This is certainly not an original concept but I don't think it's talked about a lot, and I see quite often traditional morals and free market being advocated by the same person. I think they are ultimately incompatible and that the threat of 'cultural marxism' can only ever be spread through a capitalist system.

Free Market Capitalism is a system that relies on 'negative rights' instead of 'positive rights'. It is therefore a relativistic system, as it does not discriminate between 'good behavior' and 'bad behavior', outside of private property rights. It also does not discriminate between national and foreign capital, or national and foreign interests. Therefore, it is easy for oligarchs to subvert a nation's interests and values, simply by dominating it economically - and thereby promoting whatever kind of propaganda they want (usually, propaganda that turns people into mere consumers: sodomy, usury, alternative lifestyles, hedonism, consumerism, etc).

It is also, undeniably, the biggest force for technological progress and the biggest generator of material wealth. This can be a problem in an of itself for traditional structures, when unchecked by some state measure to curb it. As Ted Kaczynski wrote in his Manifesto:

The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.

The kind of material changes that Free Market Capitalism operates are revolutionary and operate a subsequent revolution in the societal norms (and social strata).

Lastly, the increased material wealth makes the average man complacent, apathetic and it also makes the country which has it very attractive for economic migrants, thereby doubly undermining the national sovereignty and cohesion.

Communism on the other hand, and despite its claims, keeps people poor, has virtually no social mobility, is formally very hierarchical. Even though it does promote relativism officially, it is a lot less relativistic than Capitalism.

We also see it in practice. Which countries still have some form of traditional morality and social structure in Europe? The former Communist countries. Which countries are completely down the drain in relativism? The capitalists.

We know from historical documents that oligarchs of the industrial revolution have funded propaganda of both Communists and Liberals (the original ones, now called Libertarians) to undermine the ancien regime and the rule of monarchs. I assume they were doing an experiment to see which system would most quickly undermine and destroy the traditional society. I think the contest has been over since the mid-late 80s. While the West had become illiterate, matriarchal, deracinated, apathetic, atomized and hedonistic - the East was still highly educated, patriarchal, always on the edge of rebelling against the system, community oriented and bound by traditional social norms.

Due to all this, I consider the term 'cultural marxism' to be incorrect. Even though the original thinkers were self-described marxists, their ideas did not spread through marxist countries or structures, but through the most capitalist and liberal country in the world to all other countries that adopted international free market capitalism.

It's funny, and sort of painful, when you realize that Kaczynzski is spot on with that statement. Painful because everyone wants to be able to strive for higher standards of living and fruits of his labor, but not realizing that after all this time, the cost of this benefit is just as he says. We just tend to think that individually we can do it and buck the trend. The reality is that when you have that capability, it's usually because the environment is such that many others do too, and thus we come full circle to the innate [societal] problem.

What is your definition of cultural Marxism? I think the general way of looking at it is that it is a full spectrum assault designed to bring about a classes society; whereas Marxism was just a struggle based on economic status. Though you often find things are distributed the most where they are both whole heartedly either rejected or embraced. I.e. the USSR essentially saw a class system just as potent as the Byantine system, if not more. Just as you find anti-social behaviour the most among those who are completely comfortable with it (psychopaths) and those who have completely airbrushed it from their conscience (the left). We see with the cultural Marxists the same. They spend a great deal of time talking about equity, but their system is clearly geared to bolstering the doination of controllers and supporters. If they could get into power it would metastise quickly as in Venezuela or the USSR, where access to being on the higher end of inequality is doled out by the state; i.e. the state is the primary vehicle for the promotion of what it claims it exists to combat and eventually end. As I've posted in the JP thread I believe this is due to the suppression of the inherent self-interested and hierarchical parts of leftist apparichiks operating in the shadow they have created in their image of themselves as an egalitarian.

I don't think it's cultural capitalism, but rather as with Christianity and liberalism, their openess compared to other contemporary systems leaves them open to destroying themselves; and it seems clear people will care little for the fundamentals of their society if they feel they are well-off. The sort of world real liberals want to create are a breeding ground for their own destruction. And the sort of world that the left and real right want to bring about are breeding grounds for creating people who most want to repel them.

"We also see it in practice. Which countries still have some form of traditional morality and social structure in Europe? The former Communist countries. Which countries are completely down the drain in relativism? The capitalists."

I think there might be evolutionary difference between Slavs and Germanics/Anglos at play here also. Russia/Soviet Union has remained somewhat patriarchal throughout it`s period of Communism as well as the contemporary Capitalist (to some extent at least) state of affairs. There`s historical accounts of Germanics exhibiting traits that are somewhat relativist in terms of social structure etc. all the way back to the days of Tacitus. App. year 98 AD;

Tacitus describes their government and leadership as somewhat merit-based and egalitarian, with leadership by example rather than authority and that punishments are carried out by the priests. He mentions (Ch. 8) that the opinions of women are given respect.

and,

Tacitus mentions that the tribe to the north of the Germans, the Sitones, "resemble [the Suevi Scandinavians] in all respects but one - woman is the ruling sex.

I think that Russians are somehow inoculated and able to resist relativism as you say, and maintain their traditional morality/gender norms still "intact," (and perhaps even more so now than prior to Communist rule) more so because of their racial/genetic heritage, rather than any cultural, religious or economical element. Unfortunately for the Germanic-Scandinavian peoples, cultural relativism and all that goes with it seems to click with their somewhat puritanical, equality based and non-hierarchical nature. Russia survived 60 years of Communist rule, I`m not so sure countries like Sweden etc. will survive what is essentially the same ideology.

