The anti-spanking initiative is r-selected

Disclaimer: I came into this topic with an open mind and I was shocked by what I found.

Before we begin: We all know social science is indoctrinated by liberal bias (9/10 hiring decisions come on), so any parenting finding they present as untouchable requires as much doubt as global warming.

Before someone goes there, I hate to say it, but I doubt Stefan Molyneux knows psych data better than a guy who worked at the APA. Having data doesn’t mean shit, it’s the quality of the data. He keeps going on about this topic in a smug self-satisfied way with reference to simplistic philosophy over the scientific method as it applies here (they do differ substantially as we’ll see) and it irritated my amygdala enough to play Devil’s Advocate and see where the data took me.

I mean, if you watch that video I linked he even committed an ad hominem attack to anyone who disagrees and the psychogenetic fallacy, as well as the fallacy of dismissal and others. You’d be triggered too.

“In a meta-analysis of 26 studies, Larzelere and a colleague found that an approach they described as “conditional spanking” led to greater reductions in child defiance or anti-social behavior than 10 of 13 alternative discipline techniques, including reasoning, removal of privileges and time out

ummmm drinking oh dear no uh oh tyrion game of thrones drinking

THE FORBIDDEN FINDING. I could just leave it there, tbh. It’s tempting.

They refuse to control the data (confounds) properly because it would prove them wrong, that’s why the methods are dodgy. If you look at plenty of pro-liberal social studies (at least 90% of them presumably, going by hiring for research posts), the statistics are distorted to match public policy recommendations, making the studies themselves post-hoc and invalid. It’s justification for social engineering, not real science.

As in many areas of science, some researchers disagree about the validity of the studies on physical punishment. Robert Larzelere, PhD, an Oklahoma State University professor who studies parental discipline, was a member of the APA task force who issued his own minority report because he disagreed with the scientific basis of the task force recommendations. While he agrees that parents should reduce their use of physical punishment, he says most of the cited studies are correlational and don’t show a causal link between physical punishment and long-term negative effects for children.

Translation: he thinks they’re filthy liars so he showed them up with a real study (hence the meta-analysis method, the gold standard) and they have no genuine reply to this, it’s hilarious. He went on to explain their flaws too, because he’s savage.

Little known fact: You do have to prove causation. Before you start lecturing people. They cannot. What does that say? Well, what does proof involves? Statistical control of confounds, which they refuse to do for some strange reason. The same way behaviourists refuse to control for genetics in their studies, while saying out the other side of their mouths that it wouldn’t change their significant findings if they did….

This is why social science isn’t yet a real science. These people. Who ‘can’t’ do maths.

“The studies do not discriminate well between non-abusive and overly severe types of corporal punishment,” Larzelere says. “You get worse outcomes from corporal punishment than from alternative disciplinary techniques only when it is used more severely or as the primary discipline tactic.”

Such obscurity is always deliberate. Part of p-hacking. Heard of that reproducibility crisis?
Liberals see all forms of physical punishment as ‘too much’. To them, it’s all ‘abusive’, like disagreeing with a black guy is ‘racist’ or a gay man refusing to shag a woman is ‘sexist’. Well technically, theoretically speaking, but really no. Not in the real world. Where the data lives.

This meta-analysis investigates differences between the effect sizes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics for child outcomes in 26 qualifying studies. Analyzing differences in effect sizes reduces systematic biases and emphasizes direct comparisons between the disciplinary tactics that parents have to select among. The results indicated that effect sizes significantly favored conditional spanking over 10 of 13 alternative disciplinary tactics for reducing child noncompliance or antisocial behavior. Customary physical punishment yielded effect sizes equal to alternative tactics, except for one large study favoring physical punishment. Only overly severe or predominant use of physical punishment compared unfavorably with alternative disciplinary tactics. The discussion highlights the need for better discriminations between effective and counterproductive use of disciplinary punishment in general.

But the other researchers don’t want the truth. They can’t handle the truth. It’s black and white thinking from them on this subject. All bad, or all good, unlike literally any other human behaviour known to mankind. Did I mention another reason for its hot-potato status is racial differences?

Our results indicate that adolescents who perceive that their parents use an authoritative parenting style, regardless of their race, are less likely to engage in health-risk behaviors than adolescents who perceive that their parents use an authoritarian, permissive, or uninvolved parenting style. Conversely, in this study adolescents of all races who characterize their parents as uninvolved are more vulnerable to engaging in health-risk behaviors. The effects of the authoritarian and permissive parenting styles differ by race. In relation to the other parenting styles, the authoritarian style is more protective for Black adolescents than it is for White adolescents; while, the permissive style is more protective for White adolescents than it is for Black adolescents. The permissive parenting style and the authoritarian parenting style appear to have an equal effect on health-risk behaviors in Hispanic teens. source

TLDR: So being anti-authoritarian is actually racist.

hmm uhuh o rlly really ah sure thing

Don’t expect them to crack it anytime soon. Money’s on it being mediated by MAO genes. And if personality is innate after a certain point and we should accept this and tolerate differences, is it reasonable to ask people to change? Weren’t they Born This Way?

This whole debate, all this is a ruse that relates back to Authoritarianism, also called a parenting style but actually a political invention by Adorno, a personality metric to call conservatives mentally ill. It’s basically a medical label of prejudice. Adorno was an avowed Communist who worked as part of the Frankfurt School. Seriously, look it up.

No literally, he tried to make up a hodge-podge theory calling conservatives mentally ill. It’s quite funny how overtly biased he was.

Case studies, e.g. Nazis

They piloted and developed a questionnaire, which they called the F-scale (F for fascism).

