Marxist Flow Chart

Why Do Conservatives and Hate Groups Know So Much About Critical Theory?

As painful holidays with your family probably show, conservatives are all about hyper-vigilance of anything Karl Marx related. Obama is a Marxist, Anderson Cooper is a pinko commie, and the progressive agenda wants to replace our god-fearing democracy with a Stalinist dictatorship.

Of course, that’s all bullshit. As anyone who has read any book from any Marxist, post-Marxist or anti-state revolutionary, Obama is pretty far up on the revolutionary shit list.

Yet it has come to my attention that a trend has emerged among hardcore conservatives, neo-Nazis, nationalists, and white-supremacist.

They know a whole lot about critical theorists.

It all started when this hilarious flow chart caught my eye on Facebook. According to Think Progress, the image originates from ACT! for America, and anti-Islamic conservative organization.

Marxist Flow Chart
Conservative Paranoia or Revolutionary Wet Dream

As you see, the image ties Karl Marx through a lot of associative fallacies to the modern Democratic party.

What is more interesting is level of detail in the images. Whoever made this is well versed with Frankfurt School alumn Herbert Marcuse and his contribution to Cultural Marxism. They know of  Betty Friedan’s contribution to feminism, and they know about black liberation theology.

Of course it’s still all bullshit. To conflate Betty Freidan’s style of feminism with every other kind of feminism is ridiculous. And to call a George Soros a communist elides the fact that every radical thinker (including Zizek) detests this sort of “charitable capitalism.”

But more examples began to surface. Earlier I reported that the message board of neo-Nazi site Stormfront had a discussion about how useful Foucault was in their movement. The members, for some reason, all knew who Foucault was, they knew of his homosexuality and some of them knew about his ideas on panopticism.

Then I began getting Google Alerts for the Frankfurt School. Nine times out of ten, they were about the shadowy influence of the Frankfurt School in society. I came across a documentary on YouTube entitled Death of the West: Frankfurt School, Cultural Marxism, Political Correctness, and a host of amateur blogs detailing the history of the Frankfurt School.

To top it off, The Guardian recently published an article The Frankfurt School: Why Did Anders Breivik Fear Them? The power and influence that bygone critical theorists is what every revolutionary dreams of.

When Anders Breivik launched his murderous attack in Norway in July 2011, he left behind a rambling manifesto which attacked not only what he saw as Europe’s Islamicisation but also its undermining by the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt school.

It reminded me of a section of The Reification of Desire: Toward a Queer Marxism by Kevin Floyd. In it, Floyd points out the bizarre situation wherein Cold War era politicians labeled homosexuals as a threat to the stability of the society. Of course, from the other end of the political sprectrum, Herbert Marcuse argued the very same thing.

Politically driven universalizations of homosexuality, from Marcuse and from the U.S. Senate, in this respect held in common the view that homosexuality represented a direct threat to state power.

As we watch Glenn Beck argue that the homosexual agenda is out to destroy America, liberals are repulsed by his ignorance and homophobia. But every queer theorists is sitting at home saying  “Yes, of course.”

So why do conservatives know so much about critical theory? It seems like the idea that the left re-emerges on the right might have some credence.  We’ve seen the bizarre convergences of anarchists with libertarians, and how Foucauldian critiques of power can be appropriated by white supremacy groups. It’s only surprising that people conservative conspiracy theorists are reading Herbert Marcuse in their spare time.

  • bob

    how are queer theorists out to destroy america? just wondering your opinion.

    • ‘Queer Theory’ generally takes its cue from ‘philosophers’ like Georg Lukacs, whose goal was to normalize what HE considered to be ‘deviant’ sexual behaviors in order to denigrate the foundations of traditional western morals. Lukacs was a communist who believed that in order for the socialist revolution to come, pesky things like traditional Judeo-Christian morals had to be gotten out of the way.

      Lukacs – and people like Gramsci – knew that the the great, global socialist workers uprising they wanted would never come. This was especially the case since quality of life for the working class rose dramatically after WWI. When it became clear that the communist intellectuals wouldn’t get their ‘war in the streets,’ they developed the idea of CULTURAL MARXISM and the ‘long march through the institutions.’

