Cultural Marxism

as i understand it , following the russian revolution the bolsheviks expected other european

countries to fall like dominoes

they were disappointed that this failed to materialise

so they set up a think tank in frankfurt germany before WW2 to discover what they needed to do

they concluded that before they could takeover they needed to undermine, subvert, and destroy

'western civilisation'.

the principal weapon they invented for achieveing this was called 'political correctness'

'cultural marxism' is marxism devoid if the economic dimension- the state ownership of

industry etc., thus leaving just the social/cultural dimension.

i think theyve done a pretty dam good job so far havent they

both obama and cameron are both exponents of cultural marxism

the think tank was called unsurprisingly the frankfurt school

Cultural Marxism is one of the sickest white hating creations of all time.

Bill Lind did a short talk on this and it sums it up quite well. Well worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZG3pabfPRA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATEkMUygPdU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAsDT_KJblQ

Oddball

So Sibaroni for example?

Karla.

unbiased ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++...

"Karla."

Isn't Karla a proper Marxist though?

Sibaroni wants to reap the rewards of the legal system whilst also encouraging the PC movement.

Or is that just a parasite? 

Well the original purpose of cultural Marxism was to destroy the Western capitalist nations by destroying their societies and support systems so they would come to rely on the State.
Full blown Marxism would then come sweeping in.

At that point the purpose of the victim groups would be gone. I suspect the usual method of dispatch would then be employed - a bullet to the back of the head.

The Marxist State could not be doing with the handicapped and gays. In fact dispatch the lot of them. They need strong healthy workers to keep the commissars well fed and in some degree of luxury.

Marxism will not be coming in but this system of gaining control is useful for all totalitarians.

so, are you saying that Cultural Marxism has been a success and phase 1) is now completed, or that it was a failure but Western Capitalist nations have conformed to the Marxist model of Historical Inevitability, and destroyed themseleves unaided?

Andrew Marr described Caucescu (sp?) as a marxist dictator, not too many Romanians mourned his death.

The first stage is well under way.

Religion is almost lost.
The family unit is weakened.
Many families broken.
Single parent families with multiple fathers not unusual.
No father figures for many kids.
Boys emasculated.
Look carefully at the adverts - see how often the man is made to look stupid.
This is part I of a series of video - interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ_74_36Tqk
Gay, lesbian, transsexual you name it are define as normal. They are not normal.
White indigenous culture is being diluted and denigrated.
White people in the Western Capitalist country are continuous harassed with this PC sh1te. Their culture is blended out with multiculturalism and "diversity" they never asked for and do not want.
These ethnic groups who made the world. Invented virtually everything ever invented. Started and brought forward virtually every technology.
It is their countries which are being flooded with immigrants from the third world. You don't see it elsewhere.
The media does not tell the truth. Goes into a frenzy over a football telling someone to F off but gives no coverage to massive gang rape of children by Asians.
Police refusing to define racist attacks on white as what they are but a white will be defined as racist in the blink of an eye.
The notion that only white can be racist.

A student on trial for racial abuse of Stan Collymore on Twitter - right now this second on the TV. Why didn't we hear about all the black gang crimes, stabbings, shootings, rapes?
Nothing not a twitter.

The list goes on and on and on....

On the Midlands news today a company fitting trackers on cars as fast as they can so people can get cheaper insurance.

We will be blended out and chipped in the end.

You know it. Do not doubt it for a second.

Whilst this is an (interesting?) theory, unless you believe that Martin Luther King was a marxist spy then I think the evidence of the "Frankfurt School" planning has only began in the last 10 years or so. No "long game plan" rubbish can cover this and it looks like another how-to-fit recent history theory. I would have two (out of many, but ones that may keep my interest for a period) 1/ Why do a lot of these type theories seem to come from the likes of RussiaTimes (and if they are to be believed and passed on to others then surely you have become the sucker of everything that you hate ie a robot slave/herder of cultural marxism) and 2/ Why would you think that the opposition of cultural marxism/totalitaraism (for they are the same face of the coin) would not be content to let the other side fight on?

cultural marxism' is marxism devoid if the economic dimension- the state ownership of

industry etc., thus leaving just the social/cultural dimension.