Modern capitalism is not economic development as we'd like to think of it, yes. Producing some goods and selling them is not what capitalism is about anymore. The latter is fine. When we talk about "capitalism" now we're talking about state-sponsored usury and predatory financial practices developed and perpetuated since the Medici, supported by the shabbos goyim Protestants, and ultimately for the benefit of the oligarch (or should I say, (((oligarch))) ).

Where I'll disagree is that this is a Capitalism vs. Communism thing, I think that's a false dichotomy proposed by you-know-who.

Cultural Capitalism would be a somewhat misleading term for this. The reason it's called Cultural Marxism is because Marxism was ultimately about full, complete state control of the economy, forcing people to a certain level of income. Most of the means by which cultural Marxism is spreading is via the same State controls: Supreme Court says you have to sell wedding cakes to gays no matter how Christian you are, in deeper-red jurisdictions like Australia or the UK you have Sex Discrimination and Equal Opportunity legislation which mandates not only that you must not discriminate, but which comes close to saying you must discriminate in favour of a protected class to make the contest "equal".

Cultural Capitalism as a concept would be as close as you get to there being a free market of ideas: the ones that people want and which are most efficient culturally succeed, the ones that don't fail by force of their own stupidity/creative destruction/demographic extinction etc. In the long term this is actually what already happens on the Earth: time is the great arbiter for which cultures survive and which die out.

That aside, I did want to pick up what Super_Fire said above: when we talk about capitalism now we are indeed talking about state-sponsored usury and predatory financial practices for the benefit of oligarchs. This phenomenon has happened before in history. It had been around for a good 150 years by 1776 when a guy by the name of Adam Smith first published The Wealth of Nations, and it was exactly what he was preaching against in that volume - not communism, not feudalism; the former was still a good century away and the latter had already died out. Smith's tract was first and foremost a polemic against mercantilism.

Again, TLP from 2008 in the ruins of the subprime crisis, and who's a lot more interesting than Wikipedia on the subject:

Quote:Quote:

Welcome to 1600.

The schizophrenization of America becomes revealed. Was America too laissez faire, which lead to the crisis? Or not enough, which lead to a bailout plan? The answer depends, in large part, on whether you think it's your money at stake.

Whether it is a good plan or a bad plan remains to be seen. Indeed, it will never be known since we will never really know what would have happened had the other course been taken. If Depression is indeed averted, no one will thank Paulson. Or, if Depression comes, whether it could have been averted by the plan. So be it.

But is it socialism?

No.


II. What is mercantilism?

In a sentence, it is the belief that a country's strength is tied to how much money it can accumulate. In the heyday of British mercantilism, 1600-1776, it meant the accumulation of bullion; favoring exports over imports; keeping money within the nation, not sending it elsewhere. The money could be used to purchase commodities and fund armies-- which, in turn, helped bring money into the country.

Mercantilism was premised on the belief that there is a fixed quantity of wealth in the world, and everyone has to fight over it. Economics, it was felt, is a zero sum game; and since not everyone can win, it becomes acceptable that they don't.

State policies reflected this. "Free trade" meant "free trade for me." Protectionist tariffs and regulations; international treaties that solidified trade superiority. Colonies to sell the exports to. And a tight control over the means of shipping.

Mercantilism also exerted influence not just on commerce but on thought and culture. In order to maximize exports, it had to convince the populace that the export (or approved import) was necessary. In the late 1600s, calicoes, previously the cloth of the poor, became a sought after fashion necessity-- entirely because it was what was being imported. It wasn't sought after and therefore imported; it was imported and therefore sought after. Cleverly, British merchants made high profile gifts of the calicoes to prominent ladies; the nobility accumulated them; and then everyone had to have them. They went into clothes, furniture, drapes. Mercantilism had changed the aesthetic of the the entire nation-- the world.

Generally unimportant products took on gigantic importance, because the market convinced people they were important. Here's an example: Columbus accidentally discovered America because he was looking for spices.

Capitalism identifies a market and then tries to maximize profit within it. Mercantilism, by contrast, creates markets on purpose based on what it has to offer, and then controls those markets.


III. The Sudden Decline of Feudalism

What preceded British mercantilism? Feudalism-- local, feudal power rather than a centralized government; vague territorial boundaries; and ever changing racial and cultural characteristics. It was local, and fluid. But as the world "shrunk" (or got flat) it could not adequately provide for its people. Unemployment and poverty rose. Meanwhile, the opening of trade and improvement in travel offered greater opportunities than farming someone else's land.

States formed, over time, and absorbed the fiefdoms, removed the existing lords, consolidated the power, and served the interests of its domestic merchants and producers.

And so the rise of the nation-state; racially homogeneous, with rigid territorial boundaries; partly feudal but with a new quasi-class system of nobility, merchants, workers, and slaves.


IV. Wither American Feudalism?

As I have written before here and here, for some time in modern America, feudalism was the growing trend; but rather than lord-vassal, it was company-employee. Government's role was secondary and shrinking; companies provided income, healthcare and retirement benefits, and, more importantly, a sense of identity and belonging. The company provided protection in exchange for service.

Even two years ago, this was increasing. These company-lords become even more powerful as they merged and privatized, going off the public exchanges but still wielding massive influence.

But for this progression was suddenly diverted. Now, instead of companies going private, they are going government.

Who has the big money now? Sovereign wealth funds, of which, if/when the Paulson Plan is passed-- for it is inevitable, in some form-- the U.S. will become. In the past, there was a tug of war between private ownership and state ownership. Now, instead of outright nationalization of a program (e.g. Social Security) governments own financial stakes in businesses, in sectors-- and in themost important sector of all, the financial sector. The Chinese have this system firmly in place, but pretend it is "communism." Saudis as well. And now, soon, the U.S.

How does the U.S. government separate its foreign policy with its fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders, which is you? How does it separate its domestic policy from a revenue motive? It can't. They become one and the same.