      Gramsci and Lukacs, and their friends at the Frankfurt School, came up with an idea. In order for the ‘revolution’ to happen, the left had to take over the CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS of the west. Revolution in the streets was a moot point. It was never going to happen. Instead, the left had to slowly chip away at traditional western morals and ideas through cultural institutions like universities, think-tanks, foundations and the arts.

      ‘Queer Theory’ is one such method. Throughout the entire ‘Queer Theory’ curriculum, one can see that it’s main goal is to posit itself as firmly against traditional western sexual morality. In addition to the fact that it is totally rife with the language of Marxist critical theory – as is academic ‘feminism’ and nearly all of the ‘cultural studies’ disciplines.

      I suggest you actually go learn something.

  • Libby Bouchard

    I’m queer, and I’m familiar with queer theory. Why does homosexuality threaten the state? This is far from obvious to even someone like me, so it needs elaboration.

    • Critical Theory

      Hi Libby,

      The argument Floyd is referencing is from Herbert Marcuse’s “Eros and Civilization.” I haven’t read it personally, but the argument from other queer theorists goes something like “heternormativity is a state apparatus that creates the atomic family, masculinity, and nationalism in service of the state and capitalism.” Therefore, queerness can subvert those instruments of state power. I’ve written slightly more about this here (http://critical-theory.com/what-the-fuck-is-queer-theory/), but Kevin Floyd’s book has a very good summation of Marcuse’s argument about queerness as subversive.

      I’d also like to note that early queer theorists may have been a little too optimistic about queerness’ ability to subvert state power. Many queer theorists today, such as Jasbir Puar, talk about the assimilation of queer populations into nationalist/imperialist projects (she calls it homonationalism). Still, they posit a certain radical kind of queerness as a good strategy to resist power.

      • “heternormativity is a state apparatus that creates the atomic family, masculinity, and nationalism in service of the state and capitalism.”

        Marcuse thought that the rejection of ‘heteronormativity’ would be a good way to usher in the collapse of capitalist culture. That’s because Marcuse was a communist.

        It’s no coincidence that the wide majority of ‘Queer Theorists’ are radical leftists.

    • You get gay marriage. Then, not five minutes later, you’re hunting down mom-and-pop business for not serving gay weddings and using the STATE to cudgel dissenters. You try and pass laws that say it’s OK for men to use women’s bathrooms.

      Shall I go on? The goal of the ‘gay left’ is to normalize gay culture via the power of the state.

      Never mind that gay culture is pretty much normalized in America anyway. I’ve never had a problem with gay people myself, but I DO have a problem with the STATE telling me I have to consider ANY culture ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ That’s my decision, thank you very much.

  • Michael Handelman

    I think this is the byproduct of the effects of neo-conservative ways of thinking in our culture. The neo-cons were intellectuals who were very familiar with Marxism (or at least Trotskyist strands), given that many of them were Marxists in the 1930s.

    But in the 1970s, they chose to use their knowledge of Marxism to advance a counter-revolutionary politics. Thus the right-wing activists are simply taking up the same political project when they inquire as to whether Foucault will be useful for them.

  • hekko

    They don’t really ‘know’ anything, it’s just ‘genealogy of decay’. You can check it out at the 4chan.org/pol.
    It’s kind of conspirological mindset, typical for the right, i think zizek talked about it somewhere. The common image for the rightwing is a balanced social field, without any cracks, and some intruders introducing this split; i.e. symbiotic workers-capitalists coexistence and revolutionary destroying this order.
    Same goes with Jews, Cultural Marxists, gays, atheists and so on.

  • glennwire

    White Nationalist – self styled neo reactionaries – always talk about something called “Cultural Marxism”.

    By which they mean the *liberal pluralist* ideology of “multiculturalism”.

    Despite William S. Lind’s schizoid paranoiac pseudo genealogy, they manage to speak of “cultural marxism” without a single quote from any of the Frankfurt School thinkers from which this ideology supposedly derives.

    Adorno’s well-known antipathy towards jazz music, toward the liberal “culture industry” and his general culture mandarin elitism hardly qualifies Adorno as a modern day multicultural pluralist.

