Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:25, 6 January 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Misplaced Pages policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Misplaced Pages are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

A warning about certain sources: There are two sources on the subject of "Cultural Marxism" that represent a citogenesis or circular reporting risk to Misplaced Pages as they plagiarize verbatim directly from an outdated draft that came from Misplaced Pages, which can be found here (2006 revision here). The sources are N.D. Arora's Political Science for Civil Services Main Examination (2013) and A.S. Kharbe's English Language And Literary Criticism (2009); both are from publishers located in New Delhi and should be avoided to prevent a citogenesis incident.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Discrimination This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Second-paragraph lead summary.

I don't disagree that the second paragraph of the lead shouldn't focus exclusively on Braun; but we do need a paragraph focused on the fundamentally inaccurate and invented nature of the conspiracy theory as described by reliable sources, since that makes up basically the entire body and almost all reliable coverage. Other sources from the body that I would summarize in that lead paragraph are Martin Jay ("demagogic propaganda") and Matthew Feldman (especially describing it as a reiteration of the Nazi-era charge of "Cultural Bolshevism"); Andrew Woods and Samuel Moyn describing it as an antisemitic; Jérôme Jamin describing it as something invented by American ultraconservatives after the fall of the Berlin Wall to replace the "red menace" of communism and as a way for racist authors to avoid racist statements, and probably a few others. These can reasonably be summarized into a paragraph in the lead summarizing the conspiracy theory's fundamental focus as described by the highest quality sources in order to avoid putting so much weight on Braun. (Of course, this would be in addition to Braun, not excluding her, though we'd probably summarize her much more briefly.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of this, but I do think that putting together a better "Scholarly analysis" section first, then editing the Lede, would be less likely to produce SYNTH than trying to edit this on the Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

But most of the things I mentioned are already in the body in more appropriate sections. Are you suggesting we pull all the analysis out of each section (leaving much of the article just a reiteration of the conspiracy theory in the words of the people promoting it?) Or are you suggesting we duplicate all the existing analysis, which comprises most of the article, into a second section? My point is that there's already supposed to be a part of an article that summarizes all the scholarly analysis in the article, and that is the lead, since it summarizes the article and most of the article should already be scholarly analysis. We could add headers to individual sections summarizing them, perhaps but - what do you see the "origins of the conspiracy theory" and "aspects of the conspiracy theory" sections containing, in your proposed rewrite? Since it feels like the only source we're having trouble placing is Braun, rather than drastically restructuring the article to move all the scholarly analysis to one section, I think it would make more sense to create a subsection in "aspects of the conspiracy theory" for "Relationship to the Frankfurt School" or the like, and put Braun there. --Aquillion (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I do not think we should pull all the analysis out of each section (leaving much of the article just a reiteration of the conspiracy theory in the words of the people promoting it?) For one thing, we should be using PRIMARY sources as little as possible, and sourcing descriptive claims from secondary sources. Secondly, I am distinguishing between "high level" analysis dealing with the CT as a whole, and more thick description or mid-level analysis that is more specific to the CT's aims, typical moves, tropes etc. To me this distinction seems quite clear, and that the article would be less of a dog's breakfast if we tried to maintain such a distinction - both the "origins" and the "aspects" can be described without high-level analysis, and they mostly are already.

And I really do think SYNTH can better be avoided by making the distinction I'm talking about and writing a new section than by editors performing their own high-level summary, especially in this politically charged topic.

It might be possible to separate the high level analysis into "origins" and "aspects", but I'm not sure how much credence I'd give that distinction, to be honest. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it is important to capture the current consensus (on WP, which I disagree with) that the Conspiracy Theory is anti-semitic. Further I think we should include an up-front indication that the Conspiracy Theory is widely refuted by Academia. Consequently I am proposing the following language for the first two lead paragraphs:

Paragraph 1: Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory with strong ties to anti-semitic and far-right groups which claim that Western Marxism is the basis for an on-going academic and intellectual conspiracy to subvert Western Culture. Conspiracists claim that Marxist theorists and Frankfurt school intellectuals are subverting western society with a culture war intent on undermining Christian values and traditionalist conservatism. They further claim that conspirators work to promote the cultural liberal values of the 1960s counterculture, that multiculturalism, progressive politics and identity politics are part of the conspiracy, and that political correctness was created by critical theory.

Paragraph 2: The conspiracy theory originated in the United States in the early 1990s and though widely-debunked by academia as steeped in implicit racism, anti-semitic tropes, and misinformation, the conspiracy theory is nevertheless a frequent talking point of alt-right, far-right and neo-nazi groups. 47.197.54.139 (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a conspiracy theory which is false, or a hoax. This theory is refuted by many reliable sources, not just academia, so Misplaced Pages treats it as wrong. The article must be based on reliable sources. Moving "widely-debunked" to the second paragraph would be missing the point. This theory is covered by reliable sources exclusively because it's a conspiracy theory. The theory does not merely have strong ties to antisemitic groups, it is antisemitic. Some groups which push this theory are not inherently antisemitic, but the theory itself is an almost naked antisemitic canard. Since pretty much everything proposed by this conspiracy theory is wrong, or at least strongly contested by more qualified sources, it would be a bad mistake to present it on its own terms. Per WP:FRINGE, we need to spell-out that this theory is wrong. We cannot presume that readers who only browse the first paragraph will realize just how batshit this theory is on its own merits. Sources are clear, and so we should be clear as well.

As an additional note, the paragraph 2 proposal is editorializing. Nevertheless is an editorializing term which implies that it is somehow unexpected that "alt-right, far-right and neo-nazi groups" would push an antisemitic conspiracy theory. It's completely expected. alt-right, far-right and neo-nazi groups are not known for their academic rigor, they are known for antisemitic conspiracy theories. Grayfell (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"With strong ties to anti-Semitic and far-right groups" is weasel-wording, because it doesn't specify what those ties are. The tie is that the theory is anti-Semitic, so that is what we should say. It's not a consensus on WP, it's the consensus in reliable sources. We should not argue about the merits of the conspiracy theory, but about how to accurately report how it is perceived in reliable sources. If they say it's true, the article should say it's true, if they say it's an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, that's what the article should say. TFD (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Your suggested language just doesn't read properly.. This is an article on a conspiracy theory. It is an abstraction that does not hold any political or other beliefs. Only the behaviors and actions of its adherents can be anti-semitic. Also it's not weasel-wording to summarize. I've suggested before that we explore those ties in greater depth in an anti-semitism section. This objection to creating a clean separation between the theory and it's adherant appears to be a desire to enforce a POV phrasing that makes using the phrase "Cultural Marxism" verboten, to make it synonymous with holding anti-semitic beliefs. It's a certainty that there are those who adhere to it who hold no such beliefs, and a couple already-referenced source make mention of that, so such a treatment of the subject would be wrong. Let's avoid speaking from a place of personal bias and political agenda and help write a neutral article. I think we strike a good balance by calling it out as rhetorical favorite of anti-semites and neo-nazis. We are not, after all, proposing to explore any other usage. 47.197.54.139 (talk) 05:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

IP, it has already been pointed out to you repeatedly (mostly in the section titled Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory#Anti-semitism as an Essential Quality - which sounds a lot like an undergraduate essay about Aquinas) that Anti-semitism is not always a term labeling conscious beliefs; it is also an appropriate label for unconscious motives, and also for the results of actions that were not necessarily based on anti-semitic motives. Think of that last point as parallel to Systemic racism and maybe you will get it. By insisting that every use of the term "anti-semitic" relate to "beliefs", you are running counter to the way the reliable sources use the term and thereby engaging in STRAWMAN argumentation, which is not recommended on Misplaced Pages. Newimpartial (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia not an essay "debunking" topics. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding my comment back in after user Greyfell reverted it. See their talk page for other examples of people complaining about biased reverts wherever "antisemitism" is at issue. I think it's important for editors of this article to understand the impact of their behaviors. My original reply to Emir is follows:

It's reasonable to think that way. However, nothing short of a hit piece vilifying this topic and anyone who may have the temerity to address it in a neutral way is accepted here. You see this all over WP with far-left activists using "anti-semitic" to stigmatize subject matter that calls into question progressive ideology. The Co-Founder of Misplaced Pages has declared NPOV "dead" because of agenda-ridden tripe like that. Imagine asserting "anti-semitism" as a descriptor for "unconscious motives" as mentioned above! Literally using Critical Theory as the framework to attack criticism of Critical Theory. The absurd disregard for NPOV in this article is being defended as right and necessary. That's not what makes an encyclopedia, it's propaganda. In my recent experience with this article, should you succeed in pointing out the implicit bias in phrasing here, you will be inundated with personal attacks, harassment, and appeals to the authority of academia. All the while you may anticipate the far-left bias to manifest as precious promotion of Fringe SELF-STYLED radical left academic activists as "expert sources". At the same you can anticipate the fact that academic publishing is the purview of wildly left-leaning University professors to be utterly ignored. Further, should you present a dissenting opinion, any source which contradicts the approved leftist narratives will be decried as "Fringe" or "Questionable" because it is not in a peer-reviewed, leftist-currated journal. It's all so tiresome. I'm here to build an encyclopedia. They are here to control a narrative.47.197.54.139 (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"The absurd disregard for NPOV in this article is being defended as right and necessary." I doubt that your approach adheres to NPOV. Per Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view:" While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Misplaced Pages policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." Those "leftist currated journals which you reject represent academic scholarship. Dimadick (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

