Talk:Frankfurt School

"Cultural Marxism" refers to a conspiracy theory?

It's crazy how people are so desperate to pretend that saying the Frankfurt School was influential in forming the current American Left ideology is somehow a "conspiracy theory." "Cultural Marxism" refers to an intellectual movement, composed of specific thinkers and a fairly clear canon of their writings and it's just a term which refers to the ideological current of the Frankfurt School, critical theory, gender studies, etc. Here is a leftish columnist writing for the Telegraph who agrees. There are no secret meetings, no single organization, no initiations, no all-controlling committees, no secret plans, none of that crap. It's just a bunch of groupthink going on in academic circles between left wing social theorists, which then influences how courses are taught in university, which then influences how students think and what they think.

I took courses in philosophy at UMKC which discussed the Frankfurt School at length, although my professor was trying to put them in a positive light (in my opinion) and calling it "cultural Marxism" was no big deal, cause it was Marxism and it was about culture instead of economics. It's only after I left that course that I found a bunch of pol sci majors who have never taken courses in philosophy trying to pretend all this didn't exist. I think the attempt to describe this as a conspiracy theory is just the result of the isolation of philosophy as a discipline from other disciplines in university combined with a desire by left wing ideologues to circle the wagons when something on the Left is talked about as being bad. --BenMcLean (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You've cited a blog there. If blogs are your standard of evidence, then here are some who use the term in a conspiratorial sense (mostly claiming Cultural marxism is white genocide): [3] [4] [5] --Jobrot (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You were right the first time, they are violating the Talk page guidelines, as well as meatpuppetry. While I appreciate the lengths you have gone to try and persuade these Reddit-8chan-MRA accounts that have been instructed to flood these pages, answering every off-the-wall charge they make here is a huge waste of time. And won't accomplish anything, other than drive away good editors that will not want to wade through the wall of text being perpetrated here. Dave Dial (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Having just concluded a rather lengthy conversation in which Jobrot was all too willing to throw around accusations that I was acting in bad faith, I wonder if he'll do the same here, or if he'll give you a pass because the two of you agree. Thanks for the laugh, by the way; at what point did Ben reference Reddit, or 8chan? And what the heck does the Men's Rights movement have to do with anything? This sort of nonsense makes it clear that you level such insults as a matter of course, against anyone who has the gall to disagree, no matter the substance of their words.

As for Jobrot: do try to recall that you were the one who established that the same standards for RS's don't apply on the Talk page -- that was one of your excuses when I criticized you for OR, and why you were willing to cite a Google Trends graph in the section above. That's not to mention that you were the one who made blogs an acceptable standard of evidence -- I had to remove two such sources from the Breivik paragraph. Of course, in your own words, those two 'commentary' pieces "may be re-included at a later date, but don't worry, they'll be framed as opinion.". So as long as Ben only uses the blog as a source for the author's own opinion, he should be fine, right?

I should point out that the Telegraph blog itself concedes that 'Cultural Marxism' is popular fodder for right-wing conspiracy nuts, so your parade of conspiracy blogs don't do much to disprove it. The Telegraph blog simply states (and I quote): Nevertheless, just because various wackos believe something, it does not make it untrue, nor does it mean those thoughts are confined to wackos. PublicolaMinor (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Blogs and editorials (aka op-eds) are two different things - you never removed any blog-content from the article, and I never included any. --Jobrot (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

By irrelevant coincidence, it just so happens that I'm actually not an MRA. But just for the sake of argument, let's assume I am. I want you to pretend that I am the most hateful misogynistic MRA that you can possibly dream up, and then I want you to evaluate my arguments on their actual merits irrespective of who I am or where I come from, because you obviously need the training in not allowing the ad hominem fallacy to dictate your thinking or blind you to the points other people are making. --BenMcLean (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not here to play games with you. Go somewhere else for your entertainment. --Jobrot (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy about presenting opinion as fact. Saying a theory is a conspiracy theory is an opinion, not a fact, and therefore has no place here. Of course this only applies to one side of the political spectrum as Jobrot so aptly demonstrates, esp. when he will zoom in on this addition like a hawk to have it removed for violating some other guideline. But then, what's to be expected from a school of thought that believes the truth doesn't matter if it's not what you want people to believe, and that those that dare to question must be shouted down with all means available? Read your Herbert Marcuse to know that that's a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.126.83 (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope, here's a whole list of things Wikipedia is quite happy to call conspiracy theories: List of conspiracy theories. That's the nature of the WP:FRINGE and WP:OR policies. Your statements on The Frankfurt School and Herbert Marcuse for instance, constitute WP:OR and WP:FRINGE. My political views are off topic for discussion here, as this page is intended for editorial discussions only, and anything you can say on this matter is mere assumption on your part, please refrain from attacking other editors as per WP:TALKNO. If you wish to learn more about how "Cultural Marxism" is a conspiracy, please search for the term 'Barkun' on this page or in the talk page archives. Thank you --Jobrot (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2015

Change "Conspiracy Theory" to "Cultural Marxism". Remove condemnation of racism and include references to association with racist ideologies. Overall, make the tone significantly more neutral with less of an overwhelming Liberal bias (even the term "Conspiracy Theory" is biased, extremely so, and goes against Wikipedia editing standards.) Include sources from neutral parties rather than pro-Cultural Marxist or anti-Cultural Marxist sources. Wikipedia is not a Liberal nor a Progressive website. It is a neutral encyclopedia and must remain as such.

Ideloctober (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as that is not a Semi-protected edit request, but a vague wishlist.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"include references to association with racist ideologies" I'm happy to oblige there at least. --Jobrot (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Then I'll make it simple. Change "Conspiracy Theory" to "Cultural Marxism". Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy theory, it's a real ideology that's really mentioned in Frankfurt's educational documents. Whether or not you agree with the ideology itself is irrelevant, but Cultural Marxism exists, and those on the Right who disagree with it are not "Conspiracy Theorists".

Ideloctober (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"it's a real ideology that's really mentioned in Frankfurt's educational documents" - please provide sources in line with WP:RS. --Jobrot (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This is taken directly from Wikipedia's outdated Google definition.

Cultural Marxism is an ideology which emphasizes culture as a main cause of inequalities. Critics have seen cultural Marxism and its influence as an important cause of political correctness and as an important cause of a perceived decline of humanities, social sciences, culture, and civilization in the Western world.

You, Jobrot, are in no position to debate this issue or decide whether or not content goes into the article. Judging by past posts, edits, and your overall outlook, I'd pen you as a strong liberal who fully believes any decrying of Cultural Marxism is immediately racist and bigoted. In turn, you are far more bigoted and biased than the neutrality necessary for this article and for Wikipedia's quality standards as a whole. Since 2012 Wikipedia has been getting much more Liberal and much less unbiased. Instead of presenting Cultural Marxism as a neutral theory, it's immediately presented as a racist conspiracy theory only perpetrated by racist ideologies. This is absolute nonsense, and I think it's high time Wikipedia becomes less Liberal and more Neutral, as it was founded to be.

10 years ago, Cultural Marxism would never link to "conspiracy theory" or be called a thought process of purely racist individuals. Sad times we live in.