    • Here’s a quote for you:

      Antonio Gramsci:

      “Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. … In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.”

      Do you need more?

      • CityCalmDown

        Well yes I do need more.

        Book and page number for the quote would be normal. By which I mean primary source and context. An isolated quote that exists only in the ether of your rifle-sucking schizoid paranoiac Trumpite “mind” is wholly inadequate and sub-standard.

        It’s typical of wanker defenders of “Western Civilisation” to consistently show a pathological inability to read and engage in normal scholarly practice.

        My point was that the dominant ruling ideology and normative axiology is LIBERALISM.

        The liberalism of universal human rights. As applied to women, children, the powerless, indigenous peoples etc.

        This is actually what is being discussed by nutjobs such as William S. Lind – who is an arch-reactionary monarchist – when he talks about his pet racist hate in the form of

        – “multiculturalism” which is the liberal pluralist ideology of neo-liberal globalisation. E.g. The Economist magazine has consistently run this as its editorial stance.

        AND “multiculturalism” is consistently criticised in its form and function as the ruling ideology of Capitalism by Leftist thinkers such as Zizek.

        Neo-liberal Globalisation is criticised, rejected and fought across the political spectrum. Most notably on the Left by Immanuel Wallerstein and his school of World-Systems Analysis.

        Zizek is also notable for his PRO-Christian stance. And for his writings in Christian theology.

        Ernst Bloch’s thought has also been influential on later Christian theology e.g. Jurgen Moltmann; Johannes Metz who was a Catholic.

        https://books.google.com.au/books?id=oPkaXhOV9UAC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=ernst+bloch+influence+on+theology&source=bl&ots=kQB4pghYmv&sig=Ec-MLtlZsBwM68zHMcMLnPv4SR8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQu73Pit_TAhWEfLwKHXjPChsQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=ernst%20bloch%20influence%20on%20theology&f=false

        Antonio Gramsci can easily be seen to be a *cultural* Italian Catholic. Which is why later Catholics such as Dorothy Day could read his work profitably. Both figures were in the tradition of Catholic social justice, “distributionism” (the leftist version) and what later became “liberation theology”.

        In other words, the positions of Leftist and centrist thinkers on various issues is often variegated and subject to debate and open to a number of positions.

        But in order to know this belligerent, open-carry, remnant human, part-drone, part-firearm shitehead wankers like you would defend “the West” by actually reading and thinking.

      • CityCalmDown

        If you want do humanity and “the West” a favour, then direct your mighty intellect and scholarly ability to the task of enlightening and converting all the white nationalist, neo-Nazis amongst your Trumpite, Breitbart, Milo Toyboy ranks.

        For example, why don’t you address the what for them is the “vexed” issue of “white genocide”, I am beginning to see why the pathetic idiots who fill the ranks of nationalist groups would be filled with the type of castration anxiety that naturally accompanies brute, psychopathic stupidity and which would easily lead these criminal scum to arrive at the conclusion that the rest of humanity would like to see them driven to extinction.

        In order to perform the otherwise impossible task of moral self-reflection exemplary paladins of “the West” such as mass-murders Anders Breivik and Dylan Roof require the schizoid-paranoiac displacement of a God in the form of an enemy that has judged and damned them.

        “White genocide” is the satanic “moral” level of the “sub-Raskolnikovs” that worship Trump.

        Schizophrenic nationalist fantasies about being subjected to “white genocide” can therefore be seen to have an entirely rational core. In their rare moments of moral self-reflection, R Spenser and his little band of uniformed toy-boys have quite rightly concluded that they are insects unworthy of life. And that the rest of humanity would indeed be driven by a great need to extinguish them.

        Sadly for them – as for all schizophrenics – the overwhelming majority of humanity remains supremely unaware of their pitiful non-being.

      • CityCalmDown

        >>>”Do you need more?”

        Is this what you scream to your battered spouse, children and beaten pets?

      • CityCalmDown

        Rather than read websites like a mentally indolent radical right activist and get your “information” – in the most insane sense of the word – at 10th hand from fellow right-wing lunatics (you have actually seen a book and know what a university is, right?), why don’t you try actually having bit of think and opening your eyes.

