If cultural marxism dissapeared what topic would become mainstream in science ?

of course Cultural Marxist exists

they Frankfurt school people despised Western Civilization and wanted to see its downfall

not an argument

wow you're right OP it's all a conspiracy

youtube.com/watch?v=zqMG_iZF50c

"Cultural Marxism" isn't a fucking meme, its not something the right just made up

Here is fucking Zizek talking about it "

youtube.com/watch?v=veBoQJogOAk

zizek is a meme

He literally says nothing about cultural marxism. In fact, i'm pretty sure he said the conspiracy theory of cultural marxism is hilariously retarded in a video (the link seems to be youtube.com/watch?v=XoOD57-T6O0, but it's down).

>literally describes cultural marxism and why he doesnt like it

>DUDE HE TOTALLY DOESNT BELIEVE IN IT AT ALL JUST LOOK AT THIS NON EXISTENT VIDEO!

amazing.

You'd be hardpressed to find an argument here my friend.

Why on every board do you have to invoke the /pol/ boogeyman?

If your ideas are so great why are you incapable of diffusing 'poltier' arguments?

There, i found it:
youtube.com/watch?v=rCWC9jrLrvc
see: 1:23:41
Aren't you gigantic retards tired of being wrong about everything?

>cultural marxism
Is neither a cultural phenomenon nor has anything to do with marxism.

>nor has anything to do with marxism.

except that it was created by marxist for the express purpose of promoting marxism

Fuck zizek. Bowden for the win youtu.be/aR4MvD9IEAE

And you are basing that on what?

the fact that they say this themselves.

see

Not him but are you telling me that Gramsci and the Frankfurters were not Marxists?

What is it about conservatives where they feel a need to interconnect all their ideological opponents?
I mean you don't see liberals constructing conspiracies where corporate bankers and blue collar workers are secretly the product of religious fundamentalism. At least not to my knowledge.

I'm genuinely wondering about this. Is it a reaction to the actual history of real crypto-communists or just a product of the ingrained McCarthyism in American culture.

Also please keep /pol/ topics to /pol/

>What is it about conservatives where they feel a need to interconnect all their ideological opponents?
This, I have the exact same question.

Why do leftists despise Western Civilization, why do leftists try to equate other civilizations as being equal to The West?

That's rich considering all modern leftist movements essentially boil down to "you're a fucking white male" and the secular version of original sin "implicit racism"

no, actually rightists hade the west and want to turn into a shithole
just look at all their policies, they suck, they say they like the west, but in effect all of them want to destroy it

i can do that too

You are actually doing exactly what that post says.

actually all modern right wing movements boil down to race
the main concern of those is maximizing both the number and the % of white people

Gramsci was wayyy before the Frankfurt School and his concept of hegemony was similar but altogether separate from their workings.

If I am not mistaken leftists are the ones who practice cultural imperialism most, since the whole universalist bussiness about human rights et cetera.

They certainly do not find other civilization equal, people do not find retards equal, yet speak to them as if they were cuz mores.

>all modern right wing movements boil down to race
Not all.

>Gramsci was wayyy before the Frankfurt School
Never said otherwise hence why I put him separately.

You are not different.

Unless you consider Asians superiors, who should treat you like a retard. Then you are consistent.

>leftists hate western civilization

western civilization core values are liberty equality, and well being, things that rightists don't seem to like

It largely has to do with the problems of the early 1900s and a slew of encounters with radical anarchists that people claimed (both valid and invalid) were subversive actions. When anarchism fell more out of vogue it shifted over to socialism, largely during the ascent of the U.S. into a world power in the 20s. The rise of very large financial institutions and their interlocking with big industrial powers, as well as the eventual Great Depression, led to greater class tension and attempts to organize, which obviously the businesses were opposed to. There were even acts in a handful of states to ban a whole range of anti-capitalist parties; Ohio tried to ban Syndicalism and by extension socialism, although they didn't have great success with it.

Eventually the parties began to adopt some of the policies that workers' groups were agitating for, either as legitimate shifts in policy or attempts at appeasement. These shifts both nipped the general movement in the bud, and solidified the position of the word as equivalent to communism and all the baggage that entails. People still argue to this day over whether FDR was a socialist, for example, despite only a few of his policies ever resembling the mainline-socialist platform.