Ideloctober (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, metapedia (the source of the text your quoting) does not count as a valid source under WP:RS, nor does it speak to your claim of 'Cultural Marxism' being "mentioned in Frankfurt's educational documents". Political opinions of individual editors do not matter here, all that matters is that edits are made within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (they are there to keep Wikipedia accurate to the sources). This talk page is not intended for idle gossip or WP:SOAPBOXING please restrict your comments to discussing editorial improvements to the article and it's sourcing. Also, please indent any further comments as to indicate who you are replying to, for more assistance on how to format your comments on talk pages, click through to the Talk Page Guidelines. Please learn Wikipedia's policies and why they are there (hint; Wikipedia's policies have nothing to do with personal politics or a liberal conspiracy, they are concerned with article quality, accuracy and verifiability). --Jobrot (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Metapedia, I'll tell you what I told Jobrot and DaveDial in the section above: remember to assume good faith. It is undeniably true that there is a conspiracy theory about the Frankfurt School -- as discussed above, the terrorist Breivik was directly influenced by this, even if he was certifiably insane and was influenced to about the same extent by conspiracy theories about the Knights Templar. For Jobrot and others, 'Cultural Marxism' is the conspiracy theory -- they do not distinguish between that and using the term for legitimate criticism of the Frankfurt School. I'm not sure if they deny the reality (that the Frankfurt School did advocate for a Marxist-themed theory of culture, and that this ideology has had an outsized influence on modern academia, especially literature and the humanities) or if they simply deny that this reality is sufficiently verifiable by reliable sources to be included on Wikipedia. Either way, their position is that the only form of 'Cultural Marxism' that can be permitted on Wikipedia is the one proposed by conspiracy nuts. However insulting it may be (and yes, it doesn't get more insulting than "everyone who believes this is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist"), I wouldn't call it bigoted. Non-neutral, certainly, but that's par for the course. PublicolaMinor (talk) 04:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Not all versions of the conspiracy come down to antisemitism (I think elsewhere on this page it was brought up that Breivik for instance was pro-israel, although that's probably more in contrast to his being anti-islam than anything else). As for the term "Cultural Marxism" being used for legitimate criticism of The Frankfurt School - no, I've not seen many critics who use the term actually interact with the Frankfurt School material. That is to say, I've never seen them quote or show comprehension of The Frankfurt School theorists (most of whom were interested in pathologising in order to prevent the cultural causes and effects of the rise of Fascism, having in their lifetimes seen it in the German cultural changes of Nazi Fascism)... I've seen plenty reduce The Frankfurt School to Marxism and pretend that's a criticism - but I've never seen anyone do so using The Frankfurt School or Marx's own writings... let alone in a forum that meets WP:RS (and even then The Frankfurt School isn't a singular solid viewpoint). So that said, kudos on playing devils advocate to Ideloctober's bad faith, and also on being aware of the subject matter enough to distinguish "Marxist" (perhaps a more economic viewpoint than anything else) from your creative language choice "Marxist-themed". Of course, even if you could justify calling the many and varied of the Frankfurt School "Marxist themed" (influenced might be a better term, more suggestive of the witch hunt this boils down to) that still wouldn't necessarily extend "Marxist themed" to such large and varied swathes of academic writings and individuals such as Critical Theorists, Students of Cultural Studies, Political Correctness advocates (of all stripes and opinion) Multiculturalists, The Birmingham School, Post-Modernists, Feminists, anti-racist campaigners, anti-homophobia campaigners, atheists and all the other modern political progressives having their views conveniently reduced to 1950s "Marxism" as the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory would have it. As I stated earlier, that would be like claiming all Quantum Physicists are Catholic because at some point Catholic Monasteries became Universities and initiated the modern university system. It may have a Truth in there somewhere, but that smidgen of Truth is not consistent enough to be claimed as true for all categories and all instances from then on. Apart from that, the original albeit informal Academic meaning of "Cultural Marxism" was not intended as an insult or even a criticism. It was intended as an informal description of a group poorly defined to begin with, and hence the term never fully flourished or developed into a solid academic definition or became useful (between the leftism of the 1930s and the leftism of today too many ideas have head in too many directions for that to be a valid reduction) - not that the lack of validity stops Lind and other cold-war era cultural-conservatives getting hold of the term (and thus their red-paranoid could continue)... and now it's very useful to some. But that does not legitimate it to Wikipedia's standards.

It's worth contextualizing Marxism in general, in that Marx was a teenager when The French Revolution occurred (yeah, that long ago), and that revolution, along with the post-revolutionary industrialization that occurred (child labour and workplace deaths and all) was the framework for his era. So he in many ways was among the first to criticize the human effects of capitalism. Hence I am of the opinion that reducing all and any ensuing criticisms of capitalism down to mere Marxism is a reductionistic and ill-advised tactic to begin with. Of course this is just my personal opinion. --Jobrot (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

...and of course, all of this doesn't speak to other editors opinions on the matter (I'm not the only one doing reversions). --Jobrot (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet you are allowing your own political agenda to influence everything you edit, and due to your own special privileges you immediately decide to enforce that every edit must come from a Liberal, Leftist, or pro-Marxist standpoint, and that any edit to the contrary is either poorly-sourced, unneeded, soapboxing, or racist and biased. You are a walking pinnacle of bias, and if we're getting political, I think you've got absolutely backwards beliefs in that aspect. However, I'm not arguing for my ideas to be pushed into the article, I'm arguing for neutrality. We don't need an article that says Cultural Marxism is eradicating Western civilization, but we also don't need an article with a silly and infectious love for Marxism written by a silly and misguided Marxist. We can keep it neutral and keep it fair to both sides; do NOT call it a conspiracy theory, state that racist organizations sometimes use it, then state that Conservative groups believe it is causing problems. Fair and balanced, as Wikipedia was always intended to be. This pro-Marxist, pro-Liberal standpoint on this article being enforced is nothing but proof that Wikipedia is becoming increasingly Liberal-biased, and when any encyclopedia becomes biased to any political agenda, its merit and the qualities of free expression and free speech die. Wikipedia has long since been discredited due to unprofessional edits, and soon it will be discredited for its growing bias in favor of Liberalisn, the Progressive Movement, and subtle pro-Marxism, all demonstrated by Mr. Jobrot here. Ideloctober (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

All I argue for is following wikipedia policies... and I have no special privileges around here (although I do have consensus on my side, in line with the AfD on this subject). I argue that some statements are poorly-sourced because some statements are poorly-sourced (ie. they don't meet the requirements of wikipedia policy. Not my political requirements, not my personal requirements, but the requirements of wikipedia policy). Conservatives relevant to the discussion HAVE argued that Cultural Marxism is destroying western society. Here are some quotes from William S. Lind - who with the Free Congress Foundation popularized the conspiracy theory version, the most common version of the term in use today: "it [Cultural Marxism] shifted its focus from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to destroying it in the United States." -William S. Lind. "Its goal remains what Lukacs and Gramsci set in 1919: destroying Western culture and the Christian religion." -William S. Lind. "He knew that if he could destroy the West’s traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying Western culture itself." -William S. Lind. Most conservative groups with any inkling of credibility AVOID the phrase "Cultural Marxism" because they want to keep their credibility. Anyways, before you go critiquing Wikipedia policies further (or compounding your errors as you have below), I suggest you actually learn why Wikipedia's policies are there. They are the backbone of any argument on here. --Jobrot (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

On that point, please familiarize yourself with The Talk Page Guidelines and learn how to format/indent your comments correctly (you'll be taken more seriously). You are new here, and it reflects in how you conduct yourself and what you base your arguments on. This page is for editorial discussions, not for WP:SOAPBOXING please read and familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policies. Particularly Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policies. --Jobrot (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am not going to take "format advice" from someone who makes numerous grammatical and spelling errors that even fundamental education rectifies. You began the soapbox and you began the false consensus, openly stating that you wished to pursue a pro-Marxism tone throughout your articles. You are a Liberal and potentially a Marxist, and that was your first and only point as to why to keep the title "Conspiracy theory". A Marxist claiming others won't take someone seriously or telling them they're making errors. Pot, meet kettle. Ideloctober (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

See also WP:NPA. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I've shown you where you can read about the consensus formed during the articles for deletion discussion numerous times now. I've also told you that wikipedia is not a place to discuss personal politics and that the content of this page should be kept to discussions of an editorial nature concerning the Frankfurt School article. Please learn to follow wikipedia policy and guidelines including the Talk page formatting guidelines if you want to continue to help improve Wikipedia. Good day. --Jobrot (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Since it seems to attract a lot of discussion, I've added two more academic sources to that section. Jérôme Jamin's Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right provides a particularly detailed account of the conspiracy theory and its origins, and could probably be used for more elaboration if necessary, while John E. Richardson's ‘Cultural-Marxism’ and the British National Party: a transnational discourse, in addition to covering its origins, also touches on how it influenced Breivik and the (neo-Fascist) British National Party in Britain. --Aquillion (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone made this change, and I reverted it per my comment above; as far as I can tell, all reliable, non-fringe sources refer to this as a conspiracy theory. If you want to change it, please provide mainstream sources that describe the theory in other terms. As far as I can tell, anyway, there simply aren't any. --Aquillion (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies are BS. But there are multiple levels of BS going on here. There's Wikipedia's BS and then there's Jobrot's BS, where Jobrot has come along and added an additional layer of BS on top of Wikipedia's BS. Here we are only objecting to Jobrot's BS. So let's keep on topic.

