the US, and tell me there hasn't been some form of takeover.

Conservatives aren't exactly being forced off of college campuses.

>Hey man, we have to suppress the resurgence of the KKK Nazis, which is sure to problematically oppress billions of black bodies with their green frog hatememes if we don't indoctrinate unsuspecting privileged young people with Tumblr propaganda.

In all fairness, some alt-right guys have been going around killing people.

>go to a retirement home, some political views are popular among the people there than others
Fine
>go to a Chamber of Commerce meeting, some political views are popular among the people there than others
Fine
>go to a meeting of farmers, some political views are popular among the people there than others
Fine
>go to a factory, some political views are popular among the people there than others
Fine
>go to a college campus, some political views are popular among the people there than others
HOLY FUCKING SHIT THIS IS A MARXIST CONSPIRACY TO UNDERMINE WESTERN CIVILIZATION

People at the same stage in life or who have the same occupation often have similar political views. This is how it has always been.

>What's forgotten is how many American journalists, scientists, intellectuals, and yes, politicians were sympathetic to Communism

And? Who gives a shit? It's the USA. You're allowed to have any political view you please.

Perhaps because college campuses serve a more important function than fucking retirement homes?

I wouldn't you lefties as much if you weren't such utter retards.

Out of all the examples he gives, that's the one you want to harp on? You're a fucking cretin.

>missing the point this hard
Do try and keep up

So what, you want forced "neutrality"? Affirmative action for conservatives?

>Out of all the examples he gives, that's the one you want to harp on?
His other examples were shit too.

The thing with college campuses is that they form the leaders of tomorrow. That's why the fact that they're marxist breeding grounds is cause for concern.

Anyone with an IQ over 60 would have come to this realization on their own, but I know that's in the upper range of your typical leftist IQ.

No, I don't want anything. What makes you think I want something?

Except that excepting the Chamber of Commerce, the above establishments are not inextricably tied to politics. That radical ideologues who want to censor and ultimately destroy the society that endows them with the freedoms to have said opinions in Academia is no small matter. It is the job of a sociology professor to teach their students politics, and thus has a great influence on their worldview. The farmer farms, the factory worker makes widgets, etc. Their influence is almost wholly material.

Because you're complaining about the natural state of things.

I made a lot of mistakes writing that (touch keyboard and auto correct), but I think you get the gist.

Right, but believe it or not, not all of us spend our days trying to organize social justice activism.

>affirmative action in any shape or form
Kill yourself.

>world leaders should be genocidal nazi retards like me and all of my autistic NEET brudders from stormfront

>The thing with college campuses is that they form the leaders of tomorrow. That's why the fact that they're marxist breeding grounds is cause for concern
And yet, despite the fact that college campuses have been pretty leftist for going on 50 years (and Marxism was certainly more popular in the 60s and 70s than today), the leaders of today are not Marxists at all, and in fact Marxism is pretty much a dead ideology with no influence on the real world at all.

Could it be that the views someone holds as an idealistic college student are not the ones they will hold when they get older?

I guess we've reached the extent of your ability to debate, and you are now forced to resort to calling me a nazi.

I was being tongue-in-cheek you simpleton.

You're complaining that college campuses naturally gravitate towards similar political views, so it would follow that you want it to change, but the only way to change it would be artificially i.e. forcing "neutrality" via hiring practices.

If you don't want it to change then I don't even know why you're complaining.

Because opposing what academia is teaching must mean I'm a baby gassing Nazi genocide Hitler.

>And yet, despite the fact that college campuses have been pretty leftist for going on 50 years (and Marxism was certainly more popular in the 60s and 70s than today), the leaders of today are not Marxists at all, and in fact Marxism is pretty much a dead ideology with no influence on the real world at all.
You confuse economic (classical) marxism with the more recent "cultural marxism". When one talks of marxist influence in academia one usually means "cultural marxist" influence.

Inb4 someone has an autistic breakdown "REE CULTURAL MARXISM DOESNT EXIST"

Call it Frankfurt School theory, whatever. I don't care about its name, only about its content.

>I was being tongue-in-cheek you simpleton.
Simpleton? Coming from you??

>If you don't want it to change then I don't even know why you're complaining.
Because I want to complain?