Once WW2 ended and the USSR was firmly established as the primary superpower rival, everything kind of set in stone outside of counter-culture movements.

You didn't answer my question
But okay I'll try to answer yours

Being a progressive, by definition, means you focus on the faults of society to try to solve them and 'progress'
Most of the time these attempts are failures, but sometimes it works.
Focusing on all the flaws of something can easily lead to hatred of that entire thing, although this hatred is almost always misplaced.

Conservatives, by definition, do the opposite and seek to keep things as close to as they currently are, and so focus on all the positives.
This focus can lead to an overzealous patriotism that is also mostly misplaced.

The hatred of the West helps denigrate it in the minds of liberals, but issues like environmentalism, post-colonialism, noble savage myths, and orientalism all bolster their opinion of other civilizations

I should also add, it's not as if suddenly overnight there were labor relations issues in the U.S., but the 20s was absolutely the height of any form of unified socialist movement as a political force.

>implying western civilization started in 1789
I already know you're that antifa redditor from Slovakia I can smell your faggot shit from miles away.

>liberty equality, and well being
Lmao

The most vibrant and the newest part of the right would be in favor of a genocide on their most hated minority. Blacks, Muslims, Jews, you name it.

>I mean you don't see liberals constructing conspiracies where corporate bankers and blue collar workers are secretly the product of religious fundamentalism. At least not to my knowledge.

I think "privilege", "patriarchy" and so on do just this, where someone is blinding by their own societal privileges and hatred of other races or whatnot ergo they are ignorant and vote right-wing to preserve their own power - or so goes the narrative. You can see it when in the aftermath of Trump's election there was a brief attempt to classify all the pro-Trump sentiment as "whitelash", or in Brexit where most of the debate on the Remain side was focused around racist "Little Englanders" trying to keep England English, or in Austria, Sweden, France and Germany where right-wing opposition parties are similarly classified as being comprised of either privileged racists who hate brown people or as "uneducated" (aka blue collar, but not called 'working class' as that has positive connotations when it comes to the vote) racists who don't have experience with brown folks and thus are ignorant rural types who want to shut the borders.

The only reason why the shenanigans currently going on in society are called 'cultural Marxism' is because the underlying principle is the same in that there is an oppressor class (heterosexual white men) and an oppressed class (homosexuals/non-white men) and the world is viewed through that lense where the oppressed class must foment a social revolution against the oppressor class, plus certain other hallmarks of Marxism such as collective guilt (privilege, reparations arguments, 'only white people can be racist' and so on), social background dictating ones importance within the movement (think progressive stack, the emphasis on non-whites being pushed to the front over whites), etc.

>inb4 'that's not real Marxism'
That's how Marxism has manifested itself in the real world lads.

>The ideals of the French revolution were instantly created in 1789
What is the Enlightenment?
Fuck off to /stormfront/

>implying a majority of the population gave a single fuck about some Enlightement hacks and weren't staunch monarchists until the revolution

>implying western civilization started in 1789
Modern western civilization did. If anything, the left is western-culture supremacist, they want to expand the enlightenment ideals and ideologies to the entire world. Traditionalists seems to be butthurt that they don't support traditionalist shit like religion or traditional family, but that's because it goes against the enlightenment. Basically stormfags are the ones that dislike modern western culture.
Not him btw.

>modern
Key word. Right wing, at its core, oppose modernity.

Agreed.

Are you racist? Do you consider yourself racist?

What is with this stormfront and stormfag shit? Stormfront is white nationalist. Not all right wingers all white nationalists, if anything that's a very recent thing.

Racist is a meaningless buzzword created by Trotsky. Nobody self-identifies as a racist.

Wouldn't consider myself racist, no.

>no more money being spent into woman studies, gender studies, etc
>colonization of Neptune by 2030

Do you browse /pol/?

Exactly this.