"Most conservative groups with any inkling of credibility AVOID the phrase "Cultural Marxism" because they want to keep their credibility"

Ah, they avoid the phrase, but not the idea. And it's the idea which is the conspiracy theory, not the phrase. So if they all believe in the idea, that makes them all conspiracy theorists. Why aren't you agitating to have the "Conservative" article read, "Conservative groups are composed of conspiracy theorists"? That's what you're making an arbitrary, one-sided selection of sources to build a case for. --BenMcLean (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If you think Wikipedia's policies are BS then go elsewhere. --Jobrot (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The IDEA of Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy "theory" as evidenced by the many sources that discuss its creation and intent. Given the existence of non-Marxist Liberals it seems inappropriate that some editors refer to the idea as "Conservative" and "Right Wing" as if that will somehow delegitimize its existence. As Nationalists and Jew-haters co-opt the term for their own political use, it's clearly an idea that is of increasing cultural relevance. It's important to discuss what Cultural Marxism is and isn't. The tag "Conspiracy Theory" minimizes its actual importance and should be removed. Cultural Marxism should have an article all to itself.EyePhoenix (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The original theory as created by William S. Lind during the 1990's Culture Wars fits directly into Michael Barkun's definition of a "Global Systemic" type of Conspiracy Theory. Using Lind's own words makes this apparent:

"The next conservatism should unmask multiculturalism and Political Correctness and tell the American people what they really are: cultural Marxism" -William S. Lind

"Its goal remains what Lukacs and Gramsci set in 1919: destroying Western culture and the Christian religion. -William S. Lind (strange that Lukacs would attempt to destroy his own society)

"The next conservatism needs to reveal the man behind the curtain - - old Karl Marx himself." -William S. Lind

"Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood)" -William S. Lind (living in Hollywood isn't the same as being a part of the movie industry, and nothing of the sort is mentioned in any bio of any member of the Frankfurt School.)

Here is Michael Barkun's "second type" of conspiracy theory - the "Global Systemic" type:

Main article: Conspiracy theory

Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. While the goals are sweeping, 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, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.

And here are Lind's words inserted into that defintion:

Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world [The Media, Academia, Hollywood and ultimately America]. While the goals are sweeping ["destroying Western culture and the Christian religion"], the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization [The Frankfurt School] implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions [Academia, the media and Hollywood]. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.

Not only that, but many WP:RS authors have written about the theory as being a conspiracy theory, and it fits in with WP:FRINGE. I hope that clears things up for you. --Jobrot (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2015

Please change the title "Conspiracy theory" to "Cultural Marxism" for neutrality. This immediately proves it's a political theory, not a conspiracy theory.

"The theory is associated with American conservative thinkers such as William Lind, Pat Buchanan and Paul Weyrich, and has received institutional support from the Free Congress Foundation." Ideloctober (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

 Duplicate of above request. Stickee (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The above request has turned into a debate. This is a much simpler request for a title change. Ideloctober (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 01:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Its not the sort of issue you will ever reach a consensus on. It should however be obvious that conspiracy theory is POV. Rather frustrating with these articles where a minority blocks common sense and neutrality. Any procedures available to get this sorted out (other than keep waiting for a never occurring consensus).--Batmacumba (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The original theory as created by William S. Lind during the 1990's Culture Wars fits directly into Michael Barkun's definition of a "Global Systemic" type of Conspiracy Theory. Using Lind's own words makes this apparent:

"The next conservatism should unmask multiculturalism and Political Correctness and tell the American people what they really are: cultural Marxism" -William S. Lind

"Its goal remains what Lukacs and Gramsci set in 1919: destroying Western culture and the Christian religion. -William S. Lind (strange that Lukacs would attempt to destroy his own society)

"The next conservatism needs to reveal the man behind the curtain - - old Karl Marx himself." -William S. Lind

"Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood)" -William S. Lind (living in Hollywood isn't the same as being a part of the movie industry, and nothing of the sort is mentioned in any bio of any member of the Frankfurt School.)

Here is Michael Barkun's "second type" of conspiracy theory - the "Global Systemic" type:

Main article: Conspiracy theory

Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. While the goals are sweeping, 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, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.

And here are Lind's words inserted into that defintion:

Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world [The Media, Academia, Hollywood and ultimately America]. While the goals are sweeping ["destroying Western culture and the Christian religion"], the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization [The Frankfurt School] implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions [Academia, the media and Hollywood]. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.

Not only that, but many WP:RS authors have written about the theory as being a conspiracy theory, and it fits in with WP:FRINGE. I hope that clears things up for you. --Jobrot (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Points of View

Having read through this entire talk page, I am extremely disappointed and worried. There are clear agendas on both sides of the argument, and no neutrality has been synthesized. It seems a lot of smaller contributors on one side and JobRot as a major contributor, with small amounts of help on the other side. The former seem to argue a view without being willing to provide the necessary sources. The latter seems to have a large knowledge of wikipedia rules, and has used that knowledge in an arbitrary fashion to minimalize discussion of cultural marxism. My guess is that it can be made to completely remove cultural marxism from wikipedia, so the best option is to have it link to a conspiracy theory here. This is disappointing, embarrassing, and far from any neutral point of view being claimed. I will note that what disturbs me most is that this crap ends up on the pages of The Frankfurt School. I can't imagine seeing something similar on the page of any other academic group (some of which have been accused of far worse.) I expect no change from my comments. I am leaving this here knowing that the network will outlast us all. This here is for when other moderators and editors, or failing that historians, decide to look into the issue. Yes, people with differing points of view saw the clear bias back then, wikipedia has done somewhat of a job cleaning up it's paid editors, but has done little to work on biased editors that are funded through ideological satisfaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.252.14.210 (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Other than reverting vandalism I've only contributed 1 sentence to the article, and changed a heading (from "Conspiracy Theory" to "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory") - and that was done by request of editorial consensus. I will remind you and others who come here that: Wikipedia is NOT a battleground and that talk pages are to be reserved for editorial discussions only (ie. Wikipedia is not a forum). The policies you're complaining about are there for a reason - they're not there to benefit any single side. They're there to insure only quality additions are made to the encyclopedic content that makes up Wikipedia. --Jobrot (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll also point out that WP:NPOV is not about representing "sides" equally. It very specifically seeks to represent RELIABLE sources: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." - and does not seek to represent the consensus of the general public: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE all relate to (defining what is) WP:RS and are the key factors for determining what goes into Wikipedia, and into this section. If you have any suggestions for what you want added, I'm open to hearing them. --Jobrot (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"I will note that what disturbs me most is that this crap ends up on the pages of The Frankfurt School. I can't imagine seeing something similar on the page of any other academic group (some of which have been accused of far worse.)" This is a good point, and if we can't agree to create a separate page (or preferably the "German solution" - see below). I would suggest we simply delete the section.--Batmacumba (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I would not support the deletion of this section. Unfortunately the misinformation about The Frankfurt School's writings has become notable (and popular) as a conspiracy theory. The fact that the misinformation is mostly aimed at The Frankfurt School explains why it is a section on THIS page in particular; as to debunk the misconceptions. Part of Wikipedia's job as an Encyclopedia of facts - is to correct public misconceptions. Ergo I believe the section should be maintained and kept in line with the notability requirements WP:NFRINGE and the sourcing requirements of WP:RS. Both of which this section currently meets. --Jobrot (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, considering the conspiracy theory has been waxing and waning in popularity since the early 1990s - I think it would be best to make the section permanent, as it will probably find a popular audience again at some point in the future.--Jobrot (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Who founded it?

