BANNED USER: personal attacks
>Unban in 6d 02h 14m
Belisarius
.
No bio...
User ID: 2663
Banned by: @Amadan
Microsoft restarted the three miles island reactor. Energy heavy A.I. data centers will probably make use of nuclear energy to an extend.
The scaremongering is one thing, but practically cost is the bigger issue which might be related with scaremongering and erossion of skills.
The big bet is if costs can come down and if the emerging trend of smaller reactors proves economical enough. Its current biggest competition that is beating it is natural gas. Since nuclear energy lacks the negatives of solar/wind which require other energy sources to be used when they are down, it makes sense to invest in improving its effectiveness in terms of bringing down the costs. Current nuclear reactors are safe so that issue is handled.
The zero carbon agenda is the road to national self destruction. Deindustrialization and shutting down energy sources are a terrible idea. Green parties that have such an agenda must be investigated to see if they are funded by foreign powers which includes things like oikophobic ideology which is also disloyalty to your people's future well being. European countries should not agree that they should subsidize the developing world's adjustment, or that Europe should sacrifice its own energy needs for the sake of climate change goals.
It's the opposite. They are trying to deny and obfuscate because they oppose differences and want to talk about it in a politically correct manner. So there are debunkers pretending the issue doesn't exist and is just a negative stereotype. In the past there was a complete prohibition of alcohol sales to "Native Americans" .
Like many real issues, you are also going to find some talking about it.
There is in a fact a bigger problem of drunkedness, people being addicted to alcohol and dying in part due to that. Maybe they abuse the alcohol also for reasons of being impulsive, IQ related and so on but it doesn't change that the combo of them and alcohol works worse. Both in terms of behavior and health.
but it's hard for me to look at Germany and France and think that they're actually missing out on a ton of longevity and productivity due to all the beer and wine.
The issue is quantifiable. Even outside alcohol, when it comes to drugs one can see an increase of drug abuse in certain european countries due to less policing and a more pro drug culture.
Germany is still going to be better than muslim countries but Germans would live longer without alcohol consumption.
Sure, it is manageable even if it is probably among the top negative behaviors that affect life expectancy in countries like Germany. That is because Germans don't have that many problems and are successful. Most Muslim countries have more significant problems to worry about.
The issue becomes especially notable in some eastern european countries where it actually plays a more significant effect for bellow 80 years old life expectancy. Even in Germany, for alcohol abusers it does eat years from their life.
Men in Belarus live only 68 years and this was the country that had the highest alcohol consumption in the world in 2010! https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31960526/
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/05/17/heaviest-drinking-countries/9146227/
- Belarus
Alcohol per capita (APC) consumption: 17.5 liters Pct. binge drinking: 26.5% (14th highest) Pct. of deaths, alcohol-related: 34.7% (the highest) Life expectancy at birth: 72.1 years
Life expectancies in the nations with heavy alcohol use are also shorter. The average life expectancy at birth in high income nations was 79.3 years as of 2012, far higher than in almost all of the heaviest drinking nations. In Romania, the average life expectancy was just 68.7 years. In Russia and Ukraine the average life expectancy was below 72 years as well.
Anyway, comparing countries like Germany with the worst is a losing game. You either compare with other successful societies that do certain things differently, or try to estimate how it would do, if it did things differently.
Now, you could argue that drinking is a common part of German culture, and although it can be done in moderation or you can have to the other extreme Eastern Europe type of disaster.
Here are some numbers of the top of a few seconds searching
The use of psychoactive substances is one of the main risk factors for the global burden of disease and premature mortality (1). In 2019, worldwide tobacco use was responsible for approximately 229 million disability-adjusted life years (DALY) and 8.71 million deaths. A total of 2.44 million deaths were attributable to the consumption of alcohol and 494,000 to the use of illegal drugs (2, 3). Thus, based on the total number of annual deaths (56.53 million), a fifth (11.64 million) are accounted for by the use of psychoactive substances (3). Despite an observed decline in the consumption of alcohol since the 1990s, Germany is among the 10 countries worldwide with the highest per capita consumption rates (4, 5). The proportion of smokers in 2019 was also above the West European average (6).
So based on the above numbers, it is 4.32% of total mortality.
You are making an argument of faith here based on an affirmation rather than sincerely considering whether the line has been crossed and examining the facts and where this doesn't pass, and where it passes. Because there are actual human societies that the line has been crossed.
I gave the most fitting example which is Indian country. The effect of alcohol towards them is a complete horror show. The level of harm it causes them far surpasses any possible benefit. There seems to be a genetic component to that even though this is also a field where there are those trying to deny race differences. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12010113
Even as it is these are the consequences worldwide: https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohols-effects-health/alcohol-topics/alcohol-facts-and-statistics/global-burden
Globally, alcohol misuse was the seventh-leading risk factor for premature death and disability in 2016.
In 2016, alcohol misuse was the leading risk factor for death and disability among people ages 15 to 49.
In 2016, approximately 14.0% of total deaths among people ages 20 to 39 were alcohol attributable.
In 2016, of all deaths attributable to alcohol consumption worldwide, 28.7% were due to injuries, 21.3% were due to digestive diseases (primarily cirrhosis of the liver and pancreatitis), 19.0% were due to cardiovascular diseases, 12.9% were due to infectious diseases (including tuberculosis, pneumonia, and HIV/AIDS), and 12.6% were due to cancers (most prominently those of the upper aerodigestive tract).
In 2016, 5.1% of the burden of disease and injury worldwide (132.6 million disability-adjusted life years) was attributable to alcohol consumption."
These are significant consequences.
The prohibitions mentioned in the OP in South Africa might be another example of a good trade off. If your society is South Africa you kind of have to prioritize making it less of a failed society and reducing the violence.
I sympathize with this in regards to full prohibition of alcohol unless you live in a sufficiently fallen society. Sufficient problem and prohibition is not only justifiable but a moral imperative and you are extremely unreasonable if you are not willing to consider that there is a red line. If your society has enough of a problem with alcohol abuse then it should be banned no question.
For example alcohol prohibition towards Indian "native" Americans is a no-brainer. It is extremely destructive towards them and makes them dangerous to others as well. Both how alcohol affects them, and the general problem of alcohol abuse in their community, is an example where the skepticism must be towards those who decriminalized it, at the expense of the people affected.
The trade offs in comparison to the examples you mention aren't there. Still, I also sympathize with considering idea of freedom even if it causes harm, provided the harm isn't large enough or comes with other significant benefits. Alcohol is damaging enough that the weight would fall in favor of prohibition except for one reason.
The only reason I don't support prohibiting it is because it is so entrenched culturally, and there is historical continuity and significance. So there is a more significant trade off because it is a more important part of living and past culture. Of more normal and respectable people too. So there is a point there. However these are advantages but of a much different nature than books, or getting faster to your destination than 25 miles per hour. But alcohol is bad enough. It carries a significant cost. And certainly restrictions and trying to curtail alcohol abuse is good.
We should put a line to it and prohibit harmful drugs who don't have that history. Alcohol is bad enough but its byproducts are too culturally significant. The rest of harmful drugs are not. The damage that alcohol abuse inflicts in society is bad enough and we should not allow more to be added to it.
Well, it depends on how much you want policies to work. American prohibition worked in improving alcohol related diseases but there was still some success by mobsters in bypassing it.
Also there were other legal avenues to bypass it. Doctor prescriptions, religious exceptions, etc. https://www.tastingtable.com/1180444/the-legal-way-you-could-obtain-alcohol-during-prohibition/
These loopholes were abused to continue the trade during prohibition. For example, there were a lot of fake rabbis abused the religious exception. https://www.jta.org/2019/08/27/ideas/the-clever-fake-rabbis-who-made-millions-off-of-prohibition
Quoting from the above:
The likelihood of getting caught was reduced by enabling and participating law enforcement officials and politicians. Furthermore, for those who were caught, the punishments were not severe. For example, the Volstead Act stated that the fine was at most $500 for a first violation, which barely made a dent in what many violators typically made selling the illicit drinks.
In a more failed society, with more serious abuse problems, prohibition policies might work even better.
I am more addressing the "drug war hasn't solved the problem" claim. Even with the corruption, anti-drug policies in comparison to decriminalization policies, still save lives related to the drug abuse. In South Africa it also helped with the murders.
Another relevant issue, is the problem that criminals might take advantage of black market conditions to become powerful. Appeasing them by legalizing their industry still gets you the harmful consequences of the drug trade. There isn't a better alternative than actually genuinely trying to get rid of corruption.
Are there societies with more corruption on other issues like the economy, with less corruption on drugs than the USA? I am not speaking about south africa here. But there are plenty examples of countries without America's drug abuse problems. Part of the reason for the corruption might be this pro drug use ideology. How much does the police actually tries to enforce laws against drug abuse? In addition to American corruption, being bordered by countries that have powerful drug cartels is also important. That is still about criminals capturing power and acting with impunity.
But the worldwide record shows that American style drug use is not a problem shared by all societies, and not even all affluent societies.
You are pro murder in my view if you don't care about killing babies that are sufficiently late term. There can be some very rare exceptions, but supporting it in general is a rightfully hated position.
I don't understand your analogy. How is killing "vile criminals" similar to killing developed babies?
Supporting third trimester abortions is not just not savvy but a position that people find morally abhorrent for valid reasons that are much more understandable than any claim of moral abhorrence towards execution of murderous criminals.