>PLS LABEL YOURSELF A BUZZWORD FROM OUR IDEOLOGICAL VOCABULARY
>IF YOU REJECT THE CONCEPT OF THE BUZZWORD THEN YOU ARE THAT BUZZWORD

I guess this is what Orwell meant by newspeak

Only if modernity becomes conflated with leftism.

There's no reason why a welfare state or mass immigration should be seen as innately "modern" in that sense, yet those are probably the two biggest things right-wingers oppose in the west.

Singapore, for example, is a highly developed country without a welfare state and with large amounts of immigration from Malaysia, Indonesia, China and India as part of its mandate, yet most people from I know from either side of the spectrum are quite positive about it, aside from some civil rights concerns. It's not so simple as 'right wingers oppose modernity'.

>hallmarks of Marxism such as collective guilt
Try reading marx.

>What is with this stormfront and stormfag shit? Stormfront is white nationalist. Not all right wingers all white nationalists
I agree, but don't see your point.

Occasionally.

>Racist is a meaningless buzzword created by Trotsky.
It's not meaningless. The way the word is supposed to be used is when given a choice, you judge people based on their race and not as individuals

Such usage is not invalidated because Trotsky allegedly created the term.
>Nobody self-identifies as a racist.
Entirely false. I've seen a lot of people on here self-deintify as racists.

>>inb4 'that's not real Marxism'
>That's how Marxism has manifested itself in the real world lads.

This is a history board mate. If you're trying to claim that collective guilt isn't a hallmark of Marxism *when it's been implemented in the real world* then you occupy a different reality than everyone else.

The typical evolution of a rightist

List of buzzwords: racist, nazi, white supremacist

Nobody uses these words to describe himself, they're literally enemy's lingo. It's like self-identifying as "red pinko commie faggot" or "neoliberal" or "cultural marxist", it's just not genuine.

I'm both a de Mainstrean and blackpilled. It actually goes hand in hand if you understand de Maistre's providence theology.

do americans IRL debate about politics in the same way people do in this thread?

No, not normal people anyway

t.Alexander Dugin

>X is a hallmark of marxism
>can't find i single passage from marx supporting X
Sure buddy.
The fact is marx viscerally rejected moralistic critiques of capitalism. Next time try reading instead of repeating memes.

>racist, nazi, white supremacist
Rebranded as racial realism and white nationalism(since asians turns out are "supreme").

Lmao

>he thinks Memegin invented reaction
You need to read a lot more.

...

>Next time try reading instead of repeating memes
/pol/tards they never learn.

>nazi
The word nazi was invented as an insult, it comes from the German diminutive of the name Ignaz and pretty much meant "dumbass" in contemporary German slang. National socialists called themselves "naso", that's the proper abbreviation.

>white supremacist
White nationalism and white supremacism aren't the same. White supremacism would be basically something like white race lording over other races, kind of like British imperialism. White nationalists don't want to rule niggers, they want niggers out. Significant difference.

>racist
Already covered.

>has to lie to himself to keep his arguments consistent

Why? Because of random IQ graph?

Don't be silly

>they want niggers out
So they advocate violence.

I see.

No, because of IQ data.
The graph itself means nothing, the data is what matters.

The IQ data clearly suggests Asians are smarter. And immigration from China should be encouraged for reasons of improving the average intelligence of the people.

oh no your one of those idiots that use technicalities in place of a argument.

Some of them do, but not all. I don't know where you got violence from though, you can just fucking deport them back to Africa or create a white separatist state, you don't have to kill them all to live apart.

but what are the sources for the data fucknugget?

See

'Whitelash' isn't just a liberal meme, though. There's substantial claims among right-wing folks that it was a predominant factor in his victory. Whether or not the claim is legitimate is entirely another matter, though.

Brexit is a thornier thing; there are actual leftist arguments in favor of leaving, and arguments that point to the divide being rural/metropolitan far, far more than white/nonwhite or conservative/liberal.

I'm not saying you're wrong, either, I just don't necessarily know if those two examples fit your case. I can't really speak to the other votes though.

>you can throw millions of people from their homes for no reason without violence
I'd like to visit the strange world stormfags live in someday.