"The Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung) was founded in 1923 by Carl Grünberg, a Marxist legal and political professor at the University of Vienna" --Frankfurt School

"Founder: Felix Weil" --Institute for Social Research —User 000 name 18:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Friedrich Pollock "was one of the founders of the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt am Main"

I suspect all three are true (and more), as I found a source here (From Max Horkheimer) that sites Friedrich Pollock as cofounder on page 391 - and Felix Weil (an economist whom Germany's Foreign Minister offered to name the institute after) as cofounder on page 396. It also talks about the "Society of Social Research" - which was a club at the University of Frankfurt am Main, and about Carl Grünberg (a Professor, lawyer and sociologist) as being the first appointed director of the Institute of Social Research (page 381). However, this source here (by Martin Jay) says (on page 32) that Germany's Foreign Minister Walter Rathenau was the actual founder, but also talks about the purpose of the Institute from Carl Grünberg's perspective on page 293.

So I suspect it was a University society (The Society for Social Research) which via Felix Weil was funded by Walter Rathenau to become an The Institute of Social Research as directed by Carl Grünberg (a Professor), and with the backing of other members of the society such as Friedrich Pollock. --Jobrot (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"Interwar period"

In the first section, first paragraph, it says the Frankfurt School was formed between the "interwar period" in Germany. I assume this means between the first and second world wars, but there's no information supporting that assumption. Mentioning which year it was formed might be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.25.204 (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

As the Frankfurt School is an informal post-hoc grouping of a variety of thinkers, it's difficult to define when they "formed"... but the information you're after may well be on the Institute for Social Research page. --Jobrot (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Inspiration from German wiki

Why not do as German wiki and create Cultural Marxism as a disambiguation page with links to Cultural Studies and a page about Cultural Marxism as a right wing catch-phrase/slogan? As the German: Cultural Marxism. That seems to be a fair and pragmatic solution.--Batmacumba (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to that. --Jobrot (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• There was a separate article, but it was deleted via WP:AFD. If you want to suggest its restoration, you should request that at WP:DRV. --Aquillion (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the German wiki carts one half of the audience off to the conspiracy section, and sends the other half off to read about Cultural Studies in general. I think that's appropriate as that's essentially the complaint of the conspiracy theory - that these under paid, liberal arts "Cultural Studies" teachers are actually controlling the world (which is obviously ridiculous). So it may benefit some readers to take the opportunity to read about what Cultural Studies actually entails. --Jobrot (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I think German wiki carts 90% off to the conspiracy section. Unfortunately they don't have page view statistics to verify my guess. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This might be a good idea.Second Dark (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"the theory originated with Michael Minnicino's 1992 essay..."

Re. Cultural Marxism. This isn't true. The idea that Semites were trying to destroy Christendom via Cultural Marxism is at least as old as Hitler. 112.172.232.217 (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

---"the theory originated with Michael Minnicino's 1992 essay..."--- This is not even close to true and this whole article needs to be changed as it is irrevocably biased. http://www.vdare.com/articles/yes-virginia-there-is-a-cultural-marxism - As we can see in this article the term "kulturmarxist" was already in use by the 1960s to describe Frankfurt schule proponents among the German academic right. It's absolutely not true that the term didn't appear until 1992.

Also where are the criticisms of the Frankfurt schule from the right in the criticism section? Or is Habermas the only critical source you can find? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VivaElGeneralissmo (talk • contribs) 22:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

German wikipedia draws a distinction in terms between Cultural Marxism and cultural Marxism [Kulturmarxismus]. The former is a proper noun for the US right wing conspiracy theory. The latter refers to Cultural studies. You can read about it on their talk page here. --Jobrot (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

But the Cultural studies school is what is being referred to by Gottfried and is what the German academics were calling "kulturmarxists". It's not a conspiracy theory to point out the influence that Frankfurt schule cultural studies writers had on sociology and philosophy in academia. You are acting as if they are entirely divorced from each other when you haven't proven that is the case. We are referring to ideological heritage hereVivaElGeneralissmo (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Well for starters, Paul Gottfried isn't mentioned on the page, so which version he was referring to is a moot point. Secondly, no, no it's not a conspiracy theory to discuss the influences of The Frankfurt School on sociology and philosophy (not that I've seen that happen anywhere recently). But no one is claiming it's a conspiracy theory to discuss that topic (in fact I wish people would actually discuss it, as to interact with their material, as outdated and historically contextual as it is) - given that The Frankfurt School was influential over 45 years ago now, and that both The Birmingham School of sociology and The Chicago School have since the 1980s both succeeded The Frankfurt School in both influence and relevance - no one is really interested in discussing the influence of The Frankfurt School. They're interested in claiming there's a Cultural Marxist movement which is succeeding in destroying western society - but that's got nothing to do with anything The Frankfurt School did. As noted in the article - the "School" doesn't constitute a singular position, and the group weren't working on a singular project (to think so is to fail to grasp reality). In fact, they disagreed with each other on most subjects. I suggest you learn more about them (perhaps read some of their works) before making such idle criticisms. --Jobrot (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Help!

WP:NOTFORUM - please keep all discussion relevant to this page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can I get some help from the editors on this article, on how to fix a similar conspiracy theory page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics ? Thanks in advance 50.24.158.129 (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Firstly, Wikipedia is not a BATTLEGROUND, ergo "brigading" - seeking the favour of multiple users in order to contrive an editorial outcome - is frowned upon here (which becomes a factor in administrative decisions). Secondly, I'm already aware of the comparison you're trying to construct and its popularity on various fascist blogs and in comment forums (1, 2, 3), Wikipedia however, is not a FORUM. My conclusion (which in this case, is mere opinion) is that you are most likely attempting to 'troll' the editors on this page. However, in WP:GOODFAITH I will post a reply to your comment on the Trickle-down economics talk page, and in that same good faith, I shall expect the discussion to REMAIN there, as that is according to yourself and WP:GOODFAITH your reason for commenting here. --Jobrot (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC) The editors did a good job turning a neologism (Trickle-down economics) into an article, wish we could have done that here. Raquel Baranow (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC) I was appalled the other day to find that Cuckservative has somehow found its way to becoming an article (as of July 2015‎). This seems highly inappropriate for encyclopedic content. I believe Wikipedia should maintain a more strict academic atmosphere, and not become a dictionary of political slang terms or pejoratives. However I don't believe that ALL political slang terms are constitutive of "Conspiracy Theory" - that defense can only be maintained under certain circumstances ("Conspiracy Theory" applies to Cultural Marxism as formal claims are being made of The Frankfurt School which are demonstrably untrue). Those other pages however, well, I suspect your greatest hope of removing them would be found [here], from there it's possible to argue that the term is NOT a concept from any well respected economic text or academic resource (as per WP:RS)... and hence shouldn't appear on Wikipedia (or at least, isn't worthy of a whole page, perhaps having it reduced to a section of neoliberal economics or a section of another more appropriate page). Good luck. --Jobrot (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Looking through the most recent AfD for cuckservative I'd say it wasn't argued enough that that WP:RS trumps WP:GNG (a term can be popular, but not notable in its academic field, in that case; political theory), there weren't enough reminders that wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEFIELD, there was too much talk of canvassing) and the closers weren't reminded enough that it's their job to read which arguments prevailed, not which were most numerous. That last mechanism of wikipedia is particularly important, as it lets minority yet policy-logical views prevail over more common, yet policy-ignorant viewpoints. --Jobrot (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC) I'm now forced to stikethrough everything I've just said and remind my self and others of WP:notforum. This talk page is for discussions of an editorial nature only, and all discussion here must concern the page in question; The Frankfurt School. --Jobrot (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

