Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

Evidence for antisemitism

This article claims that the conspiracy theory is antisemitic. However, there is no evidence provided anywhere within. This speculation should either be substantiated or removed. Wthompson2009 (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The article says it is so because the WP:RS say that it is so - no RS on the topic disagree. Newimpartial (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

There are definite parallels between Cultural Marxism, Cultural Bolshevism (a theory from the Nazis), and more general anti-semetic conspiracy theories (Jews rule the world, Jews run the media, Jews are trying to destroy Western/Christian civilization). In fact, there have been several suggestions to merge the articles on Cultural Bolshevism with the articles on Cultural Marxism (See Talk:Cultural_Bolshevism#Merger_Proposal). William S. Lind gave a talk on "Cultural Marxism" to a Holocaust Denial Conference, and hence Paleo-conservatives are responsible for early efforts to popularize the theory among antisemites (Lind even claims the origins of the theory were the politics of the Wiemar Republic era of Germany). Academics have also commented on these various connections to Nazism and antisemitism. Finally, it's been popularized on 4chan, and the topic of the antisemitic connections came up around the Suella Braverman scandal. All of these events/facts have reliable sources, and so that commentary is valid to include and is not WP:OR. --115.64.184.49 (talk)

You are objectively wrong. French Post Modernism is also called cultural marxism and it had very few if any jews involved. And it's not a conspiracy theory when the foundational "intellectuals" of the Frankfurt school can be quoted verbatim as saying that it is their intention to infiltrate schools of the west and promote marxist theory. Lind could give a talk on video games to a Holocaust Denial Conference, that wouldn't make video games a far right antisemitic activity. Your entire premise relies on tenuous equivocations from varying sources of a wide disparity, effectively culminating in a conspiracy theory of its own that it's somehow the "far right" responsible for promoting an idea that's been promoted out-right in the published letters and works of Adorno and Horkheimer.Crun31 (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that argument isn't going to fly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Martin Heidegger who can be said to be the inspiration behind postmodernism wasn't a Jew or a Marxist, but a member of the Nazi Party. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

So? TFD (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

So, it is highly unlikely that he was involved in a Judaeo-Marxist conspiracy. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The article ties the theory to ideas that are anti-Semitic. It doesn't have to explain why those ideas are anti-Semitic. TFD (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably the ideas you address are anti-Semitic. However, it is falacious to assure thay, since components of A are anti-Semitic (or related to anti-Semitism) ergo, A is anti-Semitic.

The point is that there is no evidence to state the concept of cultural marxism is anti-Semitic. Patriarca de Alejandria Santiago I (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

That could possibly be true, but Wikipedia lets WP:RS speak, we never ventilate our own opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Accusing people of Anti-Semitism is a not a neutral viewpoint. Pointing out that a large number of members shared Jewish heritage is similar to pointing out that members of the Thule Society all had German heritage. or that the 9/11 Hijackers were all Muslims. Jaygo113 (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Empiricism is neutral. Jaygo113 (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise, we could call Feminism Misandrist, because the feminist movement and its ideology are often accused of being such. Jaygo113 (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Get that published in reliable sources, and get the other reliable sources to retract what they said about antisemitism, and we can consider changing the article. Until then, you are just a random person on the internet whose irrelevant opinions are outweighed by reliable sources.

Read WP:RS to start learning how Wikipedia works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

You should read reliable sources about the topic, instead of articles written by proponents of the theory. Conspiracy theorists can write very convincingly and people who have no other knowledge about a topic are easily mislead.

You should also be aware that most anti-Semitic literature is not overt.

TFD (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The irony present here, on a page on a website which is arguably one of the battlefields of culture wars in general, is hilarious. As a Jew who believes in the political concept of culture wars as a matter of fact, historical record and sound political strategy , it's astounding that anyone would even attempt to argue that Marxists, as a politically organized group for over one hundred years, would not engage in a culture war of their own. To fail to engage in a culture war as an organized political group would be such an enormous misstep and strategic blunder that the concept would not have lasted more than a few months had propaganda ("Cultural warfare") not been a part of the strategy. Clarissacolgate (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple pages for Marxist theorist, activists and "culture warriors" (The Frankfurt School for instance). There's also the page Marxist_cultural_analysis for the theories of The Frankfurt School, Birmingham School, and Gramsci in particular. So unless you have a more specific complaint, your comments will more than likely be removed as WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM. --203.221.166.218 (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

So what if other pages on different topics exist? This page was originally about a specific political theory called Cultural Marxism. My post is extremely on-topic and follows the rules of WP:NOTFORUM:"In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles". This article would be improved if it was accurate.