Browsing /pol/ doesn't make me a racist anymore than reading Das Kapital makes me a Communist. I've read the Bible, the Qu'ran, Marxist tracts, and I browse /pol/. Am I a Christian, a Muslim, a Communist and a Nazi or is it *maybe* possible to be exposed to different ideas without immediately becoming a cheerleader for them? I used to read the feminist/leftist editorials in my uni newspaper and used to listen to Peter Hitchens as well. Am I a feminist and an anti-feminist reactionary now?

Sometimes I forget that most people around here are teenagers/early 20's.

why should i listen to them when rightists do the same fucking thing?

Incidentally this is a huge point of contention among white nationalists.

Actually, post-Trump and other reactionary victories (and they are reactionary, although I don't intend it as a slur or denigration), the alt-right seems to be experiencing the same strains that the broader left and liberals have been undergoing for decades.

I think more broadly what we're seeing is less the abject victory of one or another broad, general grouping, and far more the end of situational solidarity.

Yet without us, they'll be half a millenium behind.

Not to mention Chinks are well known to manipulate IQ tests.

We do that every day, what do you think ICE does? We deported like 300k illegal migrants in 2015 alone, I'm honestly puzzled why do you think it's some kind of fantasy.

no its the very fact that you espouse, support and actively try to spread those ideas found on /pol/.

faggot /pol/tards cannot even agree with each other.

The same as with the black IQs
Studies and research.

Then how can you tell me racism had 0 to do with trump and brexit? There's been polls done on republicans, about 30% of them are racists.

Why do you assume anybody who "occasionally" browses pol must be a racist? Why do you assume that's what I meant? Is it because you are stupid? Is it because it was convenient for you to write your little clever retort? Obviously if I know how people there are, I must be browsing it too.

One of the big issues with Brexit is "mass immigration" from third world countries. It was much more about that than gaining independence.

Nice images, really shows your maturity.

>teenagers/early 20's
This is actually a big problem on /pol/ as well but Veeky Forums is just brutally stupid and obvious it's populated by literal children.

If IQ was the only value at hand then people wouldn't be at odds with jews.

When a white person outsmarts someone from other races, it was seen as heroic, smart, with the rewards being natural.

When a white is outsmarted, it is seen as immoral, a vile conspiration made by sneaky, nepotistic bastards.

And you know, both sides are right and I think such reactions are natural.

If you don't like it however, don't worry too much, genetic engineering is moving really fast, and it strikes at the heart of heritage.

Dubs confirm.

>tfw there's always that one snot nosed zit covered 21 year old bitch who calls you "kiddo"

Your people never invented civilization.
Chinese invented it independently.

Also it's irrelevant. We are talking about genetics and IQ. Obviously environment and politics played a role.

But the fact is an average Asian kid is brighter than your white kid.

White "nationalists" want homogenous nations, but also want to keep the benefits of globalism, that made their countries wealthy and prosperous. They would oppose, for example, a fair redistribution of land and wealth in exchange for ethno-states, or that all nations of the world have the right to be nuclear armed.

White nationalists want to have their cake and eat it too, they want pure nations but want to keep their supremacy over the world, and would prefer a violent answer than any kind of negotiations. They may say they're "realists" and "nationalists" but a quick look at what they support reveal them as supremacists.

Well, what I mean by those examples is a lazy classification of a phenomena immediately into racial terms. In the first example, more white people voted for Obama than for Trump in those areas, and those areas just a few years earlier gave Obama two overwhelming victories in the presidential elections, yet according to the media narrative those people were voting on the basis of race, in the sense that Hillary was more minority-friendly than Trump; but if that were the case, it's hard to see why they had previously chosen a black candidate over a white candidate twice in a row in two major elections, especially when that black candidate supported things like limited amnesty for illegal migrants.

With the Brexit vote, I didn't pay as much attention as I don't live in the UK anymore, but my social media was filled with editorials and left-leaning friends of mine posting about how racist little-Englanders scuttled the UK's EU membership. I do wish Corbyn voiced his concerns on the EU a bit more though, it would have done quite a bit to balance the debate.

OBVIOUSLY

Just look at them reacting like faggots at the IQ data and claiming white people are "actually" superior.