For the purpose of my argument, the radical pro life side ("abortions should always be tried as murder") corresponds to BLM radicals ("When we say 'defund the police', we mean abolishing it"). The moderates are the ones who dislike the death penalty or the 3rd trimester abortions, but don't really care too much about Dobbs or criminal justice otherwise. The point of view I am arguing is people who care strongly about criminal justice or abortion rights, and are fine with the death penalty or 3rd trimester abortions, but would lose popular support if they demanded that.
Third trimester abortion is an extreme position. Singerian viewpoint can even support infanticide. In my view, treating after birth bill or immediate abortion as equivalen of murder is also an extreme position. But certainly your position is far worse.
I can understand how "all abortion is murder" can be not savvy electorally. Although, calls of compromise it is very harmful to the right. It's part of the mechanism for why things are so far left, because leftists including leftists who captured influence in right wing circles, ask for more compromise, with the end result the right becoming more of the left.
So, for example as far as late term abortions go, there is nothing wrong with making supporting it a taboo, and even criminal prosecutions of legislators and those doing them. Outside of some few exception.
Not caring too much is so commonly offered by people here as a "moderate position" especially by liberals towards right wingers. It is not a moderate position to not care. It can even be the opposite. It also not sensible to paint valid positions as extreme.
The death penalty is not an extreme position. It might be an unfashionable position in certain countries today, but that doesn't make it an extreme position. I would give you that, it doesn't make you an extremist to oppose the death penalty, weakly. Frankly, I respect to an extend the argument of fear of getting it wrong, or fear of the state abusing its power.
But the animating feelings among those strongly opposing it in discourse I have seen is about this idea of inoccent, framed, or falsely accused, especially black murderers. And how an injustice is done to them.
I would say that the right and people in general need to support valid positions that go against the pieties and orthodoxies of the left and of its associated sacred cows. Ironically easy conformism is the road to the worst extremism and what is fashionable is not something to just compromise and allow others to define, but something that can be fought over and change.
(Another thing to consider is that among the left, the moderates generally refuse to be alienated by the radicals, with the moderates claiming that 'When people demand X, they obviously don't mean Y, but Z'. (X: "defund the police", Y: "abolishing the police", Z: "move some of the police budget to social services" or X: "From the river to the sea", Y: "destroy Israel", Z: "a two state solution").)
Moving the budget of the police to social services and defunding police somewhat has lead to increase of crime rates and is in fact an extreme position. The so called moderate left have promoted a very distorted picture of the world, and soft on crime and two tier justice policies. As always as narratives of that.
The moderate left are just extremists who are more moderate about their destructive agenda in my view. To a great extend, the moderate left doesn't exist, because what they want which is similiar to the BLM type agenda but not as far, is not moderate! To the extend something that can be considered moderate left exists, which is genuinely moderate, it must be a very small faction.
I think that we agree that there are some crimes which are similar to means states should use -- with sufficient procedural safeguards -- as punishment (theft, kidnapping). We likely also agree that there are some acts which are considered crimes when random citizens do them which would still be bad it we had the state do them (rape, torture). We seem to have different moral intuitions into which of the two camps the act of killing a person against their will should fall.
FWIW, I do not consider the death penalty with sufficient safe guards for sufficiently evil crimes to be a great moral failing of the US. I don't like it, but only to the point that I will write on the motte about it.
Fair.
I think that justice should strive to be color-blind. If there are more violent criminals in a minority, the way I would spin this is that this very likely means that the non-criminals in that minority are exposed to more crime than suburban Whites. If police is more reluctant to take action against Black men abusing their partners than against White men abusing theirs, then they are failing Black women, which is something the wokes should care about.
You can't address the problem of pro black bias, by making it all about how blacks suffer more. You reinforce the woke ideology when your opposition to it is about primarily how it hurts blacks more. It can be part of the things you mention that such murderers also harm blacks but you shouldn't adopt the morality that prioritizes blacks.
Last time, the prohibition worked well in lowering alcohol abuse. Also it partly failed due to corruption. The drug problem is so bad also because of corruption and influential people connected to the drug trade like spooks of the CIA.
The solution to this is to go after criminals, mobsters, gangsters, criminal spooks that use drugs to fund their black budget, etc.
Decriminalization of drug policies lead to far greater addiction to harmful substances. There is no solution to corruption than to punish those engaging it. You can't escape the negative consequences through legalization and tolerance.
I do consider Harris and the people surrounding her incompetent but I see certain important differences.
Harris wants to double down on the elements of the regime and push things in a more totalitarian direction.
Gorbachev wanted to strongly reform aspects of it although he didn't want the USSR to fall.
Also Gorbachev was more in control, until he wasn't, while Kamala is less independent.
In my opinion people like Harris and the general elites of this type, represent more the leaders of USSR prior to Gorbachev. Incompetent, but authoritarian. Unlike them they are willing to double down in authoritarianism, and are more radical so maybe she has both parallels with earlier Communists and those of the time of stagnation. Although, the system is more oligarchical and the central figure is less important.
Someone who isn't out to be a revolutionary but sincerely wants to positively reform the regime and not in a 50 Stalin anti-dissident direction, without desiring to dismantle it, but in a manner that will cause its end, will fit more to the Gorbachev role.
Edit: Although doubling down in the areas Harris wants to double down, could lead eventually to a collapse. Or it could lead to a 1990s and after South Africa situation of the same and similar but more radical types in charge, of an increasingly failing society. This counts as a collapse in important ways even though similar type of elites are in charge but admittedly South African elites exercise less control over some parts of the country.
I think that having the death penalty seems like a weird hill to die on for anti-crime people. It is not universally accepted in the US, only 12-13 states still execute people. It provides a rallying point for the people opposed to it, from BLM to pacifists.
I get abortion as a CW topic. It matters. I would estimate lifetime abortions per capita to be somewhere between 0.1 and 2. Depending on your stance, that is a lot of innocent fetuses brutally murdered or a lot of women forced to give birth.
The death penalty might have been more cost effective than lifelong imprisonment in 1800 or 1900, but these days it is not (thanks to the efforts of the anti crowd). Clinging on to it for reasons of tradition only seems weird, like running a coal powered train line through some suburb.
This idea that the issue doesn't matter for your opposition, but it matters for opponents of the death penalty that ought to be appeased is pretty contradictory.
Clearly you oppose the death penalty, and you are trying to get the pro death penalty people to support you, by claiming they should appease groups like BLM, and how pro death penalty position is just clinging to tradition. A theme of outdated tradition vs inherently better progressive evolution appears.
I find it a subversive argument to act as if conservatives and other non progressives should adopt your values on this issue, and somehow it will help them from "dying on a hill". It seems like an attempt to fool them to abandon their preference, and adopt yours, without you giving sufficient due care about whether they might be right. On the face of it, this isn't a valid argument. But since it isn't a new one, there are more that can be said.
We know from experience that more appeasement and compromise on issues like death penalty will not satiate those willing to proclaim likely black murderers as innocent. Nor will it satisfy those who think that more appeasement and compromise by the right is necessary. Conservatives who listened to many of this iterations of bad advice to abandon their non progressive positions out of a mentality that it is a dying hill to not do so, either actually became the liberals, or failed to oppose the liberals enforcing the BLM agenda. It has been a consistently self destructive way for non progressives to act, and had played its role in things moving further left.
Like many issues is a legitimate issue that its proponents have valid reasons to fight for. Why are you so confident on this issue to ask others to stop fighting for it?
Are you sure you should be fighting on this hill?
I see the punishment of the worst criminals not in terms of revenge, but merely as society deciding 'you have hurt people badly enough that we will reduce the amount of freedom to enjoy to a degree where you will not be able to hurt anyone again'.
I do not believe that a state should punish murderers by killing them. Or torturers by torturing them. Or rapists by raping them. Or cannibals by eating them. There is all kind of scumbag behavior which decent society should not reciprocate.
Just like taking stolen money and giving them to the rightful owners is not theft.
And like kidnapping and imprisonment the crime is not equivalent to putting the same people in prison.
Neither is executing sufficiently vile criminals and murderers the same scumbag behavior to their actual murders. Equivalency in this case, can lead to too little empathy towards those suffering from murderers, including towards the ideological opposition.
There is an element of justice that is about punishment and retribution and making things whole for the victims by punishing perpetrators which is stronger towards sufficiently vile crimes. Bringing catharsis to the victims and their relatives, and to society by taking from the criminals what they have taken from those who suffered. Symbolically, it can also help avoid a society that sympathizes too much with criminals, or even with black criminals in particular, or shows some crossover with these kind of sympathies. The death penalty can reinforce the ways of thinking of a society that symbolically cares more for victims of crime. And then your wording of "barbarians" and "scumbag" in this issue has a symbolic significance in the opposite direction.
Cost, is the result of organizations and a general faction that are pro releasing even guilty criminals. And which also care about race and support a pro black criminal two tier system. And the way to deal with this, is to target the organizations, and the faction who are pushing this agenda even outside the death penalty.
Additionally, there are other valid considerations where the death penalty would apply. Cost and showing more care for victims than criminals which is connected to general anticrime policies is one thing. Others can be for example, mob bosses that remain influential, or people who would continue to murder inside prison, or the possibility of people being released in the future, by a more pro criminal system. At least by executing them now, you don't give them the opportunity to reofend. Which is a realistic issue in the circumstances.
