Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Is "a cabal of globalists, bankers, Islamists, and conservative Republicans" really an antisemitic trope?

The claim that “a cabal of globalists, bankers, Islamists, and conservative Republicans” is an "antisemitic trope" is taken from this article, written by a lecturer at Gonzaga University named Joan Braune. At the moment, Braune's claim is repeated as if it was a mather-of-fact, which seems like pushing a single point of view. As such, I removed the "an antisemitic trope" part from the sentence, to which @Bacondrum: responded by flaging my edit as disruptive and undoing it. If removing the claim is 'disruptive', perhaps a nondisruptive compromose would be to at least remove it from the main sentence, and follow that sentence up with "Joan Braune, a lecturer at Gonzaga University, later described Higgins' usage of the term 'cabal' as an "antisemitic trope". That seems like a more neutral stance towards Braune's claim. Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The statement that ‘cabal’ is an anti-semitic trope should be attributed to Joan Braune. The current wording reads as if it is Wikipedia which is saying that there are Jewish Islamists. I support the amendment proposed by Erlend Kvitrud Sweet6970 (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Original research refers to research done by Wikipedia editors, not academics.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Erlend Kvitrud: If you change a post on a Talk page after someone has responded to it, you should make plain what the change is – because otherwise it gives a false impression of the responses. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Thanks for informing me @TheTimesAreAChanging:. Regardless, I don't see why Joan Braune's claim should be included in the article, but if it is to be included it should at least be made clear that this is her opinion and not that of wikipedia. Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment - have any reliable sources suggested that references to a "cabal" are not inherently antisemitic? Or that references to the Cultural Marxism CT are not antisemitic? Because we are supposed to be following reliable sources, not even the best-intentioned of WP:OR. Newimpartial (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It is for the person saying that ‘cabal’ is an anti-semitic trope to provide a reliable source saying this, particularly in this context, where we are asked to believe in the existence of Jewish Islamists. My dictionary (Oxford Concise) doesn’t mention anti-semitism in this connection: '1. a secret intrigue 2. a political clique or faction 3. hist a committee of five ministers under Charles II, whose surnames happened to begin with C, A, B, A, and L'. [looks like I failed to sign this - apologies Sweet6970 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)]

I think the burden of proof generally falls with those who make an assertion. I.e. unless a reliable source informs us that "cabal" is "inherently antisemitic", we should not present this asserion as a matter of fact. We might, however, still decide to mention that Joan Braune has made this asserion, if we deem this as relevant. Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - "cabal" is derived from Hebrew, its use to describe a conspiring group is a very well known antisemitic trope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal. Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue I know it sucks if one is not a Nazi or a Nazi sympathizer, yet one has been going around calling people "cultural Marxists", or calling the WTO a "cabal" etc...only to find out these are Nazi era antisemitic terms, steeped in fascist beliefs about globalist Jewish conspiracy akin to Joseph Goebbels The Eternal Jew, but it is what it is - as embarrassing as that may be to find out for those that unknowingly buy into the antisemitic theory. Asking people for cites to common knowledge is gonna get really tired really fast. The LaRouche question has merit, but this one is wasting everyone's time. Conspiratorial cabals are text book examples of pernicious antisemitic mythology. Bacondrum 22:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I don’t really understand the previous comment. Something which is, by omission, denied by a standard dictionary, does not come under the ‘sky is blue’ exception to the need for reliable sources. The Wikipedia article on Cabal does not say it is an anti-semitic trope. And no-one has answered my point about supposed Jewish Islamists. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe Bacondrum was referring to the conspiratorial discourse part of Cabal article which has been vandalized. I have restored the proper version so you can see for yourself. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. However, that followers of QAnon use a word in a particular way does not determine that word’s meaning in the English language. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: I think you might be comitting something akin to an etymological fallacy here. The Hebrew roots of "cabal" does not ipso facto make it an "antisemitic trope". Even the wiki entry on Cabal you cited does not mention this connotation. There are dozens (or hundreds?) of common english words that derive from Hebrew. How is descibing a groups as a "cabal" more intrinsically antisemitc than describing them as "satanic" or remarking on their "chutzpah" or lamenting them for pendling "schlock"? Or would you argue that those who use such terms "unknowingly buy into the antisemitic theory"? Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is getting derailed. Does anyone actually object to the amendment to the wording which was originally proposed? Sweet6970 (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: yes, numerous editors have objected. I know I shouldn't even have gotten into the cabal thing, lets stay on topic. @Erlend Kvitrud: The article is based on reliable sources - if you've got sources claiming the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is not in-fact an antisemitic conspiracy theory then please present them, this is not a forum. Bacondrum 23:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: If ‘numerous editors’ have actually made any comments on the proposed amended wording, then I have missed them. Perhaps you could direct me to them – and I’ll have a look at them tomorrow morning. It’s late where I am. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: You seem to be mixing up two seperate questions "is the theory of cultural marxism antisemitic?" and "is the term 'cabal' antisemitic?". My proposed amendment concerned the latter question. Here the burden of proof is on those who claim 'cabal' to be an antisemitc trope. The only source cited in the entry is the post by Joan Braune. Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, really tired, really quick. We reflect reliable sources, Dr. Joan Braune is an academic subject matter expert - top tier reliable source. End of story. Yawn. Bacondrum 00:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