JOBROT acting as gatekeeper against

How has Jobrot been allowed to completely defy the overwhelming consensus on this talk page that Cultural Marxism should have its own page?86.170.51.163 (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. In answer to your question: How have I been "allowed to completely defy the overwhelming consensus on this talk page"? It's simple - you don't understand what CONSENSUS means on Wikipedia. You see, Wikipedia has a reputation as "The Encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (the obvious flaw being that truth and mass-belief are two different categories) - for this reason Wikipedia isn't fond of falling into Argumentum ad populum [6]. Hence, the votes on Wikipedia aren't set up to be democratic, as truth is not a matter of majority belief. The Flat Earth Theory, the Geocentric Model (as opposed to the Heliocentric model) and The Salem Witch Trials have proven this stalwart fact. So the voting system on Wikipedia is set up to be about depth of argumentation, and the refutation of the central point with reasoning, logic, quality (WP:RS) sources and an academic understanding... NOT whatever the majority of the population believe as Argumentum ad populum would have it. You can read more about what constitutes consensus on Wikipedia here: WP:CONSENSUS. Likewise, you can look to your upper-right to see a diagram of what constitutes GOOD argumentation on Wikipedia. At this point I'd like to point you towards WP:TALK (the origin of that diagram), and recommend that during your time here, you seek to understand the purposes behind Wikipedia's policies, and apply them in the spirit they've been written and intended. If you have any issues with anything I've said personally, or how I've applied policy (the enforcement of which is my main function on this page) - feel free to discuss it with me, or take it up within one of Wikipedia's many formal structures for sorting things out. Please do not seek to use talk pages as a BATTLEGROUND, and refrain from making personal attacks against your fellow editors. Thank you for your time, and welcome to Wikipedia. --Jobrot (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Beyond all that, this isn't the correct place to argue that it should have its own page. (Since the original article was deleted under WP:AFD, the appropriate place to raise that would be WP:DRV.) And Jobrot is far from the only person who agrees that that AFD was correct in its decision; he's just the one willing to spend the most time on this page answering people's questions. There was, for instance, a very recent successful AFD for its draft page, with a consensus for deletion that was fairly overwhelming. --Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This has got to be one of the most intentionally biased (dishonest) pages that I've seen. Who keeps demoting Cultural Marxism (with 1.5M Google References) to a "Conspiracy Theory?". I mean, this is a pretty well researched subject. I write philosophy full time and I've never met a thinker that denies it. So why is denialism a wikipedia value? Even Adorno said that they'd fabricated much of what they wrote, and did not so much conduct an intentional conspiracy but a intuitionistic conspiracy of common interest due to common experience. The Cosmopolitans (Socialist, Libertine 'Libertarians', and NeoConservatives) advocated the universalization of their group competitive strategy just as the anglos, germans and french did. The last players to the enlightenment stage were the Cosmopolitans, and we have just finished a century of testing and falsifying the cosmopolitan arguments just as we spent the previous century falsifying the german and anglo, after the french immediately falsified theirs. The soviets practiced (and Russians still do) funding dissident writers, journalists, media, activists, and politicians. They partly funded the Frankfurt school. This is a matter of record. I can't understand how some amateur is using wikipedia for propaganda purposes by demoting this subject to conspiracy theory. Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine. -185.94.216.102 (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

"The soviets practiced (and Russians still do) funding dissident writers, journalists, media, activists, and politicians"

Likewise - Doolittle, of The Propertarian Blog - The US government has also funded numerous anti-communist endeavors. Herbert Marcuse of "The Frankfurt School" was himself funded by the US government as an anti-fascist for almost a decade whilst he operated under the OSS during the war, and as an anti-soviet for the state department afterwards. Gloria Steinem has admitted to receiving funding from government sources. And for many years the anti-communist advocacy group the Congress for Cultural Freedom were funded by the US government. So I'm not sure what your claims are meant to be proving other than the nature of governments and funding.

The funding for these institutes tends to come from the establishment government of the day (in order to support the Academic and ideological freedoms we have in the west). For instance the funding for the establishment of "the Frankfurt school" actually came from then German Foreign Minister Walther Rathenau (who interestingly enough was later killed in an act of drive-by terrorism conducted by far right ultra nationalists). This was all in the context of the rise of Hitler. The sources for this information can be found elsewhere on this talk page as well as on the current Frankfurt School page (somewhere above of the section you're focused on). People like William S. Lind also show an awareness of this concepts history with statements like: "Cultural Marxism is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I." - if you look at the last line of the current section (and the sourcing there in) it does acknowledge this lineage of the term as a far-right criticism. So there you go, quotes and sources all present and accounted for. Don't worry, we're not overlooking the "Cultural Bolshevism" as a Nazi criticism connection, and we'll try to make it more apparent than it already is from that last sentence of the current section. --Jobrot (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

Here's the discussion section to make the article conform with NPOV. This issue has been raised multiple times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Dark (talk • contribs) 00:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're adding a POV tag, you have to raise a specific concern for us to address. What do you feel is POV about the current version? What proposed changes do you feel would address your concerns? Without that, there's nothing to discuss and the POV tag will just get removed again. --Aquillion (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

For starters, the "Conspiracy Theory" title needs to be removed, since it's a scare phrase. There also needs to be balanced sources added. I've tried to work with others here on this before.Second Dark (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

We've already come to a consensus on the heading of the section.

You seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia takes a Fox News style "fair and balanced" "hear from all sides" perspective within its articles. IT DOES NOT. You need to start understanding this; the current section already includes the WP:DUE content from the Reliable Sources concerning the Frankfurt School and the WP:FRINGE conspiracy ABOUT the Frankfurt School. This is ALL this section concerns.

Main page: WP:DUE

Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.