If this is right then Cultural 'Marxism' is an oxymoron. Marxism without the economic dimension isn't and can never be Marxism.Looks like yet more smearing of the great man's ideas by vested interests to me.

Which great man was that?
Karl Marx has lead to the destruction of more lives than any other man.

There was Marxism as spawned by Mr Marx.
Marxism was primarily an economic political theory.

Marxism was not adopted by the working classes in Western Capitalist nations so Cultural Marxism was invented as a way to demolish the cohesiveness of Western Capitalist societies.

No smears. It is all verminous sh1te.

Someone's got to clean the Toilets

In reply to six gun,marx never dropped a nuclear bomb on a nation,and marx never set out to exploit the poor. The banks the heartbeat of capitalism are failed and all so called freedom of the free market is dead with them. The exploiters have had to turn to socialism to save there dead banks.Education is seen by the exploiters as the new bank asset(used to be housing).Its Fooked.

Feb 21, 2012 -- 8:16AM, metro john wrote:

In reply to six gun,marx never dropped a nuclear bomb on a nation,and marx never set out to exploit the poor. The banks the heartbeat of capitalism are failed and all so called freedom of the free market is dead with them. The exploiters have had to turn to socialism to save there dead banks.Education is seen by the exploiters as the new bank asset(used to be housing).Its Fooked.

Marx could not drop a nuclear bomb. He lived in the wrong historical period (or didn't you notice).

Marx created a politico-economic theory which was embraced by the Russians. They murdered the Czar and his family, along with numerous others. Lenin took the theory forward. The Russian civil war when Communism moved in took out around 9 million.
If that wasn't bad enough Lenin was superseded by Stalin one of the most hideous despots of all time.
Stalin signed more death warrants that you will ever have hot dinners. He orchestrated agricultural collectivism which resulted in the Holodomor, a Ukrainian famine where well over 10 million starved to death. Stalin was responsible for around least 40 million deaths.
Mao Zedong and his spin on Marxism was also responsible for around 40 million deaths.
Thank Karl Marx for starting that off.

Agreed the banks have screw up the economies (like they have before). But the people borrowed the money which caused the preceding bubbles. The banks went and lent it out.

Economic Marxism is unnatural and does not work.
Some form of Capitalism is here to stay until and unless we are all blended out in a "multicultural soup" and become chipped slaves.

Some form of Capitalism is here to stay until and unless we are all blended out in a "multicultural soup" and become chipped slaves.

You might be joking six but did you see Marr on sunday? The govt is storing every text, email and mobile call, they say its to track terrorists.

.

No Blackie I am not joking.
They track our phones.
Tracking every interaction on the internet.
Your insurance is less with a car tracker, so they will track our cars.
They will chip the population eventually.

Have you ever wondered why there is so much news about "paedophiles?"
Years ago it was Charlie says don't go with strangers. The puppies and sweeties lines.
Now it is in the news again and again and again.
Is it a bigger problem than it was in the past?
Well except for the Asian paedophile rape gangs which are not in the news, I do not believe it is.
The Madeline McCann story is still running.
The population is being drip fed paranoia about someone out to abuse their children. Someone freak lurking on every corner.

I saw a "research paper" about the huge number of kids being abused. I thought to myself who in my class at school was being abused. Money making scam but it turns the screw a little further.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1091627/Are-10-children-REALLY-abused-Huge-doubts-major-new-study.html

Having whipped the population up, the next step would to have some grisly child abductions.

There are chips licenced for insertion into people. some people have them in them.
msnbc.msn.com/id/6237364/ns/health-health_care/t/fda-approves-computer-chip-humans/

I'd have some kids found in the nick of time. Kids who had been chipped. The unchipped ones dead and mutilated.

There would be a tidal wave of requested for chipping your kid. Never have your kid abducted. Never lose the kid on holiday.
They would all have their own IP address.
Chip the terrorists.
Chip those on probation.
Chip them as babies.
People could be being chipped with their flu jab for all we know.

I can see it happening.

And if the above happens you think that's down to the economic theories of Marx? What do you mean when you say Economic Marxism is unnatural?