If the complaint in the past was that government is too influenced by big business, how does this change when government is Big Business?

Put all this together with a growing protectionist sentiment, and you have our new economic model: mercantilism.

America can't move closer to socialism, if for no other reason than those in power are too young to remember what it really looks like and how to execute it; and with so much individual narcissism, no one could demote themselves so much to the state.

Such policies like the Paulson Plan appear socialist because the government seems highly involved in the control, in the regulation of an industry. But this is exclusively in the service of the business franchises that it controls. The analogy for todays events isn't The USSR or even France; it's the East India Trading Company; an independent, for profit, business arm of the state. It was nearly a monopoly. It could even command the military, as needed [1].



Within the East India Trading Company's flag was the union Jack-- Britain's flag-- contained in the canton. Get it? Britain at the service of the Company; the Company for the benefit of Britain.

[1] though in this case rather than the Company lending money to the Treasury for exclusive trading rights, the Treasury lends it to the Company for a cut of the profits and taxes-- which is in turn in exchange for protection.

The resemblance between the US flag and the East India Trading Company is not coincidental: Ben Franklin himself recommended the Company flag as a model to build the US flag upon. That the US has basically turned into the East India Trading Company is a point of irony, not cause and effect.

Adam Smith's book was a direct reaction to this: it's why TWoN talks so much about limited government, enlightened self-interest, and comparative advantage: because the dominant forces in economics at the time were desperate to accumulate money within their countries beyond all sense. Smith's most classic illustration of how crazy the idea was is made no better than in his observation that Scots were madmen to try and produce wine. The heating costs made it 30 times more expensive, it is far cheaper and "better" if you outsource the making of the wine itself to a warm country and do trade with it.

The problem is that Smith's message has been slowly modified and twisted such that we are right back where we started 200 years ago: nations rate themselves by the wealth they hold within themselves or directly command, not by the strength of their trade relationships. NAFTA, PPT -- these are manifestations of mercantilism, they create trading blocs of favoured trading partners, which are effectively economic colonies of the strongest member in that partnership. And just like the mercantilism of old, it cannot stand. When it falls, a new capitalism will arise, and what will later be seen as the Second Great Industrial Revolution ... not that the poor bastards living through it and displaced by it will profit much off it.

I think the most important thing to understand is that economic and technological growth is overrated.

It is mostly for the benefit of the kings and elite class and their own competition.

The common people would benefit much more from a slower lifestyle, with less emphases on constant innovation and competition and with slower growth, but with more family time, more time for your health and leisure and spiritual practices.

Economic growth only increases the divide between the very rich and the very poor. Technological advances bring disproportionately more benefit and power to the rich who can afford those technologies.

Of course some growth and progress is good, but only if it is not faster then humans can follow up with proper integration of these advances into a moral and holistic lifestyle without sabotaging health, family, peace of mind and happiness.

Westerners are forced to live their lives in a hurry and stress so that we would be ahead of Russia and China. Russians and Chinese are forced to live in hurry and stress to not fall far behind USA and Europe. Everyone is fooled into living lives of hurry and stress due to Hollywood producing movies about technologically advanced aliens, which could destroy us humans if we are not technologically advanced enough by the time they arrive. I have real doubts about that and believe that regular interstellar travel is either totally impossible or is possible only in astral form and we don't have to worry about aliens.

The real reason wars are fought is to not let people relax and progress to slow down. If USA and Russia would become friends and even China too - there would be less reason for this crazy competition. Those in true power don't want that. They are afraid to lose their positions so they keep working on ways to increase their divide and buffer between themselves and common people.

If we would achieve global piece - then these systems of competition - both Capitalism and Communism would both seem totally nonsensical. They both are not created with intent to live good lives they are created with intent to surpass that other team of dirty Capitalist pigs or Communist swines.

Quote: (04-19-2018 01:50 AM)Mage Wrote:  

The common people would benefit much more from a slower lifestyle, with less emphases on constant innovation and competition and with slower growth, but with more family time, more time for your health and leisure and spiritual practices.

The funny thing is a lot of people squander what free time they have drowning in vices. Work is fine as long as there's a sense of purpose in what you're doing. But most of the work people engage in these days feels unimportant.

Cultural Capitalism would be too misleading, but the big capitalists financed marxists:





meaningful excerpt

Norman Dodd on the Congressional Reece Commission on foundations in the 1950s.





full interview

The goal of the globalists is to merge the capitalist with the full totalitarian communist marxist system.

Quote: (04-18-2018 08:57 PM)Super_Fire Wrote:  

Modern capitalism is not economic development as we'd like to think of it, yes. Producing some goods and selling them is not what capitalism is about anymore. The latter is fine. When we talk about "capitalism" now we're talking about state-sponsored usury and predatory financial practices developed and perpetuated since the Medici, supported by the shabbos goyim Protestants, and ultimately for the benefit of the oligarch (or should I say, (((oligarch))) ).

Where I'll disagree is that this is a Capitalism vs. Communism thing, I think that's a false dichotomy proposed by you-know-who.

I don`t know if you would agree, but I think this is more about race than economic doctrine(s). Sweden did wonderful with what was basically national Socialism from post WW2 and up until very recently, and the US also did great in it`s heyday with a more deregulated small Government system. What has changed in both cases is the demographics. (More so in the US, but still.) It`s really a question of which people constitute the elites, and what they`re intentions are!

Quote: (04-19-2018 04:16 PM)Johnnyvee Wrote:  

Quote: (04-18-2018 08:57 PM)Super_Fire Wrote:  

Modern capitalism is not economic development as we'd like to think of it, yes. Producing some goods and selling them is not what capitalism is about anymore. The latter is fine. When we talk about "capitalism" now we're talking about state-sponsored usury and predatory financial practices developed and perpetuated since the Medici, supported by the shabbos goyim Protestants, and ultimately for the benefit of the oligarch (or should I say, (((oligarch))) ).

