Jupi wrote:Can you cite, say, 4 examples of different news sources/publications that use the term "Cultural Marxism" in earnest, and does not also support a version of racism or fascism?
Diebert wrote:The hard part of that will be the problem I tried to describe above: all serious sources already have been attacked and smeared with charges of racism and fascism without providing much reasonable evidence. Of course that's the secret of smearing: it does not require any, just the suggestion or vague associations and repetitions are enough. It's a hallmark of emotionality and buttons being pushed. You must have seen how it worked against Solway here, who is not a racist or fascist in any way, at least to my knowledge. Watch what happens when evidence is asked: some hollow vague hand waving follows. At that stage I've seen enough.
Here, the term racism is used inappropriately and too broadly. Because it is a 'hot' word, used by those who wish only to slander, it really does not have meaning. Therefore, the term and the entirety of the intellectual understanding that stands behind it need to be brought out. The same is true for 'fascism' which, as a term in popular discourse, and as used broadly in the media, is also meaningless because it is not carefully defined.
Racialism and race-realism, on the other hand,
have definitions, and they are sound definitions that are part-and-parcel of classical Liberal thought. They can be brought out in an intelligent and fair conversation and are not 'abnormal' and they are definitely not immoral nor unethical terms. Nor is discourse on that topic. To see, to classify, to designate, to evaluate, to privilege differences in racial make up, cultural maturity, affiliation with civilization, as well as the somatic issue (which is not unreal), all these elements have been part of 'liberal' discourse.
In Hyper-liberalism and in Progressivism, tinged as they are by irrational currents of non-thought, that is, emotionalized thinking, it is not allowed to think with these terms, and it is forbidden to discuss such matters. But far worse -- indeed utterly morally reprehensible -- it is to organize one's life in accord with one's understanding of cultural, ethnic and racial differences (all of these operate together and no one of them can be intelligently examined when removed from a holistic group).
The present 'conversation' about race and culture going on for example at American Renaissance (Jared Taylor) is an example of a strict 'liberal' conversation that would have made perfect sense just a few short years ago. That is, before the assault by those of the Cultural Marxist school-of-thought. Again Cultural Marxism is linked to Progressivism and, as David Quinn indicates inadvertently it can take a semi-religious form, as in enthusiasm and something akin to religious hysteria.
Fascism as a term, as used here, is also an unfair and misleading term. Because a more rigid and strict 'liberalism' as I am defining it, capable of and recognizing the importance of hierarchical designation, will be unfairly described as 'fascism' by Hyper-liberal extremists. While a militant state fascism must be considered dangerous and destructive, a social movement that is restraining or even thwarting to Hyper-liberal extremism can be seen as a Rx to the latter.
Spiritual disciplines -- Christian, Buddhist, what-have-you -- are comparable to self-chosen 'fascism' and function similarly in microcosm to renovation movements when a given culture takes such up. We are now entering a phase, it seems, of confrontation with Hyper-liberalism. This is definitely the case in Poland and in Hungary, and there are native movements in every country of Europe right now, in Australia. NZ, in America and Canada, as well as in the Southern Cone of South America, that are beginning to implement reactionary forms that stand against 'liberal excess'.
'Fascism', if considered in the context of the QRS 'movement', would be taking an intellectual stand as the first order of business against out-of-control Hyper-liberal excess. Fascism then could be seen as a 'masculine imposition' or 'correction' of an excess of female and feminine liberality.
The only people that I am aware of that are advocating state fascism are, perhaps, Neo-Nazis. These exist but they are nearly completely marginalized. The Alt-Right and the New Right are capable of looking at National Socialism with less prejudiced eyes, which is the only proper way to look at it so to avoid the 'propaganda constructs' which dominate perception and thought. But no one that I have read is advocating for a Nazi-like social movement to secure its ends. However, they do recognize the need -- and they describe it as a genuine need, not a false need -- to begin to reverse the race-mixing trends that are part-and-parcel of Postwar cultural processes. Anyone can examine this position and weigh it. It is best expressed at Counter-Currents by Greg Johnson
et al.
These ideas are indeed *radical* but only because our present has made certain ideas and discourses illegal and has cast them not only as immoral but as evil (
unthinkable thought). But this is not so. (Once one has broken the spell of Hyper-liberalism and Hyper-progressivism
within one's own mind by confronting the European grammar of self-intolerance, and once one has deconstructed it to some degree or other, one begins quite naturally to return to our traditional
Liberalism, which has been seriously disrupted and contaminated. And this Liberalism is now made to seem as a form of right-leaning radicalism and extremism though it is not.
Quite a trick really.
Everyone else that I am aware of -- from Benoist to Taylor and even to Greg Johnson -- are trying to think rationally about what an alternative might be to the regime of
Hyper-liberalism and its domination of ideas and perception. Note that I did write hyper-liberalism and I contrast this to sane, sensible Liberal forms of thought which can easily and coherently contain all that I have written without being 'extremist' nor immoral.
Jupi's *issue* is complex and not a little bizarre. He is an Indian man -- a brown man from a brown culture that had been dominated by the English and which is still working out its
independence -- who was yet educated in Occidental traditions at a religious institution. The conversation about race & culture or 'race-realism' makes him
uncomfortable. That is why he takes issue with it.
However, he is in this sense 'the victim' of that European imposition, and that cultural imposition operates
similarly as it does among American aboriginals or Australian aboriginals, and in all places where European imperialism imposed itself and its 'categories'. It molds them, it gives them forms and content quite distinct from its own 'cultural traditions' (which are real and valid), but it also poisons them in strange ways. It leads to classic
ressentiment. In this context, then, his use of the term 'racism' and also 'fascism' have to be considered.