Not only do none of the sources listed accuse the source of the theory, which this exact article claims is Michael Minnicinno, of being anti-Semitic, but none of the sources even prove it's a conspiracy theory, or even claim it to be so. Things can be wrong without being anti-Semitic, and also without being Conspiracy Theories. That doesn't mean that any theory you disagree with is either, which seems to be what happened here. There's even evidence of Orthodox Jews like Ben Shapiro supporting the theory .

Further, the section "Political correctness and antisemitic canards" cites an opinion piece (ha) in the NYT, which, without sourcing, essentially claims that racists have used this theory. So what? Even if we take the opinion piece as truth, the fact that someone who is Anti-Semitic talks about a theory does not make that theory anti-Semitic. They can talk about ABC conjecture. That doesn't make math anti-Semitic. Again - none of the sources listed claim that the original source for the theory is anti-Semitic. Nor does the original source by Minnicinno have any obvious anti-Semitic claims.Clarissacolgate (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You are objecting to a correctly cited expert source (per WP:RSOPINION and offering your own original interpretarion/critique of other RS. Why would this be relevant to the article? Newimpartial

And by the way, there was no specific political theory called Cultural Marxism. At most there was a synonym for Marxist cultural analysis used by very few commentators, but then turned into a conspiracy in the '90s - or at least, that is what all RS on the topic tell us. (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Accusations of 'antisemitism' has become a huge lesson in false equivalence. Just because some Nazis promote some conspiracy theory does not make that conspiracy theory antisemitic. I no longer take antisemitism seriously now because of articles like this, it's just absurd paranoid name-calling to discredit conspiracy theories. DovicKnoble (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@DovicKnoble: Robby.is.on (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: DovicKnoble (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As someone who has been editing Wikipedia since 2014 you should be familiar enough with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements to know that none of those three sources meet reliable sources criteria. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

That's true and not a problem for me. I do not agree with Wikipedia's reliable source policy and I question what a 'reliable source' even means. For the editors, it will be obvious for the philosophers perhaps not and I ask you which one is more committed to knowing the truth.DovicKnoble (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Consider Re-naming Article.

this isn't a conspiracy theory in the typical sense. It's literally an interpretation of the ideology propogated by the Frankfurt School Philosophers. "Conspiracy" requires connection between the participants. the Frankfurt School gives us that connection. if anything, the word "Theory" should be used, but Conspiracy does not fit. Jaygo113 (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As I note in the subsequent section, this article, its title and its sourcing have been extensively discussed and have been subject to repeated, widely-parricipated RfCs. Your edits-which amount to the POV that "Cultural Marxism" is an intellectual movement and not the trope of a conspiracy theory- run counter to this broadly-based consensus. I have therefore reverted your BOLD changes. Newimpartial (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The claims of the conspiracy theory and the claims of The Frankfurt School don't line up. For instance, The Frankfurt School claimed an elite of corporate interests rule over the Culture Industry. Where as the conspiracy theory claims The Frankfurt School themselves are in control of the media, culture and academia. There's no semantics about it, it's a conspiracy theory, and runs contrary to what The Frankfurt School actually espoused. --194.193.147.6 (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Frankfurt School scholars that created Critical Theory, whether derogatively or pejoratively called "cultural marxism" or not, are no longer exclusively or even primarily confined to "the frankfurt school". However the Scholar Antonio Gramsci and Rudi Dutschke both recognized that influence in the societal institutions was necessary to bring forth a more "marxist" or egalitarian world. see e.g. https://www.conservapedia.com/Cultural_Marxism#Dutschke 75.164.170.25 (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

″The Long march through the institutions is a Marxist concept formulated in 1967 by the West German student movement leader Rudi Dutschke. Dutschke reformulated Antonio Gramsci's philosophy of cultural Marxism with the phrase the long march through the institutions (German: Marsch durch die Institutionen) to identify the political war of position or incrementalism, an allusion to the Long March (1934–35) of the Communist Chinese People's Liberation Army, by means of which, the working class or "oppressed" would produce their own intellectuals, civil servants, and culture (dominant ideology) to replace those imposed by the bourgeoisie or "oppressor class."″ 75.164.170.25 (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a suggestion that should be made at the Talk Page of Marxist Cultural Analysis. I don't believe Gramsci or Dutschke ever used the term Cultural Marxism, he used the term hegemonic. --194.193.147.6 (talk)