        David Graeber thus far seems to have mostly escaped the sights of the NRA mass-murderers.

        I’ll leave you with a quote from one of Graeber’s books and then wish you the very best of luck for the rest of your slippery slope existence. My intestinal fortitude is limited when it comes to contact with the lunatic Right. (Which btw translates into rejection and condemnation of Black Bloc anti-fa types and groups. But of course reptiles like you can only exist in a mentally supine universe only inhabited by idiots of your own calibre and so will this to be inconceivable)

        David Graeber- THERE NEVER WAS A WEST: OR, DEMOCRACY EMERGES FROM THE SPACES IN BETWEEN

        “1) Almost everyone who writes on the subject assumes “democracy” is a “Western” concept that begins its history in ancient Athens. They also assume that what eighteenth- and nineteenth-century politicians began reviving in Western Europe and North America was essentially the same thing. Democracy is thus seen as something whose natural habitat is Western Europe and its English- or French-speaking settler colonies. Not one of these assumptions is justified. “Western civilization” is a particularly incoherent concept, but, insofar as it refers to anything, it refers to an intellectual tradition. This intellectual tradition is, overall, just as hostile to anything we would recognize as democracy as those of India, China, or Mesoamerica.
        2) Democratic practices—processes of egalitarian decision-making—however, occur pretty much anywhere, and are not peculiar to any one given “civilization,” culture, or tradition. They tend to crop up wherever human life goes on outside systematic structures of coercion.
        3) The “democratic ideal” tends to emerge when, under certain historical circumstances, intellectuals and politicians, usually in some sense navigating their way between states and popular movements and popular practices, interrogate their own traditions—invariably, in dialogue with other ones— citing cases of past or present democratic practice to argue that their tradition has a fundamental kernel of democracy. I call these moments of “democratic refoundation.” From the perspective of the intellectual traditions, they are also moments of recuperation, in which ideals and institutions that are often the product of incredibly complicated forms of interaction between people of very different histories and traditions come to be represented as emerging from the logic of that intellectual tradition itself. Over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries especially, such moments did not just occur in Europe, but almost everywhere.
        4) The fact that this ideal is always founded on (at least partly) invented traditions does not mean it is inauthentic or illegitimate or, at least, more inauthentic or illegitimate than any other. The contradiction, however, is that this ideal was always based on the impossible dream of marrying democratic procedures or practices with the coercive mechanisms of the State. The results are not “Democracies” in any meaningful sense of the world but Republics with a few, usually fairly limited, democratic elements.
        5) What we are experiencing today is not a crisis of democracy but rather a crisis of the State. In recent years, there has been a massive revival of interest in democratic practices and procedures within global social movements, but this has proceeded almost entirely outside of statist frameworks. The future of democracy lies precisely in this area.”

        https://www.amazon.com/Possibilities-Essays-Hierarchy-Rebellion-Desire/dp/1904859666

  • mintap

    Conservatives are just smarter.

    • Crenando

      lol good joke, next you’re going to tell me that religionists are wiser for listening to their worthless mongrel parents.

    • It IS fun to know how radical leftists think, when the radical leftists don’t even know how they think.

      • mintap

        Questioning how they think is like taking the red pill. That very act will make them become more conservative, everything they hate.

        • CityCalmDown

          Why does the Kremlin want Trump in the White House? Why did Putin meet with Erdogan recently? Why is Putin a big fan of Le Pen?
          Russian geopolitical power is increased if the EU and NATO is weakened or even possibly dismantled altogether.

          Russian power is also increased if its other natural geopolitical rival, the USA, is weakened. Russian power is increased if the occupant of the White House is a schizophrenic, know-nothing, non-reading, Faux “News” watching, farcically incompetent, solipsistic, self-stroking and insane, elderly and mentally sclerotic neophyte. In his typically gormless and socially malformed manner, Trump thinks Putin actually likes him as a person. (!!) In reality, Putin regards Trump as a mental and moral insect.

          The USSR used to play the game of courting foreign useful idiots by targeting Western leftists. Today’s Russia plays the game of courting foreign useful idiots by targeting lunatic nativist, ultranationalist Trumpites.