We don't have to explain in this article why the term "cabal" is anti-Semitic, just accept the conclusions reported in reliable sources. Notice they are using the the term in relation to globalists and bankers. I mean, who talks that way? TFD (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed TFD, who talks that way? Antisemitic conspiracy theorists 😂 Bacondrum 03:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: I see that you have not replied to my request. If you look at the beginning of this section, you will see that the wording proposed is:Joan Braune, a lecturer at Gonzaga University, later described Higgins' usage of the term 'cabal' as an "antisemitic trope".. I cannot find any objections to this wording in this section. You say that Dr Joan Braune is ‘an academic subject matter expert’. So are you objecting to the proposed wording, or not? If you object, you should explain why, and preferably provide an alternative wording. Your contributions to this discussion so far have not been about the proposed wording. This Talk page should be used for discussions about the wording of the article, not about your political views, or your views on other editors’ political views. Please stick to the point, and do not use this Talk page as a forum. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't quite get the intent behind mentioning that Joan Braune is a lecturer at Gonzaga University. Is it supposed to call her reliability into question? Or, on the contrary, is it supposed to drive home that she is an academic and, therefore, reliable? Regardless, it's not common practice on this website to mention both the name of the institution and the academic position of the source. It's also clunky to read. I would oppose it unless someone can explain to me what purpose it serves. JBchrch (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I read it as emphasizing her academic position. But would you support: ‘Dr Joan Braune of Gonzaga University later described Higgins' usage of the term 'cabal' as an "antisemitic trope".' ? Or ‘Dr Joan Braune later described Higgins' usage of the term 'cabal' as an "antisemitic trope".’? Sweet6970 (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

No "Dr". See MOS:CREDENTIAL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

If we are not going to use ‘Dr’ then we need to include ‘of Gonzaga University’ to show why her view is worthy of remark. ‘Joan Braune of Gonzaga University later described Higgins' usage of the term 'cabal' as an "antisemitic trope".’ Sweet6970 (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Should there be consensus about the need to attribute the statement to Joan Braune (on which I have no strong opinion), I remain unconvinced that we need to emphasise her institution/credentials. I think it would be cleaner and more standard to simply write Philosopher Joan Braune described... (i.e. describing her occupation). JBchrch (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

What even is the reasoning behind the need to attribute the statement to Joan Braune? It's not like it's an opinion piece. It doesn't qualify for WP:ASSERT either, because the editors have proposing this have not been able to source that this is a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with CPC. There's no real need to even cite that this is an antisemitic trope. If others feel we do (to take it out of Wikivoice), then it can succinctly be phrased: Higgins' usage of the term 'cabal' has been recognized as an antisemitic trope. with the appropriate citation to Dr Braune. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Explanation of the neutral point of view says, "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." By mentioning the name of the university lecturer in-text, we are casting doubt on their assertion. It's like saying, "According to Dave Jennings, a lecturer at Faber College, Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks of 9/11." We would be presenting a known fact as a random opinion. In-text attribution provides further guidance on this issue. TFD (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this. The fact that Cultural Marxism is an antisemitic conspiracy theory is widely-cited and not at all controversial; and there are plenty of sources connecting that fact with the memo, so it is misleading to imply that it is just one person's opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: :You have mistaken the subject of this discussion. The subject is not whether Cultural Marxism is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. The subject is whether use of the word ‘cabal’ is, in itself, anti-Semitic. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

To all : Explanation of the neutral point of view says: Avoid stating opinions as facts.

None of the editors participating in this discussion have provided any evidence whatever that use of the word ‘cabal’ is an anti-Semitic trope. This is simply asserted. The only source which says it is used in this way is the Braune source, which requires our readers to believe in Jewish Islamists – I note no-one has ever answered this point. I am bemused by the reference to ‘uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions’.

I have provided evidence that there is no general anti-Semitic connotation in the use of the word ‘cabal’, and this evidence has been ignored. Here is some more evidence, an example of a recent use of the word ‘cabal’: Jeremy Corbyn has been accused of being anti-Semitic. Yet he has also been accused of running a ‘cabal’. Headline from the Daily Express:[1] ‘Jeremy Corbyn ran “Stalinist cabal” – Tom Watson finally breaks silence in brutal attack.’ And in the body of the article, a quote from Mr Watson: “That cabal have a lot of responsibility for creating the internal political tensions, but also for the programme that millions of working people in Britain didn’t buy in to.”

The attribution to Dr Braune is needed because there is no evidence that ‘cabal’ is generally used as an anti-Semitic trope. As I have said above, the Wikipedia article on ‘Cabal’ and the Oxford Concise dictionary don’t say it has an anti-Semitic meaning.

It is particularly necessary to attribute the opinion that use of this word is anti-Semitic in the context in this article, because the wording as it stands makes Wikipedia refer to a ‘cabal’ which includes Islamists – not typically Jewish. And I’m not an expert on American politics, but I would be surprised if ‘conservative Republicans’ are predominantly Jewish.

If you consider that ‘cabal’ is generally used as an anti-Semitic trope, then you need to find sources for this. The proposal that this use should be mentioned in the article, by attributing it to Dr Braune, is only barely admissible, because she is the only source who contradicts the usage set out in the dictionary definition above.

Bearing in mind that there is no ‘fact’ that the use of the word ‘cabal’ is anti-Semitic, a possible wording (slightly amending the suggestion by HandThatFeeds) would be: Higgins' usage of the term 'cabal' has been called an antisemitic trope.’. This would be cited to Braune.