Conservapedia is not a legitimate source according to WP:RS, due to it not being WP:NPOV. Wikipedia avoids politics this way. --194.193.147.6 (talk)

Since the article is about a conspiracy theory, the article should actually source what the conspiracy theorists claim, not what other people claim that the conspiracy theorists claim. The conspiracy theorists should be considered reliable sources for the content of their own theory, rather than use strawmen arguments and ad-hominem arguments about the theory, such as that Anders Brevik the mass murderer believed in it. Endomorphosis (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the page for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. If you want to make a new page with sources that define Cultural Marxism outside of the conspiracy theory - you'd need to put in an article request elsewhere Wikipedia:Requested_articles. Currently the decision standing is that the term is non-notable in WP:RS left-wing writings. You'd need reliable academic sources defining exactly what "Cultural Marxism" is, otherwise you're doing something called WP:OR Original Research, which means coming to your own thoughts, rather than reporting the thoughts of qualified others. Wikipedia seeks to report facts and public opinion, stuff that's been expressed and vetted by an editor. You'd need something official which defines it. No one at The Frankfurt School used the term, and it's a fairly obscure term. It should be confined to those who actually used it (rather than The Frankfurt School). Not sure any major figure has used it to describe themselves. --194.193.147.6 (talk)

Conservapedia is not a legitimate source according to WP:RS, due to it not being WP:NPOV – indeed, and I strongly feel that any attempt to rename or otherwise rewrite this article to imply that "Cultural Marxism" has any existence beyond a bogeyman created by far-right conspiracy theorists (such as probably write half of Conservapedia) is likely to be summarily dismissed as nothing more than naked POV-pushing. Suggest abandoning this per WP:SNOW and the canonical Wikipedia approach to conspiracy theorists and other species of lunatic charlatans. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is a mainstream source that calls it "cultural marxism" https://www.dukeupress.edu/Cultural-Marxism-in-Postwar-Britain Title: Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies Author: Dennis Dworkin Published: April 1997, Cited by 534. This actually appears to be the first use of "cultural marxism" that I can find so far. Endomorphosis (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and if you look at page 3 you can read the words: "My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline" (pg. 3) meaning it's a neologism, not longstanding discourse or plan. Besides which, this talk page isn't for the Wikipedia page "Cultural Marxism", it's for the conspiracy theory. If you want to recreate the old page (which only had 3 valid sources on the topic) - then this is not the place to do it. It's a WP:SNOW case. The discussion has already been had. Also we use the sources we do because they're notable or came early in the conspiracy discourse. Lind for instance. Breivik's usage is notable and has a lot of news stories that cite it. --194.193.147.6 (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I went to the origination of the "conspiracy theory", it was apparently NOT cited in the wikipedia page, only a criticism of the work. https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_91-96/921_frankfurt.html. The claim made, was based on a rhetoric exaggerated hyperbole, including claims: "This is not the academy of a republic; this is Hitler's Gestapo and Stalin's NKVD rooting out "deviationists," and banning books—the only thing missing is the public bonfire". It also does not actually use the words "cultural marxism" anywhere in the article. Moreover nothing in the article has any anti-semitism whatsoever, and even goes to claim that marxism is antisemitic " Their goal was not the protection of Jews from prejudice, but the creation of a definition of authoritarianism and anti-Semitism which could be exploited to force the "scientifically planned reeducation" of Americans and Europeans away from the principles of Judeo-Christian civilization, which the Frankfurt School despised." Endomorphosis (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