I do agree that harsher treatment is not always better. There are crimes that it would be disproportionate, but these isn't the ones the death penalty is talked about in this debate. Still, empathy even towards offenders has its role. But too much empathy towards the worst criminals, does compete with empathy towards victims and is directly related with policies that help them reoffend.
While there are less passionate opponents of the death penalty who are so for various reasons, the death penalty debate among those who are more animated about it is also to a great extend about people who are willing to call actual murderers as innocents. It is a part of the general pro criminal vs anti-criminal conflict and the general conflict between people who have a wrong, and ironically racist view about black Americans being victimized by a white supremacist anti black system, when the reality is that black Americans are actually the demographic that engages in statistically the more predatory and criminal behavior, and black criminals should be punished for the common good. The response to those who sympathize with murderers and especially sympathize with black murderers, can't be to agree with them that an injustice of any sort is happening to these people. Or that society is failing to fulfill its duty towards them.
Executing criminals that are sufficiently vile is not barbaric, scumbag behavior, or a moral affront.
I guess one area I do agree with people more of your persuasion, is that prisons should not be unsafe, and there should be sufficient oversight so the places have order, are relatively clean, and there isn't violence and rape. Ironically, executing people who murder other inmates in prison, might help with that.
Rehabilitation like punishment is an element of justice, one that like punishment, becomes more significant in certain cases. And this applies more so in the less violent offenses.
Yes, it is pretty obvious that a great deal of the people who are outspoken about cases like this, have misplaced empathy, and are quite willing to be anti life in other circumstances. There is also a strong element of especially sympathy towards black murderers. People are very animated and care and even some willing to call black murderers as innocents.
Personally, in most cases of vile criminals I don't have that strong of a position of life in prison vs execution. Death penalty certainly has a role though, as some people can become a problem later on, or remain one in prison through influence. Not to mention that in a system that is becoming more favorable to criminals, they might be freed to reofend in the future. While if executed, they won't get that opportunity. There have also been murderers who have been in prison for life, and then they keep committing murders or rapes in prison.
Even outside of the dangers of reoffending, it also might provide more catharsis to society and the relatives of victims. I strongly disagree with the idea that society has done any wrong when executing certain vile criminals.
Belisarius
.
1mo ago
I disagree with your final paragraph. We don't want the female worker in the OP to be able to easily get the other guy fired. American CEOs sided with BLM and started enforcing stronger antiwhite quotas. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-09-26/corporate-america-kept-its-promise-to-hire-more-people-of-color
It is easier for higher ups to be ideologically captured, and they cannot be trusted as a class with power to do whatever they want. Of course, the system is such that there are pressures in that direction, including from the goverment.
There should be all sorts of pressures to allow people to be fired for valid reasons, and not allow them to be fired for invalid reasons like those who have been fired for being insufficiently left wing. The concept of frivolous complaints and people being politically correct troublemakers should be sufficiently common and they will be less inclined to be that. Female coworkers claiming harassment over BS like this case, should count as bad behavior.
At the same time, it is fair for female workers not to be groped for example and to be able to make complaints about that. I dunno how common that is in Japanese corporations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chikan_(body_contact)
At face value, she seems to be insane.
Asking someone their birthday is such utterly normal behavior that it devalues the rest.
The first, without additional evidence provided should also be dismissed as nothing. Resembling a celebrity chef is not an issue. And so is friending her on Facebook.
People causing trouble because the other party genuinely is treating them rather badly (not, this job by its nature is tough), is one thing. When the case appears frivolous it should be dismissed.
Maybe, as Jordan Peterson has suggested, men and women just may not be able to work together, despite common sense western (and eastern) assumptions.
Ideally women spent more time as mothers in today's world with low fertility rates.
While there are issues that might arise from men and women working togethe, I find this a cope in this situation since the problem is unreasonable behavior. By their nature, women are probably more in line to be compatible with unreasonable complaint culture, if they are indulged to. For another example, Men are more likely to sexually harass in a genuine way and also to be targets of false accusations.
Both men and women should operate under rules to not cause unreasonable trouble to their coworkers, and where the job's rules, doesn't violate basic interaction or encourages social isolation. We want people to be able to even build friendships and even gasp families with coworkers.
As with all issues, there is no way to escape making a judgement and being resolute, and reasonable judgements that take a stand is how you avoid such behaviors. When those in charge fail to do their duties and shut down such behaviors, and judge the frivolous, as frivolous, you are going to get insane accusations over bullshit. So in this case, based on the facts as they appear now, higher ups should have a talk with her and explain how accusing someone of harassment is a serious issue and how her complaints do not constitute harassment, but her accusation does.
Part of homogeneity is common ethnic consciousness, commonality in language, religion, ancestry, insufficient history of remaining grudges and bad blood, etc. The later element, if it existed in the past, has declined today. The English are one ethnic group, even with some heterogeneous elements and diversity in their history.
Ethnic groups have some heterogeneity in them. As with most things, the amount matters. Increase substantially differences, and you get a nation comprising of different groups. This is a genuine difference that relates to accurately separating ethnic groups.
This doesn't bias things, since you still got a homogeneous situation if the divisions are sufficiently irrelevant and have a robustly common identity. Conversely you get heterogeneity when divisions are significant and ethnic groups don't get along. You are getting an accurate message that proves the advantages of a homogeneous country and of small enough differences among the people, so much so that they can be identified as a common ethnic group.
I don't think you are wrong though but orthodox marxism can be overstated as part of all modern woke types and helps woke capitalists get away with it. I do agree that cultural marxism has expanded from class towards the cultural realm. We should just not underestimate Woke capitalists who are also for cultural marxism and moreover Cultural Marxism is compatible with some version of managed capitalism that accepts its ideology.
For example BLM, a black marxist group created by a Jewish marxist who was part of the weatherman underground group, managed to get enough capitalists to support its agenda to hire non whites over whites.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-black-lives-matter-equal-opportunity-corporate-diversity/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-09-26/corporate-america-kept-its-promise-to-hire-more-people-of-color
So capitalists actually collaborated with a marxist group. Which is why you aren't wrong, it is just the issue that we shouldn't forget the cultural Marxists who also see their version of capitalism as helpful to their project.
There is a certain woke, pro capitalist in theory who opposes OG marxism, at least in theory but they still have the cultural marxist agenda. Of course, in reality they compromise with a movement which has included plenty of marxists among it. But this exists. The compromise with marxist organisations does undermine some of their anti marxist credentials.
Are these people cultural marxists? Of course, even someone who isn't orthodox marxist, can be a cultural marxism by applying the marxist logic without prioritizing class.
The activist groups and movements that rose in the 20th century in the USA especially are very important parts of it. But of course such movements had plenty of Marxists involved too. Cultural marxism does come from the original left and original marxism had those elements too, and that is why opponents of it also raised some of the same concerns.
Someone who is a marxist in general can be a cultural marxist too. There are plenty of those who also argue that redistribution in the cultural marxist arena is anti capitalist and a fulfillment of Marxism. Kendi IIRC is one of those types. This is indeed a very important element of it. But cultural Marxists are not about prioritizing the working class but primarily about favoring in western societies progressive identity groups like women, Jews, Blacks, migrants, Muslims, Indians, etc, and against right wing, white, conservative, nationalist, men. And also adopt the ideology of the diffusion of national, conservative, and gender roles and values of groups, especially of their outgroup.
Business owners can share this agenda and agree with it ideologically, and some do this also in part due to a profit motive. For example, they benefit from a system where the goverment pays for welfare, and support the importation of cheap labor. They can agree with the cultural marxist, and general marxist agenda of the idea of dissolution of gender roles, tradition, native nation, because they prefer so much so for women to work over being mothers, even if that would harm society and lead to unsustainable low fertility rates. Or they are part of the DEI industry and there is an obvious profit motive there.
There can also be a resistance to some elements of cultural marxism that partly has some economic leftist elements which show some nationalism, even though cultural marxism comes usually with an economically leftist redistributist package. There have been some leftists who opposed open borders and high numbers of migration on basis of prioritizing the well being of their own working class. Usually they did this while also expressing that they have solidarity with foreign working classes. More of the left pushed the opposite agenda and even most of those who opposed it have went along and changed their tune. Still this has existed.
Cultural revolution in favor of an economic model as the priority can coexist with both communists and people who want to promote their more capitalist economic system, although they too as we observe tend to be ideologically aligning with the idea of screwing "oppressor" groups in favor of "oppressed" and playing motte and bailey games between economy as only allowed concern for the outgroup and then accepting as legitimate concerns of the cultural marxist sort.
The idea of an utopia coming out of destroying the distinctions, or the actual nations, racial, property rights, classes, borders, religions, nuclear family, gender roles, usually with some groups and categorizations targeted as reactionaries than others can exist also among woke capitalists, who are cultural Marxists and have definitely been influenced by the intellectual legacy of Marxism and share elements with OG marxism. And I do agree that actual self identified Marxists have been influential in the cultural marxist movements.
Just adding some of the nuances of the issue, so we don't let woke capitalists get forgotten as part of the issue of Cultural Marxism.
As I addressed your point directly, it is blatantly and unquestionably true that Jews are beneficiaries of DEI policies and far leftists who are zionists are key part of the establishment and promote progressive stack that benefits the Jews. You insisting this isn't the case, doesn't change the fact that Jewish identity is promoted in colleges.