Sweet6970 (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Evidence has been provided. See Who’s Afraid of the Frankfurt School? “Cultural Marxism” as an Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory", p. 5. Articles are based on sources, not our collective original research. I agree that conservative Republicans aren't predominantly Jewish, but then there is no Cultural Marxist conspiracy either. Conspiracy theorists are by definition irrational. So is your logic that anyone who accuses Corbyn of anti-Semitism cannot use anti-Semitic tropes. The British National Party has accused Corbyn of anti-Semitism and several of their leaders have been convicted of Holocaust denial and other anti-Semitic crimes. TFD (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

1) The source you have provided is the very source which needs support. (2) The point about Jeremy Corbyn is that he is well known to be not Jewish, which means that the word ‘cabal’ is used in a way which does not involve anti-Semitism. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I find it very hard to WP:AGF when you are clearly attempting to misinterpret the source and ignore that Higgins didn't only speak of "Jewish Islamists" or "Jewish conservative republicans". Higgins, in his memo, also mentions globalists, bankers and the "deep state". Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the word's definition is misused in an antisemitic way by Higgins, not by Wikipedia, we are simply documenting it. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC) Edited - CPCEnjoyer (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not ‘attempting to misinterpret the source’. I mention Jewish Islamists and Jewish conservative Republicans because these ideas are so odd that the statement that the word ‘cabal’ is used in an anti-Semitic way in this context requires significant justification. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, you have created a straw man to argue against. No one here is arguing whether these "Jewish Islamists" or "Jewish conservative republicans" really exist or not. They are not mentioned in the article, you brought them up, seemingly to prove that it is not antisemitic because Islamists are not Jewish CPCEnjoyer (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC) edited CPCEnjoyer (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I have not created a ‘straw man’. The point is that it doesn’t make sense to say that ‘cabal’ is being used in an anti-Semitic sense when that involves assuming the existence of Jewish Islamists and Jewish conservative Republicans. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The text doesn't make either assumption. Either you don't understand antisemitism, or you don't understand tropes, or (quite possibly) both. Newimpartial (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The text refers to a ‘cabal’ which includes Islamists and conservative Republicans. If ‘cabal’ is being used in an anti-Semitic sense, then this necessarily implies the existence of Jewish Islamists and Jewish conservative Republicans. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok here is an additional source, if you insist. Davidson, Carol Margaret (2004). Anti-Semitism and British Gothic Literature. Palgrave MacMillan. (cited by 101) devotes an entire sub-chapter (p. 66-77) to the reception of Kabbalah in British Gothic Literature. At p. 69, the author concludes very clearly as follows: "As these examples illustrate, the terms 'cabal' and 'Cabala' were virtually synonymous, since their entry into the English language, with the Jews and sinister secrecy" (p. 69). Accordingly, I now oppose attribution to Braune. JBchrch (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my point. This source could be used as a citation for the statement that ‘cabal’ is an anti-Semitic trope. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

not the first time Sweet6970 has come here pushing a dubious POV. Bacondrum 23:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I recommend "An idiot’s guide to anti-Semitic tropes" by Andrew Silow-Carroll (Jewish Telegraphic Agency FEBRUARY 19, 2019). Anti-Semitic tropes are used as dog whistles because many people don't recognize them as anti-Semitic and it allows plausible deniability for the people using them. Some people may even use these terms inadvertently. But it's less likely the term cabal was inadvertent when talking about globalists and bankers than about Stalinists in the Labour Party. However, I'm on the fence about that one. If it's not an anti-Semitic statement, it certainly raises questions. TFD (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I have looked at the idiot’s guide, and also done a Ctrl+F search on it. I can’t find the word ‘cabal’. Have I missed it? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Sweet6970, I never said the article discussed the term cabal, I said it discussed the term trope. TFD (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces Sorry, I misunderstood. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The suggested anti-semitic connotations of 'cabal' are not mentioned in any of the enclopedia/ dictionary entries I have found (including the encyclopedia britannia, oxford dictionary and wikipedia). 'Cabal' is furthermore not listed in the AJC's glossary of antisemitic slurs, the ADLs Guide to Antisemitic Tropes or any other such lists I have found. As far as I can tell, it seems to be an idiosyncratic viewpoint held by a few academics. As such we are unlikely to find any sources refuting the claim: no one is going to refute a claim they have not heard about. The sources provided are: (A): A philosophical paper published by some obscure leftist think tank. (B) A book about British gothic fiction which makes the context-specific claim that this specific litterary tradition used 'cabal' in an anti-semitic way. I don't think we can generalize form these that "cabal is an antisemitic trope". Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

You refuse to use academic sources on the grounds that lower-tier, introductory sources do not mention the information in question. This is not how Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources work. Also, I am sure that you are smarter than calling literature fiction, especially in the context of a discussion on the meaning of words. JBchrch (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "Gothic fiction": this is the term used in the wikipedia entry on the genre. And to repeat my point, the book makes a context-specific claim about how 'cabal' was used in this genre, not about its contemporary everyday meaning. Regarding the philosophy paper: philosophers tend to express their own viewpoints, not in the form of "it is my opinion that X", but simply as assertions of "X". To repeat one of the the examples given in the Guideline about citing sources, John rawls did not write "It is my opinion that to reach fair decisions, parties must consider matters as if behind a veil of ignorance", he simply asserted the idea. The correct way to refer to this assertion is: "John Rawls argues that, to reach fair decisions, parties must consider matters as if behind a veil of ignorance". What I "refuse" to do is not to use the paper as a source, but to do so without an inline citation. Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

We've all made our point multiple times, so I'll stick to a small correction. I understand that you may not have direct access to Anti-Semitism and British Gothic Literature, but saying that the book makes a context-specific claim about how 'cabal' was used in this genre, not about its contemporary everyday meaning is wrong. As I am sure you understand, I cannot copy-paste entire pages here per WP:COPYVIO. This specific chapter speaks more broadly about Kabbalah in English literature, and, in doing so, traces the etymology and use of the term "cabal" in the English-speaking world. The author's analysis is not restricted specifically to the Gothic genre at this stage. In fact, her main piece of evidence to assert that 'cabal' and 'Cabala' were virtually synonymous, since their entry into the English language, with the Jews and sinister secrecy is James Harrington's treatise The Art of Lawgiving. JBchrch (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

As I stated above you should read the article I linked to that explains what "trope" means. They are not overtly bigoted terms, it depends on usage. "Cabal of bankers and globalists" for example is read as a reference to Jews both by anti-Semites and people aware of anti-Semitism but not to others. And if the authors are accused of anti-Semitism, they have plausible deniability using the same arguments you have here.