Economic Marxism - socialist and ultimately classless society.
An egalitarian society.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Nature does not do equal.
We are not born equal.
We do not have equal abilities or drive.
By nature we will achieve to different extents.

Man A has a wife and three children.
He digs 5 tons of coal a day.
Under nature he earns £10/ton = £50/day
Under Marxism he earns £100.

Man B is single and has no dependants.
He digs 10 tons of coal a day
Under nature he earns £10/ton = £100/day
Under Marxism he earns £40.

Which system is artificial?

You are confusing economic Marxism and cultural Marxism. They are quite different.
Cultural Marxism was created with the intent of diminishing the  the solidity of Western Capitalist societies to facilitate a transition to economic Marxism.
The principles of cultural Marxism can be used to facilitate the transition to a totalitarian State, not necessarily a Marxist one.

Economic marxism- communism
Marx didn't say we were born equal or that we have equal abilities or drives, this is propaganda from rightists . Marx said the the means of production should be owned by the workers not by fat cats exploiting the workers to line their own pockets. Marx advocated the workers uniting to overthrow those who oppress them and ultimately a stateless utopia where workers kept the fruits of their own labour.
The phrase 'cultural marxism' is yet more propaganda from those who have the most to lose should the workers unite and overthrow their oppressors.It's not the left who advocate the weak rich inherting the earth it's those who want to abolish the welfare state and free education and health and keep laws enabling people to be locked up if they assert thier strength and redistribute the wealth which the weak rich have acquired through a system which whether by design or stupidity has led to the transfer of wealth from the strong bright healthy poor to the weak brained greedy dull rich . It's the exisitng rich who are scared of competition not Marx.

And when did I say Marx said "we were born equal or that we have equal abilities or drives?"

I said we are NOT born equal and we do not have equal abilities or drives.
So why should be receive equally?
Illogical.
Artificial.
State control needed to achieve.
Not natural.

I dispute that "Cultural Marxism" is right wing propaganda.
It is a term used to cover Critical theory and its products which originated in the Frankfurt School.

Nature does not do equal.
We are not born equal.
We do not have equal abilities or drive.
By nature we will achieve to different extents.

ManA is bigger and stronger than ManB.

ManA takes all the food and kills ManB if he objects.

You're quite right, nature doesn't do equal, civilisation does.

Gus missing the point again.

Fancy that

well, yes, i'm not very bright, so perhaps someone could explain the point?

Sorry Gus, nothing personal, just I think you are coming into the tail end of something from earlier, like in the other thread.

I stated that economic Marxism was unnatural.
Another poster wanted me to explain why, implying it wasn't unnatural.

I said Marxism imposes an artificial system where people give what they are able and receive what they need.

The natural way, the way we are familiar with, is if you work hard, provide a special skill, invent something, get lucky, you will be rewarded more than say someone of limited skill and who just plods along.

For the guy who contributes something special eg skilled engineer making jet engines getting less than the guy sweeping the streets seems unjust and unnatural.

In Marxism what you get is not determined by what you give but what you need. A system of taking and not one that encourage people to try harder. It is unnatural and is a failure.

but i've just agreed with you. Economic Marxism is unnatural.

Exploitation, aggression, victimisation, bullying, repression .... they're all natural.

Economic Marxism is most certainly unnatural.

It's civilised.

OK Gus.
I would say there is exploitation as high performers aren't rewarded.
The system effectively bullies them.
The lack of reward represses talent as we simply aren't so altruistic.

kite said "
If this is right then Cultural 'Marxism' is an oxymoron. Marxism without the economic dimension isn't and can never be Marxism.Looks like yet more smearing of the great man's ideas by vested interests to me".


who or what was the driver of 'marxism' kite?

who put the bolsheviks in power?

who put the chinese commies in power?

Not Marx, he was long dead. According to Marx communism would follow socialism which would follow capitalism, the russians tried to jump straight from feudalism to socialism instead.

As for the chinese isn't that down to Chairman Mao ?

'who or what was the driver of 'marxism' kite?'
           ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

'Socialism - A Tool of the Capitalist Elite' [Professor

Antony Sutton]

American oligarchs put the bolsheviks in power, likewise

hitler in germany and the chinese commies.