The Democrats are hardcore pro woke, and your attempt to cover up for the Jewish supremacist, woke types, is it self telling.
The reality is that a far leftist who is pro Jewish, hates right wingers, white people and Christians, like Jonathan Greenblat, is a core part of the cultural marxist coalition. This is a point you act as if it hadn't been made, because you want to deny it.
A great deal of Jews do this themselves and as part of their progressive ideology includes opposition to what they call antisemitism, in the same way biased racists in favor of blacks, or feminists complain about racism and misogyny. The Jewish lobby uses the cultural marxist oppressor, oppressed for the Jews benefit and for Israel and against right wingers and white Christians.
They are also willing to use such power against pro Palestinian leftists who include cultural marxists. But they are not the only cultural marxists, and are of less influence and significance today.
This idea that groups like ADL are irrelevant and far leftists who are also Jewish supremacists exist in only our fantasy, is a completely preposterous claim. You wanting to bypass such issues, including the congress adopting ridiculously broad definitions of antisemitism, is a case, of you not wanting to acknowledge this.
American Jews, as a pattern are happy to combine progressivism with Jewish identity politics, and so this extends beyond just the establishment.
This distortion of reality to paint groups like Jews as always marginalized is very much a characteristic of what makes cultural marxism such a damaging ideology. And it also extends beyond just the Democrats. There are instances of nominally claiming to be right wing parties have sided both in isolation and in combo with left wing identity politics, privilidging such groups at expense of their own base.
To the extend there has been a civil war among woke, the pro Jewish wokes have been winning, and you are both denying their existence while also being blatantly on their side.
You're not the only guy on this forum who doesn't like Jews.
This is the classic cultural marxist response. Dismissing the whole issue and framing it as people being just haters and the implication being unfairly picking up on such groups. Ironically, those who promote this perspective are those who are hateful and show a dislike towards other groups and towards people who make valid claims, because they are biased in favor of such groups and oppose objectivity. The whole issue is about people being biased in favor of Jews, and other groups and biased and hateful against say white Christians and right wingers, based on this.
It isn't incidentally about just people who belong in those groups AND also want to use, and might even believe it themselves, into the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy to their benefit, at expense of others, in the intersectional progressive direction. Lets not lose track, the problem extends also to those who don't belong to such groups and are supremacists for them. Even though those who belong are more prone to be part of this movement of cultural marxism.
This is the the same as with the blacks, women and other groups that are treated as beyond criticism. Well, with the women it is different, there isn't as big of a taboo, but there is still that same movement. The cultural marxists aren't fighting for the most part against unfair people who dislike women, blacks, but are themselves haters of white people, haters of men, haters of non Jews. They are also haters of people who make fair criticisms of those groups, and make fair criticisms of the cultural marxists. They hate people who talk about crime and don't lie about 13/55, because they prioritize their ideology, over valid problems. And because they don't respect that other groups have a legitimate case to oppose bad behavior of the groups they favor at their expense.
They are willing to support and cover for crimes, while pathologilizing those opposing them.
Lets just say, that people who talk about genuine problems like say, grooming gangs, have the moral highground over people trying to cover up such issues because it is "disliking"/ism Pakistanis. Same, with the problem of authoritarianism and racist preference for such groups. Or a foreign country being prioritized, and those opposing it subject to cancel culture, vile attacks, and targeted by the Jewish lobby.
Bigotry in favor of Jews, Blacks, women, Muslims (when it comes to them being put above white Christians) etc, is a very key component of cultural Marxism.
It is one that is based on false, exaggerated accusation and insinuations of ism, and phobias, to cover its own agenda to benefit those groups at expense of the right wing outgroup, to shut down reality, and to cover up actual crimes and parasitical behavior.
What kind of single unifying culture you favor promoting here? As an outsider looking in, It makes sense for the USA to promote a unifying culture and also to stop undermining the white American historical nation and part of its unifying culture to be about the continuous American nation. I.E. White Anglo Americanism. While the story of USA will include also black experience but with much less grievances, and sure there is some room for the story of other groups. A multiethnic country which is what the USA is today, can promote a unifying culture, but will also have to promote. And plenty of grey lines on such issues, but your trajectory is not a good idea, and leads to the destruction of American culture, and towards a post-American culture.
Which is not my culture, nor my people, except in a more supra-national way, although it does benefit my people for "genocide the native people and put a lipstipc on a pig" to not be a fashionable ideology. But I object against this cultural revolution from a moralist universalist perspective too. I am not suggesting, anywhere that USA should promote other languages than English.
Saying you favor unified culture is an easy slogan, but black Americans have their own different ethnic community. They speak English. What are you going to do about it? Are you trying to force different ethnic communities in the USA to abandon any of their characteristics. You ought to target especially groups like black Americans or Jews, or Indians who are especially ethnocentric.
- It was the same with unification of various countries in Europe— the French promoted Frenchness, the British promoted Britishness, the Russians promoted Russian culture. Peter the Great was not Marxist by any stretch of the imagination. He was a Russian Czar promoting the culture of Russia.
There is no Frenchness without the French. Look, you had the opportunity to address mass migration, and you didn't. And now it seems you support displacing Americans while painting this as promoting Americanism.
I think as far as people suddenly becoming “strangers in their own land”, again, this isn’t some weird new idea that nobody ever thought about until Marx came along. There have always been subcultures and ethnic groups on the outs in any given society. It’s how a unified culture tends to work, you go along with the culture or you are at least somewhat on the outside. I and my near kin would be on the outs in lots of cultures.
People becoming strangers in their own land is the local culture and people becoming replaced. And when this happens, those doing the replacement cheer for colonizing it, including the left and fake right, who ideologically favor the native people being disminished and support cultural genocide and advocate for a culture that does not carry the heritage of the past, that has its statues replaced, schools renamed, etc.
You trying to support this as nationalism is just a complete failure to address this issue, and subversive. It basically denies what is happening because it supports it.
Also important to note that actual highly hostile cultural marxists have promoted rhetoric trying to spin cultural replacement and mass migration as something else than it is because they genuinely believed that by lying about this, they will get their way to destroy their ethnic outgroup. So they promoted dishonestly the narrative of opposing identity, while the end result was their focus was on what was destructive on their right wing outgroup identities, while enabling the progressive favored groups like Jews, Indians, migrants. Because the current trajectory is of certain people being replaced, hated and discriminated and that isn't a case of regional cultures of a nation, converging, but of the destruction of European people. Your approach is just to compromise with this and spin it as otherwise.
In regards to whether you are a cultural marxist hiding your power level, I am not saying you have that goal, and I am not saying you don't. Cultural marxism works not by only the people who promote directly racism in the left wing direction, but also people who undermine opposition to it, by promoting the acid of destruction of identities. Most cultural marxists do both and pretend they are just opposing racism, because they see as racist for their right wing outgroups to have things for themselves, being exclusive.
As for the rest, in addition to those doing so deliberately, some, because of the pressure of political corectnest which is key element of cultural marxist, address their message towards those who are less ethnocentric, and are getting screwed over because of it.
The end result of mass migration and the culture of Americans being on the out, is the promotion of a different culture, of the outsiders who replace Americans, and those of native stock who are ideologically anti-American. The unifying culture you favor is not going to be an American culture, but a new Soviet man, that is about a shared ideological vision. And even that is not going to happen, because the cultural destruction you favor, and try to spin as nationalism as usual, has as part of its dna the hostility against the ative people.
I have challenged you and others repeatedly. Look, to have equality under the law, you need to crash organizations like ADL, and to change the mentality extremely pervasive among countless fanatics, even more so of those communities, that "Jews are wonderful, and disagreement is antisemitism", Blacks are wonderful and disagreement is racism, women are wonderful and disagreement, is misogyny, etc. One needs to be critical of mgirants and of thse groups and of even people who don't belong in these groups, who have that mentality.
Generalities about equality under the law mean nothing, because you can have a lopsided system that pretends to be doing equality under the law, while pretending that groups like Indians and Jews are oppressed, while their system benefits them at the expense of others. We need substance that names names, and is specific about the coalition and how it would deal with groups like the ADL and similiar.
Because else, people who want to promote a generality that in the substance is not going to be what it claims, are going to just do that.
I think as far as people suddenly becoming “strangers in their own land”, again, this isn’t some weird new idea that nobody ever thought about until Marx came along.
The followers of Marx are the people who want to destroy reactionary people like white Americans and are promoting the idea of destroying nations while also respecting more certain nations than others. You are reversing things here and promoting a false analogy between the creation of a nation from regional cultures, to being replaced and not having a homeland.
This is incredibly radical and destructive agenda of cultural revolution. It does have historical paralels but it is of people who have been conquered by a foreign tribe, and subject to the humiliations related to that.
It actually is a key part of the far left tradition to take something and then double down to the extreme, without considering that doubling down takes something that mgiht work in one case, but be destructive in another one. In this case, nationalism reducing some regional differences which it self has its own costs, to then "destroy nations" agenda.
In the American context, the people promoting this have, as a pattern basically constantly concern trolled white Americans, with extreme intolerance, while playing dumb and tolerating far worse behavior by other ethnic communities and migrants.
Rebranding destroying ethnic communities as nationalism doesn't make it nationalism. Which is about ethnic groups which share blood, language, historical tradition and have a common conciousness.