While as you pointed out, Islamism and conservative Republicanism are not Jewish, they fit into the conspiracy theory. Remember "The Jews will not replace us?" The theory is that they are replacing us with Muslims and other aliens. Larouche's emphasis on Henry Kissinger, the emphasis on neoconservatives ("neo" is short for Jew) and the David Rockefeller conspiracy theories are all inherently anti-Semitic. All this becomes clear to people who start contributing to the alt-right.

TFD (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, really the "international jew", "Globalist Jewish banker" etc...these antisemitic myths are so well known that it's denial is akin to pretending not to know that blackface is racist. We have a whole article on Economic antisemitism - globalist Jewish banker conspiracies, they are ubiquitous - the pervasiveness of antisemitism is a profound and significant aspect of Western culture. And yes the left and the right have thier antisemites, but as The Four Deuces correctly pointed out, the Alt-right and other similar far-right movements have taken the original Blood Libel, Protocols of the Elders of Sion etc and transformed them into modern versions like Cultural Marxism, the the great replacement theory, Qanon etc. talking about global governments and bankers, it's a dog whistle, anyone with even a passing interest in the subject knows these tropes very well, and antisemites in particular know what is meant when one speaks of "globalists" "international bankers" etc. The depth of academia on the subject is basically interminable, those denying the antisemetic nature of said conspiracies are most likely a case of WP:competenceisrequired in regards to having a basic level of education on the subject. Bacondrum 23:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I was talking to a Jewish acquaintance about conspiracy theories and told him that most of them don't mention Jews. And he told me to read further into the postings, because it always comes back to the Jews. The references are at first coded - banksters, globalists, socialists, etc. Then we get the names: Rothschild, Soros, Marx. Then someone reminds us that they were all Jews. And the icing on the cake is that they are self-hating Jews. So criticizing them absolves the alt right of anti-Semitism. TFD (talk) 06:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's not really that subtle at the end of the day. It's a pity that those who unknowingly join in the use of antisemitic canards can't just own it. Bacondrum 08:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The subject of this discussion is not anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, but the usage of the word ‘cabal’ in the English language. The only recent example has been provided by me, of the usage by Tom Watson, recently deputy leader of the Labour party, who used it in a non-anti-Semitic way. The point which is relevant to this article is: should the statement that ‘cabal’ is an anti-Semitic trope be attributed to Braune, and/or have a citation for the assertion that it is an anti-Semitic trope? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Sweet6970, the consensus on this talk page is no. See also WP:STICK. JBchrch (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

TFD: I can't tell for sure if you are trolling or not, but just for the record: no, "neo" is not "short for Jew". Bacondrum: The idea that Blackface is racist is ubiquitous and uncontroversial. The idea that cabal is anti-semitic is idiosyncratic. This is a false equivalence. The stuff about Cultural Marxism/Qanon/globalists/bankers is obviously correct, but a red herring: it tells us nothing about the facticity of the statement 'cabal is an anti-semitic trope'. I would not rise an eyebrow if the sentence said 'globalists and bankers are antisemitic tropes', as this is obviously uncontroversial. If you think that the reference to 'globalists and bankers' makes 'cabal' into an 'antisemitic trope' (i.e., that 'cabal' would not have been an antisemitic trope if Higgins had simply talked about a 'cabal of Islamists, and conservative Republicans'), it seems more appropriate to simply state that these two terms are common antisemitic tropes. Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:competenceisrequired Feel free to start an RfC and see how it goes. I'm pretty sure it will WP:SNOW. Failing that I'm done with discussing this. Bacondrum 21:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If the word cabal was obviously anti-Semitic and only used that way, then it wouldn't be a trope. The fact that it can be seem as neutral is precisely why it is called a trope. It's a dog whistle to anti-Semites and gives the authors plausible deniability. When confronted, they can say, "Tom Watson used it in a non-anti-Semitic way." 23:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: Thank you for adding the citation for the use of ‘cabal’. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Please clarify your comment above. I’m the one who said Tom Watson ….used it in a non-anti-Semitic way. Are you saying that means I am an anti-Semite, or was your comment just a general statement? Sweet6970 (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you tell me what you think the term trope means, so I can see if we're talking about the same thing. TFD (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I’m not going to play games. There is no point in continuing this conversation. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I would just like to say I have never heard the claim that the use of the world "cabal" was in it of itself anti-Semtitc. It is clearly a fringe view and should not be used. Just as an example when the Spanish Civil War broke out commonweal magazine had an editorial where it said it doubted that a military cabal could really help the country. Since clearly the writer is not trying to imply that the nationalists are Jews, the world is used outside of the claims put forword by some. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Use of the word cabal is not in and of itself anti-Semitic, which is why it is a trope. It's like referring to black people as apes.[2] You can call a gorilla an ape and it's not racist because it's accurate. If you call Trump an ape it's offensive because it implies he is stupid and unfeeling, but still not racist. But call a black person an ape and its a racial slur. As the link says, "Likening black people to apes is an attack commonly used by racists." The word ape however is not in and of itself racist. A reasonable reader who ask themselves why the writer was using the word cabal instead of say conspiracy when referring to bankers and globalists. TFD (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

And yet the undisputed expert on the topic ADL finds no such thing. Yet again another case of fringe academics with little expertise over the indisputable topical and explicitly language specific expert relied upon by government, law enforcement and academia. This is as obvious POV pushing as can possibly be seen. Are you going to delete my obvious in good faith edit again?2601:46:C801:B1F0:20F8:5F65:CCA1:2BC1 (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