How about you quit with the original research, and read the many, many discussions of these issues in the Talk page archives here and at Talk:Frankfurt School. Also, perhaps, take a look at Marxist cultural analysis, since you seem to be confusing that with the trope of the conspiracy theory. If you do that, and still believe you've identified any issues that haven't already been dealt with by many, well-informed editors, you could bring that back here. But it isn't necessary to rehash the basics every time a n00b editor appears on this Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This is what the page reads "Cultural Marxism is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims Western Marxism as the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture." that is not the definition of a conspiracy. The definition of a conspiracy is when two or more people agree to a concrete course of conduct, not a criticism of a allegedly subversive ideology, merely because a couple academics "conspired" to create the ideology. This article claims the above cited article is the origin of the conspiracy , but the origin itself is not actually cited by wikipedia, but rather a separate writer criticising the author of the original, and when you look at the citation its literally from the "Quarterly Journal of Poetry, Science and Statecraft" https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_97-01/fidelio.html, and the journal claims the frankfurt school adherants are antisemetic, and behave like the nazis / nkvd, and it is clearly rhetorical hyperbole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endomorphosis (talk • contribs) 00:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you could take the time to read WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. At Wikipedia, we prefer to use secondary sources (and tertiary ones, when available). Reliance on primary sources in articles is frowned upon. Perhaps you would prefer to contribute to a user-generated encyclopedia based on different principles...Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Relying on a document written by a literal nobody that states "This is not entertainment. This is the deeply paranoid hallucination of the LSD acid head. The worst of what happened in the 1960's is now daily fare. Owing to the Frankfurt School and its co-conspirators, the West is on a "bad trip" from which it is not being allowed to come down." and critisizing the frankfurt school as anti-Semitic, as the basis of an anti-semetic conspiracy theory is not reliable and contradictory. In fact there is a 1997 book called "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies" by Dennis Dworkin who is a history professor, which seems much more relevant as the far as the origin of "Cultural Marxism", because the original document does not reference "cultural marxism" but the "Frankfurt school". Endomorphosis (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on secondary sources to describe the origins of the conspiracy, not primary sources. As far as Dworkin goes, do me a favor and search the Talk:Frankfurt School archives as well as those for this page. Thus has been amply discussed before - Dworkin is not giving an account of the conspiracy theory's origins. Newimpartial (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

But what is the "conspiracy", to create an ideology? who are the conspirers, the originators of the ideology? The only difference is that one side says the effects of the ideology is bad, and the other side says the effects of ideology is not bad, so therefore the idea that people "conspired" to create an ideology with harmful effects is a "conspiracy theory". Also here is another book from 1981 by another professor using the term "cultural marxism", this implies that the term did not originate with "cultural bolshevism" of the nazis or the 90's evangelicals see https://books.google.com/books/about/Cultural_Marxism_and_Political_Sociology.html?id=ArLaAAAAMAAJ&source=kp_book_description see also https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=cultural+marxism&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccultural%20marxism%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Ccultural%20marxism%3B%2Cc0 I do not find these sources to be reliable because they're plainly contradicted. Endomorphosis (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

More WP:OR. That just isn't what we do on WP. And if you can't tell the differences between sources on "Cultural Marxism" as a trope of the conspiracy theory and sources on Marxist cultural analysis, you really shouldn't be proposing changes to this article, much less offering your personal opinion about which sources are "reliable". Newimpartial (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Relying on dictionary defintions is not WP:OR. Here is: A Dictionary of the social sciences - Page 392 published in 1964 https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Dictionary_of_the_social_sciences/ "the cultural marxism of Antonio Gramsci examines similar practices in relation to forms of social control" here is the definition of "conspiracy theory" https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy-theory "a theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot". So what is the "theory"? That a bunch of intellectuals came up with an ideology, is the "theory" that the effects of the ideology are harmful? Where is the "conspiracy", people openly publishing ideas about their ideology? This would be similiar to having a page on the "fascist conspiracy theory", stating that many left wing activists claim that all the bad things they dont like are caused by "fascism", and that their ideological opponents are "fascist", instead of just recognizing that people are just LABELING the thing as "cultural marxism" / "fascism", and LABELING it as "harmful", in term of speech called exaggerated hyperbole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole. Nobody actually cited implied that Karl Marx and Engels conspired in a room some elaborate plan, that would inevitably lead to famines in the soviet union, nor that the frankfurt school conspired in a room to "destroy western civilization", because they obviously thought very highly of marxism and its utopian ideals. Endomorphosis (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Endomorphosis, you seem to feel some fundamental error is occurring. I concur with Newimpartial that the sources here are clear on what the conspiracy theory is and what its roots are. If all the sources are making the same fundamental error, you should find other reliable sources that point out the mistake. If they don't exist, you might seek out publication elsewhere as the first to identify the issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Endomorphosis, I really doubt that you have read WP:OR. If you had, you would most likely have recognized that your dictionary-based example could have been used in our policy as a textbook example of SYNTH. Newimpartial (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

