/pgg/ - /pol/ GamerGate

I'm not an expert, but I think it's a blanket term referring to subversion with damaging ideology based around so called equality, used to bring down a government on behalf of a foreign power. People say it originates from cold war KGB agents in universities and their baby boomer successors propagating their ideas, from Israeli lobbies pushing things like multiculturalism outside of their country but condemning it within their country and some people think it originates from the frankfurt school.

>>183
-
>>7

>>183

The Frankfurt School is where all of this bullshit began with Karl Marx and others. It's called Cultural Marxism because, initially, they wanted to make the argument based on social class. Basically, "check your privilege, you oppressing rich scum" and vice versa. Now, the reason this didn't work in the western world is because of capitalism. Everyone was making money and didn't care about social class because, back in the day, if you legitimately worked hard, you could be rich yourself. Since this didn't work, they had to figure out another way of how a society can transform itself into something "better." And what a joke it was to put it on culture. To be more specific, make women and minorities oppressed because the white man is making all the money. Please note that demographics back then in the U.S. was mostly white.

I would like to know why you think it's a conspiracy theory. Is it cultural hegemony? If you look at some European nations, there is evidence of this happening.

>>193
>I would like to know why you think it's a conspiracy theory.

Because some of the people I argue with attribute a lot of my positions to CM. For instance, I may be pro gay marriage for purely egalitarian reasons, but apparently I'm just a tiny pawn in a some cultural Marxist scheme, whose goal is to undermine the traditions of marriage and family. It's infuriating.

This was before GamerGate at least. Now I'm genuinely curious about CM and why we're calling those people that instead of just the stupid dumbasses that they are.

>>206

Because what they do is way more extreme than your situation. According to /pol/, you aren't the problem as long as you keep that shit to yourself and be a productive member of society. The people in positions of power are the problem because they contribute NOTHING and are regressives. You have them change the rules in academia, government, etc. and the people eat it all up because authority figures are ALWAYS right to them. Look at Sweden as a popular example. Their government has gone out of control with the immigration issue and has made it illegal to question immigration or contest any person of color if they commit a crime. If you do, you go to jail or are labeled as a racist. They literally have Stockholm syndrome. If this happens to you over there, good luck getting anywhere in that brainwashed society.

>>206
Maybe you are, man. Maybe you find the idea of egalitarianism good, because you've been indoctrinated since you were a child. "Conspiracy theory" is a just a good way to dismiss what may well be the truth.

>>183
One of the end goals of a classless society was always the destruction of the family unit.

>>222
:)

Marx advocated the end of marriage, religion, and parenthood.

So it pretty much directly originated with him. Marxism and Cultural Marxism are identical.

>Is it cultural hegemony?

"Hegemony was a term previously used by Marxists such as Vladimir Ilyich Lenin to denote the political leadership of the working-class in a democratic revolution. Gramsci greatly expanded this concept, developing an acute analysis of how the ruling capitalist class – the bourgeoisie – establishes and maintains its control."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci#Hegemony

tl;dr According to Gramsci, if you want to subvert a capitalist society, you need to subvert the culture first for subtract the lower classes to the dominant ideology in order to gain power.

Pro tip: Nobody ever read Gramsci. Everyone just uses his quotes.

>>276

you take out the parents in the equation, the state raises the child and can indoctrinate them into good little slaves.

>>364
I've been checking out different marxist forums whilst looking for anti-gg hives, and I was surprised to find out, most of them have at least a few people who dislike SJWs and anti-gg.

So where the fuck do SJWs sit politically?

>>366
>So where the fuck do SJWs sit politically?

Hipsters who wear Che Guevara shirts and only adhere to political views because they are cool.

>>366
>>368
Most actual Marxists have disdain for identity politics because they are a distraction from class struggle.

You have to understand, in a Marxist society - your race, gender, whatever, is immaterial. Equality is assumed. That's the entire point.

So, when you see a bunch of stupid middle class people telling everyone they are oppressed because of vaginas or what not, you just think to yourself, "Fuck the bourgeois" because that's pretty much what they are.