What obvious in good faith edit? I don't see any. Newimpartial (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Referring to the ADL as the undisputed expert on anti-Semitic tropes is itself a strange and false statement. There are many other expert sources on anti-Semitism including the one used to support the statement that it is a trope. Why do you think that the ADL is the undisputed expert? What makes you think that their article about tropes is meant to be an exhaustive list? TFD (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The ADL is the most sourced topical expert employed by government, law enforcement and academics. There may be many sources but the ADL is the one most referenced. Given the immense sourcing of their material as the topical expert, if the case here was indeed true they would've made it known. As with the other instances, this also leaves material not corroborated by them in the minority as the ADL is the majority. The editor whom couldn't follow advice from their own talk page, deleted my suggested remedy-get it off the page or at the very least directly attribute it to the author.2601:46:C801:B1F0:ADA1:DB59:BFCA:6D52 (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think they would chose the word cabal when referring to a conspiracy of globalists and bankers? As an ADL report says, globalist is a code word for Jew. Also, "A longstanding anti-Semitic conspiracy theory posits that a cabal of Jews led by members of the Rothschild banking family have been manipulating currency and exerting influence on regional and national events since the early 19th century for the purposes of personal enrichment and/or world domination."[3] TFD (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

TFD. I might have gotten a little lost, but from what I was reading a fair amount of people were arguing that the Cabal itself was anti-semitic which I think we can all agree is silly. Of course it becomes anti-Semtitic when used in ways like in this article. However why you brought up the ape comment makes little sense. I know all of what you posted and yes Barr's statement was rascist, I really don't see the point of bringing up something commonsense like some insults or allegations become racist when used against certain people. I get all that, do you think I did not? Finally your claim about the ADL odd, there are other sources, but it is one of the most respected outlets for anti-semitic monitoring in the US and is cited as reliable on Wikipedia. It is perfectly reasonable to use, why you object I do not understand. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

A lot of anti-Semitic literature uses Jewish sources since it gives them plausible deniability. (Well a Jew said that, so it cannot be anti-Semitic.) For example, an article by Max Weber of the Institute for Historical Review which formed the basis for the deleted Jews and Communism, which itself was copied onto Metapedia, extensively quoted an historical Jewish Encyclopedia that overstated Jewish involvement in Communism. (The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination).) The ADL is not the definitive authority on anti-Semitism, it is merely one of the most important sources perhaps the most important sources. The fact that they don't call something a trope doesn't mean it isn't. The fact remains that when someone says "cabal of bankers and globalists," it is a clear reference to the Jews. The term cabal is used instead of conspiracy in order to make this clear without actually using the word Jew. This allows anti-Semites to spread anti-Semitism while giving them an alibi. Surely after all this discussion that would be clear to you. TFD (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No in fact its even less clear. I really have no idea what your point is. You keep talking about how it is a trope, of course it is, but is the word itself anti-semtitic, it is not, but you keep going back and forth between it is or is not. What is your point or what are you trying to say. Next never said the ADL was definitive, but one of the most respected, do you dispute that? If not then why oppose it? 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: A "cabal" might not be an antisemitic trope in and of itself, but a "cabal of globalists, bankers, [...]" definitely is. See also: Antisemitic canard § Economic and political canards. TucanHolmes (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

References

This article is in of itself a conspiracy theory.

WP:FORUM applies. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The very first 2 paragraphs are in of itself a conspiracy theory. To say that it was started by far right activists is not true. Cultural marxism is simply a gateway to communism, by dividing groups into race or culture. In the USA, its being used to divide the country by race, with such topics as critical race theory and "white fragility". not to mention BLM, which have admitted to being marxists. These are all perfect examples of cultural marxism. Funny how the user doesn't mention that in their explanation of it. IF you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes truth. Thats part of this "movement" to pull the wool over peoples eyes so they don't see truth behind it.--Jorgeg3d (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgeg3d (talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC) America divided people by race long before Marx was born. It even said in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that only white people could become citizens of the U.S. TFD (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC) —You can not compare what was said 300 years ago to today. Throughout history, for thousands of years every country/nation has been racist towards others outside of their own race, so America was no different in its infancy. But to this day, America is and has been the most inclusive country in the world. Where else do you find every nationality/race? Only the last couple of decades has other countries tried to emulate what we've done here.Jorgeg3d (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC) This is getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Jorgeg3d, if you have specific suggestions for improvement and they are justified by policy or reliable sources, I encourage you to mention them now. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC Owen Jones and Hussein Kesvani

Should we remove the sources by these two in this article? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Owen Jones and Hussein Kesvani)

• Remove - We should not be using opinion pieces from people who are not subject matter experts, especially for making statements about third-parties. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Remove, since they're opinion-pieces being used for statements of fact - with the caveat that much of what's cited to them can be cited to better sources. With my recent replacements (assuming some version of them is retained), the only thing cited to either author is In the Sunday Times, Rod Liddle wrote that Britons are being brainwashed by the "delusions of cultural Marxism" cited to Owen Jones; I couldn't find any other sources mentioning that quote in a quick search, so I don't think we really need it anyway, and we're already discussing a bunch of other figures with better sourcing. --Aquillion (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Aquillion's changes, as stated in previous discussions. Bacondrum 20:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Threaded discussion (Owen Jones and Hussein Kesvani)