>The thing with college campuses is that they form the leaders of tomorrow. That's why the fact that they're marxist breeding grounds is cause for concern.

The others form the basic underpinnings of society. Dumbfuck.

So what's your solution exactly? Should classes revolve their curriculum around Holocaust denial infographs and "race realism"?

Considering that you're the sort who buys into the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory, it's not an unsafe bet.

I know that. Frankfurt School theory was more popular in the 60s and 70s than today, and hasn't had any influence on the real world either.

Yes, you are a simpleton, because you can't tell the difference between me asking if you want something and me wanting something.

It doesn't help that you are complaining for the sake of complaining and don't give a shit about anything complex like, I don't know, policy? Your opinions are worthless and empty.

>The others form the basic underpinnings of society
Retirement homes form the basic underpinning of society? Tell me more!

There's no solution, cultural marxism will eventually lose popularity. Identitarianism is the political philosophy which will mark the first half of the 20th century in Europe and America.

It's going to be as radical as the shift which occurred during the 1960s.

They are almost chiefly interested in the almighty dollar. They are trades, nobody pursues a factor job to influence politics. The same can not be said of university professors.

>Retirement homes form the basic underpinning of society? Tell me more!

No, factories, farms, chambers of commerce, etc. You know, the other examples we were talking about you fucking retard.

>conspiracy theory
How can something be a conspiracy theory if you can literally go to any library and read the books for yourself? Stupid faggot.

You're laughable. You regurgitate whatever trendy opinion was spouted on John Oliver's latest show and believe you're some kind of genius.

See, I can make baseless assumptions and attacks too...

Now kill yourself.

>20th century
21th century*

Yet none the less, factory workers do. Considering you're of the Alt right, I'd wager you've at least once complained about how democracy must pander to the plebs. Well they're the fucking plebs.

>You know, the other examples
But why focus on the other examples? I'm talking about retirement homes. Tell me more about them, and of their huge importance in dictating the future of the nation.

>How can something be a conspiracy theory if you can literally go to any library and read the books for yourself? Stupid faggot.

The Frankfurt School was a thing. It's influence being omnipresent in academic institutions is a conspiracy theory. There is no left-wing bias in academia. The only bias in academia is towards reality.

Because those were what I was talking about, you butthurt imbecile. They form the basic underpinnings of society.

>John Oliver's latest show
Who the fuck said anything about John Oliver? Why are /pol/lutters constantly building strawmen and using buzzwords? Are you going to start talking about BBC and cucks next?

You're an idiot.

Czarist Russia was pretty bad. Bolshevik Russia was even worse.

>blacks were never lynched

So were many white criminals in the 19th century. I'm not defending any sort of brutal, mob justice, often but not always used to put a population it it's place, but I think the reality is more complicated than often taught these days, especially in light of criminal disparities that have persisted for a remarkably long period of time.

>blacks were never redlined into ghettoes

Many of which were economically better off before the 1960's than after. The counterpart of that is that many white ethnics that formed the core of urban Democrat political machines were driven out of their neighborhoods by exploding crime rates and corrupt city governments. But America can't remember that, because that would contradict Progress and the official narrative of the 1960's. Instead it had to be because those dumb racist white conservatives were seduced by Lee Atwater's dogwhistles.

>blacks were never subjected to Jim Crow

I'm not denying that. It's also true that many of the worst-off black communities in the country are in Northern states and cities that have been dominated by Democrats, many of them black, for almost a century.

But I'm sure those mean old Rethuglicans like Dick Nixon, and Ronald Reagan are to blame.

> blacks were never systematically denied the right to vote

Giving a population of illiterate former slaves, who would have been an outright majority the vote would have been a terrible decision in the aftermath of the Civil War. Judging from what One Man One Vote did to Detroit, Zimbabwe and South Africa, it was probably for the best.

>WE WHITES WUZ GUD BOYS WE DINDU NUFFIN

Of course, to the same extent that people of color are forever and always innocent angels that never do anything wrong, and whose motives and actions are never to be questioned or treated skeptically, lest we face the resurrection of Bull Connor.

>Because those were what I was talking about, you butthurt imbecile
But the first thing you mentioned were retirement homes. Let's first start with those. Please shower me with your enlightened opinions about these bastions of political thought.