Note, that this isn't a defense of all ethnic groups who migrated in the USA retaining their own language, tradition. Of course, I am in favor of both limited migration and migrants trying to assimiliate, which is destroyng part of their ethnic identity, at least them deprioritising the rights, but also affirming and replacing it with the native identity in part. The reason, being that a nation has a right to its own existence, and migrants are coming to either be adopted into it, or at least to coexist with it, if in small numbers. It is of course a significant harm to a nation to be replaced by foreigners. A world of people who have homelands, and they don't try to destroy others homes, and even there are some minority ethnic communities doing their own thing, but with the trend where there is migration towards assimilation and of limited numbers of foreigners being allowed to migrate, is a better working model.
This "destroy nations" idea, that is related with hardcore authoritarianism and its adherents have also commited attrocities against those who would oppose it, and ethnic communities for refusing to abandon their identity, and become new soviet men is just a bad idea that leads to inevitable disaster and a key part of the cultural marxist dna. That promoters of this idea don't want to consider the consequences of enforcing this, doesn't make them irrelevant. We know the consequences.
However sincere some adherents of this bad idea might be, they have lost to those who promote it to screw the right wing outgroup. It is used to concern troll white people which explains why its adherents are often not concerned about say banning the ADL or NAACP. Because they are comfortable with a status quo that enforces authoritarianism that doesn't allow pro white identity politics and tolerates and promotes the identity politics of such groups. And spinning this status quo as non woke (especially among cultural marxists who oppose the more mask out cultural marxist elements).
The agenda of destroying ethnic communities and opposing conservative identities and dinstiction is a vehicle for the cultural marxists who promote it to harm "reactionary" nations under their belief and agenda that all groups are equal, but some groups are more equal than others.
It is working in terms of what enough of the establishment supports and actionable wins through censorship, support of powerful figures in congress, cancel culture. Much of the American establishment is etrmely woke, and quite pro Jewish, and pro Jewish authoritarian at that.
Woke inc, and liberal establishment is Jewish supremacist. Not just them, you have congress adopting very extreme and one sided definitions of antisemitism. The facts are such that it isn't really a speculative issue.
That in a poll, young people consider Jews oppressors, the same young people consider white people to be oppressors to a higher percentage, doesn't negate this. Indeed, there are Muslims who hate Jews and are also cultural marxists and support for the most part the intersectiona alliance.
Such issues at best makes the situation somewhat more nuanced, but Jews are not just a core component of the present progressive supremacist/cultural marxist agenda, but have been extremely important from the start. The Black/Jewish alliance, the Jewish grievance in its own right being cultural marxism oppressor, oppressed, and the Jewish role in these movements from the very begining as they developed in 20th century. Which it self was an evolution, or devolution if you prefer of previous movements, but which have gotten their particular development in 20th century in important part due to Jewish contributions.
The reality is that you show an obvious bias and want to potray Jews as oppressed, even when they are wildly overepresented and it is taboo to note and oppose this.
You even use that poll to also promote this idea of Jews as oppressed, neglecting the favoritism in their favor, and also how their white Christian outgroup interests and rights are denied on the basis that they threaten Jews and they are antisemitic.
Nor should we forget the fact that Jews are at about 70% supporting the Democrats (which are very much pro Israel) and the left. This is a very liberal group which ideologically agrees with cultural marxism and wants Jews to benefit from it in the oppressed/oppressor dichotomy. Considering how compromised non liberals have been with the excess of liberalism, that doesn't mean the rest are moderate. American Jews are polled even lower than black Americans, at only 30% to support the preservation of European civilization in the USA, so in certain ways they poll more to the left, and more hostile to European Americans, than even black Americans.
Rejecting the logic that Jews are oppressed and right wingers, and white Christians are the oppressors and the later have no right to support their own nations, and oppose Jews when they disrespect them, would be a way of escaping the cultural marxist logic on this issue.
Cultural marxist Jewish grievances are a part of an intersectional alliance, today. If tomorrow, this alliance completely breaks over, I doubt the Jewish grievances against the common oppressor would be gone, as its own faction but it would be at least an interesting development to see civil war among the cultural marxists. It hasn't happened yet, but there are some weak elements of conflict today.
It is possible for groups of such alliance to promote grievances against other intersectional groups too. When there is infighting among cultural marxists, the wrong thing to do is to side with one group, and reinforce their narrative of oppression that they use against their common enemy.
Well, you are kind of promoting a version of a new soviet man here but I will agree that you aren't promoting privileging progressive identity groups and in fact oppose that. However what you are promoting had been part of the playbook of the cultural marxist arrangement even if you oppose the preferential treatment.
Problem is that, it might in fact be detrimental for society for women to prioritise education and work over being mothers. It is a bad value, to not care about that a Just because you are dogmatic about opposing that, doesn't make it a good idea. This isn't to say that there isn't value in various facets of equal treatment. For example if a foreign tourist is attacked by a native drunk driver, you punish the native drunk driver equally as if they harmed anyone else. Even in gender roles, there is a difference between being dogmatic here in favor of not taking such issues into consideration, and trying to maximize differences in the labor market.
We should care about important things more than just treating everyone equally. And that is different from avoiding parasitical arangements. It isn't a bad idea that should be restricted because we follow some marxist dogma of equality under the law, to give parents for example incentives to have children and benefit them by giving them tax breaks.
Not caring if your nation is taken by other nations, destroys your ethnic community and historical legacy and is an example of indifference to cultural and ethnic destruction.
Just because you claim is irrelevant, in a situation where it is stigmatized precisely by much of this faction, to be ist, doesn't make it irelevant for people to become foreigners in their own land. Humans are collective group, and even as individual are prefferably not to suffer the misfortunte of their own nation, being harmed, replaced, them becoming a minority in their own land and foreigners.
It neglects something important and makes what you want of no prefferential treatment, a complete impossibility as you will be outnumbered by groups who come here to get resources from you, and lord over you, and not only take preferential treatment, but also disminish the native culture both by ridicule, and replacement invited by people who share their bias and want their vote.
Plus, the fact that groups carry within themselves this kind of grievances makes this whole idea of an even handed law an impossibility, if the system plays dumb about this fact. People who favor their own group and want to screw over the native ethnic group are going to get their way, unless the system can name names. You haven't done that, so how are you going to stop a system that privilidges groups the Jews, Indians, when you argue that they are going to be targeted?
The reality is that a country that doesn't have the courage to stand for its own people, and compromises by claiming to want new soviet man type of ideology which is already the bailey of cultural Marxism, is not going to stop preferential treatment for groups progressives favor.
I agree with most of your post but disagree that the way forward is for the law to not recognize race, etc.
These are relevant. You can’t have a country by not recognizing that it belongs to a particular people or in the harder arrangement of a multiethnic country, peoples.
Cultural Marxism uses as part of its toolset the idea that evil forces create this idea of race, gender and other dinstictions.
It is the ideology that says you can't discriminate against women and men should include women in their organisations. And then demands female exclusive organisations. You don't do the later, but the first has been an important component of it.
Trying to not see race, religion, gender leads to that and becomes oppressive in its own right. What are you going to do about people who do see race, religion, gender, or ethnicity? Do you genuinely have the stomach to go against Jews or Indians who do that and force them to not see ethnicity, or race? Because what I have seen is that in practice this doctrine ends up with double standards and tolerating highly tribal groups like Indians and Jews. The later which have obvious powerful NGOs in their favor, which makes the whole idea of the law not favoring race, contradictory with seeing them as oppressed by this arrangement. It would require the law to crush those organizations and to pressure very woke demographics like Indians and Jews to change their behavior. It is actually a good thing and not oppressive for women and men to have male and female exclusive groups.
Maybe it would be a good idea if in the labor market we saw more gender, and we encouraged women to take more the nurturing role. To be fair, the fact that this is more, and not entirely, is itself a compromise to the direction of what you say. But I wouldn't consider what I advocate to be cultual marxist, even though it isn't 100% the opposite. It rejects the idea of leveling the differences as a goal, and considers it stupid and destructive.
Having people prioritize their family first, is not inherently exploitative, so long they don't act in a parasitical manner against other families. In fact it is laudible to care for your people and work to plant trees that your descendads will enjoy. An atomising antisocial, every man for himself sentiment would be worse. Why shouldn't male only organizations exist as they used to.
The problem with cultural marxism, isn't that they see race, but that they are very biased and parasitical in favor of their ingroup, and destructive and don't respect the value of nations, families, and many more for their outgroup by using the motte and bailey of "it is bad in general" and then tolerating it and supporting it for the ingroup under the idea that we will not see race only when white supremacy is defeated.
This is a bit nuanced because people who are a little ideologically divergent but part of the same team because they are more blatant tribalists do exist with people who might buy more into the universalist anti-traditional identities framework.
Another element of nuance, is that there is SOME room for opposition to maximalist identity essentialism of the conservative sort, and in general. What i find to work best, is basically a wise mixture, that definitely is completely against these mentality that we reach utopia by destroying distinctions, that has been used to retain dinstictions that favor progressive in group and desttroy other ones, some very necessary for well functioning of society. Where heterornomativism or native ethnic identity are undermined under anti-identitarian claim, while LGBTQ or foreign nationalism is promoted.
A good society will be heteronormative and would see the distinction and prefer promoting straight behaviors.