IP, the concept of "unconscious motives" isn't specific to Critical theory; it is a basic psychological concept. And as Consolidated (band) once so wisely said, "crusading rap guys are a real downer". Maybe it's time to let the windmills be. As I have said before, you might be more comfortable contributing to some other user-generated encyclopedia, where you can claim. that academic publishing is the purview of wildly left-leaning University professors without coming across as a conspiracy theorist yourself. In fact, I sense a Global warming conspiracy theory coming on. Newimpartial (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed theories can be anti-Semitic and can express beliefs or political views. TFD (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe they can be. But this one isn't. This conspiracy theory has nothing to do with Jewish people. Aside from sources already proved to be unreliable and radical leftist FRINGE no one out there is really claiming this Conspiracy Theory is intended to defame Jewish people. Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory is about MARXISM. So unless you are making the extraordinary claim that all Marxists are Jewish, this whole anti-semitism thing is an anti-conservative "canard." In any case I'm adding this link back. Here is the definitive "antisemitism" definition from the organization most qualified to describe it (ADL): https://www.adl.org/anti-semitism There's no way starting from that definition that you can label this Conspiravy Theory antisemitic.47.197.54.139 (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"Aside from sources already proved to be unreliable and radical leftist FRINGE" You have not actually proved anything of the sort. You have just made unsubstantiated accusations to dismiss sources that you disagree with. That you do not like what they say does not make them unreliable. Dimadick (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, IP, please read WP:OR and stop doing it. Newimpartial (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

What you call "radical leftist FRINGE" is what Misplaced Pages calls reliable sources. I'll assume good faith that you have a reason for saying that the ADL is most qualified to define anti-Semitism. However note that they classify the term cultural Marxism as a "lean negative" label used against Jews. The ADL uses it as a keyword in identifying anti-Semitic postings on social media. Indeed I do not identify Jews with Marxism, which is why I voted to delete Jews and Communism at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination). The identification of Jews and Communists is however a popular view on the Right, it's called Jewish Bolshevism and is the foundation of the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting read regarding the conspiracies use among far-right pundits in Australia

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504630.2020.1787822?scroll=top&needAccess=true Bacondrum (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Quotation needed template

On my reading of relevant guidelines, the appropriate context for requesting quotation is if the source is in another language. I don't understand why Emir of Misplaced Pages is going around adding the quotation needed template to random English language citations. Is there a reason to do this or is this just disruptive editing? Bacondrum (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

What are these guidelines, because the page you linked literally says "This is used to request a direct quote from the cited source, so that it may be verified that the source can verify the statement or that the editor has interpreted the source correctly." Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you please undo my self revert to restore my edits? Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Could you not send me the edit warring template again. This is beginning to seem like disruptive editing. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No, seems disruptive to me, littering the article with "quotation needed" templates. The sources are in English, you can read. If there's a particular issue with a source you can discuss it here. Don't edit war. Bacondrum (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

An editor is free to put in quotation needed templates. The template says ""This is used to request a direct quote from the cited source, so that it may be verified that the source can verify the statement or that the editor has interpreted the source correctly.", it does not say it can't be used on a source that is English. What seems disruptive is using a deceptive edit summary saying " I see no reason all these citations need quotes", when you are making edits other than just removing those tags. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you seriously just accuse me of edit warring again when you undid my self-revert, even though I came here to discuss? Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that was a self revert, restored everything except the excess quotation needed templates. This is why edit warring is a problem, things get messy. I can't see why all those quotation needed templates are warranted. Why not just add the quotes if you think quotes are needed? Bacondrum (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I mixed up the tags. It looks like the page had been reorganised a bit since my last edit. I have corrected my self and put the the failed verification and better source needed tags. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Cool, sorry for the misunderstanding. Bacondrum (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Now I just need to figure out where the quotes were needed or if that is all fixed now. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I hope we are clear that the "quotation needed" template was not the right one in these cases. As far as the Braune and Kesvani sources are concerned, the Braune shouldn't be cited where it stands in Origins, and I suspect it arrived there out of precious slice and dicing of material characterizing the CT. Meanwhile, I understand that Kesvani is in the "Voices" section and might be understood as an op-ed; however, all the citation is actually doing is pointing to two readily verified primary sources that document what the sentence is saying; I would make the argument that in such an instance it is more elegant to cite the analysis that lends weight to these sources rather than the primary sources themselves, but the statement they are supporting seems quite obviously to have been backed up by this evidence in toto. In general I think editors have a tendency to read op-ed sources without great consistency, regarding them as reliable when the editor agrees with statements in the op-ed and as unreliable when they disagree. In this instance Kesvani is pointing to clear evidence while lending it weight, and I don't think the article is relying on Kesvani's expertise in particular. Newimpartial (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The Times and The Spectator

So, User:Bacondrum, I do disagree with the removal of this material here, here and here. Your attempt to make the article "more discerning" actually makes it considerably more US-centric. The fact that major broadsheets in the UK have elaborated the CT within their national context is not "trivial", as you suggest in your edit summaries. Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Newimpartial on both comments. Just saying. Davide King (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Those claims are undue, IMO. A social commentator hardly anyone has ever heard of saying this "If I were a cultural Marxist, I would think about giving up" is trivia...I've certainly never heard of the fellow and its a throw away comment in an op ed - we can't list every comment by every opinions writer that mentions the conspiracy theory. We should focus on the most notable proponents, the most prominent proponents and the loudest proponents...those who really carry on about it. Also, the sourcing is poor or simply does not back the claim. The first claim about The Times is not backed by the source at all (I searched the entire paper, The Times does not receive a single mention), so that one must go, obviously. The second is a fleeting mention in a op-ed sourced to an opinions piece...not lede worthy, that's for sure - I'm up for discussing it in the body, though I think it's undue in the body too, even with better sourcing, it'd be undue IMO. With Tim Montgomerie the same applies, he's not a significant figure in the debate, its a throw away comment in a throw away opinions piece in a throw away paper, sourced from a much better paper, but its an opinions piece. You guys have always been fair and reasonable editors in my experience, I hope you can see my intent is purely about due weight and reliable sources. We simply can't make a list of every person who ever used the term. Bacondrum (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

First we cannot use opinion pieces as reliable sources. The phrasing anyway is misleading. The Times does not promote conspiracy theories, like other mainstream publications, they publish a broad range of opinion pieces including those by right-wingers. We don't say that they promote socialism for example just because they also publish opinion pieces by socialists. It's also unfair to single out publications. TFD (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, spot on. Then there's also a question of undue weight. I agree, a paper publishing an editorial does not mean they are advocating the writers position. And none of this meets the standard for sourcing or due weight. Bacondrum (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, The Four Deuces, I hear you. I do not hold strong views on the matter either way, but I would like to hear back from Newimpartial from more input; if they have changed their mind, then there is no longer an issue or dispute. Perhaps it may be removed from the body, but the two individuals may be re-added. Or perhaps, if there are reliable sources discussing this, we may add a sentence discussing how some on the right have turn the cospiracy theory into the mainstream, at least on the right, and that it is no longer relageted to the far-right fringe; this does not imply that it is no longer far-right or antisemitic as the various IPs and users above argued, it just means that a far-right and antisemitic conspiracy theory has been mainstreamed by and on the right and is held by individuals that may not be personally far-right or antisemitic but that, whether they realise it or not, believe in the conspiracy theory. Davide King (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