I mean, if it wasn't for the whole thing about communism being impossible given our current technology level, Marx himself was pretty alright guy.

A lot of people think that the utopian future of things like Star Trek are based on Marxism, but I'm not so sure about that. I think it's better described as "Utopian" because they have pretty much solved scarcity as a problem, which obviously is a big game changer.

>>375
I never thought about it like that, but you're right. I just read the Manifesto, and we talked about his 18th Brumaire in my polisci class, and your summary sounds p good. He talked about how the Bourgeoise would try to pretend to be proles, in order to subvert the proles and distract them from achieving true communism. He basically said that the only classes are proles and bourgeoise, and that the proles must unite against the bourgeoise, but it seems like these so-called cultural marxists are just acting as a subversive force to turn the proles against each other to prevent them from rising up. Neat.

>>206
Allow me to present the most rational possible perspective to what you are experiencing. Many people conflate a support for homosexuals living their lives freely with cultural marxism. This is not necessarily always the case.

However, gays should be aware that cultural marxists are just using them as pawns. They are attempting to subvert the culture by means of inserting themselves (not through any conspiracies, but through a bully pulpit) into academia and pseudo-intellectual circles. The best example of this is the post-modernist style of teaching in universities which are now including subjects such as gender studies and sociology as actual sciences rather than mere interests (sociology was never a science, although it did use to be a legitimate field of study).

They are appealing to the rights of gays only for the achievement of their own ends, which is to create a society where each individual is policed based on what they think, what they say, and how the media expresses itself. They wish to establish a society where those with "bad" thoughts are punished and those with "good" thoughts are rewarded. It's no different an ideology than that of Christian fundamentalism. At its roots, it is a movement that is so perversely puritanical, it has become exactly the beast it was fighting, and don't think that this wasn't the intention. They desire the power to control what individuals can or cannot discuss in a public forum and will stop at nothing, even if it costs homosexuals, transsexuals, women, and minorities their self-image as respectable individuals. Homosexuals and transsexuals make this much, much easier, since they use social justice as a platform for retribution. Women, to some extent, follow along the same pattern, although there exists a strong split among them.

The means by which they wish to subvert populations is by insertion into state politics. The most important way to do this is to discourage and even outright ban positive discussion of their political opponents in the public stage (hence their opponents' positive points being discussed to such a minor degree in the mainstream media). This isn't a conspiracy, it is a repetition of history, particularly post-WW1 history in Europe (see Berlin's socialist rise pre-Hitler).

In the end, the champions of this ideology become its first victims (see any homosexual or transvestite who left the SJW movements, and ask them whether they've been harassed as a result). We're already seeing the stage being set for CM to completely realize itself. Pseudo-intellectuals are rampant, and the biggest political forums on television are subverting any opposing message regardless of its legitimacy (and I'm not talking about bible thumpers wanting to ban sodomy). You and I are living through a very rough period in history, despite what may be interpreted as a "peaceful moment".

>>383
>He talked about how the Bourgeoise would try to pretend to be proles

I am not a Marxist, but this is my view on the situation as well. I think that many people look at Communism and go "paft, whatever" but they don't understand that the best part of Marx's work was his observations on Capitalism.

Which honestly, have been pretty much fucking bang on.

I think in the current context, we are the counter/alternative culture, the SJW's and the New Left are the mono-culture, or belong to the monoculture. We are just seeing typical Cultural Hegemony in action.

Also, yes I do think that the identity politics is the mechanism by which the proletariat is being subverted for the control of the bourgeoisie. I mean, c'mon - when you can be educated, rich and white and still be oppressed (lol) by dying your hair purple and claiming to be an otherkin… well, how much more obvious does it have to be what's going on?

What I don't understand is how any of this has to do with Marxism or Karl Marx in general. If Marx saw a political movement that shat all over working class men for being "privileged" he'd start frothing at the mouth.