Those with an authoritarian personality tended to be:

• Hostile to those who are of inferior status, but obedient of people with high status [DS: hierarchical]

• Fairly rigid in their opinions and beliefs [DS: aka closed to manipulation attempts]

• Conventional, upholding traditional values

Liberals did political psychology before we did. They started it.

laughing rdj crack up

Despite how;

Still, the authors concluded that the authoritative parenting style is protective in regards to adolescent drug use, both concurrently and longitudinally (Adalbjarnardottir & Hafsteinsson, 2001). source

So it works. Literally, it works. The majority of their argument against is futile.

The whole idea of parenting styles is a joke. You know what the data shows? The still-conservative one called authoritative is the best for life outcomes. Do they follow outcomes for types of discipline? No, not really, and especially not the least-popular parenting ‘style’, permissive (lazy). Why wouldn’t liberals want to study that?

Little mentioned is the damage of the permissive (liberal) parenting style. Why? Well, it’s hardly ever researched and commented upon.

Parental permissiveness or indulgence was also associated with increased adolescent alcohol and tobacco use(22,23,27). source

Adolescents who described their mother as using a permissive parenting style were more likely to demonstrate a tendency to anticipate a more violent response to the hypothetical situation. [same source]

Sounds healthy. Mentally.

Parenting style is like learning style, it pathologizes natural differences for political gain around a kernel of truth. Mental illness is not a political pawn, nor should it be used as one. But again, which wing started that?

There is also a big difference between genuinely seeking to end unjust discrimination against those who suffer from severe mental-health issues, and making out that we’re all secretly a little bit mentally ill.

Is it to help people, as best as we can, to live normal lives? Or is it an attempt to medicalise further normal aspects of everyday life?

Casually diagnosing a misbehaving child with mental problems, such as anxiety or depression, is the equivalent of a get-out clause.

Girl crush.

We all know overdiagnosis is a problem, mathematically, as the majority (mentally healthy) cannot be the minority (mentally unhealthy) in a Medical Model. What type of person over-diagnoses or self-diagnoses?

Corporal punishment is usually correlated with behavior problems such as antisocial behavior and aggression.24 But correlation does not equal causation. What is open to dispute are the causal influences that explain those correlations. Making valid causal conclusions from correlations involving corrective actions is especially problematic, for correlations are biased against corrective actions, a problem known as the intervention selection bias.25 This selection bias occurs because of the poorer prognosis of those selected for the corrective action compared to the better prognosis of those not needing the corrective action.

aka Stefan is wrong.
And bad kids get disciplined more, they were bad to begin with. I love how nobody asks about psychopaths either. Like evil people pop into existence at age 18.

However, all kinds of nonphysical punishment also predicted higher antisocial behavior with the same controls.

Woops. That’s not to suppose to happen, is it, Stefan?

all predicted significantly higher subsequent hyperactivity, whereas physical punishment did not, β = .03, n.s. Therefore, the strongest causal evidence against customary spanking is not unique to spanking, but applies as much to most corrective actions, including most corrective disciplinary actions by parents and corrective interventions by psychotherapists.

That’s the sound of a hypothesis dying. Like a whale.
I don’t blame him for being a pacifist though. Being Canadian.
If the therapists are harming children, where’s your moral beacon?

In sum, the strongest causally relevant evidence against customary spanking yields small, apparently detrimental effects that can easily be due to a combination of several substantive and methodological factors that bias the results. Consistent with this, the first studies to use the same research methods for alternative disciplinary tactics showed similar results for corrective actions by both parents and professionals. In evaluating corrective actions by clinical psychologists, this type of evidence would not even be considered and would definitely not override the causally conclusive evidence that spanking can be effective for enforcing nonphysical disciplinary tactics, even in the most clinically defiant two- to six-year-olds.154


Under Conclusion.

Spanking must be understood in the broader context of the appropriate exercise of parental authority. Numerous studies have shown the superior effectiveness of authoritative parenting, especially compared with the extremes of authoritarian and permissive parenting.174 We have recently extended that evidence by documenting that ten-year child outcomes vary greatly by these preschool parenting patterns.175

Calling a parent a Nazi is pretty extreme, yes.

The use of normative spanking did not distinguish authoritative parents from other parenting patterns, although it was used more by authoritarian parents than by permissive parents. We think that authoritative parenting can be implemented by some parents without the use of any spanking, but we have no evidence of that from our study, as all authoritative parents used spanking at least occasionally.

As this alludes, hippies still spank their kids, they just lie about it. Getting the child to lie for them could be considered a form of abuse too, if you want to play that game.

There’s a load of duh conservative wisdom too before I move on.

Spanking should never be used in an infant’s first twelve months of life and rarely, if at all, before eighteen months of age. Parents should make sure their children know that any corrective discipline, including spanking, is motivated by love and concern for them. Parents must also be certain not to administer punishment too severely, whether physical or nonphysical. Finally, all punishment should be used in such a way that reduces the need to use it in the future. Every child is different, so not all disciplinary tactics will work as well with every child—or for every situation with the same child.

Parental authority figure. Authoritative role assumption. Duh?

Authoritarian should actually be called Tyrant. If the labelling system were culturally honest and followed, I dunno, the definition of English words?

I was doing some pondering over this topic and the neurobiology that must be involved and came up with a pie-in-the-sky opinion theory. Since I’ve already established the direction the empirical evidence has headed, I wanna freestyle it to finish.

Wall of text incoming.

