Category: Social Justice

On Cultural Marxism, Critical theory, postmodern philosophy and other such nonsense

To start with the disclaimer, I have read quite little of the considerable corpus of either the Frankfurt school – a many of whom were, in fact, neo-Marxists – or postmodern philosophy – quite a number of whom were, in fact, Marxists or neo-Marxists. What little I have read was, for me, rather uninteresting and kinda obscurantist, which I dislike, and overall not a good use of my time. Why am I writing about it? It is the internet, brethren. This is what it is for. Reading is for cucks; writing opinions on any and everything is for the modern Alpha male. So I am about to drop the definitive view on Cultural Marxism et al.

Now, cultural Marxism is en vogue these days among certain segments of the population, of the right wing persuasion. It is sort of like fascism for the left. The difference is that, beyond being buzzy and exaggerated, it is slightly more accurate, at least in my opinion. Most things that are literally Nazi are not Nazi much, if at all. But many things that are cultural Marxist can be somewhat described as such. As long as you define the term properly (and in these brave new worlds of ours, you get to define everything for yourself and thus never lose a debate)

Not part of a series on Marxism

When I use a phrase like “Cultural Marxism, Critical theory and postmodern nonsense”, I use it knowing well enough that those are different concepts and that they don’t quite gel together. It is a way to describe some modern leftists’ views that take a bit from each place, usually the worst bit, and mix it up together.

These elements of the Modern Left are not really critical theory; it is not really postmodern philosophy. Current postmodern philosophy may not be postmodern philosophy, but, being obscurantist, no one can tell, really. There is great debate what Derrida or Foucault or whomever really meant. This is not relevant that much, it is more how what they said is interpreted in the rpesent. On my Romanian lit papers in high school, no one cared what the poet really wanted to say with this or that metaphor, but what respectable literary critics thought they meant.

So what is cultural Marxism? It is used, yes, excessively, as a generic catch all term for “Everything I don’t like is cultural Marxist” by some on the right. But does the term have its uses? In serious debates, probably rather limited. But in less-than-serious ones, it can send across some information – people know, in a general way, what you mean when you say it. But is there a rigorous, clear definition?

Wikipedia does not seem to have a page on it, except as a subsection of Frankfurt School saying:

“‘Cultural Marxism” in modern political parlance refers to a conspiracy theory which sees the Frankfurt School as part of an ongoing movement to take over and destroy Western society.

Now, I admitted as much that it is a catch all buzzy word. But conspiracy theory seems a bit strong to me. I have seen many left wingers recently on the interwebz countering the term with “conspiracy theory”. Not to engage in conspiracy theory, it does seem a bit coordinated.

Wiki: “The term ‘cultural Marxism’ has an academic usage within cultural studies, where it refers to a form of anti-capitalist cultural critique which specifically targets those aspects of culture that are seen as profit driven and mass-produced under capitalism”

Well, yes. And in many views of the successors of the Frankfurt school those aspects of culture that are seen as profit driven and mass-produced under capitalism are almost all aspects of culture.

Continued: “it was misappropriated by paleoconservatives as part of an ongoing culture war in which it is argued that the very same theorists who were analyzing and objecting to the “massification” and mass control via commercialization of culture were in fact working in a conspiracy to control and stage their own attack on Western society,”

Ah, here we get to the key points. Was it misappropriated? In a way yes, but many words were, sadly, changed in meaning over time. But it was only partially misappropriated; it had a nugget of truth.

Not trying to attack Western society, no siree

Let’s address “take over and destroy Western society”.

I think it is quite obvious many elements of the left wanted to obtain social change. It is clear to me that a way of achieving this is through taking over educational and cultural institution. Just like elements of the right want the same thing. Where is the conspiracy theory? Most of the vast right wing and left wing conspiracies alike are quite in the open. We are having a sort of kind of war aren’t we, on the cultural front. It is clear the sides want different things and are willing to use this war to get them. So where is the conspiracy? Hell, even some classical Marxist use the term cultural Marxist in a derogatory fashion, because they believe it draws attention from class war to more meaningless struggles.

Wait Pie, Culture War is also an ill-defined buzzword. Never mind you that, that is not the point, focus here!

All activists want to change society in a way they see fit. That is why they are activists. Progressives quite more so then others, it is one of their defining characteristics. All people in the culture war want something different. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

And anyone with half a brain can see the left are trying to shove their social justice views in popular culture, being books, movies, games, comics, etc. It is not conspiracy that in certain areas of education it is more likely to have a Marxist professor than a moderate conservative one. And to the right, this equates with a destruction of Western Civilization as they see it. No need to see conspiracies everywhere. If I believe socialism destroys society (and I do), then I believe people who push socialism aim to destroy society. Maybe they don’t believe they do, but that does not change things. And they do quite clearly state that western society must be radically changed, in way to make it almost unrecognizable. So… destroy and rebuild in a different fashion, but destroy nonetheless.