Where I'll disagree is that this is a Capitalism vs. Communism thing, I think that's a false dichotomy proposed by you-know-who.

I don`t know if you would agree, but I think this is more about race than economic doctrine(s). Sweden did wonderful with what was basically national Socialism from post WW2 and up until very recently, and the US also did great in it`s heyday with a more deregulated small Government system. What has changed in both cases is the demographics. (More so in the US, but still.) It`s really a question of which people constitute the elites, and what they`re intentions are!

The Jews were the original creators of this international system of finance and economics, but again, the real reason we had a Reformation is because European royalty and rulers wanted in on the action and needed a theological justification for going against the Church's ban on usury. So it's not just the Jews, it's also the Europeans/whites who want to act like Jews. Plenty of so-called "white" people (I use this term very loosely as no one can agree on where to draw the line on who is white, i.e. it originally only meant English WASPs, and the Irish weren't white) have gone over to this oligarchic system.

E. Michael Jones gets into this in his book "Barren Metal." His basic argument is that in Europe, Britain and Germany have been the main rivals for so long because they had two different economic models. Germany based its economic worth on labor, and Britain based its on usury/mercantilism. This conflict led to both World War I and II, with Germany's model ultimately being defeated (both externally and internally) there.

You do make a point about modern democratic-socialism though, in that it seems to only work in small, fairly homogeneous countries with a high societal trust factor.

Going back to pre-Reformation England you saw something similar, but with the Catholic Church serving the role of social support net for ordinary people, providing land for them to farm on at a reasonable rate. The Brits will talk your ear off about peasants being subject to pay a 10% tax to the Church, but how much percentage do they and Europeans pay the government now? The English now pay between 20-45% in income taxes annually. "But the Medieval Church was lavish!" And your government bombs Syria and uses your tax money to let Muslim rapists off the hook, and pays pedos and dead pig head screwers.

[quote] (04-19-2018 10:29 PM)Super_Fire Wrote:  

[quote='Johnnyvee' pid='1770484' dateline='1524172612']
[quote='Super_Fire' pid='1770019' dateline='1524103059']
Going back to pre-Reformation England you saw something similar, but with the Catholic Church serving the role of social support net for ordinary people, providing land for them to farm on at a reasonable rate. The Brits will talk your ear off about peasants being subject to pay a 10% tax to the Church, but how much percentage do they and Europeans pay the government now? The English now pay between 20-45% in income taxes annually. "But the Medieval Church was lavish!" And your government bombs Syria and uses your tax money to let Muslim rapists off the hook, and pays pedos and dead pig head screwers.[/quote]

Small footnote: on top of that, life as a peasant probably wasn't much fun what with the high child mortality rate, agrarian lifestyle, and providing a good portion of your produce to the local lord, but modern man works more hours per day and more days per year than the average medieval peasant did, out of a combination of (a) no electricity to keep lights burning well after dark and (b) the church imposing/celebrating a large number of religious holidays each year, upon which it was forbidden or frowned on to actually work - the number may have been up to about 150 or so out of the 365 days of the year. That's before you get to the tradition of not working on the Sabbath/Sunday, which actually has some value as a survival heuristic for communities since it keeps people from burning out and encourages them to actually go talk to each other about something other than everyday survival.

Mage also has a valid point about economic and technological growth being overrated and harmful if it isn't thoughtfully integrated with a person's working life. David Suzuki's an alarmist leftie cunt, but when I saw him in a speech some years ago he did make one analogy for modern economics that holds pretty true: the only lifeform that mimics modern economics is a cancer: something that mutates and therefore "evolves" the lifeform it inhabits, but unchecked goes on to kill its host. I find that not a bad description for mercantilism, as opposed to theoretical capitalism which is practiced in reality about as often as theoretical communism.

Technology is less of an evil, but its main problem is that it mainly is an amplifier: it just allows humans to do more, faster, louder of what they do in their ordinary lives, and unchecked impulses are never a good thing.

Unions have become more or less irrelevant in this day and age in part because they're corrupt fuckers each and every one, but their core principles were worthwhile: set a limit on the number of hours you work a man each day down to 8 (that's what the May Day celebrations were originally about - 8 hours work, 8 hours rest, 8 hours recreation). If you're going to give large slabs of your working life to a corporation, you've got to get paid, it has to be compensated meaningfully, you can't just give people flashy titles and pay them nothing for it (see: the Sheryl Sandberg school of feminism).

Re: Protestants/Anglicans and the Church, it's all trickled-down useful idiocy. The Brits are infected by it, even going so far as to hate people from the wrong denomination to the point of violence. Just absolutely useful idiocy. And I like England, but it's a major problem there. Then catapult the Anglican lemmings straight into the philosophy of Darwin and you have the main philosophical, religious, and economic operating system of the oligarchic British mind. To this day, Darwininists are heavily promoted there, from Hawking to Dawkins, Hitches, etc. And it all parlays into non-practicing Anglicans who have somehow evolved to a higher brow and realized atheism is the only path forward. And that's just to free themselves from the constraints of a superordinate moral law and order (God) to justify their unethical economics, from piracy to usury to the creation of the Industrial Revolution slave wage.

When the church was in control during the middle ages it was the most corrupt system imaginable. You basically bribed your way to "indulgences" to wash away your sins. It was a cleptocracy. The only good thing that came out of the middle-ages was the cathedrals and just like modern skyscrapers I'm sure there was a lot of ill-gotten gains that went into building them (crusades, whatever).

