NOTE: The article from Investment Watch reveals the legacy of the 1960s and the cultural Marxism strategy originating in Frankfurt School philosophy. The cultural Marxist strategy for the destruction of supposed “capitalism,” which of course barely exists in a country like the United States that has a central bank (The Federal Reserve, a government charted, but privately owned enterprise), absolutely requires the destruction of the family and the emergence of authoritarian indoctrination of children.
The
middle class feminist – call them the "1 %" – with one designer-shoe
clad foot in the marxist delusion camp and the other in the "having it all" me-me-me camp, has made great "advances" at the cost of
the 99% who must pay the price for their hypocritical hedonism.
***
Ideological feminism is but a branch of anti-patriarchy. Patriarchy (father's authority over child, protection of children and wife) is regarded as source of ALL oppression: slavery, colonialism, war, violence, "inequality" (differences in intelligence, inventiveness, self-discipline, industriousness, etc). That is the core belief, which is where intersectionality gets its authority as a concept. This is why it should never be a mystery when MRAs are accused of being racist (white privilege) or homophobic (pro-fatherhood man-women-baby, father doesn't get kicked out, is pro-oppression) or any other form of being oppressive.
And that is why the State needs to condition children from birth to be good social justice warriors and serve the "community" (State and its rulers). Single moms might think they are being independent in raising the child, but the State is teaching them and conditioning them behind their backs 5 days a week. State control over the children of single moms gets greater and greater as the agenda is rolled out. Ultimately it is not "women" who will gain advantage, but authoritarian busybodies of either sex as long as they are orthodox in their "social justice" coercive social engineering ideology. [Robert St. Estephe, Dec. 3, 2013]
***
Ideological feminism is but a branch of anti-patriarchy. Patriarchy (father's authority over child, protection of children and wife) is regarded as source of ALL oppression: slavery, colonialism, war, violence, "inequality" (differences in intelligence, inventiveness, self-discipline, industriousness, etc). That is the core belief, which is where intersectionality gets its authority as a concept. This is why it should never be a mystery when MRAs are accused of being racist (white privilege) or homophobic (pro-fatherhood man-women-baby, father doesn't get kicked out, is pro-oppression) or any other form of being oppressive.
And that is why the State needs to condition children from birth to be good social justice warriors and serve the "community" (State and its rulers). Single moms might think they are being independent in raising the child, but the State is teaching them and conditioning them behind their backs 5 days a week. State control over the children of single moms gets greater and greater as the agenda is rolled out. Ultimately it is not "women" who will gain advantage, but authoritarian busybodies of either sex as long as they are orthodox in their "social justice" coercive social engineering ideology. [Robert St. Estephe, Dec. 3, 2013]
***
***
Michael Snyder, Investment Watch, September 3, 2012
What in the world have we done to our kids? If you
spend much time with them, you quickly realize that the next generation of
Americans is woefully unprepared to deal with the real world. They are
overweight, lazy, undisciplined, disrespectful, disobedient to their parents,
selfish, self-centered, and completely addicted to entertainment. And
that is just for starters. We feed them insane amounts of sugar and high
fructose corn syrup and then when they become overactive we pump them full of
prescription drugs to calm them down. Instead of raising our children
ourselves, we allow the government schools and the entertainment industry to do
it. By the time they reach the age of 18, they have spent far more time
with their teachers, their video games and the television than they have spent
with us. Our young people are #1 in a lot of global categories, but
almost all of them are bad. Young people in the United States are more
obese than anyone else in the world, more sexually active than anyone else in
the world and they become pregnant more often than anyone else in the
world. Of course it probably doesn’t help that we have the highest
divorce rate in the world either. Our families are a complete and total
mess and it is our kids that are paying the price. One top of everything
else, we have accumulated a 16 trillion dollar debt which we will be handing
down to the next generation. I am sure that they will appreciate that.
1. Approximately 57 percent of all children in the United States are living in homes that are either considered to be either “low income” or impoverished.