The future of politics

I will come on record: I despise most of what the social justice left wants to achieve and would very much like to see it stopped. I outed myself as a supporter of conspiracy theories.

So basically Cultural Marxism, Critical theory and postmodern nonsense for me means the modern far left side of the culture war and the weapons used by them, attacking culture and education that does not conform, intersectionality and the oppression Olympics, attacking reason and reality when it does not go their way, calling math and science racist, sexist, ableist. Making everything white patriarchy. Can there be better definitions for this? Sure. I usually try to avoid these terms myself. But cultural Marxism can be good enough on Twitter – not that I am on Twitter, mind you. Helps some folks never forget these people support actual Marxism. The good ones do, others are Stalinists and Maoists.

So can you tell us more of postmodern philosophy? Carpenter in the sky, you people with all the questions. Ask HM or something, he’s the one blessed with the gift of book learning (I got the looks and sexual endowment part instead).

And on this note, how about you my fellow glibs? Do you like your Marxism of the cultural variety? Is your theory critical? Would you say you moved on beyond modernism? Thoughts below.

January 19, 2018
The Unbearable Whiteness of Being

This will be quite a bit less thorough than my last writing, primarily because of the subject matter. The earlier piece was easier to come up with examples for, as it is so transparently obvious that the metric system is more overrated than any other system, with the possible exception of Urban Meyer’s spread. [Note to editors, please remove that bit if Oklahoma gets crushed in the first round of the playoffs. Likewise, if the Sooners take the whole thing before this gets published, feel free to add “Booya!” or “Oh no he di-in’t!” or similar. Also, definitely include this clip. Editor’s note: I have no idea what happens in sportsball-world, so I left this in for the lulz]. At the end of this article I expect to receive an offer for a tenured position in Whiteness Studies.¹

I hereby proclaim my theory of whiteness based on two indisputable facts: first, that whiteness (as specified below) increases over time (at least until very recently) and second, that “mighty white of you” was a compliment. Now when I am talking about whiteness, I mean that term as it applies to the United States (sorry Rufus). I doubt I need to recap but maybe for Pie, there was a time when in America, the White Race was the English Race. Even the Germans were considered non-white by Ben Franklin. Ponder that for a moment.² Even as late as the 20^th century, “true whites” were also referred to as WASPs (anyone else find it odd how that term seems to have completely vanished?) or White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (remember how the KKK hated Catholics). Now here is the thing: “white ethnics” never went away. Which leads me to my first point:

Whiteness is not an ethnicity; it is a meta-ethnicity.

I didn’t see this much growing up in Indian Territory, but when I moved to upstate New York, I entered a place were white ethnic enclaves are still a thing. The local paper’s sports section has a story titled “Danes Defeat Dutchmen” and as God is my witness, I can tell people from those towns apart by sight. Ditto those descended from Poles. And the Irish, and the Eye-ties and… There is enough endogamy going on up here that the various white ethnicities maintain their physical and cultural (expressed through styles of dress) differences that I never expected to see from my few decades living in the south-central part of the country. There is no conflict between someone being “white” and being “Italian,” because they are separate categories of taxonomy.

A helpful guide to tracking your white heritage

But what about me? I am a white man^{[citation needed]}. I don’t really have access to an actual ethnicity. I’m all mutted up. I have a German (maternal) grandmother (Northern German, she would stress, not one of those silly southern Germans), but all I really have of a heritage from her is a smattering of verbal imperatives and the ability to play this on the accordion. (Side note: none of the women in my family descending from that grandmother, including my sister and her daughters have pierced ears. Proper German girls don’t piece their ears. That’s for those Polish trollops.) My father’s mother’s mother’s mother was of the (((tribe))). That left me the ability to correctly pronounce “kibitz” and “chutzpah,” but the inability to remember more than half of the Sh’ma Yisrael at any given time. One of my grandfathers managed to do a genealogy going back to the Norman invasion, but the other only made it back a few generations since most of them were actively trying to change their identities as they *ahem* sought greener (or at least less jail-filled) pastures. Yeah, they pretty much fucked anything that would let them. Oh, and in my only defense of Elizabeth Warren ever, I can confirm that every child born in Oklahoma is told that they are descended from a Cherokee princess. Apparently they looooved the D.³

Anyway, if Albion’s Seed is correct, the Borderers (Scots-Irish, Border Reavers, “Scum of Two Nations,” whatever) brought their tendency to eschew any cultural identity with then when they settled in the US. I’d guess this would be why there is a large portion of the country that has no real interest in an ethnicity and therefore are “white by default” as Ozy Franz would never say.