But in line with the idea that some liberalism might be tolerable and compatible with promoting better ends, it shouldn't imprison homosexuals for example. And there are gray areas that are up to debate, even if the level of social liberalism and the bias that cultural marxism has for its favorite identities and against its hated identities, some core to society, is wrong.
To further elaborate on an example: if women take sufficiently the nurturing role, they lose job opportunities, but they gain a greater connection with their children, are more likely to have them and earlier, and enjoy from that. Society also benefits from having enough children to replace it self, something very basic.
This isn't an exploitative arrangement when considering the benefits both for those involved but for society in general, and requires seeing characteristics and their relevance. However, it is possible as I argued for objections to be made against a certain too conservative arrangement, and not be unwarranted, (like the fantasy of the Handmaiden tale) but we are in the situation were it is excessive social liberalism and bias in favor of those identities and disregards of favorite identities that is the primary issue.
Do I have a solution that is simple, yes and no. I think on some areas you should see such distinctions, in others you should see it, but as part of other important things and not the priority.
Same with family. I am going to listen to a foreign scientist who is working in a manner that shows competence, and proffessionalism. But I wouldn't let him take over my country.
Ethnicity, race, property, family, all these are important. I work to provide an inheritance for my family, not for foreigners who are equally smart to my children, to enjoy the efforts of my labor.
Not the only things important, I believe it is important to recognize the importance of such issues to other groups too, and is part of international justice. And wealth, good interpersonal relationships (both weal and such relationships actually necessitates taking the other categories into consideration because foreign groups will screw you over if you have no ethnocentrism), learning from foreigners, and more also have their own importance.
Having borders, nations, gender roles, is different than trying to colonize and destroy a hated ethnic group, while replacing their historical figures, and forcing them to hate themselves and demonizing any positive identity as evil.
Part of its destruction is the disrespect of valuable nuclear families, ethnic communities, the masculine role in society, the disrespect of the value of pro natalism, of society being mainly heteronormative (whcih is superior than a society that have incrased homosexual behavior). Anti-conservatism is part of the tool set for breaking up the bonds of the outgroup, and not allowing them to be a healthy united nation that would oppose parasitism at its expense. That this is an unworkable arrangement matters, and is an additional problem of cultural marxism.
The opposite, among those who play oppression games, Jews, who are a key progressive associated group and strongly as a pattern, especially the most influential Jews supporters of cultural marxism might even be the champions of being oppressed and deserving superior treatment because of this.
In the latest year the powerful jewish organisations, and stakeholders have been pushing the mighty and powerful to intimitate opposition and to promote an one sided story of Jews being oppressed in the American congress.
You are doing the thing that is the epitome of cultural marxism, of acting as the group you favor is always oppressed, regardless of all the power and fanatics biased in favoring them and screwing over others. Lets just say that SJW/cultural marxists in favor of Jews are some of the worst and more influential ones but there are definetly some who disfavor Jews in favor of Muslims and others who want to keep both groups not hate each other too much and favor both sides cooling off that hostility, but still support the ADL and friends narrative about antisemitism.
Based on what I explained above, your perspective fits cultural marxism for being so incredibly biased in favor of Jews that you promote the idea of Jews as oppressed, a 50 Stalin type of statement. Of course Jews are benefiting and remain a core part of far left progressive supremacist alliance. And core participants of the game "I oppose identity politics.. but actually for my outgroup". And in general the meme of antisemitism, is precisely a part of the cultural marxist idea of promoting justice by favoring this oppressed group that is under threat of being victimized and oppressing the oppressors.
As per my definition of cultural marxism, a bias, a lack of objectivity, and a permanent dogmatic mentality in favor of such groups is an important component and this applies towards Jews. Also important to note, it is not incompatible with being a jewish chauvinist who uses right wing language in terms of Israel, or even identifies as a Jewish supremacist, and being a cultural marxist. The cultural marxist faction is more pro zionist than has anti zionists. The who/whom is more important to cultural marxism, than any consistency.
To be very clear here, I am not going to pretend that cultural marxists are correct, and aren't biased, and such issues are a mystery. Nor will pretend that core groups of their alliance, probably the most important one, are somehow oppressed by them. It is simply a reversal of reality where black Americans and Jews are oppressed by the system. The Cancel culture contrarilly favors them. This is the reversal of reality that is Cultural Marxism 101.
It is also true that Jewish reputation has deservingly suffered in the current circumstances, and sure some people who dislike them might also be part of the intersectional alliance and might oppose them because they are Muslim chauvinists.
The predominantly right wing environments is wrong and there is an inaccuracy in "marginalized communities". We should select a description that is less biased in favor of the cultural marxist lingo.
Cultural Marxists are very willing to keep pandering to the same favorite groups, if they aren't marginalized and if the hierarchy favors them. The narrative is one of marginalized communities and right wing heirarchy, but you can, and in fact it is the increasing model, of increasing cultural marxism with the communities not being marginalized. If they marginalize disfavored groups, you will not see the kind of people called cultural marxists, reversing cause.
If a space becomes less diverse, by becoming more black, and less white, you won't sdee them complain.
In fact, your definition seems to accept the assumptions of cultural marxists.
I would say that cultural marxists are those who are biased in favor of progressive favored groups, of intersectional alliance, such as blacks, Jews, women, LGBT, and more, are identitarians in favor of such groups, on the basis of deeming them oppressed, and favor the destruction, or disminishment, with especially hostile against whites, and are also hostile against men, straight, etc, treating an environment that favors them, or is even even handed, as inherently oppressive and an example of the crisis of misogyny, antisemitism, racism (agaisnt blacks). It is about those who are dogmatic and see as heroic favoring such groups and a reforms in that direction.
It is about the presumption of ism being against those groups. So your quoted definition is great if one says that a cultural marxism is someone who makes that presumption. But inaccurate, if you use that definition on face value.
Where there is some difference between more naked tribalism, although I consider cultural marxism, to be fairly seen as progressive supremacist, and supremacist movement of supremacists for those groups and against their outgroup is that there is an argument that promotes disingenius one sided critique and promotes a motte of against identity politics, inequalities. Then they change it, to favor superior treatment for their favorite groups.
Some do this while arguing for the destruction of their outgroup, and painting them as nazi evil threat for opposing their own self destruction.
Another element, is the utopian dream that after destroying their white, or heteronormative, or any combination of identities they are against, they will reach an utopian without racism, or oppression. There is a certain egalitarian pretense, or belief at least with some of the less well off groups. But cultural Marxism is not sincerely egalitarian.
The most pervasive cultural marxist ideology is on areas of ethnicity and race in the USA. Elsewhere it is more complciated.
It is the people who see men rights activism, white nationalism, transphobia, homophobia, etc, etc as a great evil and are incapable of seeing whether a certain level of rights and interests for men, whites, straights, etc, and moves that can limit and go against a certain level of rights they favor for such groups. Basically they don't care for any compromise with the interests and rights, of those groups and with the right wing opposition who identify with such interests.
There is also continuity with historical marxism that shared cultural marxist elements, even if in weaker proportion and had in it an element of destroying the family, or nation, and also had these kind of biased tribalists among its ranks. Even if this element was a weaker part of it. Modern actual marxists have often adopted cultural marxist beliefs or be even more hardcore for them.
Calling liberals with the title cultural marxists would be a fair, and accurate description and not at all uncharitable. They are just going to be displeased about this, because they want to potray themselves as moderates and their opposition as extremists. And obviously they are very willing to censor and fight to not let us have an accurate picture of this. And other groups like most leftists who don't self describe as liberals agree with cultural marxism but might disagree with liberals on some things, fake conservatives who share this bias and hostility. Some fake conservatives are actually especially cultural marxists in their rhetoric, who are basically the version of cultural marxism that tries to be more consistent with the motte but still fails to be consistent and still is biased in favor of progressive identity groups and tolerates them in the manner that doesn't right wing ones.
A cultural leftist is in fact a cultural marxist. Cultural leftism cannot be seperated with cultural marxism. Marxism is central to leftism. Modern liberalism is cultural marxism. And it is very pervasive. We live in very cultural far left times.
There are elements associated with liberalism that aren't cultural marxism, that some right wing edgy figures might not like, although modern liberalism and really historical liberalism has its own blame which gave ground to socialism also failed to be consistent with those and isn't fair to give it ownership of those exclsusively. Especially when they undermined say natural rights. For example, lets take human rights. Cultural marxists rely on their interpretation of human rights, but it is possible to have one that isn't cultural marxist and still value human rights, and even despise cultural marxists for the harm they do towards genuine human rights, by promoting fake ones.
Their rhetoric is less important, the most important element of cultural marxism is the bias in favor of the identities they favor, the bias against the identity they disfavor, their complete disregard of the rights and interests of those groups and how they prioritise their dogma in favor of reducing nations, (which they aren't consistent about and target particularly their outgroup nations and make exception for their ingroup nations), gender roles, masculine and female duties and obligation, in a manner that is destructive to society.
However, while cultural marxism is an illegitimate, ironically it is a very ist ideology that distorts the situation, it is possible in a limited way and not the limitless maximalist way cultural marxists push, in certain circumstances, for some of the groups cultural marxists, are biased in favor, to be mistreated. Currently it is the opposite problem at play, because of the influence of cultural Marxists.
Wokeness can also be used to describe it. Or really identify it as the new left ideology which grew from important elements of the old left.