2. More than 25 percent of all U.S. children have a chronic health condition that affects their ability to learn. Perhaps we should not be feeling them so much junk food.
3. In 2011, SAT scores for young men were the worst that they had been in 40 years.
4. The average young American will spend 10,000 hours playing video games before the age of 21.
5. One study discovered that 88 percent of all Americans between the ages of 8 and 18 play video games, and that approximately four times as many boys are addicted to video games as girls are.
6. According to a survey conducted by the National Geographic Society, only 37 percent of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 can find the nation of Iraq on a map.
7. According to one survey, 50 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 cannot find the state of New York on a blank map.
8. Only 26 percent of Oklahoma high school students know what the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution are called.
9. Only 10 percent of Oklahoma high school students know how many justices sit on the Supreme Court.
10. At this point, 15-year-olds that attend U.S. public schools do not even rank in the top half of all industrialized nations when it comes to math or science literacy.
11. Children in the United States are three times more likely to be prescribed antidepressants than children in Europe are.
12. The United States leads the world in eating disorder deaths.
13. The average American drinks more than 600 sodas every single year. That is by far the most in the world.
14. Back in 1962, only 13 percent of all Americans were obese. Right now, approximately 36 percent of all Americans are obese, and it is being projected that number will rise to 42 percent by 2030.
15. In America today, many families allow the television to raise their children. In fact, the United States is tied with the U.K. for the most hours of television watched per person each week.
16. There are more school shootings in America than anywhere else in the world.
17. The United States has the highest divorce rate on the globe by a wide margin. This is ripping millions of families with children to shreds.
18. Without solid family units, more kids
than ever are joining gangs. Today, there are approximately
1.4 million gang members living inside the United States. That
number has risen by 40 percent just since 2009.
20. If you can believe it, an average of five children die as a result of child abuse in the United States every single day.
21. Sadly, the United States actually has the highest child abuse death rate on the entire globe.
22. Approximately 20 percent of all child sexual abuse victims are under the age of 8.
23. In the United States today, it is estimated that one out of every four girls is sexually abused before they become adults.
24. According to researchers, convicted rapists in the United States report that two-thirds of their victims were under 18, and among those cases 58% said that their victims were 12 years old or younger.
25. The percentage of children living in poverty has risen from 17 percent in 2007 to 22 percent today.
26. Today, one out of every four American children is on food stamps.
27. It is being projected that approximately 50 percent of all U.S. children will be on food stamps at some point in their lives before they reach the age of 18.
28. As I have written about previously, approximately 42 percent of all single mothers in the United States are on food stamps.
29. According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, 36.4 percent of all children that live in Philadelphia are living in poverty, 40.1 percent of all children that live in Atlanta are living in poverty, 52.6 percent of all children that live in Cleveland are living in poverty and 53.6 percent of all children that live in Detroit are living in poverty.
30. It is estimated that up to half a million children may currently be homeless in the United States.
31. It is estimated that child homelessness in the United States has risen by 33 percent since 2007.
32. Right now, approximately 25 million American adults are living with their parents.
33. Law enforcement officials estimate that about 600,000 Americans and about 65,000 Canadians are trading dirty child pictures online.
34. The average high school boy spends two hours watching pornography every single week.
35. An astounding 30 percent of all Internet traffic now goes to pornography websites, and the U.S. produces more pornography than any other nation has in the history of the world.
36. In the United States today, 47 percent of all high school students have had sex.
37. One out of every four teen girls in the United States now has an STD.
38. The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate on the entire planet by a wide margin.
39. One survey found that one out of every five teen girls actually wants to be a teen mom.
40. We have borrowed 16 trillion dollars that we expect future generations to repay. We have consigned our children and our grandchildren to a lifetime of debt slavery and they don’t even realize it yet. When they do realize what we have done to them they will probably curse us bitterly.
Michael Snyder’s blog is InvestmentWatch.
***
The WORD from on high on the non-existence of Cultural Marxism:
(click to enlarge)
***
Book: Ian Buchanan, ed., Jameson on Jameson: Conversations on Cultural Marxism, 2007, Duke University Press.