I was reading about the findings on spanking, and it seems to be r-types self-selecting for narcissism. As in, they don’t develop empathy, which is based on pain (all kinds) and physically structured by mirror neurons. For an example of how this pertains to modern issues, such impaired ‘theory of mind’ (low empathy) is implicated in Borderline Personality. From what I know of the brain, spanking would actively change the child’s personality (an unstudied effect, a remarkable gap in the research despite the known origin of spanking research -parenting style- being based in the personality of the parents) and this change would aim to make the child more socially humble and deferential, respecting of hierarchy, such as parental authority, (like the spanking parents themselves, making spanking a cultural meme and untouchable by liberals on this basis) and such traits are something we know to be actively K-selected. I even thought of a mechanism, most parents who spank only start once the child is of around pre-school age, wandering curious age, at the exact time of great neural pruning. What most people don’t know is that neural pruning can be triggered and directed by experiences of pain, and once those connections are gone, they’re dead forever. Pruning is vital for healthy brain development, and may be a hidden environmental factor (really epigenetic) in childhood development.
By refusing to admit any positive effects from spanking whatsoever (impossible in social science), they admit their bias, because at that exact time biologically in the child’s development, mild physical pain, no different morally than controlled exposure hand-ice studies conducted by psychologists themselves, would cause neural pruning of the decisive connections which led to that antisocial behaviour. It causes a rewiring of the brain for prosociality during the ‘window of opportunity’.
In the ‘social science’, they’ve tried to argue that spanking causes sociopathy but the genetics show there is a predisposition, so what, pray tell geniuses, is a parent supposed to do if they find their kid lighting fires? How are they supposed to discipline the child they found torturing cats or trying to kill their little sister by pushing her down the stairs? They have no answer for this, because their entire anti-scientific premise rests on All Child Are Innocent Angels Incapable of Wrongdoing, something any parent will tell you is BS. The number of abusive children is rising.
What is the social engineer’s answer to this? Does the parent require less protection, when the child is often below the age of criminal responsibility? One of the expert-given causes for such abuse is “lack of consequences for bad behavior”, what do you think that might mean? As for solutions: “There are no agencies or programs that protect parents from abusive children, adolescents or teenagers other than giving up their Parental Rights to the state they live in.” So it seems the case that if the parents refuse to use physical force altogether, the child might take the newly imbalanced power dynamic (game theory) as carte blanche and abuse the parent. Such sunny optimism as you see with the anti-spanking witch hunts fail to recognize this, despite their supposed stance against all abuse and violence. It irritates their amygdala, you see, making them ignore it. Like a child screaming in a supermarket. They’re That Parent.
If a parenting style fails to apply to all children (and you don’t know who’s pathological until they’ve killed the family cat), it fails and one cannot advise parents to undertake it in good conscience. Children are capable of great evil and not just the sociopathic ones (from ignorance, bad peer influence, genetic bequeath or sheer stupidity). If you ask real parents anecdotally, (bear in mind liberals avoid having children making their opinion dubious since they admit to hating kids in general) they’ll draw a connection between late Gen Y/ early Gen Z and NARCISSISM. Aka part of the Dark Triad. Why weren’t those connections pruned, compared to earlier generations? Many parents would say the anti-spanking initiative, and wouldn’t you know it, that generation is coincidentally the most heavily liberal known to mankind. They respect nothing and feel invincible, literally as if nothing could really harm them? ‘Import rapists? Sure! They would never hurt me!’ It would be a like a cultural version of Toxoplasmosis infection, because they speak from ignorance. Their brains are immature, but that isn’t an excuse, they aren’t insane and know logically right from wrong, and arguably that makes it worse. They follow their feelings knowing it’s wrong, the polar opposite of what the advocates of prohibition say should happen!

It’s widely recognized the rise in child narcissism is due to the Self Esteem Movement, but what caused the SEM? What new behaviours from parents, since it’s novel in children? Non-parenting parents. Genetic parents, who fail to take up the social role.


Source: The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement

I’ll just paste this off wikipedia because I’m lazy.

A study conducted by Jean Decety and colleagues at the University of Chicago demonstrated that subjects with aggressive conduct disorder elicit atypical empathic responses to viewing others in pain.[89] Subjects with conduct disorder were at least as responsive as controls to the pain of others, but unlike controls, subjects with conduct disorder showed strong and specific activation of the amygdala and ventral striatum (areas that enable a general arousing effect of reward), yet impaired activation of the neural regions involved in self-regulation and metacognition (including moral reasoning), in addition to diminished processing between the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex.[89]

Absence of punishment rewards bad behaviour. They don’t learn to control themselves and cannot morally reason, the thing the anti-spanking people rely on as the bulk of their proposition.

What appears to be pathological altruism is in fact a weakened threat recognition system, and surely it’s better to teach a child the meaning of pain and suffering in a controlled environment than wait for it to metastasize in a potentially lethal way? None of the studies, though persuasive, account for these factors. Reasoning with a bad child doesn’t work. Some children are bad, where do they think bad adults come from? They pop into existence at age 18? Why even have clinical child psychology if no intervention could ever have changed them? What are good parents of a bad egg supposed to do? Pray? Cos that’s about as reasonable as ‘reasoning’ with them – humans are not logical animals. If it won’t work on adults (Israel/Palestine, anyone?) it certainly won’t work on a toddler. We have to teach classical logic and formal laws of maths when they’re at school, far too late, the superego/conscience is already formed, so expecting them to get it earlier on or as a baby is frankly retarded. So while I hate to say it, I’m forced to conclude that spanking is justifiable in certain conditions of very bad behaviour (especially criminal) and during the window of life phase time (childhood stage) it might be corrected for. A little bad does us good, in the long term? This is the low time preference view, which is, wouldn’t you know it, the preserve of conservatives. I call it the Eustress Hypothesis.