this is not needed, being the sources I provided demonstrate that "critical theory" was classically called "cultural marxism" by its proponents to the extent that it was in the dictionary, the fact that there are people such as NewImpartial who said he publishes in the topic who want to portray criticisms of the ideology as anti-semetic conspiracy theorists who believe they want "to destroy Western civilization", when the chinese communist party marxist writers come to the same conclusions as the "conspiracy theorists" with regard to "It is a carefully arranged attack on Western civilization. Its main goals are Christian faith and moral values; the other is narrow white men, especially white men. Considered to be the source of most violence and exploitation in the world." see The History and Enlightenment of Cultural Marxism, Jianghai Journal Copy Issue Number: 2014, Issue 12 by Dang Shengyuan. I believe that it must be warranted to change the page to include the Chinese as among the people who believe in the "conspiracy theory".... I mean criticism of the ideology. http://rdbk1.ynlib.cn:6251/Qw/Paper/570796 Endomorphosis (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Martin Jay, a historian of The Frankfurt School is being used as the source for the Larouche article being the origins of Cultural Marxism. If it originated the concept it doesn't need to use the term, as the claim is only that the concept came from that article. There's a trope of Larouche being a conspiracy nut, this isn't the only conspiracy that it's been suggested originated there (See Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement for details). Personally I beleive Lind being asked by Weyrich to research The Frankfurt School was the origin. I believe Lind and Buchanan popularized the term on the right. Lind who appeared at a holocaust denial conference, and Buchanan who can be shown to be lying in his book Death of The West (specifically making false quotes that were later put into a youtube documentary). So it is a conspiracy theory. By the way the standard for that we're using is Barkun's three types, and it's a "Systemic conspiracy theory" - to quote the Wikipedia page Conspiracy Theory "The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. The goals are sweeping, whilst the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, Communism, or the Catholic Church."

But yeah, your claims articles are just jokes or hyperbole - is WP:OR. We're here to report, not interpret. --194.193.147.6 (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2021

• Conservapedia doesn't just fail WP:RS because of WP:NPOV, it fails because it is an open wiki. No open wiki counts as WP:RS. Bear in mind, I am a contributor at both Wikipedia and Conservapedia; there's no anti-Conservapedia bias here or anything, but it can't be used as a source in Wikipedia articles. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Consider Deleting Page