• The previous discussion took place at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 6#Owen Jones and Hussein Kesvani. Pinging discussion participants and archiver. @Davide King, Bacondrum, Newimpartial, and HandThatFeeds: --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Note that Kesvani was already replaced; although that relates to the discussion above about the text that replaced it, I think it's fair to say that some version of that replacement text or some summary of that source is likely to stay in the article as a replacement, since it's obviously a better source. Owen Jones is also cited for Rod Liddle's comment on the "delusions of cultural Marxism" and was cited for The counterfeit police identity card used by Breivik to commit the 2011 Norway attacks. I've replaced the latter cite just now (we had better sources in the article, so there's no reason for it to get caught up in this dispute, although feel free to open another discussion on the image if you feel there are other issues with it or those sources are insufficient) - it looks like we were citing Jones just for Breivik's connection to Cultural Marxism. Unsure if we need that image at all, but we can at least cite better sources regarding Breivik. --Aquillion (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  I think people were looking to work an image in. Do you have a suggestion for something else if you don't want the one of Breivik? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Note: the formal RfC seems to have ended with a rough consensus to remove the two sources. I'm not seeing the Kesvani source or when it was used, but I removed the Jones column. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Cooper-42 re-added essentially the same paragraph but with various primary sources cited. The only independent secondary source for this material is still Jones's column, so this was not an improvement. I've removed it again. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is an utter disgrace to Wikipedia

This is just piling on at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How on earth is it an anti-sematic right wing conspiracy theory? The article is 100% biased and basically a total fabrication. Hontogaichiban (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Do you even know what "semitic" is? Or are you imagining it's "anti-somatic"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Please mention concrete issues you have with the article or ways in which you think it could/should be improved. Otherwise WP:FORUM applies. TucanHolmes (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC) It's explained in the article. TFD (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Perhaps you should peruse the sources if the article’s explanation does not satisfy? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

'Entering the mainstream discourse'

I noticed an edit to this section referring to recent research pointing to 'Richard Dawkins, Steve Harris, Steven Pinker and Christopher Hitchens' having 'buoyed' the conspiracy theory; Hitchens, in particular, piqued my scepticism here given that he was a lifelong self-described Marxist, so it seemed strange. He, along with the others, are accused of having espoused some combination of "misogynist anti-feminism, neo-eugenic science (broadly defined as various forms of genetic determinism), genetic and cultural white supremacy, McCarthyist anti-Leftism fixated on postmodernism, radical anti-intellectualism applied to the social sciences, and the idea that a purge is required to restore normality", which appeared incongruous to me having read their pop books (although I'm unfamiliar with their research - and I've never heard of Steve Harris). Is this perhaps a recent academics' disagreement which has found its way into scholarship? Or could we have more information to help explain the findings? (The cynic in me laughed when I read the abstract stating 'Drawing partly on the work of [...] Antonio Gramsci', given the subject matter.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benson85 (talk • contribs)

My two cents: they are opposed to postmodernism, especially as applied to the hard sciences. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe Pinker has had various jabs at The Frankfut School; [4] I know there's a certain cultural cross-over between Skepticism, Scientism, and EvoPsych, I suspect that's what's being discussed. Micheal Shermer was involved a bit, publishing various articles such as this one, in Skeptic Magazine (which he was the editor of at the time): [5] (editor) [6] (author).... I doubt Hitchens would be involved, Dawkins is a minefield to even discuss (having been on the anti-PC rodeo before), and I suspect Steve Harris might be someone confused with Sam Harris. Anyways, that's my two cents... also, obviously it goes without saying that Jurgen Habermas is both a member of The Frankfurt School "Cultural Marxists" as well as the leading academic opponent of Post-Modernism. --203.221.148.128 (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

citation of "In defence of degenerate art"

In the article, the citation of "In defence of degenerate art" stating that Breitbart relates certain types of music to necrophilia is a dead reference. I read the referred to article and it is a dead end. Although the reference does state that Breitbart writer makes the relationship, it itself does not give any reference or proof that it was ever stated. I believe this statement is biased and without proof. Glewis104 (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC) I'm removing the reference to "In defense of degenerate art" from the article. Glewis104 (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The article is out there and easy to find. Breitbart definitely published it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Breitbart definitely published the article. I tried to include a direct reference, but the site is blacklisted and cannot be linked. The article, by Gerald Warner, was titled "For the First Time in History, 'Conservatives' are at the forefront of the Cultural Revolution", and was published on 4 February 2015. RolandR (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's a reddit link [7] that links to the article and discusses the various quotes. See WP:ARCHIVEIS for details on how to use that link as a source on Wikipdia. I bleieve it's acceptable to use as long as it's not a shortened URL. ---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 03:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Nope, couldn't include it even as a longform archive.is address. Looks like Wikipedia won't allow this claim to be sourced directly. ---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 03:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

"Steve Harris"

Hi everyone. "Steve Harris" needs to be disambiguated ([8]). The name was added by @Sweet6970: here. I checked the source and the mention of this person seems to be on page 162 (link) which refers to "fellow militant atheist, philosopher Steve Harris". This leads me to assume that this is in fact about Sam Harris. How should we deal with this situation? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I wondered whether Lux and Jordan meant Sam, rather than Steve, Harris, but I drafted the addition using the quotation supplied by another editor. It seems, from your further investigation of the source (which I do not have access to) that it probably is Sam which is meant. So, bearing in mind that these authors are not careful about who they are referring to, I suggest that the sentence which starts ‘They mention Richard Dawkins….’ should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I suspect the source was trying to recall the names of the Four Horseman of Atheism. --60.240.245.167 (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

If there are no further suggestions, I shall delete the sentence with the names. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Change now made. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Let's only claim that people are conspiracy theorists where we have evidence (or at least sources claiming that)