We are not here to collate some kind of black list of those who espouse the conspiracy theory, a great many people have espoused it. They must be due, those two and their comments are not even close to being due, IMO. Nor are we here to analyze the motivations of people who espouse the theory, we are here to write a nuetrally worded encyclopedic article on the subject. As for "Or perhaps, if there are reliable sources discussing this, we may add a sentence..." Editors should read reliable sources and let the reliable source lead what you write, editors shouldn't be coming up with a position then seeking out sources to affirm that position. Bacondrum (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, where did I argue for a "black list" of those who espouse the conspiracy theory? We should only list those widely discussed in reliable sources and perhaps add move to the body the ones reported by green sources such as this case. Since you asked sources, we have "How the 'cultural Marxism' hoax began, and why it's spreading into the mainstream" by David Neiwert, author of Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump; and "'Cultural Marxism': The Mainstreaming of a Nazi Trope" by Ari Paul, who has covered politics for The Nation, The Guardian, Jacobin, The Forward and In These Times, among other news outlets; both of which are referenced by Joan Braune. We also have "Is 'cultural Marxism' really taking over universities? I crunched some numbers to find out", already in body, by Matthew Sharpe, Associate Professor in Philosophy at Deakin University, stating that "he term 'cultural Marxism' moved into the media mainstream around 2016, when psychologist Jordan Peterson was protesting a Canadian bill prohibiting discrimination based on gender. Peterson blamed cultural Marxism for phenomena like the movement to respect gender-neutral pronouns which, in his view, undermines freedom of speech." Honestly, I have not been surprised at all by the IPs and other users' comments lamenting that "Cultural Marxism" is somehow not a far-right and antisemitic conspiracy theory as it has been disseminated by mainstream media. Those sources referenced by Baune try to explain this. I also think that both you and Newimpartial gave valid arguments and rationales, albeit arguing in opposite directions, so I hope they and other users can reply you back and we get more input for some consensus. Davide King (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi David sorry if I came across as accusing you of arguing for a "black list". It was more a general comment on listing people who have espoused the conspiracy theory, that we need to be discerning and only add really notable instances and promoters. I was really trying to say we are not here to list offenders or expose anyone. Bacondrum (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, cultural marxism moved into the media mainstream the same way that climate change denial did: through motivated reasoning by grifters. Being part of the mainstream doesn't stop it being bullshit. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG Hit the nail on the head. Spot on. I think the issue is that some people are rightly embarrassed to find out they have been regurgitating a Nazi era antisemitic conspiracy, so they get upset about it and make up excuses. Bacondrum (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum and JzG, I do not know if you may have misunderstood what I said, or maybe I did not explain myself clearer, but that is my whole point. That several mainstream media, especially right-wing media, has moved the conspiracy theory in the mainstream (by mainstream, I do not mean at all that it is no longer an antisemitic, far-right conspiracy theory; I simply mean that is now no longer promoted by the far-right but by more mainstream right-wing media). I believe we should discuss this in the article and clarify exactly that "that some people are rightly embarrassed to find out they have been regurgitating a Nazi era antisemitic conspiracy, so they get upset about it and make up excuses", that "Being part of the mainstream doesn't stop it being bullshit." That "cultural marxism moved into the media mainstream the same way that climate change denial did: through motivated reasoning by grifters" should perhaps be mentioned, explaining that the rebranding did not make it any less far-right or antisemitic, that it is, precisely, still bullshit.

As noted by The Four Deuces below, the conspiracy theory is also framed and rebranded as 'political correctness' (this rebrand does not make it any less far-right or antisemitic). The sources I gave above may not hold weight on themselves, but both were referenced by Braune, so I believe they can be used and properly attributed. Not only Ron Paul and Jordan Peterson rebranded the far-right, antisemitic theory, but in one of the sources I listed above it is stated even The New York Times and The Wahington Post are guilty of that, not for the rebranding, but for not explaining clearly that it is a far-right, antisemitic conspiracy theory and letting a few opinion pieces by people using the rebranding.

Some relevant quotes include how "columnist David Brooks (New York Times, 11/26/18) lamented that today's youths 'tend to have been influenced by the cultural Marxism that is now the lingua franca in the elite academy,' giving them a 'clash of oppressed and oppressor groups' worldview. Also in the Times, contributor Molly Worthen (4/20/19) quoted the phrase 'cultural Marxism'—not approvingly, but not explaining what it meant, either, just offering it as an example of what 'conservatives' were complaining about. A Times story in 2017 (8/11/17) about a former White House aide reported that the aide believed 'globalists' would 'impose cultural Marxism in the United States'—again, without defining for the layperson what that might mean. The Washington Post (like other newspapers) invoked the phrase in its reports on Bolsonaro’s rise to power last year, and even on the hipster styles of the new wave of American white nationalists: In November 2016, the Post (11/30/16) reported that the style of shaved sides with long hair combed back is 'worn by men who feel their whiteness has been infringed upon by the ‘cultural Marxism’ of the Americas.' And opinion-haver Andrew Sullivan took to New York (2/9/18) to denounce 'cultural Marxists' for inspiring social justice movements on campuses.

Like others on the right, the National Review (8/9/18) saw proof of the plot in the Frankfurt School . It's far from a cultural grappling with the Frankfurt School's actual ideas, which live mostly in academia. As Spencer Sunshine, an associate fellow at Political Research Associates, points out, the focus on the Frankfurt School by the right serves to highlight its inherent Jewishness. 'A piece stands in for the whole,' he said. This isn’t one of those 'yeah, it could be interpreted as antisemitic' things—it's straight from Nazi ideology, with just enough cosmetic changes to make it acceptable for the modern right. What should be shocking is the cavalier way some traditional media, like the Times and the Post, are allowing it to live on their pages. Brooks rebrands cultural Marxism as mere political correctness, giving the Nazi-inspired phrase legitimacy for the American right. It is dropped in or quoted in other stories—some of them lighthearted, like the fashion cues of the alt-right—without describing how fringe this notion is. It's akin to letting conspiracy theories about chem trails or vaccines get unearned space in mainstream press. And it's not as if the Times doesn’t know this. In 2018, Columbia University historian Samuel Moyn wrote in a Times blog post (11/13/18) . It would be sensible, when the term is invoked by far-right extremists, to provide readers with a definition of the phrase and its origin. And unless it is invoked in a quote, writers like Brooks should be encouraged not to use it all. 'They should define it as an antisemitic conspiracy theory with no basis in fact,' Sunshine said of mainstream news editors. Failure to do that, as places like the Times and Post are guilty of, has bitter consequences. 'It is legitimizing the use of that framework, and therefore it’s coded antisemitism,' Sunshine said."

The other source I gave cites Fox News, Jordan Peterson, The Daily Caller, Pajamas Media, The Federalist and Spectator USA, among others, for moving the conspiracy theory in the mainstream, resulting in this 'political correctness' rebranding used as cover to hide what is essentially something "straight from Nazi ideology." Davide King (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lists#Embedded lists says they "should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose." In general I would avoid lists except when dealing with a short finite one, for example list of elements. Otherwise we get into issues of of who to include. If they're not mentioned in the text, then they're not important enough to add to the list.

Also, lists are supposed to be helpful as navigation tools. Someone might click on William S. Lind to find out more about the topic, since Lind was the creator of the theory. But not everyone who has ever used the term is significant to the topic. Nonetheless I think that the current list is informative. I just think that it would be better to incorporate it into the article.

Incidentally, I found an article, "Ron Paul Tweets Out Racist Message While Denigrating Marxism". In a tweet he asked if people knew what Cultural Marxism meant and included racist caricatures of a Jew, an Oriental, a brown skinned person and a black man. He later replaced the tweet where he replaced the symbols with political correctness. it might be a useful illustration.

TFD (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I agree that some of those in the list may well be incorporated in the article (hence why I opposed the removal of those in The Times and The Spectator promoting the conspiracy theory from the article; if not worthy for the list, they may be appropriate for the lead and attributed) while we list only the ones most significant and move to the body those that may still be worth mentioning. I knew about that tweet and I agree it is a useful illustration to make and point out, hence the whole point of my comment above. Davide King (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The first issue is sourcing, The Times was not mentioned at all in the source citing that claim, and The Spectator claim is from an opinion piece. Then there's due weight, using the term cultural Marxism is not in and of itself noteworthy, the use by whomever we are including needs to have recieved widespread coverage, it needs to be a notable event. For example, Fraser Anning made national headlines here in Australia for days, his promotion of the conspiracy theory received widespread coverage, that makes it due. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=fraser+anning+cultural+marxism Bacondrum (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, you have a point. What do you think of "Cultural Marxism: far-right conspiracy theory in Australia’s culture wars" saying that "hrough the lens of the Cultural Marxist conspiracy, however, it is possible to discern a relationship of empowerment between mainstream and fringe, whereby certain talking points and tropes are able to be transmitted, taken up and adapted by 'mainstream' figures, thus giving credence and visibility to ideologies that would have previously been constrained to the margins." We already state that "he conspiracy theory of Marxist culture war is promoted by right-wing politicians, fundamentalist religious leaders, political commentators in mainstream print and television media and white supremacist terrorists." I believe we should clarify and expand a bit on the bolded part in body rather than in the list; I provided a few sources that discuss this, both of which are referenced by Braune. I also agree with your points below that it would be better to incorporate the list in the body and have a smaller list (I think the current one is mostly fine) with only the most 'famous' or noted proponents that are due, but do you also think that expanding a bit or clarifying on the bolded part is undue? Or am I missing something? Davide King (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that makes sense and works with those sources. Bacondrum (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Another good journal paper

An interesting read about media and the conspiracy: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335680303_The_Alt-Right%27s_Discourse_of_%27Cultural_Marxism%27_-_A_Political_Instrument_of_Intersectional_Hate Bacondrum (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe try disambiguation?