          Feeling nice and “smart” from all that “thinking” that you do, Trumpite half-wit wanker?

          • mintap

            How do you know what the Kremlin wants?
            Let’s assume there is some desire for the Kremlin to have a Trump or Le Pen in power. First, how do we know the Kremlin has an accurate assessment of Trump. The U.S. media (a large well-funded industry who pays really close attention) got Trump’s popularity really wrong, and a main part of the narrative was how unpredictable Trump would be. Why do you think, in spite of this, the Kremlin thought that Trump was popular enough and predictable enough for them?

            And assuming the Kremlin sees Trump as someone that would be bad for the U.S., a country they would see as competition. That would actually place them much more closer to the Democrats ideologically. The Democrats keep saying Trump is bad for the U.S. just like their comrades in Russia are hoping to be the outcome. But the Democrats assessment was far from accurate (as their post-election reflection is finding), and so would be the Kremlins.

            A strong economy in the U.S. is not good for Russia.

            And regarding Le Pen, it was actually Obama that stepped in to meddle with their election supporting Macaroon.

          • CityCalmDown

            >>>”How do you know what the Kremlin wants? ”

            By a consideration of basic, rudimentary geo-political power politics.

            Putin is an expansionist and revisionist power monger.

            Russian power increase through the weakening of the EU and NATO. And through the weakening of the USA.

            All of the Kremlin’s actions can be easily understood through the lens of the consolidation and possible expansion of Russian power. As is the case when examining many of the actions of nation-states and power-blocs.

            Why did Russia annex the Crimea (a warm sea port) and is fomenting a civil war in Ukraine? Why is Russia intervening in Syria?

            Do you honestly find these questions to be a source of great mystery?

            For greater detail see e.g. John Mearsheimer “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tragedy_of_Great_Power_Politics

            For a leftist take with similar conclusions and analysis see e.g.

            Immanuel Wallerstein. Noam Chomsky.

          • CityCalmDown

            Putin supported Le Pen. She visited Moscow during the campaign.

            Why? How would supporting a nationalist who wants to destroy the EU benefit the Kremlin according to their calculus of power?

            >>>”Obama that stepped in to meddle with their election supporting Macaroon.”

            Obama was not POTUS at the time. And in any case nations – especially great powers such as the USA and Russia – attempt to intervene in the internal politics of other nations all the time.

            >>>”The Democrats keep saying Trump is bad for the U.S. just like their comrades in Russia are hoping to be the outcome. But the Democrats assessment was far from accurate (as their post-election reflection is finding), and so would be the Kremlins.
            A strong economy in the U.S. is not good for Russia.”

            This is pure wish-fulfilment on your part.

            Your ability to deny reality and to hallucinate is intergalactic in its magnificence. There is a MASSIVE amount of evidence lining the house of Trump with Russia. And yet for you the problem is the Democrats and “their comrades in Russia”?

            And so the FBI has been conducting a seven month investigation based on zero evidence and they are in fact sitting around playing computer games?

            Hilarious!