Can we change the sentence "Peterson blamed the conspiracy for demanding the use of gender-neutral pronouns as a threat to free speech" to "Peterson blamed cultural Marxism for demanding the use of gender-neutral pronouns as a threat to free speech"? That's the wording in the article we are citing as a source, and no one has shown so far that Peterson actually believes in a conspiracy. (And even the article we are citing doesn't use the term "Cultural Marxism" as a term for a conspiracy theory, but as a term for an ideology, like, say "Neoliberalism".) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:1783:FE80:D488:87BA:6C5F:E836 (talk • contribs) 11:05, June 29, 2021 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory. Peterson claims it's a threat to free speech. He actually claims it to be true. Whether he believes that or not is irrelevant, he still promotes it as real. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, of the three sources that are appended to the claim that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory, the first (Martin Jay) calls Cultural Marxism "a recycling of the old Weimar conservative charge of "cultural Bolshevism" aimed at aesthetic modernists", but not a conspiracy theory. The second, Jérôme Jamin, says that different people understand different things by Cultural Marxism: It's "a totalitarian ideology" for William Lind (p. 87), an "ideology" for Pat Buchanan (p. 90), and a "conspiracy" for Breivik. (Of course, Jamin afterwards happily refers to "the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory", but there is no indication that for him all uses of the term fall under the conspiracy theory label. So it's fairly clear that there is a Cultural Marixm conspiracy theory (of Breivik, and I'll grant you Minnicinno too with his weird claims about the Frankfurt School), but it's also obvious from the sources used here that there are people using the term for an ideology rather than for a conspiracy. (I can come up with more sources used on this page that claim that Cultural Marxism is being used in different ways by different people, if you want me to.) In other words - yes, Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory. For some people. But since we don't know that Peterson is one of these people (in fact, if primary research were allowed, we could show that he is not one of these people. He claims that Cultural Marxism exists and is a threat, but he doesn't claim that there is a conspiracy), let's only claim what our source claims and not more than that. And really the change I'm arguing for doesn't change the facts at all (on your reading) and is fair rather than unfair (on my reading), so why not just do it? --2A02:8388:1783:FE80:1D43:BE44:CB5E:B045 (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it's a conspiracy for all people. The claim being made by the progenitors of the conspiracy theory is that The Frankfurt School have set out to destroy western civilization. [9] It's as simple as that. Because The Frankfurt School never discuss trying to destroy western civilization you'll have to show proof that either: The conspiracy theory isn't about that, OR The Frankfurt School 'did' explicitly state that as an aim. You make claims about the aims of a group; you're making claims about a conspiracy that group is conducting. Besides which, a conspiracy doesn't necessarily have to operate in secret. It can still be a conspiracy to do something. See Conspiracy_(criminal)#United_States. ---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 04:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Whether it is a conspiracy theory or a real theory, Peterson sees it as a real conspiracy. The cultural Marxists established their movement in order to destroy Western civilization - that's a conspiracy, whether real or imagined. TFD (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Are there any evidence that Peterson blames Cultural Marxism for Bill C-16? The source cited for the claim, ([10]), attributes it to this ([11]) Jacobin article, which does not actually seem to support the claim. Its only reference to 'cultural marxism' is the more general claim that "Many of [Dr. Peterson's] barbs have been directed at what he calls “postmodern neo-Marxism” and “cultural Marxism.”". It goes on to address Peterson's critique of C-16, but does not explicitly claim that he blamed it on 'cultural marxism'. Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

As we WP editors are not conspiracy theorists, it is not our job to look for (or evaluate) evidence, only sources. And I do not see where the conversation is attributing Peterson's C-16/Cultural Marxism connection to Jacobin. Why do you assert this? It seems that the conversation makes the connection directly, itself. Newimpartial (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

No worries, I get that not everyone has the time to evaluate sources. The complete paragraph is "Peterson blamed cultural Marxism for phenomena like the movement to respect gender-neutral pronouns which, in his view, undermines freedom of speech", with blamed linking to the Jacobin article - clearly indicating that this is the author's source for the claim. Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

If there's a convention stating that media hypertext always means "this is the author's only source for this", I hope you have an appropriate source for that somewhwre. I have frankly never seen this suggestion made on Talk page discussion before. Newimpartial (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

If nothing else, it always means "don't take my word for it; I have a source!", and "here is the sole source I am providing to back this statement". When the source then turns out not to acctually support the statement, one might want to take the statement with a grain of salt. Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

So your actual answer is no, you don't have a source for that; it is just your personal salt prescription. Newimpartial (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

(Lest my edit be reverted again for not sufficiently suggesting an "improvement to the article", I'll explicitly state here that a great improvement would be to remove, for the reasons given below, the exquisitely POV idea that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory - and please engage with these arguments - if you oppose them - instead of just reverting them).

When Peterson rails against "Cultural Marxism", he's not because the Frankfurt School is Jewish, but because it's Marxist (with it's attendant eye-watering bodv count that invariably results whenever that particular ideology is is implemented): anti-Semitism has nothing to do with this argument ... and for this idea to be a conspiracy theory it needs to be secret: but the Frankfurt School's output was anything but covert.

Every definition of Cultural Marxism I've read - until I read this article - describes it being a transferal of Marx's ideas - especially that all power differentials result from the exertion of oppression - from the realm of Economics where, as Jordan Peterson has noted, it's been the most tried and consistently failed experiment in the history of ideas, to the realm of Culture.

This explains everything from the supposed all-pervasive "racism" behind the success of Western culture, to the alleged nastiness of the proposition that "pink is for girls, blue is for boys": ... but none of this itself has anything whatsoever to do with anybody's racial background

So how can it possibly be racist?

Rpot2 (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Categories 'Long march through the institutions' and 'Cultural hegemony'

Veverve Please respect BRD and self-revert adding these two categories to the article, and discuss it here first. I have challenged your addition because there is no mention of these two anywhere in the article. Long march states: "strategy for establishing the conditions for revolution: subverting society by infiltrating institutions such as the professions" which is related to the topic; "Cultural hegemony" states: "the "68er-Bewegung", said that changing the bourgeois society of West Germany required a long march through the society's institutions, in order to identify and combat cultural hegemony" That is not a reason for including these two, has nothing to do with this conspiracy thoerey and is WP:OR Mvbaron (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mvbaron: Hello! While those articles are not conspiracy theory related, it is related to marxists, culture and institutions, and using those institutons to change culture, which are the most prominent themes of this article along with antisemitic conspiracy theories.