off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
a page called "Marxist Cultural Analysis" already exists. This article does not come from a neutral viewpoint either. Jaygo113 (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC) This article, its title and its sourcing have been extensively discussed and have been subject to repeated, widely-parricipated RfCs. Your edits-which amount to the POV that "Cultural Marxism" is an intellectual movement and not the trope of a conspiracy theory- run counter to this broadly-based consensus. I have therefore reverted your BOLD changes. Newimpartial (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC) This article is actually biased, an ideology does not require a "conspiracy", just as there is no "Muslim conspiracy theory" of Jihad, and there are criticisms of the destructive nature of such ideologies. To call the criticism of those ideologies a "conspiracy theory", due to identifying a group of people (such as the prophet Mohammed, Karl Marx) who came up with the ideology, is to paint them with the same brush as the followers of David Icke. None of the quotes of the alleged proponents even alludes to a "conspiracy", but repeatedly refers to a "school", an "intellectual influence" and a "culture war". 75.164.170.25 (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Marxist cultural analysis is a completely different topic to this one. That article overlaps with this one only a little. It explains that the conspiracy theory exists and is a separate topic. It gives a very brief explanation of what the conspiracy theory is and refers readers who want to know more to this article. The two articles are distinct but complementary. Both articles are on valid topics. Each links to the other, so anybody finding the wrong one by mistake can easily find their way to the one that they actually want. There is no reason to delete either. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC) Many communists sources (such as the chinese communists), refer to it as "Cultural Marxism", such as http://rdbk1.ynlib.cn:6251/Qw/Paper/570796 "The History and Enlightenment of Cultural Marxism" . It states the same "conspiracy theory" conclusions about the ideology of "cultural marxism" 75.164.170.25 (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "In the United States, the typical manifestation of cultural Marxism is "Political Correctness" or "Multiculturalism". For many Americans, "political correctness" is a vague term that refers to a series of scattered and unrelated views of "freedom" and "novelty" but lacking a unified character. Although these views sometimes appear extreme, highly sensitive and even confused, if you carefully observe the history of "political correctness", it will reveal a different face. Therefore, although it is sometimes referred to as "cultural liberalism" (cultural liberalism), it is more Appropriate, but a more accurate expression should be "cultural Marxism." In fact, "political correctness" is not a collection of accidental views. It is a carefully arranged attack on Western civilization. Its main goals are Christian faith and moral values; the other is narrow white men, especially white men. Considered to be the source of most violence and exploitation in the world." Okay boomer... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Forgive me for not knowing how to use inline quotes in wikipedia, I am not a regular editor of wikipedia. 75.164.170.25 (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC) I don't get why linking to a Chinese paper on American phenomena would be relevant? The paper was written in 2014, descriptions of the conspiracy theory already existed by then. The source of the theory has been tracked down already, to Lind and LaRouche.... The Lind/LaRouche claims can't be proven, and can specifically be proven wrong by looking at The Frankfurt School's writings. The Frankfurt School sort to de-militarize societies, and create systems of health care and education... for this it's claimed that they're trying to destroy western culture via installing communism? Sorry, that's a conspiracy theory. It's even proven out in bold faced lies conservatives have made about the topic. Pat Buchanan claims to be speaking from Herbet Marcuse's voice, but is in fact quoting himself from death of the west. I've seen multiple memes of fake Max Horkhiemer quotes. Hell, Breitbart even said that Adorno made music to turn people into necrophiliacs. There's a conservative by the name of Michael Walsh who claims The Frankfurt School were the devil, and have everyone trapped in a Matrix. So there's definitely conspiracy discourse on the topic. That a Chinese paper describes the conspiracy discourse? I don't know why that matters, it's outdated. Give me a Frankfurt School author saying "let's take over society and destroy it" then yeah, then it's not a conspiracy theory. Until then, it all looks pretty nutty, because it doesn't line up with Frankfurt School writings. --194.193.147.6 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Cultural Marxism is not an American phenomena, the abstract of the article says the following: ″The theoretical framework and methodology of cultural Marxism have important implications for the construction of contemporary Chinese literary theory and aesthetics, as well as cultural studies and the development of cultural industries. To develop and respect the multicultural ecology, and to commit to the realization of the political rights and ideological emancipation of the broadest masses of people in China is the political nature of cultural Marxism, and it is also the greatest inspiration given to us by cultural Marxism.″ Moreover nothing in the article cites LaRouche, or any "right wing conspiracy theorists" it cites Dennis Dworkin: "Cultural Marxism in Post-War Britain", People's Publishing House, 2008 edition several times as well as others. 75.164.170.25 (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Give me a Frankfurt School author saying "let's take over society and destroy it" -- 194.193.147.6 this is a straw man argument, Antonio Gramsci said: “Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. … In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches, and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.” 'Audacia e Fide' in Avanti!; reprinted in Sotto la Mole (1916-1920), p. 148.... Whether implementing socialism leads to famines because its a stupid idea, such as the Soviet Unions scientist Lysenko's "socialist agriculture" rejecting the theory of genetics as fascist science, or in the context of critical theory leading to identity politics conflicts, has nothing to do with whatever noble intentions of the originators. Endomorphosis (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC) We already have a page for Gramsci, and hegemony. --194.193.147.6 (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

verblendungzussamenhang

I know, it's written this way in the cited article, but they have a bad typo in the word. It should only have one s and be "verblendungzusamenhang". The correct orthography can be found here for example: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verblendung_(Geistesgeschichte)

And even (German) Google autocorrects the word when using the variant with typo. 2001:9E8:4C54:700:213F:31AF:D04F:24BC (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to make the change. Am I correct in thinking that we should also double the m and make it "verblendungzusammenhang"? Firefangledfeathers 03:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The correct German term is Verblendungszusammenhang. See e.g. here: [1] That is: Verblendungs+zusammenhang with one s after Verblendung, one s and two m in zusammen-hang Mvbaron (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I corrected it in the article. Thanks for catching that! Mvbaron (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

2021-11 reddit

This talk page is slashdotted by reddit.com

• https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/r3ipdk/cultural_marxism_articles_on_wikipedia_in_2014/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/r2wq92/its_not_a_conspiracy_even_lol/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/r3k236/one_of_the_reasons_i_dont_trust_wikipedia_anymore/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/r3ojic/the_petersonians_are_at_it_again_read_my_comment/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/kotakuinaction2/comments/r4apwm/cultural_marxism_is_just_a_far_right_theory_bro/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/r4fz6f/reddit_wikipedia_and_cultural_marxism/

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

That's pretty natural for conspiracy related pages though. As far as "slashdotting", I don't think it's a large amount of people (certainly not enough to crash servers). They're certainly welcome to come here and discuss the facts of the content as it stands. That's the nature of Wikipedia. It relies on editorial standards and public efforts in order to remain neutral and honest. That's the foundation of Wikipedia, how it works. --203.221.166.218 (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)