There is an interesting question about whether someone who isn't a cultural marxist in some other areas but is a super hardcore SJW type behaving individual when it comes to one of those groups, and shares the core ethnic enemy of the progressive intersectionally, most notably and usually in my experience of American online discourse, is for the Jews, but one sees it with Muslims who are tribalist for themselves, carry those grievances and share the enemy, but don't like Jews. Are they part of cultural marxism? Mostly yes. Ideological purity is less important than the fact that they are part of the intersectional team and have the same enemy.
There are also people who are part of the intersectional alliance, who are more sadistic, hateful, openly tribalist, and don't buy into this idea that they are fighting against oppression, even if cynically they might pretend to do so. They know that by not tolerating identity politics of the outgroup, they are harming it and creating a caste that favors them and they like that. That they belong in the same team and are even more hardcore in harming the out group, is more important than whether they buy into the idea, that they are fighting "oppression".
Finally, just cause some cultural marxists who agree that it is morally superior to favor the groups they favor and to disfavor the groups they disfavor, disagree with the rhetoric of other more edgy cultural Marxists, or with how far they push some things, doesn't make the first to belong in a different faction. Especially if the first are putting on a mask and pretending to be against nobody, while the later are saying the quiet thing loud. Like compare Noel Ignatiev, or people cheering that X European country will no longer exist and they are colonizing it, with someone who shares Noel Ignatiev position that opposing this is white supremacy, but uses weaker rhetoric.
At the end of the day compromising with right wing identitarians and giving extreme far righters too, what they want on the issue of their own people and favorite groups not being screwed over, is the obvious limited requirement for someone to not be a cultural marxist. If you are unwilling not to screw over white people, or men, or other groups that are disfavored by progressive paradigm, and you deny the legitimacy of their collective rights, then that qualifies as cultural Marxism, especially if you see such compromise as giving nazis what they want.
So is about a bias for progressive identities, and against disfavored groups, especially favoring destruction of those. People not compromising with the legitimate rights and interests and therefore sharing ground with negatively symbolized right wing associated groups and advocates. Another element is whether those with such biases are unwilling to consider whether their dogma wrecks society.
There is a huge connection between excessive social liberalism in general and cultural Marxism, and again being sufficiently conservative is a requirement to be a moderate, and not be a cultural marxist. Because cultural Marxism, excessive social liberalism includes in its agenda, breaking down important identities and roles and responsibilities that help keep society working (even though cultural Marxism has double standards and the bias of cultural Marxists is the most important element of it).
People just want to both be excessive on the left on such areas, (including people who choose to claim that they are conservatives and conservatives must compromise more to appeal to women, and insert ethnic group and LGBT types) and to have the fame of the even handed moderate, or of the conservative.
Liberalism and much of leftism does not work in isolation as a goal to strive upon, but in combination with conservatism, and must exist in a limited manner. Same with the interests of the groups cultural Marxists favor, and limiting the rights and interests of the groups they disfavor. Cultural Marxism is very extreme on the later, acting as if their rights and interest are inherently illegitimate, under the false pretense, that identity politics and interests are illegitimacy Sympathy for other groups must be balanced with concentric circles of concern, and objectivity. The idea of constantly progressing and moving in a more left wing direction that lead to Cultural Marxism is like swallowing ten packages of panadol to get rid of a headache, because in a limited quantity it would help with a genuine problem.
Not that ambitious but it isn't a bad idea to help blue collar workers. However, a greater focus must be on the goverment,NGO,cheap labor/welfare complex.
Where NGOs funded by the goverment who marched in the goverment and where likeminded ideologues have influence, promote mass migration for antiwhite and for economic corruption, parasitism reasons.
These NGOs are funded by the goverment and also get funds to give to groups like the Haitians.
Then a company hires them at very low wages because they are subsidized by the American tax payer. And these people then or smarter ones like Indian migrants, beneefit from racial discrimination policies in their favor that the goverment and corporate America follows.
While the general governance and media environment enables it, which isn't surprising when ADL brags about how it trains all FBI agents.
But in addition to ideology, there are people who make money from this at expense of society and are part of a woke industry.
The private public parternship model, is a model of creating a woke corrupt society of massive theft of wealth, to those implementing this system and part of the industry and the favored client groups at expense of the native people.
Dissolving those NGOs, supposed "charities" and prosecuting them for this, and firing those from the bureaucracy who are aligned with this will help blue collar American workers more and will also as a bonus reduce the debt. And of course, fines, prosecution of people enforcing DEI, and investigating institutions, to stop them from doing so. A facet of DEI programs is also preferring newer migrants over native Americans. Really, doing this is less of pandering towards the base, and more enforcing the law and the greater good, and the duty of any leader.
Indeed, give zero welfare to foreigners (an idea might be to make it a requirement of having two grandparents born in the country to be eligible to welfare) and companies no longer benefit by having the American taxpayer pay the economic externialities of cheap labor. This will result in increase of automation in some industries. Deportations which Trump advocates can be part of this and can expand to greater categories that came where they shouldn't have, and their prescence has been of a mixture of ideological anti native mass migration agenda, and corruption of the networks I mentioned. Or not exclusive enough categories like with some family reunification policies. Sure there can be some debate on this, but mass migration promoted by oikophobes and such networks is not sacred. Like they can bring people, the same people can be send back in their own homelands.
Net Migration should be net negative for quite a while, with more people being repatriated than coming in. All of the above will help raise the wages of labor and benefit workers, and also promote their national, cultural interest to live in their own communities, not as threatened second class alienated minority in their own homeland, nor suffer under crime increases. Moreover it will help bring closer the migrants will remain with the native people, under an understanding that the social contract of migrants includes respecting the native people and their collective interests as a group, which is also the interests of each individual of said group. It will also incentivize and must come along with pro family formation policies, but the content of those are for other discussions.
It will also counter the effect that you mentioned of a Democrat permanent majority which is pandering to foreigners voting for far left policies to increasingly redistribute resources, and positions in their favor.
The above suggestions will both help blue collar workers in various ways, improve economic efficiency by stopping DEI and their institutional enforcers and general supporters, and also reduce the deficit.
Moreover, since it will help more than blue collar workers, and is a more ambitious proposal that have clear winners and losers, (and the losers already oppose the right), it will more greatly incentivize the winners to support the right, because they will be afraid of this not continuing and things reversing. The Democrats more aggressive moves while republicans either in a combo a) compromised and collaborated while pretending to oppose it b) some opposed it but not with enough fervor c) others neither collaborated nor opposed it, helped the Democrats electorally.
Removing the enforcers of oikophobic ideology progressive intersectionality from power, will improve enthusiasm for policies in opposition to corrupt, oikophobic, anti-white policy, some of which involves plausibly crimes. It will remove the fear of presumption of guilt of the opposition, and impose a fear of guilt towards the oikophobes. Which is right, because the agenda to replace a people by having the goverment steal from them, preffer the foreigner, to make the native people a hated minority is genuinely an immoral destructive policy that could be fairly be described in worse terms than that. What is politically correct and politically incorrect can change and it will be the biggest benefit electorally for the right and its base to focus on doing this. Add to that those who will be deported and stop coming who tend to support those oikophobic policies in their favor. So if the republicans follow my suggestions, it would result in a greater % of the public supporting the republican party. Albeit, some of the suggestions will inspire greater backlash and can come or while changing the oikophobic environment while in power. Opposing the NGO-public-private partnership woke capitalism, pro mass migration, pro DIE, complex, can be pushed hard from day one and will help Trump get elected, in addition to the message he is promoting now in favor of deportations.
Modern states have more than enough the state capacity to do this. Even Muslim countries deport large numbers of foreigners that share their religion. https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-deport-two-million-afghans-155252446.html?guccounter=1
This
"I for one welcome abandoning anything remotely conservative” and “I must be the most belligerent man to walk the face of earth if I want to be based”,
is just blatantly uncharitable.
And it isn't nice from your behalf to be calling right wingers who aren't abandoning anything remotely conservative being the most bellgerent men to walk the face of the earth, and so what you demand as right wingers to behave like, comes off as an attempt to control them.
The rationalist crowd is not substantially different from the Romney who was a BLM supporter, uniparty perspective. Nor are they, and associated figures like Hanania, and Yglesias above and beyond behaving rather uncivilly. There are people who fail to be nice honest and objective.
The reality is that liberals, including those who have been annoyed by some of the bad behavior of their side start from a conclusion that condemns the right, because they are against it an d want to control it. At such, the right will never be good enough.
In terms of the right, it isn't true that there isn't space in between. Rather what is happening is an inability and unwillingness to render to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to admit the legitimate and good points made by rightists, because they are inherently against the points and the people making them.
Never will any political coalition even on the issues they are mostly correct on, will not avoid in focusing on areas that are more doubtful too, when making their points. Part of treating political discourse accurately would then be to not miss the forest of the trees, and prioritise things accurately.
This tweet makes some good points on this issue:
https://x.com/hpmcd1/status/1834339581220606449
My honest answer to this, which I hear a lot (not picking on Jesse), is that Trump bullshits—he exaggerates, or garbles details of, things that are basically true, and tends to “lie” mostly when it concerns his personal honor (crowd size, sleeping with the porn star, etc)
Harris, but the Dem apparatus more broadly (for which she’s only a cipher), tends instead to weave technically true statements together into a narrative that is not merely false but egregiously so, often approaching a near-perfect inversion of reality. The result is a hall of mirrors world in which Dem bullshit is laundered through and ratified by society’s sense-making institutions and becomes a sort of distributed knowledge or ‘common sense’ among elites such that no one person or node in the network ever has to bear personal responsibility for the falsehood—they didn’t come up with it, it was reported in the Times or put out by the CDC or American Association of Pediatrics or leaked by sources in the intelligence community, who “requested anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.”