I have been thinking about the constant attacks on this page, and I occurs to me that an attempt to disambiguate between reality and conspiracy theory might be worth trying. So in the domain of things that actually happen, we have Critical Theory and Postmodernism as academic movements originating in the Marxist and Post-Marxist left, and we have Identity politics and Intersectionality that Venn more into the domain of political strategy, I'm not saying it would have to be exactly these that are used, but disambiguating e.g. those four topics from the Cultural Marxism CT article, in the usual way, might at least cut down the flow rate of abuse of Talk page guidelines while pointing some readers to where they actually want to go. And disambiguation doesn't imply any actual connection between the reality and the CT, which is somewhat important in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, the risk there is that we end up with a POV fork where the IDW theory of "cultural marxism" (i.e. "I am not getting the adulation I deserve, must be all those marxists") is reflected as if it were anything other than the self-serving bollocks it is. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I see that I wasn't clear. I am not suggesting a disambiguation page for Cultural Marxism (which would indeed be a magnet for further hijinx) but rather disambiguation notices at the top of the CT page. Newimpartial (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should take the feelings of conspiracy theorists into account. TFD (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I tend to lean towards TFD's view, but I guess we could, there's something similar at Jewish Bolshevism. Bacondrum (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Listing promoters

I don't think we should list individuals who promote the CT. Look at other similar CT's like Blood libel. The list is problematic for a number of reasons. Who do we include? Where does it end? The list could be endless. And the list starts making the article look like a black list of people being shamed for espousing the CT rather than an encyclopedic article - it's inviting tendentious editing. I think notable proponents should be included in the article and the history of the CT rather than listed the way we do and some are probably not due for inclusion. What do others think? Bacondrum (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

My general preference is to avoid lists in non-list articles, so my tendency is to agree. However, the list is currently the main treatment in the article of the spread of the conspiracy theory in the 21st century, so I would like to see that treatment developed in another format. Newimpartial (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think most of it is due and should be kept, just developed in prose rather than a list. A subsection about its 21st century proponents in the history section? I'm happy to do the work if others agree to treating that content that way. Bacondrum (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the article I think we should create a history section drawn from and including most the info in the lists. Bacondrum (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Verification tags

Bacondrum, The Four Deuces, Newimpartial et al., could any of you help me verify the tags added by Emir of Misplaced Pages? Thank you. Davide King (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like drive by tagging by the user. I looked at the first one which asked for a quotation which isn't necessary and doesn't make sense. In the other cases, editors should add the necessary cites or raise the issue on the talk page. Give them some time to explain themselves or just remove them all. If the first objection made no sense, why should we spend time investigating the others? TFD (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I agree. I have done so and actually verified them. The only tag remaining is a better source needed for Kesvani, Hussein (March 27, 2019). "Opinion: 'cultural Marxism' is a far-right conspiracy in murky internet forums – so why is a Tory MP now using it?". The Independent. Retrieved October 6, 2020. This source is used to verify that "uring the Brexit debate, a number of Conservatives and Brexiteers espoused the conspiracy theory." This is already supported by the other sources in the section anyway, so there is no need to tag it there too. And to verify that "Tim Montgomerie wrote about the conspiracy in "The 20th Century was Far from an Overwhelming Victory for the Right: Though Revolutionary Marxism Died, its Fellow Traveller, Cultural Marxism, Prospered" (2013) in The Times. Similarly, Toby Young asked the whereabouts of the theory in "Are the cultural Marxists in Retreat, or Lying Low?" (2015) in The Spectator. Writing for The Independent, Hussein Kesvani cited those as examples that the conspiracy theory entered mainstream discourse." It is properly attributed and it is more a matter of weight. Still, I think Newimpartial gave a valid rationale and that now it is not used to support a list of conspiracy promoters as it was before but the aferomentioned sentence.

Newimpartial stated that "all the citation is actually doing is pointing to two readily verified primary sources that document what the sentence is saying; I would make the argument that in such an instance it is more elegant to cite the analysis that lends weight to these sources rather than the primary sources themselves, but the statement they are supporting seems quite obviously to have been backed up by this evidence in toto. In general I think editors have a tendency to read op-ed sources without great consistency, regarding them as reliable when the editor agrees with statements in the op-ed and as unreliable when they disagree. In this instance Kesvani is pointing to clear evidence while lending it weight." Emir of Misplaced Pages tagged sources because they failed to mention Cultural Marxism, when in most cases they are used to verify quotes. In this case, Cultural Marxism is actually used in both primary and secondary given sources. Davide King (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not drive by tagging. I have made multiple edits to this article, and contributed to discussions as per above the above discussion. Also I am not sure why 3 other editors were tagged and not me, almost seems like someone just wants to remove them with any excuse and not chance for me to offer any explanatio needed. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Misplaced Pages, make up your mind. First, you complain that we ping you too much and now that I have not pinged you. Since you complained about getting pinged and that you were editing the page, I simply assumed you would see this talk and there was no need to ping you; there was no grand plan from "someone" to "remove them with any excuse and not chance for me to offer any explanatio needed."

Anyway, you removed several sources such as you have done here with Copsey, Nigel; Richardson, John E., eds. (2015). "'Cultural-Marxism' and the British National Party: a transnational discourse". Cultures of Post-War British Fascism. ISBN 9781317539360. Archived from the original on September 29, 2020. Retrieved September 11, 2020 regarding Weiyrich.

You also removed this image which is relevant because Cultural Bolshevism is its forerunner and it is supported in the body. You again removed this source even though it does not disqualify that and it is more a matter of weight than better source needed; and Newimpartial gave a valid argument about it, but we can discuss it more. However, several of the edits you did were unjustified.

You even removed this when I literally provided the quote in my edit summary here. "Spencer, who co-edits Altright.com and Radix, promulgates stories such as 'Ghostbustersand the Suicide of Cultural Marxism' (Forney 2016), '#3 -Sweden: The World Capital of Cultural Marxism' (Right on Radio 2016), and 'Beta Leftists, Cultural Marxism and Self-Entitlement' (Follin 2015)." Davide King (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I tried to start some sections below, but there was technical difficulties something might have got mixed out. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think the Emir's "drive by tagging" can and should stop, this isn't the first time objections to this odd way of contributing has been brought up. I also think there's no malice evident, but it is disruptive - please stop with the wanton tagging, Emir of Misplaced Pages. Bacondrum (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

  Bacondrum, they have removed "Tim Montgomerie wrote about the conspiracy theory in 'The 20th Century was Far from an Overwhelming Victory for the Right: Though Revolutionary Marxism Died, its Fellow Traveller, Cultural Marxism, Prospered' (2013) in The Times. Similarly, Toby Young asked the whereabouts of the theory in 'Are the cultural Marxists in Retreat, or Lying Low?' (2015) in The Spectator. Writing for The Independent, Hussein Kesvani cited those as examples that the conspiracy theory entered mainstream discourse." I believe the issue was bigger when the same ref was used as part of the list, but I do not see the issue if it is worded like this and I agree with Newimpartial's comment that "all the citation is actually doing is pointing to two readily verified primary sources that document what the sentence is saying" and that this avoids the issue of using this ref to verify them as part of a list, which I would agree it was more problematic to use. Davide King (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with removing Tim Montgomerie and Toby Young claims. Poorly cited IMO, but that's besides the point - they are undue, I can't see any reason to include them, unless we are attempting to complile a list of everyone who ever uttered the words. Bacondrum (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not an attempt to compile "a list of everyone who ever uttered the words" but that the conspiracy theory has been proposed or in some cases re-branded by political commentators in mainstream print press. Davide King (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Not saying you are wrong, I just can't see how they are due, they are not significant players and their actions are not significant, as far as I can see. Bacondrum (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I wish Newimpartial could weight in their thoughts too (as far as I can see, they have not replied back to some objections raised and I would be open-minded to see their response), but I can understand if they are undue. However, Toby Young has published at least three articles about it ("Are the cultural Marxists in retreat, or lying low?", "If I were a cultural Marxist, I might be thinking about giving up" and "The neo-Marxist takeover of our universities"), so he may not be an insignificant player; and while this is an opinion piece by The Guardian, it says: "Or consider the Times, supposedly a paper of record, which has published Tim Montgomerie bemoaning the prospering of 'cultural Marxism'. Or Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times, who believes young Britons are brainwashed by the 'delusions of cultural Marxism'. It’s not clear whether these people were aware of the phrase’s loaded nature – they surely should have been more careful – but many readers would certainly have heard a dog whistle. As Britain’s own counter-terrorism chief said last week, mainstream newspapers are helping to radicalise the far right with irresponsible reporting." This latter part is cited to a non-opinion piece by The Guardian entitled "Newspapers help to radicalise far right, says UK anti-terror chief". Davide King (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what I am being asked here - I stand by my previous comment, which is that while we can't use opinion pieces (for facts), we can certainly use them for commentary, and they can lend weight to observations that are documented in primary sources. The idea that we "can't use" opinion pieces is simply false - we just can't source facts to them. Newimpartial (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC), amended Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I am moved by your comment. While I can understand why it is undue (that would be a better tag rather than better source needed), I believe you have point and I still lean for inclusion exactly for the reasons you outlined. I would argue the fact Toby Young has written at least three articles about Cultural Marxism means he is notable and not a non-significant player. Tim Montgomerie is also relevant because, as noted by The Guardian and other sources which "lend weight to observations that are documented in primary sources", The Times is one of the most mainstream newspapers in Britain. The propagation, or re-branding, of the conspiracy theory so that now is held also by more mainstream, or otherwise non-fringe, people, is supported by scholarly sources. Davide King (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• I also have to disagree - I find Emir has generally removed poor references in my opinion (opinion pieces, a questionably OR picture) and certainly nothing disruptive here. The passages have also been brought to the talk page here for discussion, I think this is productive. Mvbaron (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It's the "drive by tagging" that is disruptive, objections to this behavior have been raised before, it should stop. Bacondrum (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Ausstellung entartete kunst 1937.jpg