So unless your suggested changes are about The Frankfurt School or the conspiracy regarding the Frankfurt School then they don't belong here. --Jobrot (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a theory about an alleged conspiracy. There's nothing POV about that. More often than not, people who think "conspiracy theory" is a negative phrase are those who believe in such theories and are afraid of being thought of in the same way birthers or truthers are. In other words, you simply don't like it. Or perhaps you take offense at it being termed a theory, when you're certain that, in reality, there actually is a Cultural Marxist conspiracy threatening Western values? In that case, you'll need some damn good sources to back that up. As Jobrot says above, Wikipedia does not present the fringe on the same level as everything else. That's all that really needs to be said. clpo13_(talk) 08:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It gets worse than that as proponents of the theory are claiming The Frankfurt School aims to DESTROY western civilization [7] - this is of great irony as The Frankfurt School comes from an academic tradition within western civilization. Even Marx himself is from the area now known as modern Germany (a western country), Marx later lived in France (a western country) and then London (a city in a western country). The American christian right's attempt to paint The Frankfurt School as the foreign invader to the west is absolutely part of the conspiracy theory viewpoint. But they're ALL from the west! --Jobrot (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Marcuse (who by the way, worked for the OSS during the war) wrote a whole book criticizing the USSR, and Adorno is quoted as having said that the "Russians are Fascists" not socialists. So this pro-conspiracy viewpoint that The Frankfurt School were acting as double agents - just shouldn't be tolerated here as if it's a reasonable or academic stand point. They were valuable western intellectuals, and should not be disowned or smeared in this way at the drop of a hat. It's ridiculous that Wikipedia is treating this conspiracy as if it is or as if it might become reasonable or academic. It won't, and we should stop entertaining it as if it might. --Jobrot (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Since I just reverted a change probably related to this, I'll go over my rationale: We can't use a WP:NEWSBLOG as a source for statements of fact, only for the opinions of the author, and we definitely can't use it to restructure the entire section. There are several sources from respectable academics and historians discussing the subject; while we can add other points of view of people can find better sources for them, I don't see anything "absurdly tendentious" about them as they stand -- as far as I know, those sources (and the general tone of the section) reflects the state of mainstream scholarship on the subject. --Aquillion (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree, Ed West lacks journalistic seniority so his blog certainly can't be used as representative of all "main stream conservatives" and given that WP:FRINGE is in play and this topic is contraversial - combined with Ed's lack of any credentialed expertise in any of the relevant fields (The Frankfurt School or Conspiracy Theories) I'd say his blog is not a suitable or notable source and its inclusion would be WP:UNDUE. I think we should keep our sources to the highest standards for this section... and as far as I can tell all sources currently included are either credentialed academics and experts in these fields or coupled primary-secondary sources (which is how Lind is currently in there, as referenced by the SPLC article). If Ed West was either more directly involved/relevant or if there was another WP:RS source commenting on the Ed West source, then he might be able to be included. But until then he's out as per WP:DUE, WP:NOTABLE, and the subject matter being WP:FRINGE (which is probably why it only got to the blog level rather than the article level). --Jobrot (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll also note that the editor in question removed a bunch of verified and credentialed academic citation, which I'd consider vandalism. --Jobrot (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I put the tag there because there is a clear POV dispute in the talk. The term simply doesn't meet the criteria for conspiracy theory by any standards. I've tried to add more sources, including Gottfried, but Mr. Rot has refused to work with me and is gatekeeping as should be obvious by any quick glance at the talk page. I'd like to discuss how to improve the article, hopefully with people other than JobRot since he's being unreasonable, has made this page his own personal project, and constantly cites rules that I can either look up easily myself or have nothing to do with the discussion.Second Dark (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

And you can see from my history that all I did was tag and open discussion. I didn't remove anything. Please stop lying.Second Dark (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I've not lied, but as you can easily look up these policies then MAYBE YOU SHOULD DO THAT FOR ONCE - and you'd realize that you can't simply start a discussion and expect the tag to stay. The discussion has to be an EDITORIAL discussion about CHANGING the article. This means you have to suggest something manifest for the article and give reason. That means citing some text you want in, or being able to argue against the current article. Which you cannot.

As you've failed to read the talk page, I'll paste the relevant section which classifies the theory as a Conspiracy Theory:

Main page: Talk:Frankfurt School

The original theory as created by William S. Lind during the 1990's Culture Wars fits directly into Michael Barkun's definition of a "Global Systemic" type of Conspiracy Theory. Using Lind's own words makes this apparent:

"The next conservatism should unmask multiculturalism and Political Correctness and tell the American people what they really are: cultural Marxism" -William S. Lind

"Its goal remains what Lukacs and Gramsci set in 1919: destroying Western culture and the Christian religion. -William S. Lind

"The next conservatism needs to reveal the man behind the curtain - - old Karl Marx himself." -William S. Lind

"Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood)" -William S. Lind (living in Hollywood isn't the same as being a part of the movie industry, and nothing of the sort is mentioned in any bio of any member of the Frankfurt School.)

Here is Michael Barkun's "second type" of conspiracy theory - the "Global Systemic" type:

Main page: Conspiracy theory

Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. While the goals are sweeping, 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, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.

And here are Lind's words inserted into that defintion:

Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world [The Media, Academia, Hollywood and ultimately America]. While the goals are sweeping ["destroying Western culture and the Christian religion"], the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization [The Frankfurt School] implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions [Academia, the media and Hollywood]. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.

Not only that, but many WP:RS authors have written about the theory as being a conspiracy theory, and it fits in with WP:FRINGE. I hope that clears things up for you. Thank you --Jobrot (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

So unless you have some specific text you want inserted into the current section that we can discuss. Or you can counter the above mode of classification (and then form a alternative consensus as there's already one about the classification/title here). Then nothing is really being discussed here but your own feelings on the matter (and that's simply not a factor in constructing an encyclopedia). Until then the NPOV tag stays off. Either have an editorial discussion or stop abusing the talk page. --Jobrot (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The tag was there BECAUSE THERE IS A NEUTRALITY DISPUTE. You're vandalizing. There was never any consensus. You camp out here and refuse to work with anyone who comes here. The term doesn't meet the criteria because it's simply not how it's used on the far right, EVEN AMONG THEMSELVES. I've offered multiple links demonstrating this over these last few months, but you've refused to engage in discussion. Simply look at Metapedia's entry; it's a far-right site for and by far-right people. This is how the term is used AMONG THEMSELVES. It's simply not a conspiracy theory. Now I know you're instant reaction is going to be "we can't add that as a link." I know; it's to demonstrate to you how the term is used in the wild.

The term was also used in Buchanan's book ten years before anyone started calling it a conspiracy theory to dismiss it. Wouldn't you think people would have noticed that a major public figure was conspiracy mongering in a national bestseller?

There is also notes on Gottfried in my sandbox. I'd also like to add this article by Gottfried.http://www.vdare.com/articles/yes-virginia-there-is-a-cultural-marxism

You've ignored objections and arguments by dozens of people over several months. It's time to be honest and actually work with someone.Second Dark (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Your comment makes it clear that you have no WP:RS suggestions on alterations to the section. So I'll remind you that this talk page is not a WP:FORUM - please don't use it as one. As for what's in your sandbox, I believe I've already addressed it extensively back in May - last time you tried this, when you also tried to WP:CANVAS [8] and WP:EDITWAR your way through. --Jobrot (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You have yet to answer any points.Second Dark (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

FOR MONTHS NOW I've been explaining to you and telling you to read WP:TPG and WP:NOTFORUM - I am under NO OBLIGATION to address your banal personal opinions. This talk page is for EDITORIAL DISCUSSIONS about changes to the article - of which you have suggested NONE! STOP USING THIS PAGE AS A FORUM (WP:TPG WP:NOTFORUM). Either make a specific editorial suggestion (citing sources, quoting text) or leave. Stop wasting everyone elses time and Wikipedia's resources. --Jobrot (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Frothing at the mouth aside, Jobrot, you need to realize that you have WP:OWNed this Talk page and the 'Conspiracy Theory' section for almost a year now. Given that sort of monopolization, is it any wonder that an editor who disagrees would start with the innocuous first step of opening a discussion on here rather than immediately editing the article text itself? The latter would probably see them hit with a ban-hammer, but now even starting a conversation hits your berserk button?

The problem is, you're both talking past each other. SecondDark, as I've mentioned above, the 'Cultural Marxism' referenced in this article is not the same thing discussed by conservatives -- the Marxist-tinged (essentially Hegelian) ideology that grew out of the Frankfurt School and is today cited approvingly by almost every English professor known to me. The 'Conspiracy Theory' section is specifically about that: a far-right conspiracy theory about the Frankfurt School. It's the same difference between an article on the Bilderberg Group and an article on the conspiracy theories about the Bilderberg Group. The problem for SecondDark is that (according to Jobrot and others) the non-conspiracy use of the term lacks the notability and number of reliable sources needed to give it a section or article of its own.