>>461
That's my point, read -
>>364
>>375
>>383

The nomenclature is odd. I think it was adopted by the New Left in order to give authenticity to their ideas.

Basically, "We're Marxists - we're going to focus on Culture instead of Economics". While totally ignoring the fact that Marxism is all about class struggle and economic behaviors.

It's like mormons claiming they are christians. Yeah, SORT OF, but you disregard a bunch of the bible and you make up a bunch of stuff that was never in it to support your ideas.

Apologies to mormons out there - but your religion is a hoax.

>>461
It's no longer about economic inequality but inequality of social status as an 'underprivileged' class. The new proletariat are the minorities and the lazy. Self-entitled people identify themselves with this movement because it convinces them that they are an underprivileged proletariat fighting for a better world, hence sjw.

>>206
> I agree with one of the agendas of cultural Marxists, therefore it does not exist.

Cultural Marxism is Marxist economic theory applied to culture (duh). Basically, all underrepresented groups are entitled to as much power/influence/representation as properly represented groups do. Since this completely ignores personal accomplishment/merrit just like economic Marxism does, this leads to shit like political correctness, oppression Olympics, professional victims, etc. A lot of their tactics center around pressuring people who disagree with their thoughts, narrative and vocabulary.

The whole Gay agenda thing thrived on this. Now they are moving forward with making trannies a protected class since they successfully did that with homosexuals. Much like any minority under political correctness they will never stop being oppressed. Not 10 years from now. Not 100 years from now. Not 1000 years from now. Because they need exactly as much representation and power as the majority. That is Cultural Marxism. If you are normal, you are a shitlord. If you criticize them, you are being oppressive. If you use vocabulary that is pejorative toward them, you are a whatever-ist. Being normal is a sin, and you need to pay for it.

>>468
I forgot to mention, this shit gets really sketchy when it comes to academia.
Cultural Marxists are not at all afraid or ashamed to fudge statistics to support them to support the narrative, since to them logic is relative. A good current example is the debunked 1 in 5 rape statistic.

>>375
Yes but all Marxists get pissy when they find out you don't follow their brand of Marxism and half of them are Stalinists (the other half are Maoists)

If you listeb to them describe they will do abuthing to try to rebrand CM as some kind of reactionary bourgeois movement inatead of another Marxist heresy that's come to an anti-Marx conclusion about how to get the Proles to rise up

>>364
Marxanon, I've seen you around quite a bit and enjoy reading your perspective on this. You should write an article about this somewhere or hop into a stream to talk about it.

It isn't that all the academic theory derives directly from marxist sources, but that the use of postmodern rhetoric parallels it to a T. Even then, this is a much older issue going back to Martin Luther, the Enlightenment, and Puritans. What is sola scriptura but "it is that way because I say so"? At the core of the dialectic is always a theoretical supposition that is taken as dogma and all debate is based upon that original idea. By being taken as truth, it becomes a lie. This is why philosophy is so radically divergent and all other sciences apply multiple models to everything.

The subversion of individualism by redefining what individualism actually is.

If you believe in autonomy then you have no real need of the state. These commies/marxists are usually very similar when it comes to the belief that aautonomy can only exist thru the state. To achieve the fullness of individualism the state must first be autonomous.

>>649
Individualism and selfishness become conflated under their doctrine.

An example of what they consider individualism: "My body, my choice."

Well, what if your choice costs me money? Can't I say "Your body, my wallet" as a retort? Of course not! That's selfish!

Positive rights (i.e. those that will cost someone else dearly) are lauded while negative rights (i.e. those that don't implicate a cost, like free speech and the right to privacy) are considered fallible and unimportant.

For a good example of how negative rights are unimportant to cultural marxists, see how many leftist forums you get banned from after talking about right-wing ideas. Now, try the same (spread left-wing ideas) on a right-wing forum. You'll be bullied, shouted at, criticized, etc., but you won't be banned from RW places as much as you would from LW places.

Oh, and the same goes for Facebook. My conservative friends never left me even though we come into harsh disagreements sometimes, while I've lost a huge portion of lefty friends because I had a few opinions that lean ever-so-slightly to the right.