Publisher’s
promotional copy: Fredric Jameson is one of the most influential literary
and cultural critics writing today. He is a theoretical innovator whose ideas
about the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical
landscape across the humanities and social sciences. Bringing together ten
interviews conducted between 1982 and 2005, Jameson on Jameson is a
compellingly candid introduction to his thought for those new to it, and a rich
source of illumination and clarification for those seeking deeper understanding.
Jameson discusses his intellectual and political preoccupations, most
prominently his commitment to Marxism as a way of critiquing capitalism and the
culture it has engendered. He explains many of his key concepts, including
postmodernism, the dialectic, metacommentary, the political unconscious, the
utopian, cognitive mapping, and spatialization.
***
(click to enlarge)
We are told by our politically correct online Thought Monitors that “Cultural Marxism
does not exist,” and if we dare to speak about it we are “conspiracy theorists.”
Her is a nonexistent screenshot of a citation for a
non-existent academic paper given at a non-existent conference by Robert Carey
(a non-existent academic) at the
non-existent American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, at the Hilton
San Francisco on November 29, 2014.
Big Sibling
commands you to erase this post from your memory.
***
►Thoughts on Ostrichism in the
Non-Feminist Discourse
Alan Sokal of the famous “Sokal affair” took on the eminent
thinker of cultural marxism, Frederick Jameson in his magazine “Social Text”
(co-founded with Stanley Aronowitz). Jameson’s writings are collected in a book
called “Cultural Marxism” (Duke UP). Some MRAs are now claiming Cultural
Marxism does not exist (MRAs and Futrelle), is unimportant to feminism, that
discussing the topic critically means one is a conspiracy theorist (SPLC,
Futrell, Bar Bar), or, astoundingly, that it is no longer influential in
academia (Esmay). Sometimes MRAs will attack the idea that understanding
Cultural Marxism is central to understanding institutional (legal,
bureaucratic, pedagogical) feminism. Alan Sokal took on the idiocy of “feminist
science” (a Cultural Marxism product) though Sokal described himself as “left”
in politics (a vague and generic term which signifies, presumably, a position
opposing military industrial complex, predatory war, rapacious crony capitalism,
support of US Bill of Rights, fascism etc.; a position held by many who do not
use the “leftist” self-descriptive.)
Yet in some MRA circles, any effort to open up knowledge of how feminism works institutionally in accordance with its ideology is dubbed “partisan” (which party is presumably being promoted is ever explained). And in the same communities a discussion of goals, ideas and texts of the foundational and powerful (intellectually, institutionally) feminists is dismissed as an unwanted devolving of a left-right discussion that implicitly (the accusation holds) is somehow an endorsement of what the naysayer seems to believe is a “right” position. The idea of reading and discussing Dennis Dworkin's 1997 book in these circles is anathema (it means the term "New Left" would have to be uttered; and if one speaks critically of aspects of a "left" ideology one is necessarily a scary and weird "right winger" in the minds of these politically correct (uninformed, mentally lazy) MRAs)
Thus, many members of the MRA population remain mired in a shallow critical discourse of non-feminist or anti-feminist positions, always target at end-products (pop culture manifestations, pop culture personalities) without understanding the ideas that fuel the outrages and frauds (the sources that lead to the end-products) MRAs justly oppose. This is evidenced by continues surprise at excesses and expressions of the sentiment “I don’t understand why …” To deal with these “I don’t know why ...” "I don't get it" reactions there has been a narrow focus, almost fundamentalist in nature on gynocentrism (a biologically programmed reality which is expressed in cultural mores). The notion that a reformist cultural construction exists seems to be where this gynocentrism-centric MRA camp has placed all its bets.
This approach is not going to work. It is the ostrich approach. If one does not know one’s opponent thoroughly – in all respects – one cannot battle successfully. Nuance, details, historical development, institutional structure, complexity are jettisoned by the gynocentrism-centric camp, which, it seems is comfortable with the orthodox but fallacious interpretation of human action and history that is fundamentalist social constructionism.