The problem for Jobrot is that (according to SecondDark and others, including myself) your definition of the term purely as a conspiracy theory does not reflect the reality of how the term is actually used among conservatives. You were the one, after all, who in a previous draft of this very page described the terrorist Breivik as someone who "contributed to the modern appropriation of the term". How much more defamatory can you get, than to say that everyone who uses the term is influenced by a mass-murdering lunatic better known for his ravings on the Knights Templar? And yet now you're shocked, shocked to find that some people might object to that characterization? PublicolaMinor (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Also PublicolaMinor this user has already been banned from this page for edit warring prior to today, and their first move more recently was NOT to open an NPOV section - but to take things back to the brink of 3RR again instead. This is now the 3rd time they've come here to disrupt. Their first time being in May, when they received several warnings for Canvassing. This is not a new issue, and I'm frothing at the mouth for specific reasons. I'm sure you're aware of my reliance and inclination to tell people about policy - so I'm sure we're both now aware this user has been more than adequately informed about policy. They are not new to this game they've been playing and WP:GF only extends so far. --Jobrot (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Brievik's effect on spreading the term is plain enough to show up as a massive spike on the google trends graph [9], and through him the term appeared in various mainstream media outlets which were running (then current) stories about him and the 2011 Norway attacks. This is all as plain as day.

You should know that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts, and you (as a more experienced editor) should also be aware of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. It is most certainly not a place for here say (conservative or otherwise)... and I'll note that this article is part of a series on The Frankfurt School - a series which is well out of the purview of the "series on conservatism" template (so what conservatives say about The Frankfurt School on their own forums is IRRELEVANT to this encyclopedia page).

Finally - all I've done on this talk page is make sure policy is enforced, and that the page is used for editorial discussions only (hence my multiple WP:NOTFORUM warnings to Second dark). Good luck explaining things to Second Dark. They have a WP:Listen issue that I've been trying to disabuse them of since May this year. I don't like your chances. --Jobrot (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"This is all as plain as day." Indeed it is. If you look a bit closer at your data, you'll find this. In other words, yes, there is a big spike in the usage of the terms... that fades to literal nothingness after three days, before the month was even out. And for this you called him "pivotal to spreading the term."

Contrast with the Google Trends graph of 'Knights Templar'. Media coverage of that term positively dwarfed the 'spike' you describe, and 'Knights Templar' didn't return to its former level of usage until fifteen days later. I wonder how the editors over at Knights Templar would feel if you told them Breivik was pivotal in spreading awareness of the historical organization?

As for your other points... I rest my case. My argument was that this article's coverage of the term does not reflect how it is actually used by conservatives, and you go ahead and prove my point by calling "what conservatives say" "IRRELEVANT to this encyclopedia page." And yes, I know that the standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. I'm just pointing out there's a difference. PublicolaMinor (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's more telling that first, essentially all the in-depth discussions of the theory post-Breivik (even the ones that can loosely be called 'friendly' to it) focus heavily on him; and second, almost all academic or mainstream coverage comes after his attacks. He is very much the most notable aspect of the theory; yes, it was used by a variety of right-wing cranks of varying identifications (and I use 'cranks' deliberately -- none of them are what I would call anything remotely "mainstream" in conservative thought -- Pat Buchanan was very much a fringe figure in American politics by the point in his life where he started writing about it, and the others were never anything approaching mainstream), but it was just a buzzword, attracting little attention or traction, until Breivik threw it into the mainstream and attracted scholarship to try and trace the roots of his ideology through the theory's various permutations and the people who pushed it. All such scholarly analysis, as far as I can tell, agrees that (while obviously he did things as a result of their theories that they wouldn't agree with), it is fundamentally the same idea: a conspiracy theory based around the extremely WP:FRINGE belief that "multiculturalism and political correctness are products of critical theory, which originated with the Frankfurt School". --Aquillion (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, the idea that there are "two definitions" doesn't match what the sources say; at least going by our sources, all of the mainstream academics and historians who have gone into the term at any significant length have described the core belief here -- the idea that "multiculturalism and political correctness are products of critical theory, which originated with the Frankfurt School" -- as a conspiracy theory. Obviously people buy into it to varying degrees, and few people would call their own beliefs a conspiracy theory; but we have to go with the most reliable sources, and I think in this case they're pretty clear. Essentially all mainstream scholarship on the subject says that the way the term is currently used among conservatives is focused on the conspiracy theory invented by Lind, Buchanan, Weyrich, and the like; the only coverage that I've seen so far that argues otherwise comes from a fairly WP:FRINGE perspective or from opinion-pieces, which we can't weight equal to eg. Jérôme, Richardson, Beirich, and so on. Jérôme's Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right in particular traces the use of the term extensively throughout the political world, detailing connections, how various commentators influenced each other, and so on; it concludes with a discussion of how the fundamental concept is a conspiracy theory that right-wing ideologues of various stripes have repeatedly repackaged in different forms. (Strictly speaking Jérôme says that there are many more than two definitions, but he defines all of them as manifestations of the same core conspiracy theory.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

PublicolaMinor The Cultural Marxism trend graph never goes back to it's per-brievik levels. I'd say he was more pivotal to spreading the "Cultural Marxism" theory than to spreading the concept of the "Knights Templar" because up until then, "Cultural Marxism" was relatively unheard of (where as The Knights Templar are much more well known).

Have you guys noticed this section of the talk page yet? It is already developing somewhat of a consensus and could render the issue you're discussing somewhat moot - in that Conservatives would be free to check through the annals of the Cultural Studies article looking for info and origins to support their definition, and this page could be left alone (reserved for the academic viewpoint regarding the conspiracy theory). --Jobrot (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

FRINGE

I'd just like to remind editors working on this page of some salient points:

• The Cultural Marxism section of the Frankfurt School page qualifies as WP:FRINGE as per what the three WP:UNINVOLVED admins wrote in their closure discussion for the previous Cultural Marxism page.
• There is already a CONSENSUS on the title and description of the current Cultural Marxism section. It can be found here. If your interest here is in changing that title description, you would need to form another consensus.
• The Frankfurt School specifically criticized the Soviet system (with Adorno calling them fascists, and Marcuse writing a book of criticism leveled at them) and there are no academic sources that claim they supported a Marxist or Soviet take over of the west.
• The Frankfurt School were western academics operating within western academic structures, and discussing theories from western traditions.

All of this is within the mainstream academic viewpoint of The Frankfurt School.

As WP:FRINGE is in play the for the Cultural Marxism section; the inclusion of any non-academic sources must be backed up with academic sources, as that's how WP:DUE operates under WP:FRINGE. No policy acts alone, and all of Wikipedia's policies relate to each other in order to create encyclopedic content. --Jobrot (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information Jobrot. However I think in light of your strange behaviour in protecting this page in its current form we need to look at these issues again. From recent posting I can see there is a consensus for this. Maybe we need to declare you 'too interested' in this page. Quoting wikipedia and then making weak points unrelated to what you have quoted is NOT the Wikipedia way. I'm sure you'd have no objection to this if you weren't overly 'interested'... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.141.200 (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, Wikipedia is claiming that Richard R. Weiner, Professor of Political Science at Rhode Island College, author of Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology (1981), is an antisemitic conspiracy nut? Prevalence (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is making no such claim.

The work to which you refer (Richard R. Weiner's Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology), is described by Google books as considering "theorists as diverse as Jurgen Habermas, Claus Offe, Alain Touraine, Anthony Giddens and Alvin Gouldner, many of whom fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement." [10] - and that bolded section of the quote is CRUCIAL to understanding the sources rejection. Appearing as part of a book's title does not justify a topic or sources inclusion in Wikipedia. We like to check a little more thoroughly than that. Take for example, a similar instance: Frederic Jameson's "Conversations on Cultural Marxism" - it's a book that uses the term on the cover but not within the pages. This poses an obvious problem.

This is because Cultural Marxism has been an informal term - and never gained definition or definitive usage (in fact it may have started out as an Orthodox Marxist criticism of less dogmatic forms of Marxism, hence many of these examples coming from Marxist theorists). This is part of why it's failed to find definitive usage, and these sources serve as reminders of why we have to be wary of constructing a section or an article based upon a title alone (especially if the source is described as being based on theorists who "fall ideologically outside the 'cultural Marxism' movement"). It is fairly obvious why the inclusion of theorists who fall ideologically outside of a movement can't be used to define that movement.