Also, if you want to look at a society that avoids debt, that's Islam, and I think that's a big reason why strict societies like that are shit-holes with no upward mobility.

They say democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the others.

Quote: (04-20-2018 02:36 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

When the church was in control during the middle ages it was the most corrupt system imaginable. You basically bribed your way to "indulgences" to wash away your sins. It was a cleptocracy. The only good thing that came out of the middle-ages was the cathedrals and just like modern skyscrapers I'm sure there was a lot of ill-gotten gains that went into building them (crusades, whatever).

Also, if you want to look at a society that avoids debt, that's Islam, and I think that's a big reason why strict societies like that are shit-holes with no upward mobility.

They say democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the others.

Moment here.

Those are two independent things. Christianity in their excesses of power did throttle science somewhat and even strengthened the useless bonds of feudal aristocracy. But it gave a good ethical basis for the growth - of course it had to be pushed back from secular society and most importantly science.
But Christianity also said that ALL LIFE IS SACRED which was a novel approach 2000 years ago - also it banned slavery and slavery actually holds back development. In addition it gave good basis of one man to one woman which is always more stable than polygamy - Muslim societies thus necessarily either had to conquer constantly to get new women or capture/buy sex slaves - and that is what they do to this day.

Islam however has a multitude of self-crippling moves from being anti-science, promoting inbreeding, allowing slavery (which gives incentives for the rich to hold back technological development since their slaves are then worth less), stating that religion is above everything, having rampant polygamy etc.

The anti-usury aspect actually was taken from the Christians back then - LACK OF USURY IS NOT SOMETHING THAT HOLDS BACK SOCIETIES. You really have to take a look of Woergl, Austria in the 1930s. There a tiny additional currency and legal tender that had an inbuilt negative tax-rate to increase volatility created a veritable boom within 2 years. Unemployment fell from some 20% to zero and the entire town was all renovated, everyone had money. Almost 500 towns in Austria an Germany wanted to do the same at zero cost to the central government. But the usury powers sent info to all mayors that the army would march in and depose them if they attempted it. And so the depression continued and Hitler came to power - much better.

Good insight, OP.
I think the term 'cultural marxism' awkwardly tries to describe a very recent trend using the dated socio-political concepts of the 19th century.

The best description of recent social trends in the West has been by the author Michel Houellebecq, who has described it as an "extension of the area of struggle" - i.e. extreme capitalistic market forces no longer only applying to business, but also to sex, relationships, culture etc.

Quote:Quote:

“It's a fact...that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent.

Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization . Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none.

It's what's known as 'the law of the market'...Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society.”

   

G

Quote: (04-18-2018 03:28 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

It's funny, and sort of painful, when you realize that Kaczynzski is spot on with that statement. Painful because everyone wants to be able to strive for higher standards of living and fruits of his labor, but not realizing that after all this time, the cost of this benefit is just as he says. We just tend to think that individually we can do it and buck the trend. The reality is that when you have that capability, it's usually because the environment is such that many others do too, and thus we come full circle to the innate [societal] problem.

absolutely true. I read it again recently and I couldn't find arguments anymore against it.

Quote: (04-18-2018 12:10 PM)ilostabet Wrote:  

This is certainly not an original concept but I don't think it's talked about a lot, and I see quite often traditional morals and free market being advocated by the same person. I think they are ultimately incompatible and that the threat of 'cultural marxism' can only ever be spread through a capitalist system.

Free Market Capitalism is a system that relies on 'negative rights' instead of 'positive rights'. It is therefore a relativistic system, as it does not discriminate between 'good behavior' and 'bad behavior', outside of private property rights. It also does not discriminate between national and foreign capital, or national and foreign interests. Therefore, it is easy for oligarchs to subvert a nation's interests and values, simply by dominating it economically - and thereby promoting whatever kind of propaganda they want (usually, propaganda that turns people into mere consumers: sodomy, usury, alternative lifestyles, hedonism, consumerism, etc).

It is also, undeniably, the biggest force for technological progress and the biggest generator of material wealth. This can be a problem in an of itself for traditional structures, when unchecked by some state measure to curb it. As Ted Kaczynski wrote in his Manifesto:

The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.

The kind of material changes that Free Market Capitalism operates are revolutionary and operate a subsequent revolution in the societal norms (and social strata).

Lastly, the increased material wealth makes the average man complacent, apathetic and it also makes the country which has it very attractive for economic migrants, thereby doubly undermining the national sovereignty and cohesion.

Communism on the other hand, and despite its claims, keeps people poor, has virtually no social mobility, is formally very hierarchical. Even though it does promote relativism officially, it is a lot less relativistic than Capitalism.

We also see it in practice. Which countries still have some form of traditional morality and social structure in Europe? The former Communist countries. Which countries are completely down the drain in relativism? The capitalists.

We know from historical documents that oligarchs of the industrial revolution have funded propaganda of both Communists and Liberals (the original ones, now called Libertarians) to undermine the ancien regime and the rule of monarchs. I assume they were doing an experiment to see which system would most quickly undermine and destroy the traditional society. I think the contest has been over since the mid-late 80s. While the West had become illiterate, matriarchal, deracinated, apathetic, atomized and hedonistic - the East was still highly educated, patriarchal, always on the edge of rebelling against the system, community oriented and bound by traditional social norms.

Due to all this, I consider the term 'cultural marxism' to be incorrect. Even though the original thinkers were self-described marxists, their ideas did not spread through marxist countries or structures, but through the most capitalist and liberal country in the world to all other countries that adopted international free market capitalism.

This is easily one of the best posts I've read on this forum, especially in terms of what its questioning. Even if I don't necessarily agree with one of two details. A couple of times I've brought up the same topic myself.
To me, ilostabet is identifying a huge deception that is being perpetuated upon us. I think that red pill culture has to be red pill about matters beyond just feminist nuts, mass overimmigration and the promotion of sexual perverts. Anyway, I planned a short reply, but it turned into a type of mini essay. Oh well, here it is anyway!

