The strategies teach that the ends justify the means. Which is what Marx taught. That revolution, and a violent revolution at that, is morally justified if it means a communist society is the outcome. Cultural marxist will do whatever it takes to destroy capitalism.

Your words dont have any meaning to it. Are you even human?

OK, so you believe that cultural Marxists want to destroy capitalism.

Most people accused of being 'cultural Marxists' are pro capitalism (ie. Liberals). Liberals just want capitalism with social welfare programs. They don't want worker, public, or state ownership of capital enmasse.

If you've read any State Socialist, Fascist, or Libertarian Socialist ecnomic theory (which are all non-capitalist), then you'll see how flawed it is to assert that liberals want to destroy capitalism. When was the last time you heard a liberal campaign for eminent domain, to turn corporations into worker cooperatives?

It's a boogeyman. Liberals are just capitalists who want strong social welfare programs. People on the far left dislike liberals just as much as they do right wingers (I promise you).

Here is a short video, showing the basic reasons why 'cultural Marxism' is severely flawed meme, based on a lack of research and understanding of Marxism and Critical theory (ie. the model of analysis that emerged from the Frankfurt School)...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X98uzqpQ3JM

I think I understand, you're saying boys tend to play with things that involves problem solving from a very young age, whether that be mechanical things, or working in a wood shop, ect? And that girls tend to play with dolls and do princess type things more often. That because you so happened to have parents that worked around mechanics it allowed you to do it from a young age and now you have an IQ of 147.

Now the question is, had you not been around those mechanical things from a young age, and instead played with dolls, would you still have grown up with an IQ of 147? My opinion is that yes, you would have achieved the same high IQ. I think as long as you are not neglected, then you will probably reach your genetic potential for fluid intelligence. But, I can't say that with much certainty since I'm dealing with a lot of incomplete information when it comes to nature vs nurture. I will say it's very possible that you're right, and the way genders are raised differently is the deciding factor, but until we know more about genetics I will just leave it at that.

Those I refer to as cultural marxists do want worker, public, or state ownership of the means of production. Either that or excessive regulation and taxes on business that will cripple them to the point of failure. An excellent case study of this has been Venezuela. Hugo Chavez waspraisedby liberals. Bernie Sanders used many of his same talking points. Now Venezuela is on the brink of collapse, their currency has undergone hyperinflation to the point that it's not worth the paper it was printed on.

Edit: Also I don't think all liberals are cultural marxists. But all cultural marxist do want to destroy capitalism. What I call cultural marxist seems to be what you call 'far left'. I don't refer to just any moderate liberals as cultural marxists.

Wow this sh*t again. Men are better at sports, thus they get paid more because more people want to watch the peak of human abilities. More viewers = more businesses = more money = higher salaries. No we're not talking about your average male weighed up against a pro female athlete, we're talking about the best of the best all lined up. Fuking society just flying backwards when people can't even acknowledge the blatant physical differences. So no, it's not a "pay gap" it's someone who isn't as good getting paid less. What's worse are idiot males who even humor this sort of stupidity, the wonders of social media. Why do you think there are transgenders going into females sports and smashing records? Gee.

If you are better than someone, then prove it and people will acknowledge it. Just don't live in a fuking fantasy world were you cannot acknowledge your own strengths and weaknesses. Results trump anything people bicker about during stupid gender wars say. Actual practical, objective data over the span of thousands of years, not what you fuking feel, not what's happened in the last few years.

Just because your IQ is low to the point where they do not make sense to you does not preclude them from making sense to others.

Can you point to exactly what I have said in this thread that is mysoginistic in terms of the objective meaning of the term.

In what sense is being tall ´superior´to being short (from a biological perspective of course, as we have been arguing from a biological position all along anyway)? I smell a value judgement.

But back to the main point, I didn´t claim that his argument was all men are superior to all women. It was in fact based on the very point of biology (how men and women diverge based on their differing roles). Dipfukc.

I mean, at least compare two things that serve the same function. For instance, you can say that a certain pair of hiking boots are superior to another, cheaper pair, or that a certain teaching methodology is superior to another in that it fosters the best results. But to compare women and men on a biological level and say one is superior is misunderstanding the nature of a coevolving species. As an argument, it achieves nothing of worth, even if it were true.

He also hasn´t answered:
1. Why did he bring up mammal gender roles in the context in which he did (clearly using it as an example for how it allows men to evolve the traits that make them ´superior´, or something)
2. How are men more emotionally intelligent than women

Again, lots of words and all they say is "attention please, i am a small fragile FA"

Ur an actual failure, not knowing any women irl to not have a misogynic view on life. @ 33 years of living

Again, instead of the usual fallacious ad hominem attacks, can you actually point to ANYTHING that ive posted in this thread that is objectively mysoginistic?