TLDR: Fear is something you learn and liberals haven’t.

Also, I find it funny liberals don’t believe in IQ unless they’re citing spanking studies, then negligible IQ drops are totally a real thing and a huge deal (unlike IQ drops from smoking pot, which are rounding errors apparently). 5 points of difference for example could be caused by anything, it was raining today so when the kid took the IQ test again he was sad? Education boosts IQ far more than spanking supposedly drops it, so what’s the problem? If we’re playing the IQ maths game? Does it take pointing out the obvious by twisting it the other way to make the faulty reasoning clear? Did they control for parental investment (extraneous variable) or what? No, they did not. This includes reading to them and other at-home education (itself a sign of parental IQ – another confound!). The IQ difference within this study doesn’t even remain over time, in the older age group, the difference is a stonking 2.8 IQ points! Wow! At which point they stopped measuring or failed to report on the data, which isn’t odd… To clue you in on how valid this widely cited dataset is, the guy who conducted it is a sociologist. Not even a child psychologist or anything psychologist (they tend to use different methodologies, different assumptions and much weaker statistics).

According to PC dogma, even yelling isn’t allowed now. So no form of discipline is acceptable to them, the r-types. Why yelling? It causes shame and apparently no child should ever feel shame for anything.

Gee, which political wing hates being ‘shamed’?

Different from guilt, which is too generic and makes them neurotic and indecisive as adults. Like Catholics.

I don’t expect liberals to avoid confirmation bias, we wouldn’t want them to be triggered by facts, would we? However, I expect better from the Alt Right. Quit taking tips on aggression from a non-scientist Canadian philosopher. Quit bothering me with assumptions that his proofs are correct when the internet is right there and you should use it. Topic covered? Can we drop it now?

I don't have anything funny to say about this

Cultural Marxism: the conspiracy within a conspiracy

Do not click: <SEO>

I waited almost a year to go on about this. I wanted to see if anything would come of it. This is going to be as short as I can make it, so yes, I will miss things out. You can add things yourself and link them in the comments. I’m broadening out the topic too, for a laugh. Technically way OT in places but funny with it. Fun with it. Hopefully.
Welcome to The Magical Mystery Tour of Cultural Marxism.

Bravo and good tidings<joke about holes>


Child Molester?
Chief Manager?
Cuck Maestro?
Acronyms can mean many things. The usual meaning for CM online in these times, thanks to gg truthers, is Cultural Marxism. What is Cultural Marxism? It refers to an undemocratic system of political control via media brainwashing. It refers to an undemocratic system of political control via media brainwashing. It refers to an undemocratic system of political control via media brainwashing. Because pop culture never gets stuck in your head, that’s just crazy.

But never throw away your TV because reasons.

Aragorn for president

Why is advertising so expensive, eh? The limited number of channels excuse doesn’t fly anymore.

n.b. This is uncannily similar to the notion of the Cathedral btw: comprised of Academia, Media and Government, who often tend to mimic one another somehow in a harmonizing array of vacuous lies to keep you docile and arguably, falsely conscious.
Hey, if they’re going to mock us….
Despite all the studies on how subliminal messaging is BS yet its brother priming is totally real, and the effect of barrages of propaganda on real populations, somehow this is still considered a conspiracy. In a world where adverts blare over loudspeaker in public and your phone is watching you. As if the sociopaths with power (pick a Poison) were to look at those findings, shrug them off and proceed to do nothing with them. Sounds legit.

If you were to ask 100 people: do you believe in conspiracy theories, most would say No. When pressed, they’d evoke a media image: with an aluminium hat. Hmm. Whereas if you asked: do you believe in abuse of power, the underlying premise of every single conspiracy theory, you’d achieve astronomical amounts of agreement. Same people, same topic, different questions. Different words. It’s almost like the media output shapes our ability to consider certain subjects. Restricts us to talking points from cognitive load. Like a mild version of PTSD, engrained from a young age, we have visceral visual responses (flashbacks) to something we have seen, not in real life, but on a screen.

Aawww yeah, that’s the stuff. Mock me baby, mock me, you can’t satire a satire!

But sitting your kid in front of the TV is good for them, despite that pesky evidence. Kid’s shows never have any subtle political points, memory tactics or adult humour. We freely admit to flashbacks of pleasant things, like beloved cartoons. Remember when…? That reminds me… Who else saw…?

What if the perception is true or proven? huh?

It’s become the new cultural touchstone, above national heritage symbols and stories. It has replaced history. As a friend of mine said: We are all Americans now.

err what wut wtf scared rdjONE OF US. ONE OF US. ONE OF US.

The term CM has slowly permeated into the mainstream via Twitter. So much so the Guardian, far-left right-on rag, had to cover it. This wasn’t a choice, it was a re-action. A decent rebuttal of the BS is here:

If it’s illusory, it begs the question, what’s the harm in discussing it? Like the sociopolitical implications of Elrond’s Rivendell.

The usual ad hominem ensued in the up-top article. You don’t debate AH (rhetoric) with dialectic (logos). That isn’t the way to kill it. You must mock it. I can do both so… fuck it.

You see, every time these words are now spoken, even in jest, the SJWs can link to that article, and remain oblivious to what the theory is about. Think about that – a group obsessed with definitions. So I’m here to fuck their shit up, 9 months later, like the demonic spawn of their critical ideology, since who TF is going to check for feedback on that article this late? Let alone mess up its SEO? We know most of their interns probably studied English, right?

and here we go joker come on

First, note: They keep referring to the ‘conspiracy’ as CM, instead of how it is commonly referred to: The Frankfurt School. Because if they called it that, their readers might think, wait, does that school exist? Did it ever exist? We could easily disprove these obvious hateful bigoted xeno-Nazis!