          • CityCalmDown

            Putin controls the largest oil company in Russia. He made a 500 Billion dollar deal with the CEO of Exxon Mobil. Obama put sanctions in place which stopped that deal. Russia then hacked into our government in order to get Trump elected. When the CIA told Congress this in September (James Comey was also in that meeting), Mitch McConnell refused to tell the American people, blackmailing Obama saying he would frame it as playing partisan politics during the election. Comey released the infamous no-information letter. Mitch McConnell’s wife was picked for Trump’s cabinet. The CEO of Exxon is now the Secretary of State. Wonder why our President has been so quick to dismiss the CIA’s findings?………it gets better..2/…Here are some facts : Decide for yourselves 1) Trump owes Blackstone/ Bayrock group $560 million dollars (one of his largest debtors and the primary reason he won’t reveal his tax returns)
            2) Blackstone is owned wholly by Russian billionaires, who owe their position to Putin and have made billions from their work with the Russian government.
            3) Other companies that have borrowed from Blackstone have claimed that owing money to them is like owing to the Russian mob and while you owe them, they own you for many favours.
            4) The Russian economy is badly faltering under the weight of its over-dependence on raw materials which has plummeted in the last 2 years leaving the Russian economy scrambling to pay its debts
            5) Russia has an impetus to influence the US election to ensure the per barrel oil prices are above $65 ( they are currently hovering around $50)
            6) Russia can’t affordably get at 80% of its oil reserves and reduce its per barrel cost to compete with America at $45 or Saudi Arabia at $39. With Iranian sanctions being lifted Russia will find another inexpensive competitor increasing production and pushing Russia further down the list of suppliers.
            As for Iranian sanctions, the 6 countries lifting them allowing Iran to collect on the billions it is owed for pumping oil but not being paid for it. These billions Iran can only get if the Iranian nuclear deal is signed. Trump spoke of ending the deals which would cause oil sales sanctions to be reimposed, which would make Russian oil more competitive.
            7) Rex Tillerson is the head of ExxonMobil, which is in possession of patented technology that could help Putin extract 45% more oil at a significant cost savings to Russia, helping Putin put money in the Russian coffers to help reconstitute its military and finally afford to mass produce the new and improved systems that it had invented before the Russian economy had slowed so much.
            8) Putin cannot get access to these new cost saving technologies OR outside oil field development money, due to US sanctions on Russia, because of its involvement in Ukrainian civil war.
            9) Look for Trump to end sanctions on Russia and to back out of the Iranian nuclear deal, to help Russia rebuild its economy, strengthen Putin and make Tillerson and Trump even richer, thus allowing Trump to satisfy his creditors at Blackstone.
            10) With Trump’s fabricated hatred of NATO and the U.N., the Russian military reconstituted, the threat to the Baltic states is real. Russia retaking their access to the Baltic Sea from Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and threatening the shipping of millions of cubic feet of natural gas to lower Europe from Scandinavia, allowing Russia to make a good case for its oil.

          • CityCalmDown

            I don’t know – it’s hard for me to see any U.S. ties to Russia…except for the Flynn thing and the Manafort thing
            and the Tillerson thing
            and the Sessions thing
            and the Kushner thing
            and the Carter Page thing
            and the Roger Stone thing
            and the Felix Sater thing
            and the Boris Ephsteyn thing
            and the Rosneft thing
            and the Gazprom thing
            and the Sergey Gorkov banker thing
            and the Azerbajain thing
            and the “I love Putin” thing
            and the Donald Trump, Jr. thing
            and the Sergey Kislyak thing
            and the Russian Affiliated Interests thing
            and the Russian Business Interests thing
            and the Emoluments Clause thing
            and the Alex Schnaider thing
            and the hack of the DNC thing
            and the Guccifer 2.0 thing
            and the Mike Pence “I don’t know anything” thing
            and the Russians mysteriously dying thing
            and Trump’s public request to Russia to hack Hillary’s email thing
            and the Trump house sale for $100 million at the bottom of the housing bust to the Russian fertilizer king thing
            and the Russian fertilizer king’s plane showing up in Concord, NC during Trump rally campaign thing
            and the Nunes sudden flight to the White House in the night thing
            and the Nunes personal investments in the Russian winery thing
            and the Cyprus bank thing
            and Trump not releasing his tax returns thing
            and the Republican Party’s rejection of an amendment to require Trump to show his taxes thing
            and the election hacking thing
            and the GOP platform change to the Ukraine thing
            and the Steele Dossier thing
            and the Leninist Bannon thing
            and the Sally Yates can’t testify thing
            and the intelligence community’s investigative reports thing
            and the Trump reassurance that the Russian connection is all “fake news” thing
            and the Spicer’s Russian Dressing “nothing’s wrong” thing
            and the Chaffetz not willing to start an investigation thing
            and the Chaffetz suddenly deciding to go back to private life in the middle of an investigation thing
            and the The Lead DOJ Investigator Mary McCord SUDDENLY in the middle of the investigation decides to resign thing
            and the appointment of Pam Bondi who was bribed by trump in the trump university scandal appointed to head the investigation thing
            and the The White House going into full-on cover-up mode, refusing to turn over the documents related to the hiring and subsequent firing of Flynn thing
            and the Chaffetz and White House blaming the poor vetting of Flynn on Obama thing
            and the Poland and British intelligence gave information regarding the hacking back in 2015 to Paul Ryan and he didn’t do anything thing
            and the Agent M16 following the money thing
            And now the trump team KNEW about Flynn’s involvement but hired him anyway thing
            and The Corey Lewendowski thing
            and the Preet Bharara firing thing but before he left he transferred evidence against trump to a state level Schneiderman thing
            And the Betsy Devos’ Brother thing
            And the Sebastian Gorka thing
            And the Greg Gianforte from Montana thing
            And the pence actually was warned about Flynn before he was hired thing
            and the Pence and Manafort connection thing
            And the 7 Allies coming forward with audio where trump was picked up in incidental wire tapping thing
            and the carter Page defying the Senate’s order to hand over his Russian contact list
            AND NOW the trump wants to VETO Sally Yates’ testimony thing!!!