Pretty sure women are designed to be better at school considering how public education is taught. I spent 3 years learning absolutely nothing at school because I would rather be doing anything else, then took up learning a topic in my own and became more knowledgeable than my teacher with a degree in the subject. Also if you’re basing your results off childhood IQ that loses value within 5 years because of the shifts in brain development after adolescence. I’d suggest taking one as an adult because the standards are raised and you’ll see where you actually stand

You are really trying hard to not say anything directly, seems like you dont even have the guts to be rude. But you said that what I understand as misogynic is actually the truth. You are taking misogynic comments from thorpowers as facts. And what does agreeing witha misogynic view makes you? Das right my little incel bug, misogynic.
Every comment from you about white knights is pure cope that people can be better than you AND still get more women.

Ok, you actually are talking complete nonsense. Thank you for at least confirming it.

hhh

A couple points here. First, I do think it is dubious to state that the language component of the test is completely irrelevant as a measure of intelligence. Even Charles Murray, author of the infamous Bell Curve, has stated that the language component of an iq test can make up one valid measure of g. It can't be used in isolation, and may not even be the most important measure, but to dismiss it completely is dubious.

On the issue of genetics vs environment, in my very first post I acknowledged that men dominate the tail ends of the distribution of the data, which is established in the literature. However, I also noted that I believe it is too early to determine how much of this can be attributed to environment or genetics. When individuals point to all the great accomplishments and creations of men, they are, imo, committing a classical correlation/causation fallacy, considering that women have historically been shut out of the avenues and fields necessary for such accomplishments.

On the issue of men generally having a higher median iq than women, I have to read that meta study you posted carefully along with some other sources before responding. To my knowledge, this is not an established consensus among the experts/scientists.

Classic video here

dot

Flexibility

There is a major problem with referring to those people collectively as 'cultural marxists then'.

I'll explain why in a second...

I'm going to try to appeal to your ego. You seem like a guy who prides themselves on being studious, and having an active mind. So I'm hoping to encourage you to do more research into the far-left, to see if the the various ideologies can be lumped together under the meme 'Cultural Marxism'. Other wise, IMO you've just blindly swallowed what the right wing thinkers have been saying.Venezuela was a failed attempt at a social democracy with heavy state oversight, it was not a socialist state. The majority of the economy had private ownership of capital, only certain parts of the economy were nationalized.

The following video is a far left winger, talking about Venezuela. I highly recommend it...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le86H7Xfjrc

So, liberals praising attempts at social democracy is not surprising, seeing as a social democracy is (depending on how it's implemented) a mixed economic system, or a capitalism with strong welfare programs.

Based on being far left myself, IME the majority of the far left is heavily critical of social democracy.You seem to call cultural Marxists, anyone who is left wing and wants:

Worker, public, or state ownership of the means of production.

Or what heavily regulated and higher taxed capitialism.

(That's what I can gather, based on what you've just written.)

That means the term referring to various ideologies within left wing thought. Some directly contradictory (eg. Libertarian Socialists, and Maoists), and which also consists of ideologies and left wing political philosophers that have heavily criticized Marxism, or any statism.

Based on your explanation you are literally referring to people who are:

1)Left Wing Market Anarchistss (ie. Kevin Carson) as a 'Cultural Marxist'. Despite having nothing in common with Marxist method of analysis or proposed political or economic theory aside from the Labour theory of value (which predates Marx, and even Adam Smith supported it).

2)People who follow the ideologies of Murray Bookchin and Abdullah Ocalan. Which are Anarchist ideologies, that have methods and models of analyzing socio-economic issues which areradically different to Marxism (they were both ex Marxists, and radically rejected and departed from Marxism. If you think I'm lying or they didn't stop being Marxist, please read or do some research into how their philosophies, and then compare it to Marxism). However you would still call them 'Cultural Marxists'.

3)The Zeitgeist Movement.Which is a far left ideology, that proposes radical reform of the economic system. The ideology is shaped by Peter Joesph, who again has a method of criticizing and analyzing socio-economic issues, which is non-Marxist.

4) Left WingAgorists, who follow Market Anarchist Philosophers like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Kevin Carson and Mikhail Bakunin. Would be Cultural Marxist according to you, because they are actively engaging in counter-economics, specifically designed to subvert the capitalist system. Despite them following Bakuinin, who actively and heavily criticized Marx's analysis and proposals.