While we are discussing the "See also" section, I really feel having almost all variations of The Eternal Jew is useless, and I feel only the film should be left. Veverve (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for explaining your reasons, it makes more sense now to me. However, I think as long as there is no direct connection made in the article to long March or cultural hegemony inclusion would be OR. We shouldn’t include everything that’s related to Marxism and culture here in my opinion.

about other links: yes I agree, the following wii links should be removed too: Eternal Jew (book + film) (only the art exhibition is relevant), Dreyfus affair, Jewish question, Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, Mvbaron (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mvbaron: Was there no one claiming the Marxists had succeeded in their harsh march and thus were able to push cultural Marxism?

I agree with you for the article to be removed from the "See also" section. Veverve (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Was there no one claiming the Marxists had succeeded in their harsh march and thus were able to push cultural Marxism? I don't know. Maybe there is, but the long march is such a niche topic, I doubt that they compared it to the conspiracy theory. The term cultural hegemony might be related to the conspiracy theory I suppose but it would give credit to the actual conspiracy so I think linking it at Marxist Cultural Analysis (where it is linked) is how it should be. Best, Mvbaron (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2021

Request to Amend title or remove the page. "Cultural Marxism" is not a "conspiracy theory". The title and subsequent content are amateurish attempts at controlling the narrative around an intellectual topic in order to demonize anyone who would critique primarily but not exclusively the various schools of critical theory and their influence in cultural institutions. The use of Nazi imagery including the yellow star and a photo of Goebels is so obviously an attempt to smear and silence criticism. Additionally, citations from prominent intellectuals who are critical of critical theory are missing. Instead, interpretations through a leftist lens are offered. Any competent editor can find substantial and accurate critiquesand quotes regarding this concept from many people, including Peterson,Pinker, Paglia,Lindsay,Sowell and many, many others. Most interestingly, from those on the left who are/were influenctial in critical theory evolution: “The Revolution won't happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism.” ― Max Horkheimer ResidentAmerican (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Do you have any reliable sources to support your claim, or is this just your opinion. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Horkheimer never said that. Or do you have a book and page number to back it up? Mvbaron (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Your Horkheimer quote appears to be fake/unsourced. Also there is already a criticisms section on both The Frankfurt School Wikipedia page, and the Critical Theory Wikipedia page. However, none of the people you've listed as potential citations are academics of Social Studies, nor are they well versed in these schools of thought, so without the credentials they wouldn't be eligible to be cited for their criticisms. They need to show some knowledge before they can be considered reliable sources of criticism. See WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. 194.193.133.138 (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

2021-07 Postmodern Neo-Marxism‎

I created Postmodern Neo-Marxism‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a redirect to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, and it was expanded yesterday. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

It's been reverted back to a redirect. Sad to see such a lovely stub with information sourced to high quality reliable institutions like PragerU and the "Jordan B Peterson Clips" YouTube channel go. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

If "Postmodern Neo-Marxism" is a synonym for "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory", then that should be mentioned in the Cultural Marxism page, along with a rationale. Otherwise, the redirect itself is a form of original research. Antiquark (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, it is more reasonable to posit that Marxists and Postmodernists hate each other. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I don’t really think thats how OR work vis-a-vis redirects, what do you base that on? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The author of the redirect decided that the two terms are actually synonyms. What is this decision based on? There has to be some decision process, otherwise people would be able to make redirects willy-nilly to equate any topic with any other topic. Antiquark (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Conflating between Postmodernism and Marxism seems to be Peterson's wild guess. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Antiquark: WP:RNEUTRAL covers some ground regarding this. I think if reliable sources don't make the connection between "Postmodern Neo-Marxism" (the Jordan Peterson neologism) and the cultural marxism conspiracy theory then the redirect is probably problematic, but if reliable sources do then the redirect is fine. The correct way to resolve that if you do think it's problematic would be to nominate it for deletion at WP:RFD. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems that Antiquark thinks they can get the redirect deleted at RfD and then re-create the stub article at Postmodern neo-Marxism. Is that really what you were proposing, Volteer? Newimpartial (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, I meant if they thought it should just be deleted. Apologies if I was not very clear about that. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm nearly positive that Peterson has never used the term 'Cultural Marxism', so it's inaccurate to say he popularized it into mainstream discourse. FifthAcaciaColumn (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

True, but irrelevant: he accuses Postmodernism of being Marxism 2.0. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the second part, but Peterson does sometimes use 'Cultural Marxism'. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"Cultural marxism" is synonymous with "neo-marxism"

Closed per WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Cultural Marxism" is synonymous with "neo-marxism", a term from the Frankfurt School itself. It came to be with the turn produced in Frankfurt school, from Marxist thesis to Marxian thesis. Dialectical materialism stops being the main theme of the socialist debate and it comes to be the dialectics applied to the "non-material", let's say, Culture. Interpretations about the goals of the new current of thought may vary. It's very straightforward. Stop being childish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.148.66 (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC) None of that is true, neo-Marxism is a much broader term that pre-dates The Frankfurt School, and most neo-marxists still use some form of dialectical materialism. As did the Frankfurt School (hence their claiming the wealthy have more influence on cultural production). --203.220.86.201 (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC) "claiming the wealthy have more influence on cultural production" The wealthy are the ones financing publishers, production companies, and other companies responsible for cultural production. The poor typically have few outlets to express their views. Dimadick (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)