          • CityCalmDown

            The USA currently has approximately 60 million Trumpite, ultranationalist nativist useful idiot for Russian interests.

            Thank Fox News for their “patriotism”

          • mintap

            Sure, a lot of people holding their representatives accountable to “make America great again” is supposed to be good for Russia how exactly?

          • CityCalmDown

            “The Plot Against Europe
            The West’s nightmare scenario starts with Donald Trump’s election — and ends with Russian tanks rolling into Estonia while NATO looks the other way.”

            http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/06/the-plot-against-europe/

          • CityCalmDown

            You are obviously a small and innocent infantile regressive with sub-zero understand of power and geo-politics.

            >>>”good for Russia how exactly?”

            Here you gormlessly show off your child-like Trumpite idiocy.

            (COVFEFE – “conservatives on valium fuck Enlightenment fuck English”

            “Cancel operation Vladimir. Feds expected, Feds expected.” )

            Please. Do yourself a favour, abandon your manichean, tribalist and sectarian “loyalty” to the Glorious Leader.

            At the very least go a library if you are unable to acquire the requisite real-world experience necessary to understand these matters.

            In my earlier post I made a few book recommendations.

            And in me other post I provided a link to a recent article in Foreign Policy Magazine. A magazine written by and for professionals in the field which is also obviously of great interest to the more general public.

            http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/06/the-plot-against-europe/

            It is way above my pay grade to have to educate you here.

            Goodbye. Good luck.

      • CityCalmDown

        Donald Trump is a very great thinker, nicht wahr?

  • Martin Karlsson

    Hello, right-libertarian/ancap here. I have begun reading into and listening to Foucault, which I find very intriguing. His reasoning reminds me a lot of the Austrian school of economics, especially Friedrich Hayek who didn’t follow the hardline deductive reasoning of praxeology like Mises and Rothbard. He reminds me a lot of Foucault when he talks about the presumptuousness of knowledge.

    “Neither side would probably like to admit it, but there are more commonalities between Austrian economics and the postmodern perspective (there are many different flavors of post-modernism as well as Austrian economics, but I’m talking about elements common to most of them) than most people realize.”

    “Of course, there are also many differences – postmodernists are skeptical of deductive logic which Austrians rely on heavily, and would probably describe such efforts as “essentializing” or “reductionism”. Austrians dislike the postmodern openness to “sloppy” (non-deductive) argumentation, and excess optimism when evaluating government policy.”
    http://www.suspiciousheuristics.com/2012/06/austrian-economics-and-postmodernism.html

    What material would you recommend for learning about critical theory or postmodernism more generally?

  • James Stevenson

    any discussion about right wing knowledge of critical theory HAS to include this classic. “the coming insurrection” became an amazon best seller pretty much because glenn beck told everyone they needed to be knowledgeable about what the anarchists were up to

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKyi2qNskJc

  • Wooxer Pt

    This diagram was taken from a documentary whose name I don’t recall but would like to. I also considered it bullshit but then I found the truth and remembered it, that’s why I ended up here.

  • You’re conflation of conservatives with ‘hate groups’ – as if all conservatives are in some way associated with hate groups – is a very postmodern leftist tactic. You’ve essentially displayed the exact thing you’re denying.

    Why do we know so much about critical theory? Because we have a vested interest in learning how the radical left thinks, so we can destroy it.