The current section however - is well sourced and contains far more recent references to the term's ongoing usage. I hope you can understand this and that you refrain from making further allegations regarding Wikipedia's claims. --Jobrot (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

NB Jobrot's comments above fail to address the issue and instead make a lot of pseudo academic sounding noise. A google books quote used to invalidate the work of a professor of Political science? Do we cite google books quotes now? Oh dear oh dear. The rejection of this source has no valid basis that you have demonstrated. The fact that you have decided that 'cultural marxism' is an informal term and somehow invalid is not sourced. And here: 'It is fairly obvious why the inclusion of theorists who fall ideologically outside of a movement can't be used to define that movement.' This sounds fancy but bears no relation to critical thinking. So no one who isn't part of a movement can have any relevance when defining it? Are you a cultural marxist Jobrot? And if you fall ideologically outside the movement wouldn't it be problematic to allow you to define the movement? So why are you here?

Appallingly biased nonsense and utter hypocrisy159.15.128.174 (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Gottfried

Here's a section for discussion to add books and articles by Gottfried to the article. "The Strange Death of Marxism" is his main work on the subject by a university press, but he also has a few non-academic articles. See my sandbox. JobRot, please don't try to derail this (I know I'm hoping too much). Second Dark (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything of Gottfried's that can be included in the section. He's a paleo-conservative. His claim that feminists, homosexuals, secular humanists, multiculturalist, sex educators, environmentalist, immigrants, and black nationalists are all part of a project to get rid of "the bourgeois" holds no merit, and adding his views in addition to the right-wing coverage that's already there in paragraphs 1, 2, 5 and 6 would be WP:UNDUE - however, I'll wait to see how consensus turns out here, but I wouldn't hang your hopes on it going your way. In the mean time, until an actual quote of text is put on the table here - the NPOV tag stays off. --Jobrot (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

So he stays off because you don't want conservatives, even academic ones, on the page. Got it. You don't own the page. Stop edit warring.Second Dark (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to incorporate something from this quote from "The Strange Death of Marxism."Second Dark (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The presentation of cultural Marxism as the post-Communist Left may be the most plausible attempt to find a doubtful Marxist continuity. It takes seriously the claim that Frankfurt School theorists make for themselves as “Marxist cultural critics.” As a former student of Herbert Marcuse, I can personally testify that this cultural Marxist never doubted that he was vindicating Marxist- Leninist tenets. Marcuse found nothing dissimilar thematically between his observations in One-Dimensional Man, about the erotic restrictions of bourgeois culture, and Marx’s dialectical materialism. Both were attempts to highlight the “irrational” nature of capitalist society reflected in its incapacity to satisfy human wants. Moreover, Marcuse had praise for Soviet Russian socialism and, like another Frankfurt School groupie, Georg Lukacs, went out of his way to defend the Soviet “assault on fascism,” when Soviet tanks crushed the Hungarian “socialist” uprising in 1956.Second Dark (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There. By your own standards the POV goes back up.Second Dark (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

As myself and others have already attempted to explain to you multiple times over the past several months - they're not MY standards - they're Wikipedia's standards. And although your selected quote goes against the academic consensus as described in and required by the works and policies mentioned in the section directly above this one - I shall none the less patiently wait to see which way consensus goes before enforcing that inevitability of WP:DUE policy: "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" which is the case for the claim that Marcuse and The Frankfurt School supported the Soviet Union. - why even the author you're quoting acknowledges this mainstream viewpoint (noting that it's "doubtful" that there is a "Marxist continuity") before making his own statements on the subject. So as per WP:DUE your quote which runs counter to the WP:RS sources will most likely be rejected on those grounds... and that's without even commenting on all the other postulates entailed by the use of the term "Cultural Marxism" - as rejected by mainstream academia as it stands currently (and as is currently described in both the section and wider article which notes several times that even "The Frankfurt School" was an informal term, so for you (and/or the author) to extend from this (the accepted facts of the matter) to claiming that "Marcuse = Soviet = Cultural Marxism" is most ridiculous).

Main page: WP:DUE

"Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." --Jobrot (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Gottfried has anything useful to add. He only mentions the theory in passing and refers to it dismissively (his own theories are clearly distinct, don't involve the Frankfurt School, and can't be covered here since they're not really related to the topic.) He doesn't really add anything to the more in-depth discussion of the theory that we already have. The quote you provided above is definitely useless for the article's purposes; all he says there, when you strip away the flowery language, is that some of his contemporaries hold to this theory but that he doesn't agree with them. --Aquillion (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

-

Main page: WP:Consensus

"Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense"

As the consensus by both majority and policy seems to have objected to the inclusion of this particular quote (and perhaps perhaps even to the exclusion of the author entirely) - and as there seems to be no current resistance to these objections (at least not in the past week) - I shall now remove the NPOV tag pending any further noteworthy discussion on the matter. --Jobrot (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes but Jobrot, you never really say anything. It's all just wriggling around trying to derail. Above you've been accused of gatekeeping the page. You claimed the poster hadn't understood consensus. In fact, if readers check they can see that the consensus is greatly against your position. So then you switch to talking about reliable sources. When the sources offered are shown to be reliable you switch to false balance or fringe as a sticking point. When these objections are disproven you jump back to consensus. The archive has ample proof to justify a separate Cultural Marxism page, but by engaging in a form of 'pilpul' you stop any real progress being made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.141.200 (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

See here--Jobrot (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Anyway, like I said above, this isn't the correct place to argue for a restoration of a deleted page. If you want to challenge the deletion of Cultural Marxism, you should do so at WP:DRV, not here; this page doesn't have the traffic to establish a consensus on restoring it. --Aquillion (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

JOBROT

WP:TPG, WP:NPA - please keep all discussions editorial in nature and refrain from making personal remarks about fellow editors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This page is being policed by Jobrot who seems to have an agenda against letting other contribute. He freely admits he is guarding it. Please can we move forward towards consensus with banning interested parties from this page. Anyone who reads through the history of this talk page will see that Jobrot is in no way acting in good faith.109.154.118.132 (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Please read WP:TPG and refrain from making further accusations about your fellow editors on this or any other article's talk page. Talk pages are not the venue for such accusations. You have been warned. --Jobrot (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Marxist conspiracy theory?

Why is one editor with the help of a tame admins allowed to 'guard' this page in its current form? Why is Wikipedia doing nothing about it? And why is criticism of this idiocy being censored?159.15.128.174 (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to complain about the censorship, collusion and corruption of Wikipedia, this particular page, or specific editors elsewhere. But as I've stated before - this talk page is not the venue for such discussions. Please keep discussion here editorial and directly related to what specific texts and quotes should be included or excluded from the Frankfurt School article. --Jobrot (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The only thing conspiratorial about this page is Jobrot

The notion of Cultural Marxism has been the subject of serious scholarship for decades. A quick Google book search will return numerous books and articles published over the decades from reputable publishing houses. Sage Publications (1981) University of Illinois Press (1988) Duke University Press (1997)

Relegating the critique of Cultural Marxism to a "conspiracy theory" is a cheap trick, a means of cordoning off legitimate criticism of the Frankfurt School, and an abuse of power by Jobrot. From his responses to other folks with the same gripe, I'm sure he'll just double-down again. Is there any way we could get a non-partisan to adjudicate this matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.48.119 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I imagine if you tried, you could discuss the subject without bringing up Jobrot. clpo13_(talk) 00:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ummm

  The notion of Cultural Marxism has been the subject of serious scholarship for decades

  No. No it has not. If you want to search the Talk archives, or read the AfD, you can. But if you don't believe Jobrot, you aren't going to believe the dozens of other editors who have proven you are absolutely incorrect. Dave Dial (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)