Democracy was never about "fairness" or an "equal voice for all" or anything like that. Democracy in Ancient Greece AND afterwards was based around slavery, around feudal type elites and around power blocs. As a pr stunt it was a nice way of using soft power. And when that failed, you could expect hard power. In modern democracy, the Establishment gives you choices, but it tries its level best to ensure everything is framed to see that they are the ones that win. In other words, its your choices, but the choices you have are decided for you. For instance, immigration. You can vote Right and expect a tough stance vs immigration. But the corporate backers of the Right WANT immigration because it means ever cheaper, more compliant labour – often labour that is a threat to your career which may be blue OR white collar. You can vote Left because they promise not to slash your wages down and fight against corporate excess. But guess what? Yes the Left ALSO want more immigration because early immigrants tend to vote Left. In other words, the Establishment has such a control over both Left and Right that its like you're being fucked up the arse by an elephant, either way. The Establishment control of the media, the power of globalist corporations, corporate lobbying and the like make this all the more acute. There's plenty of other examples. For instance. the British Labour Party had its first prime minister with kids at a state school ever when Tony Bliar became Prime Minister. Ofcourse it was all a pr stunt. And Bliar was about as Labour as Margaret Thatcher ie 0%!

Having said the above, I'm not saying that the electoral system is completely worthless. Some of us may gain from one party in office, some from another. However, the Establishmen't aim isn't to represent the electorate. Its aim is to counter it. Its aim is to neutralise forces that it deems harmful to its own agenda. We see that in how the Establishment media sneers at and slams popular policies as "populist".

One difficulty is assessing the phrase "cultural Capitalism" is that we can't really get a single defintion of "Capitalism". Is it basically government by those with the most capital? Is it government based around the most effective use of capital? Is it about a market economy devoid of any state influences whatsoever? Adam Smith is talked about like a mascot of the right. The problem is, even back in the 18 century he talked about the need for state intervention, because he was adamant the market couldn't solve everything. Then we have the problem of different types of capitalism. You have croney Capitalism and feudalist type capitalism which are anything BUT efficient. Then you have corporative and state linked Capitalism which is often anything but an individual freedom led political doctrine. So the question remains, what is cultural Capitalism?

Likewise, there isn't really a specific definition of marxism, let alone "cultural marxism". Its easy to delve into Marx's work and pull out a few phrases on "the exploitation of women". But people seem to forget that 18th century women were often farm hands, basket weavers and the like.
Life was shit for them. But it was shit for men. And women were never called off to war. So you could argue, they had a better life than ordinary men. Likewise if you look at the Soviet Union, it never had any of the SJW nonsense of the modern capitalist West. Homosexuals were considered obscene, mentally ill deviants.Women in the Soviet Union were free to pursue careers but there was none of the toxic trash of Sweden or Hilary Clinton style "smash the patriachy" drivel. Yes, we've heard of phrases like "Trotskyite Feminists" but thats a phrase to describe dungareed dykes in Western universities with a cobbled together juvenile attempt at "ideology". Nowhere was it really present in the Warsaw Pact bloc whatsoever. Or indeed really any Communist state.

Some people may ask what my politics are when they read my assessment above. OK we'll I've always been involved in the market and business. The idea of switching to Marxism would utterly horrify me, it would mean a life wasted. However, I'm no cheerleader for croney Capitalism and other forces pretending to be an "efficient market". I've seen how much of Britain is nothing more than a modern day equivalent to feudalism, certainly a croney Capitalism. So my own politics are probably a type of social democracy that has the common sense of a market, with the common sense and honesty of meritocracy. With a sense of fair play that is needed to stop a society or nation going into melt down.

Moving onto the phrase "cultural Capitalism" vs "cultural Marxism" again, I think its necessary to look at the forces driving current fashions, current trends and indeed current propaganda. Some people will say "economic Marxism is about economic equality, so cultural Marxism is about cultural equality. Well yes, I understand that thats the case being presented to some people. I also know that using the word "Communism" in places like America is enough to whip some people up into a kind of religious fever. Is there really anything "Communist" about Hilary Clinton or all those pathetic corporations that back vile SJW campaigns? Ofcourse not! Look at the cause and effect of the SJW bullshit. Its instigators aren't "Communists" and its result is not "Communist". Nor is its agenda for any "Communist" aims. Warren Buffett was open about what he wanted in his SJW pursuits. He said he was worth 100bn USD and reckoned his 2 sisters were smarter than him. His claim with that without "sexism", his family (ie him and the 2 sisters) would therefore be worth OVER 300bn USD. He was basically suggesting that the US economy would be effectively twice the size if women were engaged in traditional male pursuits of money making, instead of looking after their kids over doing tradtional female jobs like beautician, primary teacher, housewife and the like. Buffett is a numbers obsessed Aspergers who sees the whole thing in terms of cold hard cash.

There's a million examples like that. Wives working full time was often a luxury, for luxury goods to be purchased, non that long ago for middle class Brits. But now its an essential just to buy a home, IF couples can afford one. Again, who profits from this drive to squeeze ever more work from people? Yes its the Establishment, the corporate machine. The obsession with flooding the West with cheap, compliant 3rd world labour is undoubtedly a Capitalist obsession. Socialist Westerners are outraged by this. Its globalism at its worst to them, a barefaced exploitation designed to change the lives of Westerners for the worst, towards 3rd world quality of life. The SJW obsession with homosexuaality and promoting sexual deviance is puzzling. Like I said, its not Marxist or Socialist. As those 2 groups are/were disgusted by such practices. Perhaps there is an element of reducing the population growth of white indigeneous Westerners. The elite considers them too demanding in quality of life, whereas the 3rd world imports work cheap. And ofcourse homosexuals are far less likely to have kids (excpt with the abomination of their IVF nonsense etc).