Yet in some MRA circles, any effort to open up knowledge of how feminism works institutionally in accordance with its ideology is dubbed “partisan” (which party is presumably being promoted is ever explained). And in the same communities a discussion of goals, ideas and texts of the foundational and powerful (intellectually, institutionally) feminists is dismissed as an unwanted devolving of a left-right discussion that implicitly (the accusation holds) is somehow an endorsement of what the naysayer seems to believe is a “right” position. The idea of reading and discussing Dennis Dworkin's 1997 book in these circles is anathema (it means the term "New Left" would have to be uttered; and if one speaks critically of aspects of a "left" ideology one is necessarily a scary and weird "right winger" in the minds of these politically correct (uninformed, mentally lazy) MRAs)
Thus, many members of the MRA population remain mired in a shallow critical discourse of non-feminist or anti-feminist positions, always target at end-products (pop culture manifestations, pop culture personalities) without understanding the ideas that fuel the outrages and frauds (the sources that lead to the end-products) MRAs justly oppose. This is evidenced by continues surprise at excesses and expressions of the sentiment “I don’t understand why …” To deal with these “I don’t know why ...” "I don't get it" reactions there has been a narrow focus, almost fundamentalist in nature on gynocentrism (a biologically programmed reality which is expressed in cultural mores). The notion that a reformist cultural construction exists seems to be where this gynocentrism-centric MRA camp has placed all its bets.
This approach is not going to work. It is the ostrich approach. If one does not know one’s opponent thoroughly – in all respects – one cannot battle successfully. Nuance, details, historical development, institutional structure, complexity are jettisoned by the gynocentrism-centric camp, which, it seems is comfortable with the orthodox but fallacious interpretation of human action and history that is fundamentalist social constructionism.
***
Here are more wild paranoid ravings of apparently right-wing nutjob conspiracy theorist tin foil hat wearers who made up the non-existtent philosophy and invented the concocted term for it ("Cultural Marxism"):
Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society, 1980, Volume
7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from
the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.
Richard R. Weiner, Cultural Marxism and political sociology,
1981, SAGE Publications, Jun 1, 1981
A thorough examination and analysis of the tensions between political
sociology and the culturally oriented Marxism that emerged in the 60s and 70s
is presented in this volume.
Emily Hicks [PhD., student of Marcuse], "Cultural
Marxism: Nonsynchrony and Feminist Practice," pp. 219-38 in Lydia Sargent, Women and Revolution: A
Discussion of the Unhappy Marriage ..., 1981.
Douglas Kellner, PhD., Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies,”
UCLA, Feb. 5, 2000.
***
***
Are Wikipedia’s assertions about a conspiracy theory about a supposed conspiracy theory reliable? According to Wikipedia “while the theory [“the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory”] originated in the United States during the 1990s, it entered mainstream discourse in the 2010s and is promoted globally. . . . Academic Joan Braune has explained that Cultural Marxism in the sense referred to by the conspiracy theorists never existed, and does not correspond to any historical school of thought. She also stated that Frankfurt School scholars are referred to as "Critical Theorists", not "Cultural Marxists.” Wikipedia, “Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory,” May 11, 2021]
***
[2780-5/11/21]
***
Why did my familiarity with this topic come from? Answer: social and professional association during a three decade period-plus with Frankfurt School scholars from UCSB (Marcuse circle, Jameson, Semiotexte) and advanced studies with a major feminist scholar in another graduate program. My exposure to a range of Marxist ideological variants is pretty broad (including being invited to meetings where strategies for getting the "right" people" in place where they could shape curriculum to fit ideology as well as more mundane, more public forums, community organizing activities, electoral campaigns). I have not read much in "right wing ideology" (perhaps none at all), nor have I studied with any "right wing" scholars. --- Perhaps it was all a dream. Perhaps I imagined those conversations, lectures, readings, and strategy discussions. Who knows? If the consensus says the sun revolves round the earth, the minority view arrived at from one who has conducted intensive first-hand study must, by definition, be "crazy," no?
