1. Important Links
(1) https://www.thoughtco.com/frankfurt-school-3026079
(2) https://wgsi.utoronto.ca/graduate/ma-program/courses
(3) http://sociology.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/SOC6119-Syllabus_Feminist-Theory-and-Practice-Fall2019.pdf
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/cbc-propaganda-4-more-on-the-wage-gap/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/lawsuit-against-harvard-for-racial-quotas-continues/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/bc-supreme-court-rules-parents-cant-stop-kids-from-getting-sex-changes/
(7) https://www.thepostmillennial.com/trans-activists-and-progressive-politicians-shut-down-vancouver-rape-shelter/
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-govt-purges-sunni-shia-from-2019-terrorism-report-bill-c-59/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/international-smuggling-and-child-exploitation-part-iii-islam/
2. Context For The Article
Cultural Marxism, and ideologies such as feminism are often criticized as complete nonsense. It’s pointed out that they use garbage arguments, half truths to justify themselves, and end up fragmenting society.
While this is all true, an interesting piece of the puzzle is left out: what are the origins of these beliefs? Did they grow organically, or was there something more organized helping it along? Also, were these good intentions gone awry, or is there malevolent intent behind these theories?
3. Articles On The Subject
- Aesthetic Theory, (Theodor W. Adorno)
- Culture Industry Reconsidered, (Theodor W. Adorno)
- Critical and Traditional Theory (Horkheimer)
- Critique of Instrumental Reason, (Max Horkheimer)
- Dialectic of the Enlightenment (Adorno and Horkheimer)
- Knowledge and Human Interests (Habermas)
- One-Dimensional Man (Marcuse)
- Structural Transformation and the Public Sphere, (Jürgen Habermas)
- The Aesthetic Dimension: Toward a Critique of Marxist Aesthetics, (Herbert Marcuse)
- The Authoritarian Personality, (Theodor W. Adorno)
- The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (Habermas)
- The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (Benjamin)
- Towards a Rational Society, (Jürgen Habermas)
- Traditional and Critical Theory, (Max Horkheimer)
- The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, (Walter Benjamin)
4. From ThoughtCo Site
The Frankfurt School was a group of scholars known for developing critical theory and popularizing the dialectical method of learning by interrogating society’s contradictions. It is most closely associated with the work of Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse. It was not a school, in the physical sense, but rather a school of thought associated with scholars at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt in Germany.
In 1923, Marxist scholar Carl Grünberg founded the Institute, initially financed by another such scholar, Felix Weil. The Frankfurt School scholars are known for their brand of culturally focused neo-Marxist theory—a rethinking of classical Marxism updated to their socio-historical period. This proved seminal for the fields of sociology, cultural studies, and media studies.
In 1930 Max Horkheimer became the director of the Institute and recruited many of the scholars who came to be known collectively as the Frankfurt School. In the aftermath of Marx’s failed prediction of revolution, these individuals were dismayed by the rise of Orthodox Party Marxism and a dictatorial form of communism. They turned their attention to the problem of rule through ideology, or rule carried out in the realm of culture. They believed that technological advancements in communications and the reproduction of ideas enabled this form of rule.
Their ideas overlapped with Italian scholar Antonio Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony. Other early members of the Frankfurt School included Friedrich Pollock, Otto Kirchheimer, Leo Löwenthal, and Franz Leopold Neumann. Walter Benjamin was also associated with it during its peak in the mid-20th century.
One of the core concerns of the scholars of the Frankfurt School, especially Horkheimer, Adorno, Benjamin, and Marcuse, was the rise of “mass culture.” This phrase refers to the technological developments that allowed for the distribution of cultural products—music, film, and art—on a mass scale. (Consider that when these scholars began crafting their critiques, radio and cinema were still new phenomena, and television didn’t exist.) They objected to how technology led to a sameness in production and cultural experience. Technology allowed the public to sit passively before cultural content rather than actively engage with one another for entertainment, as they had in the past. The scholars theorized that this experience made people intellectually inactive and politically passive, as they allowed mass-produced ideologies and values to wash over them and infiltrate their consciousness.
Marxism (as prescribed by Karl Marx), was a way of “making” everyone equal via Communism. The Government would control the means of production and in effect, run all industries. Everyone who make the same amount of money, regardless of profession or work ethic. Everyone would have access to the same level of Government run social services.
In theory, this sounded great, as everyone would get their basic needs met. In practice, however, the only way to run such a system is by force, and to take away free will. Few people are willing to work hard when there are no rewards for doing do, hence the system falls apart. True, everyone will have access to the same services, but to the same “poor” services.
Cultural Marxism takes those same principles and applies them on a cultural level, despite having extremely harmful effects. This is because “oppression” is often viewed as the root cause of a difference, not simply difference in groups.
How does this destructive ideology manifest itself? Let’s take a look at a few examples of claiming “injustice” where no such thing exists.
5. Long Debunked “Gender Pay Gap”
This was addressed in a previous article. Feminists (a sub-group of cultural Marxists), have long claimed that women are on average are paid less. As proof, they often point to government statistics that show that on average, the hourly wage is more for a man than for a women.
However, feminists don’t want to ask WHY women are, on average, paid less than men. Such an omission completely derails their arguments. Men on average, work in more physical, dangerous, and skilled positions. They work full time more often than women do, and on average, are employed for longer periods of time. Also, there are more likely to take fields in college or university (like STEM or business), while arts and humanities are dominated by women. These differences go a long way towards explaining differences in pay.