However, Trump can be directionally wrong on some issues too and this tweet underestimates the dishonesty of Harris side on the migration and various debates.
In terms of what is happening in Springfield Ohio there isn't an equivalency between the two sides. The one that brought 20000+ Haitians, and funds it through NGO networks, and is trying to replace Americans, and the side that opposes it.
When Ed Yudkowsky for example agreed with an ex reddit admin that right wingers have been banned more so by reddit mods because they break the rules more, and not because they have been targeted for their ideology, he was engaging in dishonesty that gets more plausible deniability.
Another relevant issue in regards to the norms discussion and the behavior of lib/rationalist space is that righteous anger that is proportionate is also necessary and good in politics, while uncontrolled and irrational rage is bad as is irrational indifference. When I see angry relatives of a murdered son, wife, demanding justice, that is an example of indignation that leads to justice and much better than indifference, or excuses. So there is a problem with the righteous anger from the right being pathologized by people who are unrightfully hateful towards those having a proportionate response to genuine injustices at their expense. Another problem that goes along is n trying to censor them. And this being conflated with people who complain about fake injustices, and in doing so commit genuine injustices. It is actually good to be tolerant of people having legitimate gripes and be intolerant towards those who are promoting unreasonable bs, to screw over the first.
There are no centrist liberals/supposed moderates as a sizable faction who prioritize objectivity and being nice here to save people. That space doesn't exist as a sizable faction, and the faction that paints itself in such colors they have their obvious biases and hostility towards right wingers, on areas the rightists are correct about.
When it comes to the uniparty vs dissident right conflict, on various issues people like Romney who are nice to leftists but cruel to rightists, can have a more unhinged view. Take for example warmongering. Trump can also share this issue, like for example with his comments about the Democrats being insufficiently supportive of Israel, which is completely wrong, not just an exaggeration but a big lie directionally.
There are issues that right wingers are going to have both a correct and a nicer position that takes in consideration important values and facts disregarded by people who market themselves falsely as prioritizing, objectivity, or virtue. They can be politically incorrect and not nice towards sacred cows even if nicer in general, and step over hysterical demands to censor and gatekeep. To give an example,
The secret of much of politics is that people are on an article of faith acting as anti right wing oppositional force without evaluating things. They start from the conclusion and are unwilling to do things otherwise.
The liberal/"ex" liberal, con inc (though in practice not as ex as it potrays itself) space complaining about the genuine right is incapable and unwilling of recognizing these areas and separating reasonable from unreasonable which also exists. Too much resentment and hostility and seeing right wingers as the opposing tribe. Too much ideological hostility and having themselves unreasonable values they are unwilling to tolerate challenge. Some of them use the pretense of opposing tribalism as an excuse to censor and defame and narrow the intellectual space. Even edgier figures also get things right that liberals oppose. There are a few exceptions that also are atypical, like Michael Tracy and that space do manage to get some important things right on foreign policy of Trump and making critiques that deserve acknowledgement.
For the most part, the more moderate dissident rightists are among the few having some success at separating reasonable from unreasonable, and not purity spiraling. And they are hated too by the Gatekeepers who have failed themselves not to purity spiral. Ironically, not being constrained by the weights of the censorious and authoritarian liberal (including con inc, neocon, etc) gatekeepers is actually a necessity. Even though the bad faith censors pretend their censorship is for the greater good and the epitome of being nice and keeping bad culture warriors down. In actuality it is about stopping and defaming opposition and narrowing intellectual space, condemning what is correct and necessary.
Edited to add: https://x.com/realchrisrufo/status/1834926318883852543 https://christopherrufo.com/p/the-cat-eaters-of-ohio
Christopher Rufo brings evidence of African migrants eating cats in a neighboring town.
EXCLUSIVE: We have discovered that migrants are, in fact, eating cats in Ohio. We have verified, with multiple witnesses and visual cross-references, that African migrants in Dayton, the next city over from Springfield, barbecued these cats last summer.
This reinforces the perspective that plenty of people are inclined to jump to the gun to signal how rightists are getting things wrong, because of having a liberal oppositional anti-right wing ideology.
This is wrong. The number of non Axis affiliated non Jews killed in WW2 that by the same criteria as the Jews, where all dead counted as victims of the holocaust, is definitely substantially higher than 5 million. There is uncertainty and a range about possible victims but because minimum to maximum is larger, and there isn't as strong lobby, there is no doubt of it being higher than whatever the number of Jews killed. Or Jews murdered, however one would conclude that.
If criteria is people killed because of people stealing their food, outright killing them, blockade, enslavement, and harsh conditions brought through human action? The number is higher. Frankly, in eastern europe, a certain % of the dead must be allocated to the USSR for sure. Or for some dead person you could allocate different percentage of guilt. For some the party that destroyed them is without doubt a certain one. In other cases like starvation it can become more tricky.
For example if USSR follows scorch earth tactics and destroy food supplies, allies blockade food, nazis steal whatever of the food remains, and the person dies. Who killed them? There could also be considerations of who is more to blame for the civilian suffering because of their aggressive actions in the war and/or causing the war. Not to mention those more directly killed by USSR which isn't a small number.
In my view the most to blame for European theater are Nazi Germany and USSR, probably more the first to blame for more cruel conduct, but there is also a lot of fog of war and propaganda, leaving some room to explore this issue further, especially since USSR was also particularly cruel. Still, my evaluation at this point would have me put the Nazis as more responsible for most dead. Certainly it is pseudohistory that ignores USSR aggressive behavior and treats it as a victim of WW2 (the people living there are victims of the Nazis). Both powers wanted to invade each other and expand at each other expense and also were happy to invade at expend of other groups. The AngloAmerican allies also have their own responsibility for both those they directly killed (i.e Axis civilians especially but they even killed civilians of occupied countries, including deliberately bombing civilian populations of occupied countries and pretending it was an accident, based on the strategy of inciting the locals into more aggressive action against Nazi Germany), and through blockade, and whatever responsibility they might have for the war and throwing fuel into the fire in the period before it became world war. Especially in terms of aerial bombardment of civilian populations the greatest escalation came from the British first. However, in my estimation, even without angloamerican involvement after 1939, a nazi-soviet conflict that bloodies up significantly eastern Europe was very likely. And the ideologies of the Soviets and Nazi Germany made the treatment of civilians predictably disastrous.
That one Jewish ultranationalist propagandist came up with a figure that became popular figure of official 11 million number doesn't prove that it is lower. It does illustrate as a millionth example how culture can be dominated by false narratives. The 5 million is indeed self serving bullshit to fit his favorite narrative, because it is higher than 5 million. Nor should we accept the propaganda of seperating deaths from those of an intentional genocide tm, and pretending the others weren't. No care has been done by those making such framings to actually exclude people in the case of those they assign as genuine victims, based on a set of criteria. Nor do we see consistent criteria that could include people in those they don't give the status of victims of genocide.
The Jewish lobby and holocaust lobby also engaged in downplaying the armenian genocide. Downplaying the victimization of other groups by not only Jewish communists. And by that I mean the actual Jewish communist mass murderers that were quite a few, although downplayment of communist crimes as a means of indirectly excusing Jewish involvement in them also can qualify. As we see even the victimization of non Jews by the nazis is par for the course. And of course, even some revisionists of establishment consensus tm have an incentive to promote this idea. And it is tied by a weird perspective, the weirdo ideology to judge the national socialists only by their treatment of the Jews. Which is a false way to judge them since the effect of their actions on non Jews was of greater significance in their own period.
Of course in the mythology of nazism and how it is used in modern narratives, it is milked by pro jewish racists, anti europeans, antifa ideologues, far leftists, etc. One could see the post ww2 narratives as having a greater influence on the long term than what the nazis actually did, or didn't do.
But it is wrong that less than 5 million non Jews died in WW2 from non axis ethnic groups, and it is wrong that the nazis are responsible for more deaths of Jews than non Jews. And it is also good to not overly inflate the death of ethnic groups, and grossly understate of others. Especially when this is done in ways that serve the pervasive racist propaganda of our time. Such as the propaganda machine that Wiesenthal was part of. You are playing into his propaganda if you accept any of his claims at face value, including the "less than 5 million non Jews died, believe me".
GPT is not merely a computer but it is an artificial intelligence programmed to be biased. It will act in a manner that an emotionally stupid ideologue would often enough. In addition to the problem of it making shit up sometimes.
This idea of the unbiased AI is not what modern woke AI is about. The main AI developed are left wing ideologues that are politically correct in the manner of the people who have designed it to be. There isn't an attempt to build a centralized A.I. that will be unbiased, even handed, etc. If anyone is trying that, they are not the main players who instead designed woke A.I. It is a really bad proposition, and the centralized nature of the whole thing makes it the road to a more totalitarian system, without human capability of independence and in fact justice. Indeed, the very idea you are entertaining as one you find relatively acceptable of judge GPT could previously exist in dystopian fiction and now it is a possible realistic bad scenario. The threat of the boot stamping on a human face forever has accelerated due to this technology and how it is implemented.
More options
Context Copy link