I'll stop there.

The reason why I'm dropping names and ideologies, is to emphasize that calling them Cultural Marxists, is (more than likely) based on a complete ignorance of the diversity of thought in the far left. IME every video I've watched explaining 'Cultural Marxism' by right wingers (including from Jordan Peterson), attempts to create a linear progression from Marxism to the SJW movement and Bernie Sanders. Basically, it's a grand strawman.

If you are aware that Socialism predates Marx, then surely you can see how nonsensical it is to refer toanyonewho is left wing and proposes a different economic system to capitalism, as a 'cultural Marxist'?

What does the 'cultural' part of Cultural Marxism mean?

If you are interested in watching a non-Marxist far left criticism of our modern capitalist system, I highly recommend this one...

I recommend watching the whole series, not just 1 episode.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEC0GT_8l_I

I understand you are trying to convey that calling all far leftist cultural marxist is too broad a brush to paint them under, as it is more nuanced than that. I don't refer to all far left as cultural marxist only those that want to end capitalism in favor of public/collective ownership over the means of production, and use SJW tactics to achieve this goal.All this does is give further evidence that even a social democracy will likely result in a failed state. And if a social democracy is able to last longer than a few decades, it is in spite of the social welfare programs, not because of them. There is a strong correlation between economic freedom and prosperity. The most economically free states which would include Singapore, Hong Kong, USA, New Zealand, Australia, Austria, and South Korea tend to be the most prosperous. The least economically free states which includes Cuba, North Korea, Afghanistan, Venezuela, and Sudan tend to be among the least prosperous and most oppressive. I like to take a pragmatic approach and base my opinions on observed reality; real life consequences of policy. Not theories.Not anyone who wants a different economic system to capitalism. Anyone that wants to end capitalism and specifically wants to replace it with collective ownership of the means of production.

The cultural part refers to the ways cultural marxist use culture as a tool to shut up their critics. Things like political correct language is an example of cultural marxism in practice. All the tenets of feminism. microaggressions, identify politics. White privilege.It's not completely irrelevant, but it does not measure fluid intelligence, at all. It would be like saying a memory test measures general intelligence. Chimpanzees outperform humans on memory tests. Fluid intelligence is the ability to solve problems, use logic, recognize patterns, and think abstractly. It allows us to see the big picture. Having a large vocabulary does make one appear more intelligent on the surface, just like memorizing answers for a typical grade school test. But, neither is a very good measure of true fluid intelligence the way tests specifically designed to measure fluid intelligence such as the Ravens Progressive Matrices are. Like I said, the Ravens is the gold standard of IQ testing when it comes to fluid intelligence. At best a language heavy test would be a decent measure of crystalized intelligence, which measures one's ability to apply learned knowledge demonstrated through their vocabulary.The way I read this is you agree there is a male advantage in terms of IQ as demonstrated by the tests. But that it is too early to determine whether it is environment that is causing this different or genetics? I'm not trying to take you out of context or misrepresent you, but that's how I read this. Which if I'm reading this the right way then we have no significant disagreements on this topic.

Then you're still calling people literally opposed to Marxism, Marxists.

Because what is considered 'SJW tactics' itself is vague.Not development though.

As right wing economist Ian Fletcher outlines in his book;Free Trade Doesn't Work, and Left wing economist Ha Joon Chang outlines in his book;Bad Samaritans...

Free trade is bad for economic development (according to history and economic growth data). They both argue, that what people tend to do is conflate the outcome with the means.

Meaning, economic liberalization is what countries tend to doafter they've engaged in heavy planning, market manipulation, and general protectionism.

Here is a talk by Conservative economist Ian Fletcher on the topic...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmUlN3p8qK8

Extra Vid, where he touches on other points that I think are important...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWZkHozvDfM
Then I hope you read and listen to the 2 authors that I presented.

They present economic history, and data to back up their arguments.

I'm going to guess that you mainly diet yourself on Libertarian economists?Then that means every leftist who is non liberal, because that's what they want.

Even the ones who are opposed to Marxism, and openly critique it, you would still call a Cultural Marxist.That sounds like literally anything left wing.

You believe that anyone who is doesn't want a capitalist system, and wants a (non liberal) left wing economic system is a Cultural Marxist.

Also anyone who believes in Feminism, white privilege, or political correctness (ie. being mindful of or opposing terms and narratives that might offend people). So that further eliminates people who may be pro-capitalist left wingers, but are also are feminists, believe that whites have an inherent advantage in a majority white nation, and believe in caution regarding terms or narratives that might offend minorities or women.