Its long been my view that SJW infected the political ie economic left to neutralise and discredit it. Its akin to the Roman tactic of divide and conquer. How do you stop a working Westerner voting for his interests over those of the Establishment. Well getting his political party brainwashing his kids into sodomy and transsexualism is a "good" (ie shameful and effective) start. Getting his party applauding radical Islam and all the other radical SJW bullshit will leave him incensed. Talk about "affrmative action", mass imigration plans and the like will do the same. If you look at the British Labour Party, there's a constant pattern. Privileged upper class idiots who care nothing for traditional Labour values remove traditional males and replace them with massively pro-immigrant non whites, or with homosexuals, or with poison spitting short haired square jawed misandrist skanks.One of the leaders is actually the daughter of a Baron, she's a billionairess Oppenheimer (her maiden name). There's many like her. Their families, friends, social life and hugely expensive schooling and personal beliefs are no different to Conservatives. Infact they basically ARE Conservatives. Because their aim isn't to get into power and change things, its simply to advance an agenda or their gang, their "club". But she spouts SJWism all day, whereas the Conservatives actually practice it through their corporate backers without actively spouting it so much. Althouh even the Conservatives decided sodomites should be "allowed to marry". Why? Probably because so many Conservatives are secretly homosexual but culturally they won't be open about it or promote it themselves. Why? Again, its about the illusion of choice in the electorate. Divide and conquer.

There's a vast number of examples of all this. The British Telegraph admits that camp fag lover (who somehow got into a SOCIALIST govt, and even recently claimed to be "left"!) Macron is actully a "poster boy for the elite". We can see how faggotry and dykes aren't really some "liberated and once oppressed group" but actually a bunch of freaks who have endocrine disruptor poisoning (which is treatable). But ofcourse the most greedy excesses of our economic system won't admit that we're all becoming poisoned. So they pretend that the results of disease are actually something to "celebrate". Capitalism used to be tied to masculine pride. Big wallet being like a big dick. Now the media is full of shite like "female empowerment" and garbage like men working as "housewives". Its as if the capitalism materialist carrot isn't enough, because younger people are struggling career wise. So what do the media do? Promote faggotry and all ffeminacy and shit as "freedom", whereas economic freedom was promoted in the past. The media pretend we have the choice between "left and right". They say the left is "Social Marxism" but really its just liberalism with the social aspect as a smokescreen. If you read Adam Smith, he had a big hand in the invention of modern Capitalism AND Liberalism. Because they're the SAME ideology ultimately, just with 2 slightly different spins.

You could see the propaganda in the British music industry in the 1980s. Musicians began to crticise the economic policies of the government and unemployment. So what was the solution? Manufacture some claims of a "great injustice" against fags. The music industry is riddled with fags (and the associated sexual abuse). So pretty soon music was either about fags being "discriminated against", or Nelson Mandela or Live AID, or just pop music again. The economic situation of working people was being drowned out by many other voices.

It really annoys me to hear some some supposed red pillers saying "damned leftists this, damned leftists that". Red pillism should be about waking up to reality. How can people wake up to reality when they are blind about the edeceptions of Western economics and Western voting systems? Who are the forces of SJWism? Its not so grassroots movement. Who benefits from SJWism? SJWism is by the Establishment, for the Establishment. Its a smokescreen, a great con trick, a divide and conquer tactic.It doesn't even make sense. Because women don't want to be fire"men"/persons/ or whatever they are called today. Fags are 5% of the population, yet faggotry and tranneyism receive a corporate marketing budget that Coca Cola could only DREAM of. And as for the immigration aspect of SJWism, well just look at how France's democracy has been destroyed with the bullshit election of President "Lolliboy" Macron. The elites (and not JUST Soros) are flooding Europe with Islamic radicalists. Already places like Brussels have had to shut down over night in fear of terror attacks. But big corporations are jerking themselves off at the thought of even more cheap labour. And using the media to preach cult like bullshit such as "they shall not divide us"/"pray for peace" etc etc . Indigeneous Western left of centre voters have no one to turn to in protest.. None of this has the fingerprints of an ideology thats gone to sleep outside of N Korea and the like. But its covered in the prints of the corporations that run Western society.

Cultural Marxism should definitely not be called Cultural Capitalism because the essence of Marx has nothing to do with economics. It's Dialectical Materialism, and applied to the real world it means relentlessly overthrowing "oppression" because other people have things you think you should have but don't really want to work for or accept that you don't have the skill, luck, or fate to possess.

In fact "capitalism" as a term is usually applied as a linguistic framing device to get people into a Marxist mode of thought. As in "that person's a capitalist," not a human being with a personal drama and individual existence. Makes them easier to justify a fight against, just like the terms "patriarchy" or "privilege." In a normal world, "capitalism" would just be "business."

Quote: (05-07-2018 04:26 PM)Lunostrelki Wrote:  

Cultural Marxism should definitely not be called Cultural Capitalism because the essence of Marx has nothing to do with economics. It's Dialectical Materialism, and applied to the real world it means relentlessly overthrowing "oppression" because other people have things you think you should have but don't really want to work for or accept that you don't have the skill, luck, or fate to possess.

In fact "capitalism" as a term is usually applied as a linguistic framing device to get people into a Marxist mode of thought. As in "that person's a capitalist," not a human being with a personal drama and individual existence. Makes them easier to justify a fight against, just like the terms "patriarchy" or "privilege." In a normal world, "capitalism" would just be "business."