The title alone is intellectually dishonest. I haven’t seen anyone pick up on that for starters.

This is considered cool for a reason, it's the reaction of a person who can handle their shit
This is why I speak last.

CM is actually a division of The Frankfurt School’s works. A sub-division. Lesser than the whole of their theory.

Visual AIDs. I really wanna get this cited.

Visual AIDs. Made with ecoterrorist Green, Commie Red and Lib Dem yellow.
I really wanna get this cited. The black was being inclusive. It hurts my eyes.

When the thicko Guardian reader would care to look up the term “Frankfurt School building” on image search in rabid anticipation of finding precisely FA, the first hit is…

Looks pretty fucking real to me. Would the Marxists lie to you, Guardian reader? Comrade?
OK. We have you on that count. Batter up!

That doesn’t prove anything! We don’t know who occupied these buildings during that time! 

Thankfully these people liked to brag about their involvement.
Here’s what comes up from the same Marxists’ site under, I shit you not, group photo: 

frankfurt school group photo

Let’s look at the wikipedia page currently headed Cultural Marxism (the subject was almost deleted previously from the entire site but in Reddit uproar was reinstated).

Although sometimes only loosely affiliated, Frankfurt School theorists spoke with a common paradigm in mind, thus sharing the same assumptions and being preoccupied with similar questions.The school’s main figures sought to learn from and synthesize the works of such varied thinkers as Kant, Hegel, Marx,Freud, Weber, and Lukács.

Yet under Early Influences, Marx is clearly listed. Making them Marxists.

“The Institute made major contributions in two areas relating to the possibility of human subjects to be rational, i.e., individuals who could act rationally to take charge of their own society and their own history. The first consisted of social phenomena previously considered in Marxism as part of the “superstructure” or as ideology: personality, family and authority structures (one of the earliest works published bore the title Studies of Authority and the Family), and the realm of aesthetics and mass culture. Studies saw a common concern here in the ability of capitalism to destroy the preconditions of critical, revolutionary political consciousness. This meant arriving at a sophisticated awareness of the depth dimension in which social oppression sustains itself. It also meant the beginning of critical theory‘s recognition of ideology as part of the foundations of social structure.”

And what did they wish to do with that structure, pray tell? Lower down;

“During this period, Frankfurt School critical theory particularly influenced some segments of the left wing and leftist thought, particularly the New Left. …Their critique of technology, totality, teleology and (occasionally) civilization is an influence on anarcho-primitivism. Their work also heavily influenced intellectual discourse on popular culture and scholarly popular culture studies.”

And they tried the Stalinist tactic of dismissing criticism by calling their opponents crazy: “criticized the Frankfurt School’s initial tendencies towards “automatically” rejecting opposing political criticisms on “psychiatric” grounds:” If you see anything wrong with this in Government-funded academia, I guess you’re a crazy conspiracy nutjob. As if to describe all champagne socialists in one fell swoop, the ‘academics’ were said to suffer from “bourgeois idealism” by people who knew what the hell they were talking about.
We’d never see anything like that today:

At the bottom, way down the page, it tries to be balanced;

“A 21st-century conspiracy theory regards the Frankfurt School as the origin of a contemporary movement in the political left to destroy western culture, referred to as “Cultural Marxism” by theory proponents.[51][52] It advocates the idea that multiculturalism and political correctness are products of critical theory, which originated with the Frankfurt School.”

But…. you just said………..all that?

I've been waiting ages to use this one, it's so apt to academics

These people made Marxist theory their life’s work, publishing essays and books (look those up separately, it was a whole school after all I can’t cover that much) and we’re supposed to believe they aren’t Communist? Riiiight. What else connected them?
Their only alternate connection appears to be their Jewish religion, as others have pointed out, “predominantly German Jews”. Hey, here’s a book about it by some unknown publisher nobody respects: and the blurb;

The history of the Frankfurt School cannot be fully told without examining the relationships of Critical Theorists to their Jewish family backgrounds. Jewish matters had significant effects on key figures in the Frankfurt School, including Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Erich Fromm, Leo Lowenthal and Herbert Marcuse. At some points, their Jewish family backgrounds clarify their life paths; at others, these backgrounds help to explain why the leaders of the School stressed the significance of antisemitism. In the post-Second World War era, the differing relationships of Critical Theorists to their Jewish origins illuminate their distinctive stances toward Israel. This book investigates how the Jewish backgrounds of major Critical Theorists, and the ways in which they related to their origins, impacted upon their work, the history of the Frankfurt School, and differences that emerged among them over time.

Why might this concern people? It isn’t as if they wish to control us or cause us harm in our homeland. After all, we wouldn’t dream of bossing around Israel or hurting their way of life. Take it away, the adroitly named Barbara Spectre!

Narrator: She believes Jews have an important role to play in a country undergoing profound change.
BS: I think there’s a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned to be multicultural. And I think we’re gonna be part of the throes of that, of that transformation, which must take place, Europe is not gonna be (smiles) the monolithic, uh, uh, societies that they once were in the last century. (brief cut) Jews are gonna be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make, they are now going into a multicultural mode – and Jews will be resented because of our leading role (nose in the air) but without that leading role and without that transformation Europe will not survive. (a small nod of approval, as camera cuts)

You know you can tell a lot about a person’s inner world by their body language. Micro-expressions in particular. When I said nose in the air

Face of a leader.

Lest you think I’m being unfair, many non-Jews are supporting this goal to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity” with multiculturalism and mass immigration. source In Europe only, of course. The rest of the world doesn’t require ‘enrichment’ for some strange reason.

There are many accusations along the lines of a ‘Master Race’ levied at Jews (calling yourselves the Chosen People doesn’t help) but I’m sure the passages stating for example, that non-Jews aren’t human? I’m sure that sort of thing is just a misunderstanding, a mistranslation: “There are those who infer from these passages that the Talmud considers gentiles to be sub-human. After all, if the Talmud says that gentiles are not called man they must be considered sub-human” that does seem rather logical though. Given the context of the Chosen People bit? It isn’t as if they want to lead us like a flock of sheep, wherever did you get that idea?

Marx himself heard so little on the front of Jews in academia that he wrote this:
That’s right, the so-called Jewish Question is a Marxist invention! It’s so post-modern! We may only wonder at what he’d have had to say to the German Jews of the Frankfurt School.

“…You Jews are egoists if you demand a special emancipation for yourselves as Jews. As Germans, you ought to work for the political emancipation of Germany, and as human beings, for the emancipation of mankind, and you should feel the particular kind of your oppression and your shame not as an exception to the rule, but on the contrary as a confirmation of the rule….”

On the World Socialist Website, they quote;

“What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world?” Marx asks. “Usury. What is his worldly god? Money…. What is the foundation of the Jew in this world? Practical necessity, private advantage…. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.”

In fact, Marx seems to have been quite racially aware, by looking for real explanations in race itself: He wouldn’t last five minutes among his own academics.

It is ironic that the most acceptable white male in the curriculum for “diversity” on many campuses is Karl Marx, a world-class bigot. At one time, Marx referred to a Creole man who married his niece as a “gorilla offspring.”

Imagine the letters if he’d been pen-pals with Che G.
Other Marx/Engels quotes are to be found here, and they are well-sourced from the materials open to correction.
Bear in mind, we see many example of Marxist thought in everyday language. Objectification, for instance, is a Marxist idea borrowed by feminism. Originally called reification, it encompasses the process of a subject becoming an object.

Let’s do a reality check here.
Are the academic essays, books and theories imaginary?
The building is real.
The people are real.
Their written works (whatever their value) do exist.
Their influence is certainly real or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
OT: The European Jewish Fund is certainly real (Spectre’s sponsors in the video), as they go about “reinforcing Jews’ cultural pride and counteracting assimilation. The EJF actively fights xenophobia, antisemitism and racial discrimination”
Have there been any proofs of pop culture propaganda? I don’t mean the Red Scare.

“But what is most important in the music of the Gang of Four, and those groups who share their approach, is that for the first time since Brecht’s plays received wide attention in the 1920s, we are seeing a conscious intervention by socialists to fuse advanced Marxist theory with widely popular culture.
“All such Marxists fail to see that potential exists to channel such expressions in a progressive direction.”

Point scored, I think.

Why multiculturalism, you ask? Why is that a social policy weapon? It’s a polite term for multi-racialism. It oppresses the working class (in revenge for not rising up before, the reason the school was founded) by driving down wages, living standards and outnumbers them for State assistance a la Cloward-Piven Strategy. Divide and conquer. 

Historically, they thought this would keep the host culture from turning on them, too busy with the others.

Implicit within this clear violation of the freedom of association is the forced miscegenation intended to outbreed regular white people from existence in those countries, their native homelands (again, only Europe), with adverts everywhere you look in promotion of mixed races as superior to all others (rooted in the dangerous myth of Hybrid Vigour).
Ask yourself: Isn’t this explicitly anti-white stuff all… a bit racist? Specifically all the anti-white part?

Even when the Guardian encourages whiteface? Nothing twinges? Nothing seems a tad wrong?

Don’t look up the UN definition of genocide and its implications (wiping out any race in their homeland):

Public incitement of such genocide is also a crime.

Could this be Exhibit A at your trial for treason?

Moving on, Standpoint theory is a post-modern theory also used in feminism (this is a lot of coincidence) to lend credence to the opinion that minorities have the most or only valid perspectives, their word is always true (as their experience is never false) and a literal majority of people are probably wrong, because the density of their sheer numbers blind them with power or some vague excuse like ‘privilege’. It’s as silly as Magic Dirt and completely undemocratic, as a point of fact, it’s anti-democracy. Whenever you see these people trying something like the Progressive Stack and banging on like their opinions are important and can never be questioned because of what they were born, you see Standpoint Theory in action. It’s their pass to everything. They can do no wrong. The theory is also complete tosh. Applying it to Africa aka the most densely populated continent, white Africans would have more legitimate opinions on the structure of Government. They aren’t willing to apply this theory against anyone other than white, straight normal people who just want to be left alone by this PC stuff. Ironically, white people are a global minority, making them the most important people if we apply it …fairly. It gives rise to infographics like this.

[they took it down, fuck’s sake…] But whites are a minority!

White people are literally a minority, get over it SJWs:

It’s alright to exist, yes. To continue to live. In peace.


When name-calling is all you’ve got, you’ve lost the argument.

Critical theory (also used in feminism) is a similarly flawless means of derailing and dissembling a possibly productive conversation. It is defined in practice by never listening to evidence and never offering a solution to the social problems, and they’re always social problems (never quantifiable). ALL IT DOES IS COMPLAIN. It’s a license to nag you under the guise of the credentialism’s overeducated moral authority.
The only solution to social problems on the Left? Government spending! Despite national debt.

Austerity is a joke.

Let’s go with the Frankfurt School theory for a second. HYPOTHETICALLY.
How would you hide it?

Cultural as this consolidation of ideological power is, it requires cultural defense of itself. As it is undemocratic (so the idea goes) it must hide this institutionalized power structure from the populace by cultural denial. Deny or die. In the same way it suppresses other ideas. Ideally, it should blame its enemies for everything evil in the world. It must find a scapegoat for the hegemony, something easily recognizable as cultural shorthand for evil, especially when those people are dead and can’t argue or sue. If they fail to deny any truth to the matter, the whole house of cards will collapse. Elsewhere, there must be a dumbing down of culture, to the lowest common denominator.
Hm, what does the media see as shorthand for evil? We know from lab experiments that uniform carries a number of social role implications, which uniform could possibly become the trope for unquestionable evil baddie?

Naturally, if you repeat these cultural memes enough, you will run out of novelty. After a few decades. It will seem as if the main peddlers of this media are running out of original ideas. Hey, you could even make a meme out of it. Parodies and gags. Trope inversions. Make it self-aware. That’ll work for a while. However, you couldn’t possibly do anything about it, because that would be off-message. You must stick to the Party Line. The official Narrative. The Politically Correct version of the truth in this subjective postmodern reality, where all perspectives are theoretically true simultaneously. Don’t let them take that to the logical conclusion and side with your diametric enemies, better to outgroup them for the crime of… rejecting the outgroup? …What does the PC line do, exactly? Why follow it? Why must we? What does it accomplish for us? Who decided and told us to? Where does it even come from? We must never ask this question, Comrade. Sign this petition. Go to this demo. Buy this t-shirt. What question? There is no question, I thought we all agreed?

After all, it’s called Public Relations, not Public Information.

Gee, that Guardian article is looking like a real shoot in the foot, ain’t it?

this is awkward

It might as well have been titled;

Cultural Marxism: a uniting theory to explain why left-wingers love to play victim

honestly subtitled;

Deny this because it’s stupid and lies but also dangerous enough to us somehow to cover in the first place and we need rhetorical excuses, enclosed.

You know the easiest way you can tell you’re being brainwashed? [aside from blatant over-reliance on logical fallacies]

When the person talking to you tells you to never look up the other side. You must never go there, Simba. Never read their materials. Never listen to their arguments. Close your ears, Sweet Summer Child, because you have no mind of your own and your uncritical thinking abilities will be overwhelmed by their Satanic silvertongue! We’d never hide anything from you! We love you! We’re all about the love! Gee, this is beginning to sound like a church sermon.

I may appear smug, in fact that's just the sound of maths rushing through my mind

Frankfurt School Denialists, continue. The Streisand Effect means all your work are belong to us.


This requires a hegemony of culture to work – what would this look like? Liberal privilege in academia, an overwhelming bias in the humanities and social research, upon which government policy is based? Media suppression of conservative ideas, even in comedy, as hateful? How many right-wing comedians are there to left, as a ratio? The Government supporting public sector workers in their partisan causes e.g. SWP?

Naturally, we’d never see this type of propaganda launched at children, in media aimed at children, say, in comics. That would really screw them when it comes to the people saying they’re undemocratic, by targeting future voters and influencing them before critical thinking kicks in.communismcomicWe’d never see the Modern Left target comics. Never at all:
Actual quote: “Europe without Britain is incomplete. Like a pizza without tomato sauce.” – Captain Euro, source How am I supposed to parody that? 
In light of recent events, this one is my fave:
In the Long March Through the Institutions, there was an emphasis on New = Good, which is very convenient when you’re the new kid on the scene. When the right wing were dominant in these fields (and we got many classics out of it) they said to them ‘be open’ as the appeal to get their ideas in, and once they were out of power they seemed to dance with joy about how ‘out’ those notions were and remain. It’s disturbing how they fully believe they have an exclusive claim to moral authority imparted by this power and taxpayer cash. The rise of obstructive fascism (a left-wing invention uniting Stalin up to the National Socialists) currently uses suppression techniques at Universities that are beginning to be used for in-fighting (such as TERFs vs. other feminists) as the Left eats itself. They’re also taking steps of questionable legality by ‘no-platform’-ing a public space, a Government-funded public institution. Rules for Radicals would condone these type of acts. There are extremist factions wishing for trouble, like the UAF, hoping their Communist utopia will rise from the ashes. I haven’t seen them comment on Holodomor.

 uafaresearch “How problematical that goal…”
The linguistic use of domination-suppression techniques can be expert by CMs, and they use the excuse of teaching how to avoid it to simply… teach it: As reliable as crying wolf and crocodile tears when you doubt their sob story.
There’s the Diamond technique for swaying opinion at public gatherings without public consensus, because what democracy?
The ‘spiral of silence’ and ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of expression (look them up yourself) exert effects too.
What’s all this mean combined? Self-censorship is the goal, if they can get you to lie to yourself, it’s over and they can gain control over personal, private relationships with it. We see this already with various judgements of personal relationships beginning with sexuality and now moving into preference. Sexual tastes are immutable by their doctrines (LGB+) yet men are being shamed for rejecting fat women (fat acceptance) and white men for finding non-white women less desirable: Slowly it creeps and intrudes further and further into the most intimate parts of our life. Who do these people think they are? No wonder there’s a pushback forming to the Little Hitlers. Stay out of our bedrooms, you nutjobs.
Subverting democracy (by direct action and monstering mobs) like this are within the range of tactics admissable in a culture war.
Recall, Marx himself said “the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terrorism.” The technological censorship comprises partisan community guidelines, surveillance, monitoring and includes Twitter block lists – and suddenly the user base of normal people (non-SJWs) is leaving in droves.
The very phrase “Political Correctness” is no longer PC, Kosher or ‘polite’ – because people are asking too many questions about it. The historical revisionism into an identity politics lens is blatantly dishonest i.e. (group) in (time period) rather than studying (time period). In context, demographic division is an IRL distraction from these moderated influences over decades, drip-fed through the media machine every day like soap operas and we usually pay them to do it. They say “___ is a myth” in reply as if their mere pronouncements ended all debate, as insanity only need occur once (based on cognitive dissonance) before it becomes permanent. If you ignore the reality of a situation once, that’s it. If you take up the doublethink or crimestop or Narrative, they’ve won. You aren’t questioning them because you gave them the authority of acceptable thoughts they presumed to have. And people wonder why print is dying and Alternative Media is picking up….
There is the feminist link to Communism and overlap naturally:
Social Justice (a recent branch of feminism) also takes its origins from Communism and its torrid history:
The post-war economy needed more workers, including women, to carry on growth patterns (and suppress average wages by sudden booms in supply) and telling women it was more fun to work than stay home contributed to the novelty of low happiness scores ever since:
The active propaganda of polls (see: groupthink, minority influence, Asch’s Lines etc) is leading to a sharp disconnect between what we see predicted pre-GE and the real result (see the past two General Elections in the UK). The democratic mandate for the unions and other Reds or their lackeys to call themselves the instrument of the People has dissipated with it. Given their hegemony, we see them neutrally deride this as a Rise of the Right.
Who came up with ‘culture war’? KulturkampfIt’s as German as the Frankfurt School academics. Then why is it false to discuss the notion, according to CM denialists? It predates the place by some decades. If it isn’t real, why is their fear of the topic very real?
In this century, most Marxists are middle class Champagne socialists waiting for Mumsy and Daddy to snuff it so they can collect the inheritance they believe is evil when right-wingers claim it (in all forms, including cultural inheritance) and the common suspects pushing a CM Narrative are rarely exceptions to this rule. As quoted above, they are idealists – what they expect is unrealistic. As for family money, their Boomers parents have probably spent it all regardless, going by the trends I covered for excessive debt and cruising.
It’s funny they push a Hollywood image of battle, good vs. evil despite rejecting religion, as Horseshoe theory in the face of moral relativism has produced the philosophically novel outcome: nobody is evil. They’ll blame anyone but the human being who did the thing. It was society! It was his background! He was forced! The agent? Barely a whisper. Where were the feminists after Rotherham came out? Councils and other governmental bodies are shredding abuse documentation to prevent this embarrassment again, the feminists don’t give a shit about children or girls. Sacrifices for the Narrative. Ignore the MAO genes’ link to aggression and other behavioral genetics coming out.
As leaps into subjects like a unified crime theory have posited, r/K selection explains much of this partisan behaviour; evolutionary theories make liars uneasy because it’s hard to argue with Darwin or testable hypotheses without seeming like an anti-science bigot. There is also suppression of social studies that make Conservatives look good or skewing of results (what hegemony?) in favour of the Left wing when covered by MSM e.g.:

Terrified of true opposition as they are (even in the form of Trump) they are already falling back on Godwin’s Law and crying Nazi simply for being the opposition to the dominant Narrative. Without real opposition, what is the point of elections again? Which means they lose the argument (the lesser known meaning of Godwin’s Law).

If we assume this were true, it begs questions. Doesn’t brainwashing work? How many musicians were Communist again? What about the Holodomor, worse statistically than any fanciful evaluation of the Holocaust? Why don’t these cultural outlets ever turn on the Left? Why don’t we use other figures like Stalin too? No enemies to the Left? They gloat about Overton Window shifts like gay marriage (the we’ve won/we’re winning articles like they’re trying to convince themselves laws can’t be repealed) but it’s never enough (‘there is more work to be done’ robots). It’s bizarre to watch from outside the media bubble. I guess from that Far Left, everyone else does look like a Nazi by comparison?

As Carlin said, we’re ‘circling the drain’ of their BS, the pendulum is swinging rightward overdue. They understand and acknowledge the Slippery Slope, it isn’t a political fallacy, especially when applied to moral trends (‘gay marriage’ polls taken in urban areas, anyone?) or any of the ‘changing attitudes’ that always seem to work in the Prog’s direction. We must be imagining it.

They forsake quality to chase equality. They’ll never get it, it would be as futile as stumping tall people and giving short people stilts. The result is ridiculous and forced.

Irony is a hip response to PC. We might follow it in public, because we don’t believe it. The act of submission becomes one of rebellion. An object of mockery ceases to be an object of fear. Trust nothing from the machine and it loses power. This is building.


You can deny some of this, but you can’t deny all of it.

What does this all mean?


I don’t know. You don’t either. I guess we’re equal.

snort lol laugh haha hmph derision yeah duh really uhuh mhmm princess bride

Why else would the internet be talking about it, dipshit?
Since when do we agree on anything?

p.s. Guardian, cite me IRL. Come at me ho.

Proof the Left’s posturing on “inequality” is a lie

Gee, what a shocker. If people are allowed to enjoy the rewards that accrue from serving the needs of others in the marketplace, they’ll have more incentive to be productive. That sounds like a good system, particularly compared to places where success is penalized.

So, capitalism works. Just read the whole thing.

In other news, social sciences are left-wing biased; (over 90% liberal researchers, ya think???)

Crap article, good links.

Great series, actually;

4/5 needs moar data