That means that leaves anyone but the most centrist of left wingers. And practically the entire left becomes Cultural Marxists.

Feminist... Cultural Marxist.
Feminist who doesn't agree with; contemporary feminist gender theory, and misandry (eg Christina Hoff Sommers)... Cultural Marxist.
Believe that white privilege exists... Cultural Marxist.
Believe that white privilege exists, but doesn't agree with affirmative action, BLM, etc... Cultural Marxist.
Believe in caution regarding using slurs based around race, gender, or sexuality, but is against legislation... Cultural Marxist.
Left Wing Market Anarchist... Cultural Marxist.
Democratic Confederalist... Cultural Marxist.
The Zeitgeist Movement Supporter... Cultural Marxist.
Democratic Socialist (eg. George Orwell)... Cultural Marxist.
Left Wing Nationalist... Cultural Marxist.
If you are left wing and criticize capitalism, want a Socialist economic system but are opposed to Marxist proposals... Cultural Marxist.

Which again brings me back to my point, that 'Cultural Marxism' has no clear definition. (To be fair to you, this is the same experience I have whenever I ask someone right wing to define Cultural Marxism, it ends up basically referring to the entire left).

Marxism (understandably) has a bad rep, even in mainstream left wing circles. So what the right seems to have done is to try link literally every thing left wing to Marxism, by creating the term 'Cultural Marxism'.

Manipulating men to fulfill their needs. Arguably civilization is based on this concept.

Think about it for a minute. Women are responsible for 80%+ of consumer spending. What does a man really NEED? Not much. Many of man's greatest achievements can be traced back to pursuit of pussy.

No it's more nuanced than that. It would be like if I said conservatives believe in small government, and then you listed everyone who believes in small government from libertarians, all the way to some forms of anarchism, and say they are all 'conservatives' because they believe in small government. White privilege is a tenant of cultural marxism, but does not mean that anyone who believes white privilege exists is a cultural marxist.

But in general, yes the majority of the far left today are cultural marxist. I don't know why you take such issues with these terms. Seems to be because you know marxism understandably carries a bad rep and negative connotation along with it. To me all the groups you listed are essentially just marxism by another name. There are subtle differences, but they all want to severely cripple if not outright destroy capitalism, and use SJW tactics to do so, and have an ends justify the means morality.

Speak for yourself pussywhip.

You must know nothing about women. They either want to **** you or not. Not a hard concept to grasp. Theres no changing their mind retard unless you where obese and where good looking underneath and made a transformation.

Honestly, you answer why with he following sentence (and half sentence)...Again, what you wrote tells me you haven't done little to no research into far left thought, and seem to be blindly believing that Marxism encompasses the whole of left wing thought (which is what right wing thinkers are trying to convince the youth about).

It's bothers me, because there are significant differences between the method of Marxist socio-economic analysis, and say Murray Bookchin's method of socio-economic analysis (if you don't believe me, you can read or watch Murray Bookchin). Or significant differences between Marxist socio-economic analysis, and say Peter Joesph socio-economic analysis.

Economically there areradicaldifferences between say Mutualism and Marxist-Leninism, I cannot stress to you enough that the difference is far from subtle. One is a decentralized free market socialist theory, the other is authoritarian and believes in mass nationalization.

There are radical differences between say Democratic Confederalism currently practiced in Rojava, and Mao's China. The differences aren't subtle.

IMO, if you are going to criticize something, at least represent it accurately. (Calling them all Marxism, with only subtle differences, is - to be blunt - incredibly ignorant.)

In on closet homo thread.

Basically every guy in this thread is trying to come up with every possible negative thing about women to convince themselves to switch over to the other team.

In 10 pages "10" pages no one has said women are better at BJ's, Sex etc. but knowing homo misc they are going to say Men are better at that too. lol

This won’t get you laid.

Nice post. Have you read Robert Brenner's study on declining global profit rates? It nicely highlights the intrinsic crisis tendencies of late capitalism, while also debunking the Monopoly Capital School of thought.

you mean men are 10x better at committing murder.

Nah youre just not going far enough.

Your 2nd sentence literally just explained what i wrote

That is yes or no. And that means you must meet their qualifications. And that means if you dont act the way they like youre not getting poosy

It maybe works on the other end, but its by far not the large majority of behavior --> women chasing men. Theres probably a reason you dont see male cam models, snapchat models, instagram models dominating the sex scene. Go ahead and advertise your dong to women and see what a following you cultivate.

And then go ahead and offer some tits, poosy and azz and see what happens.

And its because mens nuts create millions of sperm everyday, while women's ovaries create one egg per month