Now about this mutting process, is it the case where I do have a “real” ethnic identity, but I just don’t identify with it? I… don’t think so. My mother almost never made strudel. I think she made spätzle once. She did make pork meatballs in sauerkraut on a fairly regular basis and liked to cook pork ribs with onions and apples, but you couldn’t really call her cuisine “German” outside of some ironclad rules on meal preparation (each supper needed a starch, a meat, a yellow vegetable, a green vegetable, and a salad). She cooked pots and pots of chili. Mountains of meatballs with enough spaghetti to consume the entire harvest of Ticino. Corned beef and cabbage. Pinto beans and cornbread (did I mention she was born in Milwaukee?). And those unfortunate culinary relics of the pre-Carter era which need not be spoken of. The point is, my culinary “heritage” is a hodge-podge of things that tasted good to my mom that she learned to cook, just as my genetic heritage is a hodge-podge of those people my ancestors liked to bang.

So how is it that nowhere people like myself and also pureblood ethnics all fall under the rubric “white?” Because…

Whiteness does not refer to your ethnicity; it refers to your relationship with other ethnicities

If your ethnic culture is in a state of mutual intelligibility (and I would say respect) with the dominant ethnic culture, you are white. That’s it. If the WASPs understood and tolerated the way another group lived, and that group reciprocated, they became less “other,” especially in comparison to TGOT. This is not to say that this understanding is deep or even accurate. It’s just enough that the other cultures are grokked as being comprehensible, even if not currently comprehended. This is why whiteness expands. Groups experiencing a cultural exchange (appropriation!) and especially those living close enough to intermarry will inevitably gain mutual understanding. Unless, of course, you make an effort not to.

Any group that does not actively resist becoming white, will become white

“I can has culture?”

There is a good example of a (((group))) that made an effort to keep itself separate and isolated from the larger society that it lived in, and it worked in maintaining otherness for a couple of millennia. In the US, that’s rapidly changed. I can’t speak for other parts of the country, but in Austin, people of Mexican descent are white. So are Vietnamese, though the average gringo in Austin knows a lot fewer words of Vietnamese than they do Spanish. I think this trend may be happening nationwide, as I’ve heard Jews and Asians referred to in the derpverse of reddit/twitter/tumblr as “Schrödinger’s POCs.” About that term–POC, I absolutely loathe it. It is as wrong as a term could possibly be. It creates false connections where none exist and disregards those similarities that do. Any mindset that can claim that my US-born and raised coworker of West Indian descent has less in common with me than he does with a subsistence yak farmer in Tibet is simply diseased. It’s as insulting as telling a political lesbian that her sexuality is defined by her lack of desire for penis⁴. I do understand why the term exists, though; it’s a deliberate attempt at destruction. Everyone got their aluminum foil ready? *takes a drink of water, inhales* Whiteness expands, since it’s just the ever-increasing understanding of one’s neighbors. Capitalism expands because it works. A certain worldview which has a penchant for red flags and brass ornaments equates both of these as hegemonic movements. *Voice changes to O’Brien’s.* Action needed to be taken to stop the cisheteropatriarchical albumkyriarchcapitalistic⁵ forces. Whiteness is a state of mutual understanding. That needed to be broken. So, break the culture. Eliminate the canon. Make sure that the only books that an entire generation has read is Harry Potter. Make the educational system focus on literature that is recent, so there won’t be any intergenerational touchstones. Ensure that the only common references available are from mass media, and ensure that you can determine what makes it into the mass media. Emphasize differences. Emphasize slights. Emphasize hurts. Let nothing pass unremarked, no aggression is too micro to not demand an apology for. Make sure that apologies demand humiliation so that you may inspire resentment. That’s the genius of POC. Whiteness is a state of commonality. POC is the definition of difference. It’s an identity based on opposition to that idea of mutual understanding. Prevent cultural exchange, make it a new sin, call it “appropriation.” Abolish the word “normal.” Everyone’s identity must be broken down to as many different axes of oppression as possible, for each axis is another attempt to demonstrate just how alien we are to each other, another potential fault line. Eventually, the only thing that people should have in common is their subservience to the state.

I can has grant monies nao?

¹ I do not actually expect this to happen.

² “You know who else didn’t consider Germans white?” may be the first time where the game cannot actually be answered.

³ An alternate interpretation is that there is just a whoooole lot of inbreeding going on.

⁴ Do not actually attempt to do this. It will not go well.

⁵ Fun fact: randomly mashing on a keyboard generates leftist academic concepts.

January 5, 2018

Category: Social Justice

On Cultural Marxism, Critical theory, postmodern philosophy and other such nonsense

The Unbearable Whiteness of Being