Should this page include the file file:Ausstellung entartete kunst 1937.jpg? with the captioning and sourcing below? Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I see no issue in pointing this out or using this image. I believe sources show enough weight that this is relevant and that "the etymology of the term Cultural Marxism derived from the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism)." Davide King (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I think the picture is borderline OR and I dont' think it particularly helps the article, but I saw one source that made the connection at least indirectly... Mvbaron (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it's borderline OR, although it makes sense on reading the sources. It's borderline. We could use an image to illustrate the Nazi connection that's less debatable? Like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/File:German_antisemitic_and_anti-Soviet_poster.JPG or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Wochenspruch_der_NSDAP_28_September_1941.jpg perhaps? Bacondrum (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

Sources "'Degenerate' Art". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Archived from the original on September 11, 2020. Retrieved September 11, 2020. Woods, Andrew (2019). "Cultural Marxism and the Cathedral: Two Alt-Right Perspectives on Critical Theory". Critical Theory and the Humanities in the Age of the Alt-Right. Springer International Publishing. pp. 39–59. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-18753-8_3. ISBN 978-3-030-18753-8. Matthew, Feldman; Griffin, Roger (Ed.) (2003). Fascism: Fascism and Culture (1. publ. ed.). New York: Routledge. p. 343. ISBN 978-0-415-29018-0. Archived from the original on December 20, 2019. Retrieved October 28, 2015.

Civitas Institute speech and republication

Should this page include the Civitas Institute speech and republication with the sourcing below? No quote has been provided from the source "Red Pill, Blue Pill: How to Counteract the Conspiracy Theories That Are Killing Us". "Death of the Moral Majority?" does not even mention Cultural Marxism. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I have clarified the primary source is for the speech; the secondary source, which is verified and again one does no need to provide always a quote (it just needs to be verified), is that he promoted the conspiracy theory. I see no reason to exclude this. Davide King (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Davide, this speech is mentioned in a lot of the cited material, Like Breivik's manifesto it seems to be one of the most widely discussed efforts to promote the CT. If there's an issue i's about selecting the best source/sources. Bacondrum (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

That does not clarify how a source that does not even mention Cultural Marxism should be included. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism is in the primary source by Weyrich; I see the Moonves reference as adding weight to the Weyrich quote, and for that purpose I don't see why it has to use the term "Cultural Marxism"

What are you talking about, it uses the term Cultural Marxism multiple times:

Those who came up with Political Correctness, which we more accurately call "Cultural Marxism," did so in a deliberate fashion. I'm not going to go into the whole history of the Frankfurt School and Herbert Marcuse and the other people responsible for this.

Cultural Marxism is succeeding in its war against our culture. The question becomes, if we are unable to escape the cultural disintegration that is gripping society, then what hope can we have?

Here is another page it's on: https://nationalcenter.org/ncppr/1999/02/16/letter-to-conservatives-by-paul-m-weyrich/ - here it is in SLATE: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1999/02/weyrich-goes-off-the-grid.html

I don't think anyone denies the text. Google that second statements with quote marks around it and you'll see how many references there are for it.

Weyrich quote

Should this page include the below quote on Weyrich with the sourcing below? Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not see why not. We also do not need every ref to have a quote. The term Cultural Marxism is used in the book and Weiyrich is mentioned, so it is verified and I see no reason to remove this. You should assume more good faith that the user or users who added did verify it first. Davide King (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Can't see any issue really, there are a number of sources for this throughout the article. Bacondrum (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I cannot see the term Cultural Marxism at all in the 3rd reference. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism is in the primary source by Weyrich; I see the third reference as adding weight to the Weyrich quote, and for that purpose I don't see why it has to use the term "Cultural Marxism". Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Excessive citations for Breivik quote

Should this page include the excessive citations for Breivik quote with the sourcing (not defined here) below? Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I think that 4 cites for 1 quote is excessive, I've removed two and left one each of the strongest news and academic sources, bundled them also. Bacondrum (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

  I agree, especially if those same sources are already used elsewhere, so no source would be lost. However, I disagree with the bundling; it is only two refs now and I do not see the need to bundle, especially if at least one of the sources is also already used elsewhere in the article. Davide King (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Daily Kos

What makes Daily Kos a WP:RS to use here despite what it says at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources? --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that non-green sources may be used if an expert has written from it and that exception may be for authors. In this case, the author is David Neiwart, also author of Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump; and the piece was cited by Braune. Davide King (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Unsupported claims regarding Peterson and Farage

Suella Braverman and the Board of Deputies of British Jews

@Davide King: You have deleted the inf about the Board of Deputies of British Jews apologising to Suella Braverman for accusing her of antisemitism, whilst keeping the reference. Is this your intention? We now have a statement in the article that the Board condemned Ms Braverman as antisemitic, when in fact they withdrew this. This is a BLP issue. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Sweet6970, that is more relevant for her own article. The Board of Deputies of British Jews does not contradict what other sources have reported, i.e. that she used or referred to the conspiracy theory. The theory is antisemitic but since it has been 'mainstreamised', people who may not be personally antisemitic, unconsciously or not, whether they realise it or not, are believing in the conspiracy theory. Davide King (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

That same source notes "Mrs Braverman, the MP for Fareham, was alerted to this connection by journalist Dawn Foster but defended using the term." Davide King (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not the point. This is a BLP issue, and we should not be misinforming readers by saying that the Board condemned Ms Braverman, when in fact they apologised to her. You thanked me for this edit when I originally added the inf about the apology. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not a BLP issue because we are not saying she is antisemitic, we are saying she promoted the conspiracy theory, which the article about the Board's apology is not; it is about her being antisemitic but sources and text do not say she is antisemitic, just that she promoted the conspiracy theory, which is true and she knew about it. The Board's apology only says that she is not antisemitic, not that she did not promoted the conspiracy theory, which they note it is antisemitic. That same source notes "Mrs Braverman, the MP for Fareham, was alerted to this connection by journalist Dawn Foster but defended using the term." In addition, it is not Jewish groups and MPs are saying Farage has promoted the conspiracy theory as an antisemitic dog-whistle, they are condemning for it; that he has used antisemitic dog-whistle is stated as 'fact', with The Guardian explaining it is "a term originating in a conspiracy theory based on a supposed plot against national governments, which is closely linked to the far right and antisemitism." So it makes no sense to say "he Board of Deputies of British Jews has said that Nigel Farage has promoted the cultural Marxist conspiracy as dog-whistle code for antisemitism in the United Kingdom" when the source does not support this wording; the Board is condemning him over antisemitic dog-whistles. Davide King (talk) 11:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The article says ‘Her use of the conspiracy theory was condemned as hate speech…’ This means she has been accused of antisemitism. Therefore, it is important to show that the Board does not consider her to be antisemitic.