>It's influence being omnipresent in academic institutions is a conspiracy theory.
You can just compare the teachings of the Frankfurt School and the teachings of modern day sociologists to see a perfect correspondance. There is no conspiracy in the sense that there is no centralized order which imposes cultural marxism upon academics. Hence it is not a conspiracy theory.

> There is no left-wing bias in academia. The only bias in academia is towards reality.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh boy I love how delusional you lefturds are. Jesus Christ this place is like reddit light.

You wanted a solution right? Well kill yourself you waste of oxygen.

>Yet none the less, factory workers do.
If I'm reading you right, you're a fuckin' tard. And if I'm not, you're still a fuckin' tard.

>Why are /pol/lutters constantly building strawmen and using buzzwords?
Says the guy whose sole contributions have been calling me "nazi", "stormfag" and "holocaust denier"...

The Frankfurt School isn't even that popular today. Post-structuralism (Foucault, Derrida, and so on) is the hot thing in the social sciences and humanities, and is predominately non- or even anti- Marxist. But I guess for the Alt Right, anything to the left of Hitler is Marxist subversion

>But the first thing you mentioned were retirement homes.

I mentioned nothing. I pointed out that out of the other more pertinent examples, you picked that. Because you're an idiot. Though actually, retirement homes are important components of politics since the elderly represent a massive voting demographic.

>cultural marxism

No such thing moron, and the Frankfurt School isn't the source of those ideas you're whining about.

>There is no conspiracy in the sense that there is no centralized order which imposes cultural marxism upon academics.

Oh hey, I just realize that you're admitting there is no communist infiltration in academics. Good job, thank you.

>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Mmhmmhmmhmm! That's some delicious asshurt.

>You can just compare the teachings of the Frankfurt School and the teachings of modern day sociologists to see a perfect correspondance
They're not that similar.

>There is no conspiracy in the sense that there is no centralized order which imposes cultural marxism upon academics
So then what the hell are you complaining about? People being allowed to have different opinions than you?

Post structuralism made a comeback? Neat. They were some grade-A thinkers. I'm glad to see it.

When you start mandating political indoctrination classes, and start actively harassing people of different political beliefs in institutions ostensibly dedicated to free thinking, yes I think that's a worrisome trend.

I was making a connection in regards to whether McCarthy was on to something or not, in particular the notion that he may have actually been right, in contrast to what we were taught in school.

Also, and be honest, would you not be unnerved if many important Americans from that era were fascist sympathizers or full-blown Nazis? Or if today significant numbers of Americans supported Salafi Islam?

"Cultural Marxism" (originally "Cultural Bolshevism") is literally a term from Nazi propaganda. Next thing you know, you'll be talking about "lebensraum" and the "final solution" and asking why people are comparing you to Hitler.

"HAHAHAHA le epic reddit maymay face XDDD kill urself top lolz" is not an argument.

Says the guy using Nazi propaganda to accuse universities of "leftist bias".

>When you start mandating political indoctrination classes, and start actively harassing people of different political beliefs in institutions ostensibly dedicated to free thinking, yes I think that's a worrisome trend.

>Lets ignore the fact the United States does exactly this with capitalism, demonizing words like socialism and communism and literally using it as a political insult to eliminate rivals and actively demean marxist study in colleges
>Harassing people's political beliefs in institutions of free thinking is bad
>Unless of course you're harassing socialists/marxists/communists, then you cant have a different political or economic viewpoint

Wew lad

>Also, and be honest, would you not be unnerved if many important Americans from that era were fascist sympathizers or full-blown Nazis? Or if today significant numbers of Americans supported Salafi Islam?

I personally would be, because I oppose those ideologies. Presumably people who don't wouldn't. Isn't that all this comes down to? People not liking that others have views they oppose? But there is nothing inherently illegitimate or threatening about college professors holding particular views. Obviously people who disagree with those views won't like it, but that's to be expected. It's an inevitable consequence of a pluralist society

>Lets ignore the fact the United States does exactly this with capitalism, demonizing words like socialism and communism and literally using it as a political insult to eliminate rivals and actively demean marxist study in colleges
if someone's wrong you should correct them
and the 100% completely objective fact is that socialism and communism are not viable means of economic governance
would you argue for the right of someone to claim that cows are actually reptiles, and allow them to teach this in an academic setting to impressionable youths?