I agree with your assessment. I think I may not have made my point very clearly. What I was trying to say was not that these ideas were not marxist, but that as Marx himself pointed out:

"generally speaking, the Protective system in these days is conservative, while the Free Trade system works destructively. It breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point. In a word, the Free Trade system hastens the Social Revolution. In this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of Free Trade"

it was via free trade that the social values of yesteryear were destroyed.

I am not against business as such (understood as exchanges between private property owners), but after being a libertarian and extreme proponent of the international free market, I have come to realize that this unbridled openness in business carries with it many trade offs. ultimately one must choose between a high rate of material wealth and technological progress and traditional societal structures. I choose the latter.

The original thread was created by someone who neither does not understand that communism was created by the biggest capitalists.

In addition the descent of the West has not "just happened". The West was proud of it's achievement and it was understood as natural that the countries would remain European in terms of race. All of that was destroyed step by step by treacherous laws, change of immigration policies and by relativist anti-Western view of all Western achievements. The previously positive and expansive direction of the West - of smiling beach boys and happy American people in a sane family - they were changed into a negative view of all WEstern by repeating the 3 mantras of class guilt - colonialism, slavery and Holocoust. It's as if no other tribe was engaged in those things except that almost all of them were. Nothing is mentioned that the West abolished slavery worldwide and lowered mortality for everyone giving the gift of modern technology.

But no one in the West is viewing it that way anymore - it's filled with negative self-hating policies. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TECHNOLOGY FOR FUCKS SAKE!!!!! Technology changes things, but what in society has changed so much from the 1850s to 1950s? Not much - heterosexual family model was intact, some things changed partly, but societies were sane despite immense changes.

The thread seems to have been started by an undercover SJW.

Quote: (05-08-2018 03:41 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

The original thread was created by someone who neither does not understand that communism was created by the biggest capitalists.

In addition the descent of the West has not "just happened". The West was proud of it's achievement and it was understood as natural that the countries would remain European in terms of race. All of that was destroyed step by step by treacherous laws, change of immigration policies and by relativist anti-Western view of all Western achievements. The previously positive and expansive direction of the West - of smiling beach boys and happy American people in a sane family - they were changed into a negative view of all WEstern by repeating the 3 mantras of class guilt - colonialism, slavery and Holocoust. It's as if no other tribe was engaged in those things except that almost all of them were. Nothing is mentioned that the West abolished slavery worldwide and lowered mortality for everyone giving the gift of modern technology.

But no one in the West is viewing it that way anymore - it's filled with negative self-hating policies. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TECHNOLOGY FOR FUCKS SAKE!!!!! Technology changes things, but what in society has changed so much from the 1850s to 1950s? Not much - heterosexual family model was intact, some things changed partly, but societies were sane despite immense changes.

The thread seems to have been started by an undercover SJW.

I fully understand that Communism (along other leftist ideas) were funded by Capitalist - I even state that in my original post, which suggests to me that you have not read it very carefully.

I did not state that it 'just happened', but I also didn't clarify that classical liberalism is what allows for this gradual trans-valuation, whereas the gang-ho approach of Communism prevents this from happening. The story of the frog in boiling water comes to mind as an illustration.

What I was saying is that all those toxic cultural ideas you mentioned were permitted because of the objective needs of a system like liberal capitalism: it is in their interest to create consumers and hedonists, not patriarchs and mothers.

Also, it does have to do with technology (because this is the basis for the system) and a lot had indeed changed from the late 19th century to the mid 20th, to name just a few: high displacement of skilled craftsmen and farmers to industrial jobs, including many women and children (not saying they had easy lives before, but they had some autonomy, they weren't just a cog of a giant machine); the character of war was permanently changed by the advancements in technology, specially seen in World War I - the world was astonished at the level of destruction that was possible with the new technology; communications and entertainment technology brought a new and unseen type of propaganda as well as the spread of degenerate 'art' and culture (see the roaring twenties in the US or Weimar Germany - you might be surprised to know that all the LGBT crap was all the rage at that time as well, just in different terms).

This is not to say it has been all bad. But that you cannot separate the bad from the good, it comes in a bundle.

< The roaring 20s did not "just happen". They were a field-test by the globalists and was rolled back due to a massive rise in orphans in the 20s and 30s. The globalists had to turn back the Brave New World promiscuity because too many unwanted children were born. They had already tested the model in some cities like Paris in the 1890s pushing for the free love propaganda. It had happened more organically in some places in Rome and Greece.

There is more to a full-control of a society and culture - and the reshaping of it. It takes generations to transform the system. And even now they are not succeeding fully with some tribes and are rather intending to make them a minority in their own countries to destroy them.

Technology is not to blamed.

Quote: (05-08-2018 04:47 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

< The roaring 20s did not "just happen". They were a field-test by the globalists and was rolled back due to a massive rise in orphans in the 20s and 30s. The globalists had to turn back the Brave New World promiscuity because too many unwanted children were born. They had already tested the model in some cities like Paris in the 1890s pushing for the free love propaganda. It had happened more organically in some places in Rome and Greece.

There is more to a full-control of a society and culture - and the reshaping of it. It takes generations to transform the system. And even now they are not succeeding fully with some tribes and are rather intending to make them a minority in their own countries to destroy them.

Technology is not to blamed.

I am not saying they weren't a field test. I am saying that under feudalism it would not be possible, due to both technological constraints and political organization.

It is simply undeniable that advanced technology is what allows for this high level of control. It also creates a level of comfort that makes people apathetic.

We all appreciate the many good things technology provides, but I think it is unwise to look at it with rose-colored glasses like it has no downsides or dangers, and to ignore the many horrible things it made possible along with the wonderful ones.

When even the technologists are worried, I think we should be as well: https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/