(See the separate section below about the Guardian article and Nigel Farage.) Sweet6970 (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Since when hate speech is synonym with antisemitism? Islamophobia, among others, is hate speech too. Since we are not saying she is antisemitic, just that she has promoted the conspiracy theory, which even the Board did not dispute, it is not relevant to this article but to her. The Board is retracting that she is antisemitic but we never wrote she is antisemitic, just that she has promoted the conspiracy theory, so I see no issue or BLP violations. Davide King (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Same thing for Farage, Peterson et al. We are not saying they are antisemites, we are saying they have promoted the conspiracy theory. Whether that makes them antisemites is a matter to be discussed at their own articles, if it is something notable, not here, which is about the conspiracy theory. Davide King (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Re Suella Braverman only:

The only possible ‘hate speech’ in this context is antisemitism. If you accuse someone of hate speech, you are accusing them of trying to stir up hatred against the group in question. The only possible interpretation of the statement Her usage of the conspiracy theory was condemned as hate speech by other MPs, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the anti-racist organization Hope Not Hate. is that she has been accused of antisemitism. This is a very serious allegation. If this allegation is not intended, then the statement should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it says "er usage of the conspiracy theory was condemned as hate speech." So that still means her usage of the conspiracy theory was antisemitic, not that she was antisemitic herself, hence why I felt there was no need for it and that the same source could be instead used to report "Mrs Braverman, the MP for Fareham, was alerted to this connection by journalist Dawn Foster but defended using the term." It would be helpful if more users could weight in rather than going back and forth between you and I. Davide King (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: If we say that a theory is being used in an antisemitic way, this is an accusation of antisemitism by the person concerned. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure that is the case. Sources are not saying she is antisemitic but that she promoted the conspiracy theory; and scholarly analysis discusses how the conspiracy theory is propagated by people who are not antisemites or Nazis themselves, yet the conspiracy theory remains antisemitic and an antisemitic dog whistle. The Board's apology is more about her alleged antisemitism than the conspiracy theory, hence why I think that is for her own article since here we are not saying she is antisemite or that she was accused of being one; we are saying she promoted the conspiracy theory and she was aware of the term, that is all. Davide King (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Sweet6970, if you want other editors to respond then you should consider providing a link to the edit you are arguing against. TFD (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces: As far as I am concerned, this matter has been resolved. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Minor grammatical issue

@Davide King: The actual Moyn quote began with “That”. If you look at it more closely you’ll see that it is ungrammatical without the “That” within the quotation, and this is why the original editor had to add an into the mix, which didn’t quite solve the problem.

— Swood100 (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Sealioning around antisemitism needs to stop

Anti-semetic = "hostile to or prejudiced against Jewish people", Cultural Marxism originated as an attack on The Frankfurt School, which the fabricators of this theory specifically noted "were, to a man, Jewish" -William S. Lind.

Likewise, it falls into a category of conspiracy theory - namely it's the "Systemic conspiracy theory" type according to Barkun. It is so common, as to be given as the first example on the Conspiracy Theory page (eg Conspiracies about: "Jews, Freemasons, Communism, or the Catholic Church").

Early proponents attended holocaust denial conferences specifically to promote the theory among the far-right.

It parallels, and has even been noted to extend from the Nazi theories of Cultural Bolshevism and Judeo Bolshivism (easy conceptual links to make, and specifically in the (Paul Renner, a German typographer was the first to take umbrage at being called a Cultural Bolshevist by the Nazis directly, who singled him out as a modernist in the style of Apollinaire). He responded with an essay titled "Cultural BOlshevism?").

The Frankfurt School were specifically anti-fascists from Germany, they escaped the Nazis in the 1930s. Although one of their number: Walter Benjamin (a poet), did not make it.

Ben Shapiro's Jewish heritage does not excuse him from anything. Just as black people can hold racist and erroneous views about OTHER black people, so can White people be racist to other white people, and yes - so Jews can both be Jewish, and hold negative and stereotyped opinions about Jewish people.

Some ideas of the alt-right do overlap with some of Jordon Peterson's. "Fourth Turning" theory for instances, is promoted occasionally at the Jordan Peterson sub-reddit, as are man traditionalist and conservative ideas. He and Shapiro appear on similar podcasts open to these ideas, and are associates. The phrase "Cultural Marxism" can be found in many posts there by searching that subreddit.

The problem with all your arguments is that they show an utter ignorance of Misplaced Pages's purpose and policies. There's a policy page for what makes a source authoritive WP:RS - there's one for how to argue correctly on wikipedia WP:talk and many for what NOT to do on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is here to REPORT on sources, not to make arguments, but to state facts and report on sources. If the majority of sources from experts agree - it goes in. If a minority disagree, it might get a brief mention, but doesn't actually have to be covered at all (encyclopedias are generalist documents with specific and imperfect information, as all databases).

Relevant expertise in this case would require someone to be from the academic humanities most likely. Perhaps a historical expert on leftwing cultural movements in those countries (Germany & America), of that era (1910s - 1980s). Preferably someone with a background in Cultural Studies, or the history of Western Marxism... So yeah, basically that's who holds the facts of the matter. They know The Frankfurt School best, and so can either verify or invalidate the claims of the (unqualified) conspiracy theorists. There is a consensus that due to it's anti-semitic origins, usage, history, and promotion, it is entirely fair for Misplaced Pages to state "Cultural Marxism, is a far-right, anti-semitic, conspiracy theory." Perhaps if you disagree with that, you should get an academic education in what The Frankfurt School were ACTUALLY SAYING, so that you can compare it to the ambient claims you see as incorrect around the Cultural Marxism conspiracy. 123.243.234.154 (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the sealioning around antisemitism needs to stop. We've heard quite enough now, it's going nowhere, never was going anywhere to begin with. Bacondrum (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Peterson Confusion.

"In the 2010s, Jordan Peterson popularized Cultural Marxism as a term by moving it into mainstream discourse. Peterson blamed the conspiracy for demanding the use of gender-neutral pronouns as a threat to free speech, often misusing postmodernism as a stand in term for the conspiracy" - how do I know all words aren't "stand in terms" for other words. What is this brain rot? 203.129.53.19 (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh sorry BTW, "brain rot" is a stand in term for something else. 203.129.53.19 (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Original Research / Telepathy?

The text "Peterson blamed the conspiracy for demanding the use of gender-neutral pronouns as a threat to free speech, often misusing postmodernism as a stand in term for the conspiracy." This seems to rely on some sort of telepathy. How can the wiki editor know what Peterson meant when he discusses postmodernism? - Antiquark (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

We write what the reliable sources tell us. The sources say he is misusing "postmodernism", so that's what the article says. We wiki editors tend to reserve our telepathic powers for when we interpret comments on Talk pages. Newimpartial (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The actual wording of the source is given in the edit of 23:27 9 November 2020 Sweet6970 (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

What are the wiki standards for youtube references? Some of the Peterson references in the page eventually point to the following three videos of Peterson talking, none of which refer to Cultural Marxism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoG9zBvvLQ - Peterson never mentions Cultural Marxism or Postmodern Neo-Marxism in this video, contrary to the title.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVUnUnWfHI - Peterson never mentions Postmodern Neo-Marxism or Cultural Marxism in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofmuCXRMoSA - Peterson never mentions Cultural Marxism in this video.

Antiquark (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I've altered the text to reflect that it is a single authors opinion, rather than anything Peterson has explicitly stated. Thank you for your help. -- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 15:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

What are the wiki standards for youtube references? You can't use it. Youtube is unusable for anything, ever. User generates, no editorial over site what-so-ever. It's a cesspool. Bacondrum (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(Redacted) here is the content you're asking about: WP:Youtube.121.45.240.191 (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't respond to rude editors. Don't be rude, personal attacks are prohibited here, insult me again and I'll take you to ANI. Bacondrum (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

National Review interview of Michael Walsh

Hi, there are some choice quotes by Michael Walsh, a conservative author of the book "The Devil’s Pleasure Palace: The Cult of Critical Theory and the Subversion of the West". The quotes can be sourced from this interview . I'm just not sure which ones to use (some demonstrate real WP:FRINGE thinking), or where to put them into the article. Does anyone have any suggestions? -- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 15:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

What are your suggestions? That article you linked to doesn't mention cultural Marxism. Can't discuss proposed additions if you don't put any forward. Bacondrum (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(Redacted)

"Critical Theory was the notion, promulgated by the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School, that simply states there is nothing — no custom, institution, or moral precept — that is beyond criticizing, and destroying."

121.45.240.191 (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Since Michael Walsh isn't an expert there is no reason to quote him. TFD (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

What is required to establish expertise? For example, why does Chip Berlet qualify but Michael Walsh does not?