Socialism is a perfectly viable method of economic governance, Scandanavian countries have been doing it for decades.

Your 100% objective fact is actually bullshit and speaking out of your ass does little to actually improve academic discourse.

It's because of this autism that most don't even understand that communism is entirely theoretical and can't address the differences between Marxist theory and Stalinist or Maoist policy.

Your argument does nothing by perpetuate ignorance.

>Socialism is a perfectly viable method of economic governance, Scandinavian countries have been doing it for decades.
Firstly, Scandinavian countries follow the Nordic model, which is a form of Social Democracy, which is not Socialism - although it was intended as a precursor to it. Scandinavian countries also enjoy the benefits of very small populations, a wealth of natural resources, and the freedom to have their national defense provided for by the United States. They are far from the shining examples of "successful socialist countries" that you claim.

>Firstly, Scandinavian countries follow the Nordic model, which is a form of Social Democracy, which is not Socialism

It's a form of socialism.

>Scandinavian countries also enjoy the benefits of very small populations, a wealth of natural resources

Relative to its landmass and density of resources, especially compared to India and China, so does the US.

>and the freedom to have their national defense provided for by the United States.

Arrogant shit. Yeah, because it's not like they didn't spend most of the cold war preparing themselves for the very real possibility of the the Soviets invading their countries. It's not like there haven't been weird instances of self-propelled guns being called tanks due to just that.

>It's a form of socialism.
It is absolutely NOT a form of socialism, and saying it is clearly displays your ignorance.
>Relative to its landmass and density of resources, especially compared to India and China, so does the US.
The country with the highest population following the Nordic model is Sweden, with a population of around ten million.
The United States has around 320 million.
>Yeah, because it's not like they didn't spend most of the cold war preparing themselves for the very real possibility of the the Soviets invading their countries.
The Cold War has been over for a long time, and none of the Nordic countries nowadays maintain an army that could possibly resist any Russian aggression on their own.

are you both mentally handicapped?

the nordic model is a method in which socialist institutions agree to leech off of capitalist ones in return for not heavily interfering with bureaucratic process, which would be the opposite of the american process, in which the socialist institutions interfere with industrial processes, but are guaranteed taxes only according to the influence thye can purchase. they're both combinations between socialism and capitalism.

also, sufficient socialism utterly destroys a country. anyone who argues otherwise is a fucking idiot who needs to take a basic finance class to learn about price discovery, shortages, and moral hazard

>It is absolutely NOT a form of socialism

Yes it is. It's an ideology that focuses on redistributive mechanisms and greater worker control to sort out the problems of labour.

>The country with the highest population following the Nordic model is Sweden, with a population of around ten million.
>The United States has around 320 million.

The United States has vastly more land mass, a much smaller percentage of which is frozen shit.

>The Cold War has been over for a long time,

Yes it has, but they none the less provided for (and still do) their own defense, you arrogant fuck.

>and none of the Nordic countries nowadays maintain an army that could possibly resist any Russian aggression on their own.

They're tiny-ass countries right across the street from Russia, of course they couldn't do so on their own. They still maintain armies of their own and aren't dependent on the US for national defense. Go pat yourself on the back somewhere else.

>Many of which were economically better off before the 1960's than after

what?

Its 2016. Russia has no interest in Scandinavia.

I mean if you think they do, then you are a paranoid autist.

Baltics on the other hand have sizable Russian pops, so yeah... Maybe they might get Ukrained.

But Nordic countries no. Putin's not stupid.

>Yes it is. It's an ideology that focuses on redistributive mechanisms and greater worker control to sort out the problems of labour.
...through a Capitalist economic system.
>The United States has vastly more land mass, a much smaller percentage of which is frozen shit.
Population density is irrelevant. Population itself is what's important.
>Yes it has, but they none the less provided for (and still do) their own defense, you arrogant fuck.
They made rather futile efforts to provide for their defense, and then abandoned them. They now maintain very minimal militaries at best.
Regardless, you are completely missing the point in that if these countries had to fund larger militaries capable of defending themselves from larger outside threats their welfare states would collapse, because they could not afford to pay for both.

>when autists collide

thank you for your meaningful contribution to this discussion, you have truly enlightened everyone involved