ReplyDeleteDavid Futrelle, the brilliant and hugely influential male feminist blog polemicist announced to the world on January 29, 2015, that “Cultural Marxism does not, you know, exist.” [sic] He attributes the concept to “far-right obsession.” Futrelle did not cite the following publication, nor is it one I have myself read. Yet this 1981 book may be of value to those who are trying to track down right-wingers who have infested the print media. As SPLC, one of Futrelle’s has demonstrated, hunting down “extremists” can make you very wealthy. SPLC has, apparently, helped Futrelle understand that critics of Marcuse and Adorno’s activist advice and philosophy are involved in some huge, insidious, uber-scary, “conspiracy theory” activity. Here is a description of a possibly non-existent 1981 study of non-existent Cultural Marxism.
ReplyDeleteSEE: Richard R. Weiner, “Cultural Marxism and political sociology,” Sage Publications, 1981. Synopsis: A thorough examination and analysis of the tensions between political sociology and the culturally oriented Marxism that emerged in the 60s and 70s is presented in this volume. In order to create a strikingly original synthesis, Weiner considers the work of theorists as diverse as Jurgen Habermas, Claus Offe, Alain Touraine, Anthony Giddens and Alvin Gouldner, many of whom fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement.
[Source for quotes: David Futrelle,”Monkey Hippo Like Goyim: What you get when you do a Google image search for “Cultural Marxism”]
mental defects like you are the reason why anti feminism fails.
ReplyDeleteNo such thing as cultural Marxism.
You are either fighting for the rights of men, or you are fighting a right vs left war
I'm rather confused by the "no such thing as" phase. I used the Jameson book cover as the simplest possible example. I could say there is no such thing as "Shakerism," but whatever that statement might mean it would not alter the historical record.
DeleteThere is a difference in what we might call a right/left sensibility in the general culture and the professional organized philosophies and the programs of actions carried out by adherents to sophisticated ideology.
mental defects like you are the reason why anti feminism fails.
ReplyDeleteNo such thing as cultural Marxism.
You are either fighting for the rights of men, or you are fighting a right vs left war
And please, from now on, use the correct term "mental defective" to refer to a person such as myself you wish to identify as unworthy of your respect. The term "mental defect" refers to a specific fault in the working of the brain, not to an individual person.
DeleteWhat do those nonexistent people keep using that term in reference to their own non-existent philosophy? Maybe I made it all up? Maybe Frederick Jameson is a sockpuppet made up by hoaxers. Is there no such think as Frankfurt School too? Are Gramscis's writings and influence a figment of uneducated peoples' fantasy life? "No such thing." I have seen the assertion before. Is there also no such thing as ptomaine poisoning, philately or a birthday card?
ReplyDeleteCOPEIED FROM ABOVE:
Here are more wild paranoid ravings of apparently right-wing nutjob conspiracy theorist tin foil hat wearers who made up the non-existtent philosophy and invented the concocted term for it ("Cultural Marxism"):
Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society, 1980, Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.
Richard R. Weiner, Cultural Marxism and political sociology, 1981, SAGE Publications, Jun 1, 1981
A thorough examination and analysis of the tensions between political sociology and the culturally oriented Marxism that emerged in the 60s and 70s is presented in this volume.
Emily Hicks [PhD., student of Marcuse], "Cultural Marxism: Nonsynchrony and Feminist Practice," pp. 219-38 in Lydia Sargent, Women and Revolution: A Discussion of the Unhappy Marriage ..., 1981.
Douglas Kellner, PhD., Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies,” UCLA, Feb. 5, 2000.
https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf
Let me know your view after you read up on the non-existent thing.
The smarter, more "educated" seemingly...the more stupid one becomes...sad...I file this under too smart for your own good...
ReplyDeleteRevisiting this page, I still have no idea what this comment means. It is referring to Richard R. Weiner, Cultural Marxism and political sociology, 1981, SAGE Publications, Jun 1, 1981?
Delete