Sark, Quinn, Wu, Grayson, and co. do not want to come to interviews to discuss things in a level playing field. They need to ensure that opposition is excluded from the debate. This is the mentality of a leftist cultural marxist. This is why they always seem like an echo chamber.

The difference here is that in /pol/ and /pgg/, I am vulnerable. People who disagree with what I just said, or with anything I might say, will appear. They will try to demolish my arguments. But I must respect them and let them speak. I have no control over the debate except what I contribute to it, therefore putting me in a position where I have to come up with actual arguments to back my position. Thin-skinned leftists don't last long in this environment. Righties are used to demonization and ridicule, so they've grown the thick skin necessary over the years to debate in an open and public forum.

>>375
Holy shit this is the best explanation I've read. I've tried my best to say what you just sad in such a casual way.

>>276
Is this Cultural Marxism then?

>>675
https://archive.today/dYwzl´
Forgot the link

>>632
I'm not sure it's really worth going over because a lot of it would be way over the heads of people who still think that Liberal is a political party.

I mean, we have people like this guy here: >>478

Who refuses to acknowledge that the New Left which sprung from Marcuse has nothing to do with anything that Marx wrote about. It's like saying, This man invented a hammer, and then I used it to build this house, so he invented houses as well.

Anyway, who knows, maybe some day I will write something interesting about it for people who are curious as to what the deeper social dynamics are.

>>639
Underrated post. Sadly, you'll notice that too many people haven't even come to terms with the Liberal society they live in, let alone been able to educate themselves on the philosophical underpinnings of it. Fucking education is dismal - all vocabulary, spelling and math formula, but not one bit of thinking.

>>662
I hope you don't actually believe that. You're interpreting your cultural experience through the lens of politics and in doing so ascribing unwarranted virtue to people you agree with and demonizing people you disagree with. The generalities you are trafficking in are just simple in-group/out-group dynamics at play.

A good thought experiment to help you navigate your biases would be to do some research and write down a list of 6 or so core tenants/beliefs/virtues of Liberalism (since we live in a Liberal society, if you don't understand this, then you need to read up on it). Then attempt to order them in two lists from most important to least important from the perspective of what you think is "right" or "left". Give it to someone on the left and have them do the same. I think you may be surprised at the result.

>>183
Gramsci. Enough said.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/

You must not have been paying attention. Marxism was always about feminism, homosex, trannies, etc. This stuff is all the "primitive communism" vision. That Marx did not spend any time on it does not mean it isn't a natural extension of his premises into the social sphere, thus "cultural Marxism."

>>364

Marcuse just brought Marx into the 20th century. It was the same vein, the same basic assumptions, and the same end goals. Marx's vision had proven itself wrong (the revolution had stalled), but they had not given up on the end goals or the basic premises.

And the methodology itself is entirely analogous to classic Marxism. You can argue that it is not Marxism in that it did not originate entirely with Marx, but that is needlessly pedantic and disingenuous when it is essentially the same.

It is like various strains of communists arguing that the others are not true communists. Stalin wasn't a true communist, Lenin wasn't a true communist, Mao wasn't a true communist, Trotsky wasn't a true communist. In reality, they were all communists and just had minor disagreements on the methods of bringing it about. Marcuse fits in this as well. Only complete sperglords will argue over the different terminology and miss that they are analogous in every fundamental way, missing the forest for the trees.

>>183
It's named after Karl Marx, the cunt who wrote a good chunk of bullshit used to ruin everything ever.

Cultural because it's used to attack culture with Marx's shit.

I found this really nice article that explains cultural marxism and how it relates to gamergate.

http://mitrailleuse.net/2014/09/19/intellectual-bullying/

>Going hand in hand with or at least methodological assumptions of Cultural Marxism is the postmodern discourse. Postmodern philosophy is characterized by the rejection of objective truth, and postmodern discourse emphasizes that the identity of a person is the essential determinant of whether their argument is true or not.