Despite these obvious answers being easily available, the “gender-pay-gap” is still widely trumpeted in academia and feminist circles. It’s as if the people behind these theories, the Cultural Marxists, don’t want to see it properly addressed.
One such example is here, of a brainwashed feminist. She knows men are not women, but assumes that women earning less is patriarchy. Great use of her BA/MA in gender studies.
Of course, cultural Marxism also pushes the idea that women have to have careers in order to be happy with their lives, and that motherhood is a form of submission into traditional gender roles. Fact is, we need women to be mothers in order to keep the next generation of society going. Population replacement via mass migration is not really a good idea.
6. Abortion Agenda
This area has been brought up repeatedly on the site. To boil it down, cultural Marxists have been pushing the idea that abortion (or killing your unborn children) is actually a form of empowerment to be embraced by women as a whole. This is morbid, as it completely devalues human life.
See here, see here, see here, and see Trudeau, for some examples of accepting viewpoint diversity.
Also worth noting is that the organ trafficking industry — or baby chop shop — is an extremely lucrative market. So there is definitely a financial incentive as well for pushing infanticide.
7. Affirmative Action, Racial Differences
The topic of affirmative action was covered, in this article on Harvard University being sued for having racial quotas. Harvard, like many schools, engages in affirmative action, or have “quotas” for how many people in certain groups get in. The rationale is that “oppression and inequality” get factored into these decisions. But isn’t that inherently unfair to other groups of people?
2 other possibilities could explain the disparity in admissions.
(a) Differences in culture: if a particular group has such a culture that on average does not value education, it seems likely that far fewer people from that culture will successfully pursue academia. It is not discrimination, but the result of personal choices.
(b) Biological differences in racial/ethnic groups: as unpopular as it is to say, there are biological differences between groups, and it includes differences in IQ. This has been researched ad nauseum, but the findings are immediately condemned by many as being racist. Average IQ of whites is around 100, while Jewish and Asians are even higher. IQ in Central and South America is often in the 80s, while in Sub-Saharan Africa, it is in the 70s. Certainly, no one has control over how they were born, but these differences do exist.
Despite IQ and work ethic differences across various groups, cultural Marxists keep insisting that differences in academic entry, graduation, and accomplishment is due to systemic racism and discrimination. It’s as if they don’t want the truth to be told.
8. Promoting Gay/Trans Agenda
Not only are segments of society actively promoting the idea that people should become the opposite sex if they feel uncomfortable, they push it in children as well. This comes despite the enormous health risks, the suicide rates, and the inability to have children in later stages of life.
One recent trend is the push for allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports, despite the remaining physical advantages. This will undoubtedly help to ruin women’s sports along the way.
Another development was to block funding, for a rape relief shelter in Vancouver, as it wasn’t interested in letting trans-women in. This is nonsense. Rather than being available to help the vast majority of victims, it will now be available to help no one. Good job.
There is the idea of people living their lives as they are, (controversy notwithstanding). Then there is throwing your weight around and demanding society accommodate you.
9. Increasing Islamization
Islam has such strong influence in Canada today that our government pussyfoots around calling Islamic terrorism for what it is. Our leaders crow about diversity being a great thing, but never get into the sexual violence and exploitation that is so rampant in Islam.
This is on top of Bill C-75, which waters down penalties in Canada for terrorism. This is on top of Bill C-6, which revoked a previous law to deport “Canadians” who were dual citizens, but convicted for terrorism or treason.
Also, please note the incessant demands by Muslims to accommodate their way of life, their religion, and their culture. Note, this accommodation will never be reciprocated.
Islam is completely incompatible with the West, and with every other culture in general. However, cultural Marxists just keep telling us not to be bigots and embrace diversity. Feminists as well, openly embrace Islam, despite is going against everything they claim to believe in. LGBTQ groups support Islam too, despite the fact that Islam openly calls for gays to be killed?
Why is this nonsense embraced, when it is so contrary to Western ideals? What is behind it? Who is behind it?
10. Cultural Marxism A Weapon Against Us?
Consider the long term implications of cultural Marxism. Yes, there is some stereotyping, but largely this is true. Consider the points raised in #5 to #9
(A) Women who become feminists are very likely to reject Western society as a whole. They will hate themselves, and men in general. Rather than having children and perpetuating the species, many will remain childless. Instead, they will believe the lie that career is the key to every woman’s happiness.
(B) Rather than embracing children, killing their unborn children is now seen as totally acceptable. It is framed as “reproductive care” and of “my body, my choice”. The obvious result from this is a much lower birth rate, and population decline.
(C) Instead of promoting a meritocracy, we water down any and all standards in the name of being inclusive and tolerant. Actual skill, experience, and competence take a backseat to being diverse.
(D) Push the gay and trans agenda, especially in children. Forget the emotional and psychological harm that comes of it. Remember as well: gay couples cannot have children, and people who have transitioned fully cannot have children with anyone anymore.
(E) Embracing and making excuses for Islam projects the false image that it is compatible with Western society. Never mind the huge cultural clashes that do go on. And never mind that Muslims have a birthrate that far exceeds Western couples. An attempt to out-breed us?
Is there a pattern here? Although cultural Marxism encompasses other ideas, there is a trend here. These initiatives involve Western, European people having less children — or none at all. The solution of course, will be to import a “replacement population”, who will outbreed and eventually replace Europeans.
The founders of cultural Marxism, why do they do this? Are they of a certain group that has a very strong in-group preference? Is the goal of cultural Marxism to inflict great damage across the West? Is it designed to completely destroy the West?