In "Collectivists, Communists, Labor Bosses, and Treason: The Tea Parties as Right-Wing, Populist Counter-Subversion Panic'" (2012), the journalist Chip Berlet identified the culture war conspiracy theory as basic ideology of the Tea Party movement within the Republican Party. — Swood100 (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I would like nothing better than to insert "Magic Helmet" theory into the present article. Deception is critical to the success of Satan’s war on God and on God’s creatures; thus most Leftist schemes come cloaked in false virtues, such as “tolerance.” These certainly are the tropes of the conspiracy theory (Schoenberg as a culture warrior lol- so Judeo-Bolshevik). I'm just not sure exactly where they fit in. Newimpartial (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that a person who expresses a religious belief cannot have expertise in the nature of Critical Theory? Is it that since the expression by a person of his religious belief would not be appropriate for this article, no assertion by that person, even if on a secular subject and intended to be factual or historical, qualifies either? Religious people are disqualified as experts on any subject? Could you point me to the part of WP:RELIABLE that expounds on that? Also, how is the expertise of Chip Berlet established? — Swood100 (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying that, no. However, I am unaware of any reliable sources that Critical Theorists are, in fact, participants in Satan's war on God - though I am aware of the Blood libel, which may be relevant here. Newimpartial (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying that, no. However, I am unaware of any reliable sources that Critical Theorists are, in fact, participants in Satan's war on God

But nobody proposed Walsh as a reliable source to establish the truth of one of his religious beliefs. He was above suggested as a reliable source for this statement: "Critical Theory was the notion, promulgated by the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School, that simply states there is nothing — no custom, institution, or moral precept — that is beyond criticizing, and destroying." TFD proposed that since Walsh has no relevant expertise his quote cannot be used. I then asked how such expertise is demonstrated, and how we know that Berlet possesses it but Walsh does not. You then raised a point about Walsh’s religious beliefs. If you are not claiming that Walsh’s expression of his religious beliefs has some bearing on Walsh’s reliability or expertise with respect to the above statement, then why did you raise that issue? — Swood100 (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid you may not have understood what I was saying. The statement I quoted from the interview is at least potentially relevant to this article, by illustrating the Culture war logic of the conspiracy theory, and would be reliable as a statement of Walsh's own beliefs about this - if they were DUE for inclusion as an illustration of the conspiracy theory.

On the other hand, the statement you are quoting is not presented as illustrating Walsh's (conspiratorial) beliefs but as a description of what Critical Theory is about. Even if a description of Critical Theory were in scope for this article (which seems unlikely to me), I am unaware of any publications that would make Walsh a reliable source about Critical Theory, or about Marxist cultural analysis, or about anything relevant to the topic of this article except, as noted above, for his personal beliefs that could illustrate the conspiracy theory. As far as I can tell, his published book simply elaborates his belief in the conspiracy theory in relation to his theistic (and apparently Manichaean) world view, and would be reliable within similar parameters to the interview. Have I now made myself understood? Newimpartial (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I am unaware of any publications that would make Walsh a reliable source about Critical Theory

Well, he published a book in which he apparently provides some analysis of Critical Theory. What disqualifies him?

Tell me this: do you think that the purpose of Marxist cultural analysis has been to bring about massive and fundamental changes to western culture? — Swood100 (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

If Walsh has any other publications or qualifications besides the Magic Helmet book that make him an expert in Critical theory, I would like to be told what those are. Otherwise, he is no more of an expert on that and relates topics than is Jordan Peterson - and it has been established on this Talk page that he is no expert. Newimpartial (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Berlet meets the standards of Self-published sources (online and paper) as an expert because his "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." However, we are not using a self-published work by or interview of Berlet, but an article he wrote for Critical Sociology, which is a peer-reviewed publication. In other words, experts have reviewed his article before publication. If Walsh or anyone else for that matter gets an article published in a peer-reviewed publication then we can use it as a source. TFD (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, but plenty of acceptable references come from sources that are not peer-reviewed. So we need a quote from Walsh’s book? — Swood100 (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok I'm confused. Why is someone trying to use quotes from a clearly WP:FRINGE individual who helped found a subsite of Breitbart News which is so completely unreliable it's on the spam blocklist? IHateAccounts (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The question really goes to how we know that Walsh lacks expertise or is WP:FRINGE. This has to be demonstrated through WP:RS right? — Swood100 (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody needs to demonstrate a negative, here. The onus is to establish expertise, and publishing a book of theology re-inscribed with the conspiracy theory narrative does the opposite of establishing expertise. Newimpartial (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You are arguing with someone who thinks COVID-19 is a hoax. TFD (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Where are the helpful souls who like to tidy up this page by "redacting" gratuitous unsupported personal attacks made by others? — Swood100 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think the sealioning around fringe claims here is drawing close to warranting an ANI report, it's wasting everyone's time and as such it is disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 04:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the quote should be included, and Walsh should be made to sit along site his coworker Andrew Brietbart, as they've both pushed the conspiracy (and both formed BigJournalism.com together. Bacondrum, you need to stop viewing every comment on the talk page as a personal attack you have to rally against. The inclusion of the Walsh quotes as coming from the Conspiracy Theorist camp is fine. 194.223.46.197 (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I, for one, would like to see Satan properly credited for his/her role in the conspiracy. (Also, can I please have my Magic Helmet? Pretty please?) Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Is Frankfurt School a synonym for Cultural Marxism?

The sole Ben Shapiro reference in the article ultimately ends up at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_Ngy2aU_QY

He says Frankfurt School about 100 times, but never mentions Cultural Marxism.

I checked the wiki page for Frankfurt School and it doesn't actually have the term Cultural Marxism in the main body of the article, only as some side links.

If Frankfurt School is now a synonym, it should be mentioned somewhere in Frankfurt School. - Antiquark (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The statement about Shapiro is sourced to the two reliable secondary sources cited, not his YooTubez. Newimpartial (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably the Merion West reference should be removed, because it's not in wikipedia's list of reliable sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources - Antiquark (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not a comprehensive list, Antiquark. In fact, it says so in the first sentence: "non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Misplaced Pages are frequently discussed". So you can't expect every source to be listed there, and if a source is not listed there that would not make it a priori unreliable. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a synonym in the minds of conspiracy theorists. TFD (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead is contradicted by new source

A Happy New Year to all our readers!

The quote from Jerome Jamin added today by Swood100 seems to deny that the conspiracy theory is inherently anti-Semitic, or even necessarily right wing, since Buchanan is said to believe that the threat comes from ‘hard capitalism’ . This contradicts the first sentence of the lead. So I suggest that the first sentence be amended to read: ‘Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory which is generally far-right and antisemitic and which claims Western Marxism as the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture.’ Sweet6970 (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it merely says that the anti-Semitic and right-wing nature are subtle. See the NYT article about Buchanan: " say Mr. Buchanan is speaking in code, using xenophobic images like those or anti-Semitic references to excite bigots without alienating mainstream voters." "Why does he specifically invoke the term "America first," when it is so intimately tied to anti-Semitism? Why, similarly, does he repeatedly attack "New York banks," often Goldman Sachs, when promoting his trade ideas?" TFD (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I see your point, but the article in the NY Times is about Mr Buchanan, not about Cultural Marxism, which is never mentioned. The J Jamin source denies that the use of the term ‘Cultural Marxism’ is necessarily racist, or antisemitic, and, in its comment about Mr Buchanan, it implicitly denies that it is right-wing, since opposition to capitalism is generally regarded as left-wing.

My general point is that ‘Cultural Marxism’ is not a well-defined and logically consistent ideology. It’s a conspiracy theory. The people who espouse it have completely different ideas about what the term means. But the lead to this article treats it as if it is an ideology i.e. the lead treats Cultural Marxism as if it exists. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

In fact, Buchanan is pro-capitalist, he just has a problem with some capitalists, many of whom happen to be Jews. As the noted right-winger Willi Schlamm once said, "The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists." His boss, William F. Buckley Jr., another non-leftist, criticized American capitalists for being too left-wing. I mentioned Buchanan because he is included in the text: "For Lind, Buchanan and Breivik, the threat does not come from the migrant or the Jew because he is a migrant or a Jew...For Buchanan, the threat comes from atheism, relativism and hard capitalism."

The advocates of the theory often soft-pedal the inherent anti-Semitism by using coded language. That brings in people who otherwise are not anti-Semitic. At some point they realize that the main conspirators are Jews.

Anyway I don't think you have read the exert correctly. It does not say that the conspiracy theory is not necessarily anti-Semitic or right-wing.

TFD (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

in its comment about Mr Buchanan, it implicitly denies that it is right-wing, since opposition to capitalism is generally regarded as left-wing

In his paper Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right, Jamin definitely includes Buchanan in the group that he is lumping together as the radical right, though I don't think that term has a well-defined meaning. Jamin also wrote:

“Buchanan has also been notable for presenting hard-line attitudes towards migrants, homosexual people and secularists. This has led to him being seen by some as an extremist (even far-right), while others have even viewed his positions against globalisation as ones that mark him out as being on the left, at times causing potential confusion.”

Also, his opposition is not to capitalism but to the combination of atheism, relativism and capitalism. — Swood100 (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

While the term radical right can have different meanings, the main meaning is clearly described in Radical right (United States). Basically it means to be to the right of the mainstream right, such as people like George H.W. Bush, whom Buchanan challenged. Anyway Donald Trump claims to be a friend of the working man, complains about certain capitalists, says he opposes war and wants to give everyone $2,000, but is never considered left-wing. While I think that criticism of him has been exaggerated, his rhetoric at least tends to the radical right. TFD (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

All the replies to my comment seem to be about Mr Buchanan’s political position. That is not what I was talking about. My point is that there is no consistency in the viewpoints of people who espouse the conspiracy theory. They use the term to mean what they want it to mean. Yet the article gives the impression that they all think the same. This is misleading. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

There is as much consistency among supporters of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as there is among supporters of other conspiracy theories, AFAICT. And there is nothing in the Jamin piece that contradicts the statement that Cultural Marxism is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory. "Avoiding overt racism" does not exclude the underlying theory being antisemitic, and attacking "hard capitalism" does not place anyone on the left. Hell, Hitler attacked hard capitalism. Newimpartial (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear. I see we’ve now reached Godwin’s law territory. Please correct me if I am wrong, Newimpartial, but you seem to agree that there is no consistency among the people who espouse the conspiracy theory, yet you also seem to consider that there is a definite theory which they all share. As far as I can see, these 2 views are incompatible. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I said "as much consistency" as "among supporters of other conspiracy theories". WP doesn't have any difficulty characterizing those, either. Newimpartial (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Sweet6970 Please stop wasting everyone's time here. Yours and Swood100's sealioning on this talk page is repetitive and disruptive, it's not going anywhere other than to ANI, if you keep it up. At best it's a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but either way I think the repetitive nature of these blatant POV pushing attempts is disruptive enough for admins to act, so I'd strongly advise you both to stop. I'd also urge other editors to stop responding to this repetitive and tedious crap. Bacondrum (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: You should take your own advice: Don't be rude, personal attacks are prohibited here… If you are not interested in the discussion, stay out of it. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm very interested in this subject, just not editors disrupting Misplaced Pages endlessly pushing a line that is not going anywhere (otherwise known as Sealioning). Keep it up if you want, the more evidence the stronger the case if/when it goes to the admins. The antisemitic and far-right nature of this conspiracy theory is extremely well established, cherrypicking as many fringe essays as you can isn't going to change that, drop the stick and back slowly away. You and Swood100 are quite blatantly POV pushing here. Your repeated and longwinded attempts to push that POV are disruptive. Bacondrum (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that reliable sources call it a far-right anti-Semitic conspiracy theory is sufficient for us to do so. We can't change that through argument about how to interpret the conspiracy theory. I would point out however that people who promote anti-Semitic and racist views are not always aware they are doing so and major proponents of far right views tend to disguise their inherent anti-Semitism. Note too that cultural Marxism is not a belief that its proponents hold in isolation, but it comes attached with conspiracy theories about socialism, Hollywood, the media, bankers, neoconservatives, etc., all of which are also anti-Semitic theories.

In any case, I am unlikely to persuade you. It's like getting someone to see a pattern that they don't recognize. The only way they will do so is by looking until eventually it becomes clear. The link between cultural Marxism and anti-Semitism only becomes clear after studying the far right, anti-Semitism and conspiracism.

TFD (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

they’ve both had this all pointed out many times now. Bacondrum (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Thank you for your courteous reply. It seems that I am unlikely to be able to convince you that from the reader’s point of view, this article is self-contradictory and does not make sense. Perhaps we have to wait for the sources to catch up with the vague way the term is currently being used. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Buchanan is not a reliable source. On page 80 of his book "Death of the West" he completely fabricated quotes claiming they were from Herbert Marcuse. This misinformation was later republished in various places, including in right wing documentaries. Here is an extract of one such example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgzp9vGx01o "Death of the West" thus fails Misplaced Pages's editorial standards, and can only be used to prove Buchanan's specific POV (which is thoroughly part of the WP:FRINGE conspiracy theorist camp). 194.223.46.197 (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

How can you make such a claim without checking? The quote in question was attributed, on page 80, to “the cultural Marxist” not to Marcuse. Go to https://books.google.com/ , type in “The death of the west”, search it for the phrase “west is guilty” and click on page 80. Don’t believe everything you find in reader comments on YouTube. — Swood100 (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The quote on p.80 is actually from William S. Lind, so Buchanan's attribution of it to "a student of Critical Theory" is as good as fabrication. Newimpartial (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that the source of the quote was not Marcuse, nor “the cultural Marxist”, but is actually attributable to Lind, as an expression of his viewpoint? Lind "repeats and repeats the charge that the West is guilty of genocidal crimes against every civilization and culture that is has encountered"? That seems unlikely. What reference are you relying on? — Swood100 (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This is tedious. I am talking about the quotation on p. 80 of Buchanan, introduced by "One student of critical theory defined it as...". The quotation that follows is from William S. Lind "Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology", p. 11. The passage you are taking about isn't a quotation at all, and is clearly something that Buchanan made up on his own. Newimpartial (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see. Lind doesn’t qualify as "a student of Critical Theory" so by referring to him as such Buchanan showed himself to be a liar. Actually, the attribution is to Raymond V. Raehn, not Lind, but I agree that this is tedious, and I would add, inane. — Swood100 (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Usage of the term 'cultural Marxism'

Interesting graphs on the Google Books Ngram Viewer showing the usage of “cultural Marxism” (variously spelled) from 1940 to 1970 and from 1960 to 2019. Big drop in the early 1950s. Maybe something to do with the McCarthy era. — Swood100 (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

How does this inform our understanding of the meaning of the term? Swood100 (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It backs up a statement made in Marxist cultural analysis, but otherwise I don't see the relevance TBH. Newimpartial (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

POV pushing

Swood100 has now tried to just shove their view into the article despite their claims failing to gain any traction here at talk, in fact their claims were almost universally refuted, but they've just gone ahead and tried to add them anyway. I think the POV pushing should probably go to ANI now? They've had plenty of warnings. Bacondrum (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I also contest the changes, especially the changes to the "Scholarly analysis" section. They are just a list of quotes featuring the term "cultural" and "marxism". Nothing in it does in fact contradict the claims made in the article, viz. that cultural marxism is not a school of thought. Mvbaron (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The article does not claim that "cultural marxism is not a school of thought". See the top line of the article: "For cultural Marxism in the context of cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis. If you go to that page you will find it said: "The tradition of Marxist cultural analysis since the 1930s has been referred to as 'cultural Marxism'". The point is that this article is about the conspiracy theory cultural Marxism and that article is about cultural Marxism in the context of cultural studies, a legitimate field of study since the 1930s.

Joan Braune made the statement that not only is there no cultural Marxism conspiracy, neither is it the name of a legitimate academic school of thought. I provided a number of references to reliable sources who contradicted the second part of this. Please provide specific reasons for reversion.

OK, so Bacondrum and Mvbaron insist that every one of my last 11 edits has been improper and should be reverted. "This has all been discussed and refuted at talk, you are going against consensus. Googling "cultural Marxism" and finding it in a few books is not a refution of the antisemtic nature of this theory, it's just people using the term in a sentence." Let’s take a look at the first four reversions:

• The first one added a dash into "stand-in", which needs a dash. Reason for reversion?
• The second one corrected an erroneous quote and supplied the remainder of the quote. Reason for Reversion?
• The third one by Sweet6970 corrected grammar: person1 and person2 "write" not "writes". Reason for reversion?
• The fourth one added the view of Jérôme Jamin, a reliable source who had already been referenced in this article, as to the nature of the conspiracy and how it developed. Reason for reversion? — Swood100 (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The main priposed addition is not supported by its supposed sources. The key claim is Braune's assertion that Cultural Marxism is not an academic school of thought is contradicted by a number of sources, but it isn't. All of the sources cited are referring to Marxist cultural analysis -- and none of them refer to it as a school of thought (nor does the WP article, as I recall, and if it does this is an error that crept in somewhere). As Misplaced Pages editors, we simply don't have the luxury of pretending that our sources say what we would have wanted them to say.

For the record, not all of the edits from Swood preceding the one that provided the addition I quoted are POV edits, in my view, but I trust that those minor points can be sttled calmly and without edit-warring, and also without inserting nonsense into the article. Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Seeing they're refusing to listen, I see no hope of this stopping, I'm going to take it to ANI. Bacondrum (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain your refusal to explain your specific reasoning as to even the first four reversions listed above?Swood100 (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Trying to mix in tiny edits along with WP:POVPUSHING so that the problem edits can't be easily reverted is a bad tactic. Don't do it. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• C-Class socialism articles
• Unknown-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• C-Class American politics articles
• Unknown-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Discrimination articles
• Unknown-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• C-Class Judaism articles
• Unknown-importance Judaism articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class Alternative views articles
• Unknown-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles