Ron Paul

Ron Paul Slams 'Cultural Marxism' with a Quickly Deleted Bigoted Cartoon

Why an attack on "cultural Marxism" isn't compatible with a fight for liberty


This morning the Facebook page of Ron Paul, former Republican congressman and presidential candidate (and also former Libertarian Party presidential nominee), ran a post attacking "cultural Marxism." The post made wide national news (see coverage in The Daily Beast, Newsweek, and the New Republic) because it was initially illustrated by a cartoon containing offensive stereotypes of a Jew, a black, an Asian, and a Hispanic punching out Uncle Sam with the hammer-and-sickled fist of cultural Marxism. The same picture appeared in a Ron Paul tweet linking to the Facebook post.

The image was quickly replaced on Facebook with a generic "no political correctness" cartoon, and the tweet was deleted. Paul's Twitter feed, in a tweet actually signed with Paul's name, later said that "Earlier today a staff member inadvertently posted an offensive cartoon on my social media. I do not make my own social media posts and when I discovered the mistake it was immediately deleted."

Twitter (see update below)

Paul has a history of underlings writing under his name saying things hostile and prejudicial toward blacks and gays. (See this 2008 Reason account of the earlier "Ron Paul newsletter" controversy for more.) Paul has not yet responded to my request for comment about whether the staffer responsible for attaching that cartoon is being discplined in any way.

Ron Paul the presidential candidate, to his credit, didn't say much (I never heard anything, but I didn't hear everything) complaining about "what has become of American culture" or bringing up the bugaboo of "cultural Marxism," a vague conspiratorial theory that roughly claims that various changes in Western cultural character and traditions over the past 70 years or so are the deliberate result of Marxists' attempts to bring down liberty and impose communism.

Instead of that sort of right-wing culture-war nonsense, presidential candidate Paul spoke of the human tragedies of military empire, the economic disruptions of federal monetary policy, and the unjust foolishness of restricting free choices that don't directly harm others, from drug use to raw milk consumption. That Ron Paul celebrated how political liberty can unify us and make us the best we could be, as individuals and as a nation.

When Paul began worrying about "cultural Marxism" in the context of the NFL players taking the knee rather than standing for the national anthem, he went far astray from any opinion rooted in respect for individual liberty. Anyone who took Paul's own just critique of the crimes of the U.S. government both abroad and at home should have enthusiastically joined the football players in refusing ritualized obeisance to the U.S. flag.

Any public figure can have interests that go beyond political liberty, but Paul in his two GOP presidential runs understood that American needed a national politician running on political liberty, its ethical propriety, its wealth-creating powers, and its power to bring us together.

Paul's post originally illustrated by the cartoon lays bare how inappropriate and counterproductive worrying about "cultural Marxism" is if liberty is your concern. The Facebook post said that for Marxists:

Their original argument of workers being *exploited* by capitalists, didn't sell. It's obviously not the case.

So Marxists just shifted their "exploitation" schtick to culture:
— women exploited by men
— gays exploited by heterosexuals
— The old exploited by the young—and vice-versa
— This list goes on and on.

Anything that is true is to be twisted like a pretzel—to the point where people can't tell what is true anymore.

How do you think they're doing?

Had enough yet?

Then don't be afraid to stand up for truth, and speak it!

Otherwise, history can most definitely repeat itself.

And the history of Socialism is as nasty and brutish as it gets. Nothing compares to it in terms of human suffering.

Paul is correct that socialism in political and economic practice caused enormous human suffering of a sort its current proponents like to ignore. But what leads up to that conclusion in that barely-argued post has nothing to do with socialism. Indeed, raising a stink about these supposed depredations of "cultural Marxism" is in most contexts anti-liberty.

Both legally and culturally, American and western culture absolutely have treated women and homosexuals unfairly and unjustly, both in law and in common cultural practice. Pointing that out and fighting it is in fact fighting for both political and personal liberty, not "Marxism." (While I can guess what he's grousing about with the lines about women and gays, I'm not even sure how to interpret the "old exploited by the young" part.)

That some people are unhappy with modern relationship, sexual, gender, and ethnic mores and policies is a fact, but that unhappiness is not rooted in opposition to "Marxism" or defense of liberty. The truth is just the opposite. Western law customarily treated women and gays unjustly. To the extent that that's changed, it is pro-liberty and irrelevant to Marxism as a political and economic doctrine.

To the extent that law and culture treats women and gays more equally and is less tolerant of abuses of them, even private ones, that's a better culture, one more in line with the benefits of civilization—benefits that arise, as Paul the presidential candidate understood, from a general spirit of tolerance and living and letting live as long as one's life or justly held property isn't encroached upon. As Paul said on an October 2016 episode of his online TV series (ironically, one about "cultural Marxism"): "Liberty means allowing [everybody] to make personal choices, personal social relationship, personal sexual choices, personal economic choices." That, he said, should not be a "threat"; it should "bring people together."

The mentality behind not just that cartoon, but the essay it illustrated, is the opposite of the attitude Paul expressed correctly in 2016.

UPDATE: Ben Garrison, whose signature appears to be on the original cartoon, writes to point out that it is not his work. He also tweeted:

NEXT: Senators Demand an Explanation After the F-35 Savings Estimate Is Off By $600 Million

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Hihndeed.

  1. “Earlier today a staff member inadvertently posted an offensive cartoon on my social media. I do not make my own social media posts and when I discovered the mistake it was immediately deleted.”

    Perhaps Ron Paul can take the same path as the DNC on this one, blame hacking by the Russians.

    1. Maybe it was the person who hacked Joy Reid’s blog!

  2. On one hand, I can’t say I’m really satisfied by Paul’s excuse. I mean seriously, he’s been using that same excuse, and having “incidents” that give him reason to use that excuse, since the 90s. Sooner or later you have to accept that grandpa is that racist.

    On the other hand, he’s a racist grandpa who’s left office and is largely irrelevant these days.

    So meh. I don’t buy his excuse, but I don’t really care either.

    1. Seems curious how all non-interventionists are revealed to be racist. I guess only bigots don’t want to kill Arabs

      1. Killing people from other countries is a way of mixing the cultural pot, don’t you know.

        1. How else do you get refugees you’re “morally obligated” to import?

        2. In Reason’s defense, you don’t get praised by Bill Kristol for constantly railing against state sanctioned murder abroad.

        3. Typically the mixing comes after you have seen your enemies before you, during the lamentation of the women.

          1. driven before you.

            Thanks edit button.

      2. Seems curious how all non-interventionists are revealed to be racist.

        I think both progressives and conservatives agree that military and political intervention in the Middle East and South America creates refugees that try to come to the US.

        Apparently, as a progressive, you think creating millions of uprooted people by bombing their countries into the stone age and then letting them in to the US is good for both the US and the people whose lives your interventions destroy.

        The “racists” believe that it is better for people to stay where they grew up and build better and peaceful lives there, without being constantly bombed by the US military. I guess that’s just the kind of people we are.

        1. The Crips and the Bloods feel the same way.

    2. The thing is, I honestly don’t care if he’s a racist, if he’s a racist who would leave me the heck alone!

      It’s kind of the point of libertarianism, no? If people respect the non-aggression principle, even if they’re not nice people, they won’t be doing too much damage.

      Whereas really nice people who toss the NA principle aside end up being insufferable pricks, if not dictators.

      Anyway, Paul’s ‘racism’ is so attenuated it would be pretty much a non-issue in a sane society.

      1. I find it amazing that pointing out the cultural marxist racism of others is considered racist.

    3. The thing is, his excuse is probably true.

      1. There’s this dynamic I’ve notices with “extremists”; If you yourself are one, you get used to being routinely attacked as a monster, which you know you aren’t.

        Consequently, you tend to discount it when other people are attacked as monsters. Because you know the attack often isn’t justified.

        So, Paul, used to being on the receiving end of attacks, cuts people slack. Often he does so appropriately, sometimes perhaps inappropriately. But he’s not going to be vigilant about purging his staff, when he knows the people complaining would purge HIM.

    4. Except he’s never been proven to say anything racist.

      Sure, maybe its more than coincidence that this happens, but I just doubt it.

      He’s 82. He could just come out of the racist closet at this point if he really believe it. Now would be the time, wouldn’t it? But he hasn’t. I think he just had bad luck at choosing some associates.

  3. Ron’s staffer must have googled a /pol/ cartoon without realizing it. Any time you see that Jew face you know you’re dealing with a conspiracy nut. The fake Ben Garrison signature is another inside joke.

    That said, Brian’s analysis is a swing-and-a-miss. The purpose of dividing people among oppressed/oppressor classes is to create anti-capitalist sentiment, which isn’t very “pro-liberty”. Nobody’s talking about historical treatment of disfavored classes; it’s about the modern day agitation for unearned benefits like feminists whining about the wage gap. Perhaps they will only be satisfied when men are taxed into proportionality even though they work more hours.

    1. Is it also anti-liberty to point out that agents of the state oppress…everyone else? That taxpayers are oppressed?

      Weirdly I always thought libertarians had an interest in pointing out oppression, too, since freedom is its opposite.

      1. Pretty big difference between real oppression (men with guns who get their cut) and imagined oppression (disparate outcomes as definitive evidence of injustice).

        1. Right, and the people often dubbed “cultural marxists” inevitably demand (and succeed in getting) the state to rectify these perceived oppressions (disparate outcomes) with various “equity” reforms. The leap to connecting to Marxism isn’t a big one, and frankly I have to imagine Doherty hasn’t read much of what the academics in that field are putting out if he truly believes there’s no connection. They are universally pushing for a more powerful and invasive state more than any other political group. You have only to look at the actual politicians pushing this rhetoric and the policies they’re responsible for to see this…

          Honestly this whole piece seems like some sort of weird willful ignorance of what intersectionalist, race studies academics and feminists actually push for as the solutions to the problems they talk about. It’s not even that much of a twist on Marxism, and they explicitly say as much. Constantly.

          1. Indeed, intersectionalist types often use the word “liberation” without elaborating what that means – equality finally achieved, or communist enslavement? Usually the term “anti-capitalist” in their twitter bio gives it away.

          2. Actually the weird willful ignorance IS blaming ‘cultural Marxism’ as a way of avoiding looking at the actual problems.

            The best – and probably first – example was the Sacco-Vanzetti case and the Scottsboro boys.

            Those raised – or should have raised – legitimate questions about our judicial system – regardless of who is pointing out the problem.

            Those two were also – very deliberately – used as agitprop by the German Communist Party whose PR head at the time – Willi Munzenberg – was also the guy setting up front organizations around the world for Comintern. Those front organizations coordinated the public protests – while a separate German Marxist group of academics was founding the Frankfurt School – which later fled Germany and moved to the US where they became the core of the New Left’s ‘cultural Marxism’ in the 1960’s. Which is all very interesting I suppose.

            But pointing out that it was mostly Marxists protesting Sacco/Vanzetti and Scottsboro – IS by default excusing and whitewashing those two cases. And the same goes for the later stuff in the 1960’s.

            1. Weird how you only have historical antidotes to make your point

              1. Even weirder how you don’t even have that

                1. Yup. You showed me. The 60s were bad. Cool story 70 years later. Real relevant

              2. And btw – if you actually want to know WHY Marxism (at least the non-Stalinist group) formally turned to ‘culture’ (rather than the 19th century stuff of historical and economic determinism) as an explanation for stuff in the 20th century; those names I cite are exactly who explain why that happened.

                And AGAIN – while it might be interesting for someone who is interested in the minutiae of internal 20th century developments within Marxism – using the mere name of ‘cultural Marxism’ as some bogeyman IS by default excusing the actual problems that they did focus on for their own reasons.

                It’s a particularly stupid way of saying ‘well if commies hate it, then it must be good’.

                1. Yeah, it’s weird that libertarians would take issue with Marxists or socialists. That’s just crazy. I’m with you man. Your totally smart

                  1. it’s weird that libertarians would take issue with Marxists or socialists.

                    That’s not what’s happening though.

                    What IS happening with the use of that phrase as epithet is Well if commies hate that shit, then there must be a pony in there. Which means that ‘libertarians’ who go along with that nonsense – end up defending a big pile of shit.

                    1. That’s a fair point. But, I’m not sure how it relates to Paul. He was talking about the disproportionate impact that the War on Drugs has on minority communities since before it was cool. Just because he doesn’t like one particular brand of protest doesn’t mean he’s trying to discredit the notion of criminal justice reform.

                    2. Just because he doesn’t like one particular brand of protest doesn’t mean he’s trying to discredit the notion of criminal justice reform.

                      And I doubt on that specific issue of criminal justice reform that HE ever used the phrase ‘cultural Marxism’ as an epithet. Because he damn well knows that using that phrase is akin to saying that everyone who has position X on issue Y is a commie not a ‘libertarian’.

                      He uses that phrase only where he is deliberately trying to discredit any alternative view of that issue as libertarian. To define HIS view as ‘correct’ and the opposite view as ‘Marxist’. Prob a useful tactic for a Republican (esp one of his generation) to get elected in the South – but that is NOT libertarian.

                      My bringing out the origins and first usage of ACTUAL cultural Marxism is merely the historical fact. It started with criminal justice stuff. And has morphed to near everything. So what? Libertarianism should not be defining itself by who else is on the same side or opposing them. That is not a principle at all.

                    3. “What IS happening with the use of that phrase as epithet is Well if commies hate that shit, then there must be a pony in there.”

                      I’ll bet you have a cite for that claim.

                    4. I’ll bet you have a cite for that claim.

                      Of course. It’s buried with the pony. Just dive in there

                  2. What exactly is anti-libertarian about cultural Marxism (as opposed to political Marxism)? Be specific in your answer.

                    1. What IS libertarian about it? Why is it sacrilege to criticize it?

                    2. What IS libertarian about it? Why is it sacrilege to criticize it?

                      Really? Everything is libertarian unless it violates libertarian principles. The burden is on you to prove otherwise.

                    3. But, it’s being argued that it’s not libertarian for Paul to criticize cultural Marxism. So, I don’t follow how both notions can coexist

                    4. You are dodging the question.

                    5. “Really? Everything is libertarian unless it violates libertarian principles. The burden is on you to prove otherwise.”

                      A belief that the state should step in with their guns and enforce what someones else deems is “fair” in history, race and political beliefs. Yeah… Really fucking libertarian.

            2. Exactly, JFree.

              1. Cathy, since you’re all about privilege checks, you ever think that you should check your privilege and stop criticizing people like Ron Paul who are providing a rare criticism of state sanctioned murder overseas instead of smearing them for not believing in made up things like micro-aggressions?

                Seems like there are real atrocities committed by our government more important than the petty complaints of rich white liberals like yourself. Just a thought

                1. Well, since I’ve never smeared Ron Paul for not believing in microaggressions, no, I haven’t thought that. But then I’m also not that into privilege checks, rich, or a liberal, so your comment would seem at least half nonsensical.

                  1. So what, Paul is a baddie for not liking a brand of protest that you enjoy?

                    So all his talk of criminal justice reform in the past, before it was popular to talk about that, is all an elaborate ruse?

                    1. Why are you so completely full of shit?

                      Did I ever say anything about Ron Paul and the NFL protesters?

                      Did I ever say his talk of criminal justice reform was a ruse?

                      You just make shit up and expect people to argue with you about it.

          3. It’s a racial version of marxism because the economic version didn’t make sense and doesn’t work, and the working class in western Europe knew it and were going towards fascism which actually did serve their interests, was organic and of and by their own people.

            Brown and black invasives no one wanted, no one voted for, no one consented to or would have given the choice (remember–this is all top down policy) have become the new “Proletariat” even though they work at lower rates than the natives that they have been foisted on.

            This is all straight out of the Frankfurt school’s own documents. It’s not a secret. It’s just communism 2.0. End goal: Kill whitey, “chosen” people rule over a slave mass of brown mystery meat mixed race mutts with no cohesiveness, no rootedness, no real history or culture and thus no real ability to rebel.

            1. Your Habermas is…different from mine.

              1. To be fair – have you tried to study critical theory while covered in a sheet – at night – with only the light of a burning cross?

                1. You could offer an argument but instead you just offered a shopworn ref to tired non-arguments about “The Klan.” Great job, retard.

      2. Yup. And Paul points out how our tax dollars are used to kill people overseas. Woketarians focus on kneeling football players.

        1. One is useful and one is stupid

        2. Considering Paul spent time bitching about kneeling football players, isn’t he guilty of the same thing you’re bashing the “Woketarians” for?

        3. You do know that reason writers report regularly on the folly of foreign interventionism as well as stupid kulturkampf issues that only woketarians focus on?

          Like, it’s possible for a publication to cover multiple subjects, just like it’s possible for a politician to be right about some things and wrong about others.

          1. Hugh, let’s be honest here. Reason discusses foreign intervention in a very limited and isolated fashion in comparison to the Pauls and the Mises people. Reason also can’t be labeled as anti-war like the Pauls and Mises people are.

            All I’m saying is that it takes a lot of gall to accuse a man who opposed the War on Drugs before it was popular and opposes the starvation of Yemen of being a “bigot” simply because he doesn’t approve of a brand of protest or maybe doesn’t sympathize with rich athletes.

            Why is it always the same people smeared with this label? Sheldon Richman is the same case- he’s labeled an antisemite because he’s critical of Israel. It seems that everyone who focuses their criticism on America’s foreign policy is a bigot. It’s surprising and totally unrelated, I’m sure

            1. As far as criticizing Paul for pushing the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, fine. That’s fair. But, I don’t see how that’s any different than completely unfounded Russia fever dreams that Reason has pushed along with the mainstream media.

              At least Paul’s conspiracy theory is not pimping conflict overseas. And I still don’t see how anything that the government does could be more offensive than terrorizing and murdering people overseas.

            2. Hugh, let’s be honest here. Reason discusses foreign intervention in a very limited and isolated fashion in comparison to the Pauls and the Mises people. Reason also can’t be labeled as anti-war like the Pauls and Mises people are.

              Yes, please be honest.

              You can start by unpacking what you mean by ‘limited and isolated fashion’ by explaining what aspects of America’s foreign adventurism addressed by Ron Paul and the LvMI that are not covered by Reason.

              You can then support your claim that Reason can’t be labelled anti-war by citing incidents where Reason writers either endorsed or failed to criticize some aspect of America’s many foreign wars.

              Make specific, narrow claims; support your accusations with links; and dispense with the whataboutism, the false equivalences, and the distracting non sequiturs. That’s how honest people argue their points.

              1. Brink Lindsey in support of the Iraq War:

                One Russia fever dream (which is no less a conspiracy than “cultural Marxism”):…..p-election

                1. Which is not to mention the front page Cathy Young article advocating for sanctions against Russia for lolz and the fact that the starvation of Yemen is never mentioned.

                  1. But, let’s be honest Hugh, you already knew these examples. It didn’t matter what I linked.

                    Thanks for being a snarky ass when I tried to engage your point in good faith

            3. Reason discusses foreign intervention in a very limited and isolated fashion in comparison to the Pauls and the Mises people.

              Translation: Reason is interested in both political and cultural freedom while paleolibertarians typically don’t care to defend cultural freedom.

              1. Cathy, don’t give them the benefit of the doubt of calling them paleolibertarians. They are paleoconservatives, by their own admission. They are basically anti-war conservatives. They are to be applauded for their consistent criticism of foreign interventionism by the U.S. government, and to be criticized for their hostility to individualism and cultural freedom.

                1. That’s bullshit, Chipper and you know it. The implication that Cathy is trying to make here is that Ron Paul is a bigot, which is the implication that she is making with “paleolibertarian” (which isn’t even a fair accusation to make about the vast majority of people who are associated with the Mises Institute). Ron Paul voiced opposition to the War on Drugs and the disparities in the criminal justice system before it was popular to do that. Back when professional athletes could care less about that issue.

                  1. The American Conservative is paleoconservative and they should be commended for their opposition to war, but I fail to see how Walter Block and Tom Woods, to name a few, are not libertarian.

                  2. The implication that Cathy is trying to make here is that Ron Paul is a bigot

                    No, I’m just saying he doesn’t care about social liberty. Sorry the reality is too painful for you to confront.

                2. “Cultural freedom” might be the dumbest phrase I’ve ever heard

            4. Just Sayin’, you do know that Brian Doherty wrote a whole book on the Ron Paul movement? It’s not like Brian has it out for Ron Paul. Furthermore, he didn’t accuse Ron Paul of being a bigot in this article, or ever, to my knowledge. So what exactly are you complaining about?

              1. I like that book and, frankly, Doherty’s discussion of Ron Paul in the book is pretty fair. I just think that this is a needless smear against Paul. He is being attacked for not approving of NFL kneelers and peddling a bizarre conspiracy theory.

                1. Am I a little too defensive when it comes to the Pauls? Sure. But, I feel the same way with all strong non-interventionist voices (the son not so much, since he’s not as consistent). There are so few of them. And, yeah, I have a special affinity for Ron Paul. I guess I’m a Paulbot or something

                  1. I like Ron Paul as well. I don’t think he is a bigot.

                    1. I’m a huge RP fan. I helped on his 2007/8 presidential run. I even got to meet him for a sec and get a book signed at state HQ during the campaign!

                      Whatever flaws the man may have, on the whole he is far and away the best politician this country has seen in MANY decades. Personally I think he probably is a bit “racist” by absurd modern standards for what constitutes being a racist. Like he probably knows that blacks commit shit tons more crimes than any other race. He probably accepts the fact that race based tribalism is an inevitable outcome of a multi cultural state, which is probably why he’s not big on unchecked immigration. And so on.

                      That IS racist by Woketarian or modern proggie standards… He’s racist like my grandma is. Which is to say he kind of lives in reality, even when it’s not the PC thing to think. I don’t think he HATES all people of other races, or thinks they’re “all bad” or whatever. I personally have zero problem with somebody who thinks the above things, so I don’t have issue with RP even if he is a little non PC.

                    2. Inasmuch as the obsession with ideological purity is cringeworthy from God, Guns, and ‘Merica libertarians, it is just as eyeroll inducing from the left.

                      Suppose Paul is racist? What of it? It’s not like he is advocating for a return to Jim Crow, and criticism of multi-millionaire football players is pretty benign.

                      At worst, Paul could be maybe criticized in lacking specificity in his remarks or even being tactless, but all this hand-wringing over whether something is or isn’t racist seems to be purposely avoiding addressing the validity of the claim.

                      No one but Paul knows what evil lurks in his heart, but I have yet to hear any reports of him treating anybody poorly. If he has racist opinions, so be it. They have yet to manifest in any appreciable way.

                    3. It’s not like he is advocating for a return to Jim Crow

                      HE isn’t. But look at what the mention of ‘cultural Marxism’ brought out in these comments. A lot of commenters who latch onto a bogus interpretation (it IS about ‘critical theory’ – it is not about either some revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat or some Cold War era Soviet loyalty) of what ‘cultural Marxism’ actually is in order to peddle some pseudo-scientific nonsense about racial purity or tribalism – in order to deny others a liberty that they themselves have. While passing THAT off as ‘libertarian’.

                      It is simply deceitful cynical crap – and Ron Paul (and his staffers) knows EXACTLY that that is going to be the result of mentioning the phrase – esp with some ‘cartoon’ that explicitly brings up the dumber Cold War era notion that by opposing ‘cultural Marxism’ one can simply wrap themselves in the flag and spout any old shit justified as ‘American’.

                      Don’t get me wrong. I actually like Ron Paul – but this is one of the three reasons I got disillusioned with that entire ‘achieve L thru R’ strategy during the 2008 campaign. His cynical willingness to cater to (not just merely accept) the slew of angry conspiratorial nutjobs who flocked to support him in 2008. I had no idea at the time that this was really a longstanding tendency of his – with perpetual excusemaking when anyone points that out.

                    4. Cultural Marxism doesn’t specifically have to involve race. It DOES since we’re all mixed up in the western world now, and any minority group is a perfect target for leftists… But it doesn’t have to. Gender stuff I guess would be inherent. Class obviously still.

                      As far as things go, tribalism is a natural human tendency. Just as the communists ignored the human instinct for self interest, ignoring the human tendency towards grouping together in cliques is an equally huge blind spot to utopian libertarians and progressives alike.

                      We’re a MIX of individualistic and pack animal. Therefore any realistic system needs to accept that, and try to create the best real world outcome possible within that framework. Something like America was is about as good as it gets. Very limited government, equal treatment under the law, freedom of association, etc etc etc. AnCaps are every bit as delusional as communists.

    2. Hey man it’s just a conspiracy theory. Do not look at the ethnic makeup of the people pushing this subversive and degenerate stuff. That would be highly racist.

    3. I assumed the first guy was an Arab….

  4. ‘Why an attack on “cultural Marxism” isn’t compatible with a fight for liberty’

    Progressitarian Moment
    Now Reason defends Marxism

    1. No. It’s very libertarian to withhold criticism of democratic socialists who win primary elections while attacking libertarians with whom the Kochs have a long standing animosity toward

    2. Now Reason defends Marxism

      The point – methinks you missed it.

  5. Why an attack on “cultural Marxism” isn’t compatible with a fight for liberty

    I imagine that would be especially galling to people trying to sell cultural Marxism as liberty.

  6. Paul has not yet responded to my request for comment about whether the staffer responsible for attaching that cartoon is being discplined in any way.

    Cuck harder, Brian.

  7. Does Brian know not of Antonio Gramsci and his profound intellectual impact upon the advancement of communist / progressive / socialist objectives?

    Does Brian not understand that Gramsci understood that communism would not fare well in the west, at least where there was the unifying force of Christianity to bind the worker and the merchant, and that if communism were to succeed, Christianity and its values had to be undermined?

    Does Brian not understand that the Long March through the institutions is, itself, a manifestation of Gramsci’s vision?

    1. Does Brian not understand that the Long March through the institutions is, itself, a manifestation of Gramsci’s vision?

      Perhaps, but no one really cares about Gramsci anymore, so in the end he didn’t exactly triumph.

      1. You haven’t been to a college recently

        1. True. But when I left 15 years ago, Gramsci was yesterday’s news, at best. Maybe that’s changed, but I’d need to see evidence to believe it.

          1. Fair

    2. “Does Brian know not of Antonio Gramsci and his profound intellectual impact upon the advancement of communist / progressive / socialist objectives?”

      I also wonder if Mr. Doherty is aware how deeply liberal arts departments are infested with critical theory and other horseshit ideologies inspired by Marxist dialectical bullshit.

      And Square = Circle I can promise you schools are aware of Gramsci and critical theory and interpretations of history inspired by Marxism and what I like to call “uncritically bash on the West” tendencies. These ideas seem to be largely ignored by the people studying liberal arts in my opinion (they are clearly shit to anyone with a brain) but are massively over represented in liberal arts departments by the people actually doing the teaching. Why I ever spent 1% of my time studying Feminism in international relations (a no shit “school” of international relations) or the writings of third world trash munchers like Frantz Fanon escapes me.

      1. See my response to Liberymike below.

        I studied and taught critical theory for many years. I get that it’s founded in Marxism, but it’s not all Gramsci, Gramsci, Gramsci. He’s seriously not that big of a deal. Foucault and Derrida were the big names when I was there, which admittedly was 15 years ago.

        “Critical Theory” has been in crisis for decades because of “Deconstruction.” The last people remaining preaching Marxism are the shrieking fanatics who repel people, and they dominate campuses only in the volume of their shrieking.

        I think you’re giving them too much credit.

        1. Foucalt and Derrida are trash too. I do not understand and never have their appeal to Western intellectuals.

          You are probably right I give them too much credit but I do have one small anecdote. One buddy of mine from college, hard core “The South will rise again” dude who loved his Stars and Bars and would start on racism when drunk, continued at school up to a PhD in Creative Writing (he wants to be broke). He later became a tree hugging, critical theory espousing, Derrida quoting, Heidegger loving goon. He was thoroughly brainwashed by his school and peers. Perhaps the same thing is happening to me today in a different way and to everyone everywhere, but the shift with him was so abrupt it looked like he was hooked up to one of those machines from Clockwork Orange. I blame his education and have seen similar shifts from other “educated” people I know. It is an infestation of retardation.

        2. I guess my beef with schools liberal arts departments in general is not their tendencies towards “cultural Marxism” but their ability to promote the most insane shit and get people to believe it and think it is deep. From Foucalt to Gramsci to Heidegger, it is a melange of terribleness.

          We have all these great people to study from Locke to Aristotle to Bertrand Russel to Berkeley to Hume and our schools choose to push the insane ass ideas of Frenchmen and Germans. Why?

        3. I studied and taught critical theory for many years.

          Gee I never would have guessed.

        4. Why the hell would anyone be teaching Gramsci?

          Gramsci’s Long March describes the process whereby education is replaced by leftist indoctrination–a process that is so effective, I might add, that one can be shown the proof that it did, and is, in fact, happening and STILL put forth left based garbage and think it is a valid response.

          It isn’t.

          Your entire sensorial experience has been tainted by people who literally don’t want you to believe your lying eyes–so much so that when you read about them saying how they’re going to do this to you your response is say ‘nah, they’re great guys’.

  8. Western law customarily treated women and gays unjustly. To the extent that that’s changed, it is pro-liberty and irrelevant to Marxism as a political and economic doctrine.

    Define ‘Western Law’ because, at one point in Western history, homosexuals were feeding Christians to the lions for entertainment. And the whole point of it being cultural Marxism is an artificial dwelling on or even exaggeration of the past to manipulate and/or (re)define (social) progress going forward. Focusing on women and gays ignores the fact that Blacks, Jews, Native Americans, various other colonial natives have all been systematically oppressed by Western Civilization. Ultimately, there’s no real point in bringing it up and/or singling any one of them out unless you intend to overthrow existing legal/cultural disparities, of which there are, of course, relatively few and trivial (*cough*Mormon polygamy*cough*) and would/should stand on their own in the absence of historical disparity.

    Ultimately, cultural Marxism is a means to extort the progress of capitalism and redistribute it to the various minorities of the working oppressed class as though the two things were mutually exclusive.

    1. Brian wants to believe this is the 19th Century. Otherwise his point makes no sense

      1. Dude, the Trump era is literally Handmaid’s Tale. If women don’t have the right to free birth control, what rights do they have?

    2. homosexuals were feeding Christians to the lions for entertainment

      Are you talking about Romans? Because their version of “homosexuality” doesn’t have anything to do with what you’re talking about.

      1. Just because they liked to fuck each other in the ass doesn’t make them gay. It’s 2018 nigga.

        1. No. No. Don’t chide him, he’s right. They were far more inclusive. Even LGBTQIA doesn’t really do it/them justice.

          More critically, he wants you to know that, despite the fact that homosexuality was practiced both among the elite in Rome and the founding members of the SS; that Harvey Milk was not, in fact, an sworn member of Nazis of the Roman Empire. In case you or someone you know becomes sexually confused and happens to think that feeding Christians to lions and murdering Jews is just what homosexuals do.

          1. The SS was a homosexual organization to it’s core, but for a couple of hundred years after the Augustan Reform, being gay often got you a public beating in Imperial Rome.
            Most of what we think of as written evidence of homosexuality, were politicians derogatorily insinuating their opponents were “f*gs”.
            Now the Athenians on the other hand…

    3. We really need to return the use of bogs to deal with degenerates IMO.

  9. The diversity dystopia Reason rainbow coalition narrative must be rejected, repudiated and ridiculed.

    Do not conflate liberty with diversity.

    Do not conflate liberty with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Do not conflate liberty with equal opportunity regulations.

    Do not conflate liberty with prohibiting racial freedom of association.

    Do not conflate liberty with forced busing.

    Do not conflate liberty with affirmative action.

    Do not conflate liberty with anti-racism.

    Do not conflate liberty with requiring Catholic hospitals to perform abortions.

    Do not conflate the liberty underpinning Lawrence v. Texas with the tyranny underpinning Oberkerfella.

    Do not conflate the liberty underpinning Loving v. Virginia with miscegenation, per se, being awesome.

    1. Miscegenation is awesome. You should try it.

      1. That’s exactly what I’m doing.

      2. Show me a single country that’s been made better by it. Spoiler: You can’t. “Latin America”, Turkey and other nightmare zones are bad primarily because of it.

        1. Cape Verde?

          (to be fair, the islands were uninhabited before that)

        2. Prog: But, but Diversity is our strength!

          Sane Person: How? What good does it actually do? Name something that’s actually improved by virtue of having random people around of different races, ethnicities or religions or whatever.

          Prog: Uhhhh… Burritos are awesome!

          Sane Person: Okay, besides ethnic food.

          Prog: Uhhh… Hate crime laws? Racial resentment? Political tribalism based along ethnic lines…

          Yeah, that’s pretty much the reality. It’s a mantra, but it’s not based in facts or any objective reasoning. I don’t think a little touch of random diversity is a horrible thing… It can be okay if it’s just a touch. But objectively speaking, most of the most successful nations in history were fairly ethno-religiously homogenous. Not perfectly so, but more or less. England, Germany, Japan (post opening up), etc all far more homogenous than any modern multi-culti nation. They weren’t closed off nations mind you. Exchange between cultures is good. But you don’t have to have NO CULTURE, or actually directly mix cultures in the same nation state to gain advantages. You just have to talk to and trade with other cultures.

          When there is no ethno-cultural super majority in charge you mostly just end up with endless ethnic in fighting. Over time the cultures may merge to form a new normal, but only after a long time and a lot of heart ache. So sayeth all of human history.

    2. I don’t understand what you’re trying to say in that last sentence?

      1. No entity, including the state, has any business prohibiting a white man from wedding a negress. That, however, does not mean that a white man marrying a negress, in and of itself, is groovy or necessary for liberty to flourish.

        1. Setting aside the baffling use of an antiquated term like “negress” – outside of the imagination of neo-Nazis shrieking about white genocide (though this usually involves the opposite race/gender combination from your example) the vast majority of “pro-miscegenation” people don’t think people should specifically seek to marry someone of a different race. Just that interracial marriage is no morally different from intra-racial marriage and shouldn’t be illegal or socially frowned upon, and that under these conditions there will inevitably be a significant amount of interracial marriage in a non-segregated, multiracial society.

          1. You may characterize the word “negress” as antiquated, but it is more pithy than the awkward phrase “African-American woman.”

            A former law clerk of mine thought that the word “negro” was racist because her progressive virtue-o-meter said so.

            As for your assertion that the vast majority of “pro-miscegenation” people don’t think people should specifically seek to marry someone of a different race, is it predicated upon your conversations with such people? And are you confining your assertion to people who are or have had inter-racial marital unions?

            1. You could have said “black woman” just like you said “white man.” But whatever.

              I’m partly basing it off of personal experience with such unions (I’m not married but my girlfriend is a different race, and I know a good number of other interracial couples) but also just from talking to the 87% of people (going off of Gallup’s last poll on this question in 2013) who approve of interracial marriage whether or not they themselves are in an interracial relationship. You can find weirdos pushing almost any position out there, but the vast majority of people just think marriages shouldn’t be judged based on the race of the people who comprise it.


              1. Honestly, that’s messed up. I’m sorry that there are still people like that who take race into consideration when viewing a marriage. Sorry to hear that, cali

                1. I’m sorry that there are still people like that who take race into consideration when viewing a marriage. Sorry to hear that, cali

                  Lol. You’d be surprised how many racists Calidissident encounters while he’s out playing with all of his imaginary friends.

              2. A social desirability bias makes it hard to actually gauge what people think about this issue. Revealed preference is more telling and interracial relationships are very NIMBY in this regard. Which is normal, since it’s a degenerate practice due to the awful results it tends to create.

                1. lulzidiot: your link to DAily Stormer is broken. Maybe fuck off and die.

                  1. No Yards Penalty: I’ve noticed your kind never has any argument to anything I say. It’s always Klan this, nazi that. Not a single scrap of argumentation, though. Perhaps it’s simply because you know that I’m right and that you’re offended that I’d have the temerity to merely state that the Emperor has no clothes?

            2. The fact is that while people don’t mind OTHER PEOPLE marrying outside the race, or at least say they don’t… Very few people do it statistically. Also, in the cases where they do it tends to be very specific in terms of the groups that will marry each other.

              For instance whites and Hispanics are pretty okay with it both directions. That’s because Mexican Hispanics are already 60-70% European on average, some nations even moreso, and culturally pretty similar.

              Whites and Asians also not terribly uncommon, but it’s usually white men and Asian women, very little of the reverse.

              Whites and blacks don’t happen too often, but when it does it’s almost always black men with white women.

              An interesting fact is that interracial marriages are far more likely to fail statistically. Also many mixed race children have odd medical problems, because all genetic groups have quirks with certain health issues, and some mixings produce weird results. For instance organ transplants for mixed race people are far more likely to be rejected apparently.

              Personally I don’t care what people do… But I know I have a strong preference for pale ass white girls, a-la more or less my genetic heritage. It’s not that Asian, or Mexican chicks aren’t hot… But it’s just not the same attraction, and I just can’t see myself having kids with them. Most peoples displayed preferences IRL show the same affinity.

              1. There are various reasons for this but regardless of the manifestation they stem from the underlying biological, physiological, and biochemical factors that power the processes of mate selection.

                Most non-blacks do not wish to mix with blacks – the most basic reason is they’re considered to be unattractive, but particularly so when measured against the Western standards of beauty. Especially black females, who tend to be more disproportionate in both body and facial metrics than the males.

                But beyond issues of sexual attraction, black culture is viewed as defective and attachment to that as a liability. These are purely sociological effects that arise from the challenges of successful existence in a complex social environment based on competition for resources and status; blacks under-perform across all metrics of advanced Western societies, whether its education, financial stability, criminality, or professional accomplishment.

                Consequently there is social racial stigma for blackness and potential mates are concerned that this will negatively affect themselves but also the experiences and outcome for any offspring that result from this pairing, and hence this is another mark in the “cons” column during mate-selection – this is the psychological manifestation of a biological imperative.

          2. That last sentence means this–

            interracial marriage is no morally different from intra-racial marriage

            With the added stipulation that it confers no innate benefit–as some, in the opinion of the writer, would suggest. It is simply marriage.

            1. Yup. That’s the thing with a lot of this stuff. I don’t care if some Asian person and white person want to have a baby. Or if some guy wants to suck dicks.

              What kind of irritates me though is how these things that are at best non-issues get talked up as if they’re SUPERIOR to the “normal” plain vanilla default position most people take. Being A Gay is NOT better than being a NORMAL person who likes people of the opposite sex. It’s likely a weird genetic anomaly that just isn’t particularly harmful. But it’s not a good thing, it’s neutral.

              When people start talking about odd behaviors as if they’re better than normal, the virtue signally lameness just gets grating after awhile.

              1. Defective organisms not being able to pass on their genes would be a good thing, or neutral. In contrasts gays are enabled to pass on defective genetic material and this is promoted by the left as normal, good, and something to be “accepted” and “tolerated” and “embraced” …again emphasizing it as “normal”.

                Its not normal. Its very defective.

    3. You should have the liberty to be a racist prick.

      I should have the liberty to call you a racist prick.


      1. And whether or not either of you is right, shouldn’t fucking matter to any government body or anyone willing to use a gun to force someone else’s will on you.

    4. Agree…and its a bit surprising that any of those statements are considered controversial here. It can all be boiled down to “live and let live”.

  10. Ron Paul is so racist that he complained about the War on Drugs before it was woke. And he rails against our country starving Yemenis. That racist won’t talk about kneeling football players, instead.

    What a bigot

    1. He didn’t criticize him for not talking about kneeling players, but for dismissing it as “cultural Marxism” which frequently seems to be used as a kneejerk criticism of anything someone (on the right) doesn’t like.

      1. Just because you don’t really understand what “Cultural Marxism” refers to doesn’t mean that it is a “kneejerk criticism”.

        1. If you seriously think the NFL protests are part of a Frankfurt school conspiracy you are a fucking moron.

          1. If you think NFL protests are more important than smearing a man as “racist” even though he spoke out against the disproportionate effect of the War on Drugs before it was cool to do so then you certainly are an idiot

            1. “Oh my God, he doesn’t support this brand of protest! What a racist”

            2. So Reason talks about the NFL protests and they’re fake virtue signaling woketarians, Ron Paul does it and that’s cool?

              Also, the NFL protests were brought up in this article because of the common thread of cultural Marxism. Not only did Doherty not call him a racist for his opinion on that, the word racist doesn’t appear in this article. He describes the picture Paul posted as bigoted and offensive, which is obviously true to anyone who isn’t a bigot or an idiot.

              I don’t know Ron Paul, I don’t know if he is or isn’t, but at the absolute minimum he has a history of surrounding himself with racist people and giving them a platform to communicate to the public under his name. That is completely fair game to criticize whether or he not he ultimately agrees with those beliefs.

              1. That is literally not at all what I said. What I said is that Paul has discussed the impact of the War on Drugs on minority communities well before most and he’s discussed the impact of our foreign policy on literally killing Arabs. He doesn’t care for the NFL protests (like the majority of the public) and for that woketarians get pissed, because they’re full of shit virtue signalled.

                1. Do you really think people criticized him for this because of his opinion on the NFL protests and not because his Twitter account tweeted a blatantly racist and anti-Semitic image, especially given Paul’s history of (at best) letting people print blatantly racist shit in his name?

                  1. Paul’s “history” consists of a few newsletters that are better tied to Lew Rockwell and Jeffrey Tucker than to Paul himself. He has as much of a “history” as Reason does with Holocaust revisionism

              2. While it’s plausible he’s associated with those types of people, I never once got the impression he shares those beliefs. It takes a few leaps of faith to assume he does.

            3. Calidissident aspires to idiocy.

          2. If you seriously think the NFL protests are part of a Frankfurt school conspiracy you are a fucking moron.

            The NFL protests obviously aren’t part of any conspiracy because they are organized and carried out in the open.

            But you’re a “moron” if you think that protests by a privileged, wealthy prick like Colin Kaepernick aren’t rooted in critical race theory.

      2. Well, no. It’s about the very specific issues of police violence against blacks, which is a problem, however has been blown out of proportion to fabricate a sense of systemic racial oppression. It’s that belief in systemic class oppression that has Marxist roots.

        1. I don’t think the concept of systemic racial oppression is a uniquely Marxist idea. Yes, you absolutely can interpret it through a Marxist lens, and I’m not saying there aren’t people who do that. But that concept isn’t unique to originated from Marxism. To take an extremely obvious example, you don’t have to be a Marxist to think that systemic racial oppression was a real thing in the 1850s USA.

          Also, in my experience reading leftist infighting, the left isn’t nearly as united on a lot of this stuff as their enemies seem to think. There are communists and socialists who are dismissive of race/gender/etc. identity politics because they think it distracts from class oppression caused by capitalism which they view as the cause of everything bad. And I’ve seen that argument critiqued (both the importance of race/gender/etc. and the idea that capitalism is inherently bad and causes all oppression) by liberals. I’m not trying to claim those are the views of everyone in those camps, I’m just saying I think the unified conspiracy to implement communism theory has some holes in it.

          1. Old socialists opposed appeals to race and sex. That ended with the Cold War, because the working class never bought into their appeal to class

            1. Old socialists lived in racially homogeneous countries and cared about the working class or at least pretended to. New socialists are just brown third worldists who just want whitey’s tribute and women. We used to call these people savages or barbarians and deal with them using military force.

              1. lulz, we still call people like you white supremacists. Don’t take thispersonally, but feel free to kill yourself.

          2. Indeed not all of them are pure communists, nonetheless these issues are used as a vehicle to push less extreme incremental/democratic socialism and that’s the problem I have with it.

          3. To take an extremely obvious example, you don’t have to be a Marxist to think that systemic racial oppression was a real thing in the 1850s USA.

            Because that would be true. Marxism is about lying to create social divisions to foment a proletariat revolt. Finding systemic racial oppression where it doesn’t actually exist in 2018 USA is unique to Marxism.

            1. Pretty much. They’re stirring up shit WORSE than they ever have, when things are in fact the LEAST RACIST that they’ve ever been in ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY.

              And all metrics, and statistics show this objectively. They also show that pretty much every ethnicity in the USA gets exactly what they deserve based on education levels attained, etc etc etc. When a problem has basically solved itself, or nearly so, and you start blowing it up more than ever, that’s a pretty clear sign that fixing the problem was never the actual goal…

              Funny thing is most of the older black folks I know basically look at the modern left and go “Shit, I remember stuff actually being bad. This ain’t nothin’. These white liberals are fucking retarded.” Maybe that’s just the older brothas I know, but I’ve heard basically that same thing from several black people I am friends with.

          4. I don’t think the concept of systemic racial oppression is a uniquely Marxist idea.

            Well, since “systemic racial oppression” used to exist, obviously some people recognized it for what it was.

            What is a uniquely neo-Marxist idea is to level the charge of “systemic racism” against free markets and liberal democracies based on inequality of outcome, which is what critical race theorists, Colin Kaepernik, and a lot of the Silicon Valley billionaires are doing.

            Also, in my experience reading leftist infighting, the left isn’t nearly as united on a lot of this stuff as their enemies seem to think. There are communists and socialists who are dismissive of race/gender/etc.

            I doubt most people adopting ideas of cultural Marxism and critical race theory are actually consistent leftists. Colin Kaepernik’s net worth is more than $60 million. And criticizing capitalist culture is de rigeur among American economic elites.

            Most people promoting cultural Marxism and critical race theory are “useful idiots”, not actual leftists, because if “the revolution comes”, actual leftists would put them against the wall first.

    2. Gramsci’s influence is undeniable – just look at the academy and how it has become such a force antithetical to liberty.

      Square Circle is just wrong. Witness:

      (1) The assault on free-speech, including the conception and implementation of speech codes, the intellectual basis of which is cult-Marx;

      (2) The assault on due process relative to the investigation and adjudication of sexual assault / sexual harassment complaints, including the prohibition of confrontation of one’s accuser, the denial of notice to the accused, the denial of counsel to assist the one being accused and the diluting of the quantum of evidence necessary to make a finding against the accused;

      (3) the assault on Christianity and Christian values;

      (4) the glorification of homosexuality, per se;

      (5) the denigration of the achievements of western civilization; and

      etc.. etc. etc.

      1. just look at the academy and how it has become such a force antithetical to liberty.

        I don’t totally disagree – I witnessed these things first-hand when I myself was teaching at a UC in Northern CA in a humanities department. I had to hide my criticisms of Marx in certain company, and quietly sat through many a conversation about “what we could do” to keep conservatives from being hired or from being able to speak or organize on campus.

        These people are vocal and not-uncommon in universities, but they’re not everyone, and they’re certainly not scheming geniuses in a tradition inherited from Gramsci. Most of them are getting their opinions from The Nation and Mother Jones and have no idea who Gramsci is. They may, unawares, be his intellectual and political descendants, but it’s a bloodline that’s running very thin, indeed.

        They’re challenged organizing a picnic let alone a takeover of the government, and the students, for most part, don’t take them seriously.

        1. The whole point of Gramsci is that they BE “unawares, be his intellectual and political descendants”.

          How do you get a conspiracy without having a conspiracy? Gramsci.

          When one’s entire education and worldview IS Marxist catechism, what need is there for passwords and secret cabals? Everyone has been taught the extreme value of groupthink–and the danger of individualism.

          The problem with Gramsci, as with all leftism, is that it is utterly divorced from reality. Reality itself is the ultimate counter-revolutionary.

        2. How many are Jews?

  11. So I guess we cannot criticize Zionism, the ultra orthodox talmudic judaics, the hatred preached in Yeshiva schools in Israel, and any link between the old Testament Yahweh cult and the idea of a chosen people, who claim a god given right to steal and lie in order to seize land from those living on it? The terrorist history of Zionism, the Irgun, the Stern Gang, etc are off limits ?
    Doherty didn’t mention it, but the twitter verse is attacking any reference to cultural marxism as a dog whistle for “anti semitism”.
    Is it anti semitism to study the Jews (atheist and secular in this case) who led the Bolsheviks?
    We surely don’t want to spread racial animus but sooner or later we have to face the truth-before WWIII breaks out.
    We are focused on liberty who also speak out against violent political movements who hide behind tribal holy books .

    1. It’s kinda anti-Semetic to blame Jews for all the world’s ills, yes. And to suggest that the Jews need to be “studied” is kinda iffy. And the statement “we surely don’t want to spread racial animus but” rings pretty close to “a lot of my friends are black but“.

      Just making a few observations. Not my fault that they make you look like an anti-Semite.

      1. Is he blaming all the world’s ills on the Jews?

        Have you considered the possibility that while he may not have any Hebrew friends, some of his best acquaintances may be Jews?

      2. Spreading racial animus seems to be fine. If it’s against whites, of course. Professors now state confidently that in 100-200 years, they think there won’t be any white people left. And they think that this is good. The question about what the “anti-semites” say should be along the lines of is it true. And as it turns out, it’s turning out to be pretty true when you look at who’s involved in what.

        1. People like that need to be exterminated. (this genocidal academic cabal, just all machine gunned down in the streets and bulldozed into a mass grave. That’s the best lesson anyone can give the youth of today – that being an aggressive hater doesn’t pay).

          Anyway, you’re absolutely right that its coming only from the left, and its pushed primarily by Jews. Its not a matter of opinion. Its a Jewish-led and dominated “movement”.

      3. The Jews aren’t responsible for ALL the worlds problems… The problem is that any time you call out Israel, the Israel lobby (which is VERY powerful), Jewish organizations (many of which are also VERY powerful), or even sometimes particular people who happen to be Jewish… YOU’RE A NAZI!!!

        Which is ridiculous. The fact is that individual Jews, the nation of Israel, Jewish groups etc, ARE responsible for SOME of the worlds problems, but they try to insulate themselves from any criticism just because they’ve had a rough go of things throughout history. Many Jews have been supremely important figures in modern Western history, and when they’ve fucked up (Here’s lookin’ at your Lenin!) it should be okay to rag on them.

        Also I think it is ridiculous to not accept the fact that for many Jews (but not all), their Jewish identity does in fact very strongly influence their thinking on many subjects. The same as it does for various flavors of Europeans, blacks, Arabs, Asians, etc. So there is a bit of group think within Jewish society, like them being around 70% leftists in the USA, that is legit. The other 30% of Jews are fucking awesome though, some of the best conservative/libertarian thinkers in history. Calling ALL Jews leftists zealots is like calling all whites right wing crazies. It’s not ALL of them, but in both cases it does describe a majority.

        1. That’s not the point at all and nice strawman, btw. They organize to dominate the world thru control of the monetary supply of sovereign nations which are not their own…that is the racket of organized Jewry. The other evil part is the Jewish diaspora’s unitary communistic political front that aims to crash Western societies by balkanizing them with Turd World immigrants.

          And they suck off every host nation they are in…..and hijack its sovereign governmental powers to create support for Israel, which is key to the entire racket, since it provides an extradition-proof haven for globalist criminals.

          Rough go of things? You mean, the backlash from their own shitty behavior? They’ve been kicked out of every nation they have ever gone to, and yet somehow its the world’s fault, and nothing to do with them….riiiiiiight. Like that’s plausible.

          I can’t think of enough Jews who are the “best conservative/libertarian thinkers in history” to make your outlandish claim that 30% of Jews are awesome.. Can you name some of these Jews besides the two or three people here might already have in mind – such as Friedman or Rand or Rothbard?

          This is a claim without any basis. I’d guess that more than 90% of Jews in the West are extremely liberal, with probably half of them having some communistic/socialist beliefs that make them the shittiest citizens in every nation.

          Just stop all the Jew shilling and lying and we’ll all be better off.

    2. “We are focused on liberty who also speak out against violent political movements who hide behind tribal holy books .”

      You mean Islam?

    3. These Jewish conspiracies are a scapegoating tactic just as pathetic as the ones pushed by the left. It really waters down the crimes of Bolshevism to blame it on Jews rather than the religious faith in Marx/Engels, which, I think is one of the reasons they’re so down on religion in general – competing faiths get in the way.

      1. Trotsky, Lenin, virtually all of their coterie and over 90% of the first Bolshevik government’s top positions as well the funders of the revolution like Schiff and Warburg were all jewish but t’s just a conspiracy theory. Of course. It’s all just scapegoating, maaaan.

        Ethnic interests? Group conflict? Not in my childish worldview. Everyone’s just a rational acting self-interested individual, maaaan. Pass the weed and dragon dildo to shove up my butt.

        1. Thanks for proving my point. /pol/ is over there. You have to go back.

          1. As it turns out, /pol/ is always right and you don’t have a counter-argument to what I said. Sad!

    4. Its kind of amusing that anytime you post anything condemning the hateful aggression of globalists, and how absolutely and fundamentally evil communism and socialism are, the Jews pop up with “that’s Anti-Semitic”.

      So at least they admit that Semitism apparently involves being the shittiest, most exploitative piece of crap on the planet.

  12. Why an attack on “cultural Marxism” isn’t compatible with a fight for liberty

    Are you f*cking kidding me? Cultural Marxism is anti-libertarian and illiberal to the core, and anybody even remotely concerned with liberty ought to condemn it for the evil it is.

    Ron Paul erred in using a cartoon with racist and demeaning images to do so, but that doesn’t make Cultural Marxism any less reprehensible.

    1. Were they racist and demeaning, or “cartoonish?”

      characteristic of or resembling a cartoon, especially in being unrealistically simplified and involving humorous exaggeration.

      1. I think the original artist meant to render them as specific individuals iconic to Marxism. But that’s none of my business.

        1. I think, yes, one would need to know the author’s intentions before one could characterize them as racist or demeaning.

          Unless one uncritically accepted current leftist dogma, that is.

          1. They are intentional caricatures. The question is if they were used to insult the people as minorities or to insult how they are used to spread cultural marxism. One is bigoted and the other is acknowledging what is occurring. Without knowing the intent, I’ll agree that the stereotypical caricatures do look racist.

            1. It was an offensive cartoon and he immediately took it down. As he should have

    2. It is literally impossible for me to take any big name libertarian other than Hoppe seriously at this point. Reason dot com is making the case for this subversive milieu and how your liberty is preserved somehow by allowing a third worldist anti-white communism 2.0 to fester.

      1. Holy fuck, lulz, did Brietard find your white supremacist drivel so offensive you had to pollute Reason threads?
        YOu’re a fucking retard. Go away. Kill yourself. Whatever. But go the fuck away.

  13. “a Jew, a black, an Asian, and a Hispanic”

    …walk into a bar.

    The Hispanic orders a Spanish Fly.

    The black guy orders a Black Russian.

    The Jew orders a mint Jewlep.

    The Asian says, “nothing for me, thanks, I’m the designated driver.”

    1. “The black guy orders a Black Russian”

      A black Trump voter? That’s not very stereotypical at all

  14. Is it possible, in a cartoon, to depict any of these groups? The word “cartoonish” exists you know.

    1. Gender fluid stick figures wearing PC identifying t-shirts? “Person of color”, “undocumented immigrant”, etc

      1. Actually, I think excessively woke characters would be a better cartoon overall

        1. The better version of this cartoon would show the characatures used as clubs by progressives and hate mongers (Hillary, Sharpton, Sarsour, Schumer, etc) to beat uncle Sam.

          That would’ve been better in every way.

    2. Is it possible, in a cartoon, to depict any of these groups? The word “cartoonish” exists you know.

      It’s quite possible. You can even make people in these groups profoundly repulsive and ugly and stereotypically associate them with particular ideologies provided you get it right. What’s wrong with this particularly cartoon is that it uses imagery that was associated with specific political movements, movements that Ron Paul probably does not want to associate himself with. It’s a bad, ineffective, self-defeating message.

      In Paul’s defense, Garrison is an experienced cartoonist, and one of his cartoons can generally be assumed to be free of such errors.

  15. Yes this is antisemitic and I condemn it. However, cultural marxism is real, and here are some examples. The lawsuits against SPLC, which supposedly protects us from discrimination, are used to squelch free speech. So now you can’t accuse anyone of islamophobia or extremism, or you get sued. And now we can lament the demise of freedom of the press in the US. These are Frankfurt School tactics, and they’re working. Also the Starbucks ‘meeting’ where they called the police was completely staged. The guy told his friends to not order anything and he would be there any minute. Which he was – waiting to get a video when the police came. This time the ADL was behind it (Jonathan Greenblatt sold his company to Starbucks and now runs the ADL). Similarly they tried this a few months ago when a guy brought a homeless guy into a McDonalds and then gets a video when they are kicked out, trying to play on sympathy to ‘protect’ homeless people from discrimination and attack McDonalds. And then a guy I know feigned sleepwalking and when getting arrested by the Columbia police, everyone cried for him saying the police should be more sensitive to students with disability.

  16. A lot of virtue signaling motherfuckers in this thread.

    1. I’m comfortable with that truth.

  17. This may be the laziest piece of crap Reason has published.

    1. Woah- let’s not go that far.

      This is the publication that printed an article supporting the War in Iraq by fellow pro-war woketarian, Brink Lindsey. And let’s not forget the Cathy Young article promoting trade sanctions against Russia for lolz, while arguing against sanctions against China. And then there were those numerous Russia fever dream articles.

      I think this article is par for the course. This is, after all, Bill Kristol’s kind of fake libertarianism

    2. You’re not familiar with Shikha Dalmia I see.

  18. At some point someone has to push back, might as well be me.

    This isn’t racist. It’s just a cartoon. Sorry virtue signalers.

    Maybe try harder not to be indoctrinated into thinking any depiction that any person objects to is in fact, objectionable, and you’ll avoid that mistake in the future.

    And, because I want to be clear, you who did uncritically accept this as racist are fucking cowards. You’re responsible for the level of discourse today, where leftists cast any interaction with them as offensive. You accepted it, because you’re cowards. I sincerely hope it gets you no matter where you hide.

    See Leo? That’s how you hold someone responsible. When they are actually responsible.

    1. Unfavorable racial cartoons are going to be assumed to be racist in intent. Depending on the source and intent, that may be the case. I took the point to be that “minorities” and “diversity” are just tools used to push cultural marxism. Looking at how each character was drawn doesn’t exactly make me think that the person who drew it doesn’t view those racial groups disfavorably.

      1. Well like it or not Jews in Russia founded the USSR, and places where Asians, Hispanics, and Africans live are in fact the only places where true communism has ever taken over… So it’s technically accurate, even if it’s not flattering.

      2. Unfavorable racial cartoons are going to be assumed to be racist in intent.

        The reason this cartoon looks racist to people is not because it portrays certain groups unfavorably, but because the actual style and imagery mirrors actually racist groups.

        And the problem with this is not that it makes Paul a racist (which he isn’t), the problem is that it makes him a fool to allow such a stupid error to happen on his social media feed. But political tone deafness and ineffectiveness is one of his hallmarks after all.

        1. I feel ripped off I had to wade through 300 posts of drivel before I got to the one that nailed it.
          Thanks, Mark22.

  19. Lazier than having social media and leaving the password for lackeys to publish on it?

  20. Let me check this thread and…holy cow, Putin hacked my account again and posted an awful joke!

  21. Western culture has treated gays and women unjustly? What other culture is more enlightened and progressive in the world, advancing liberty across the spectrum? *silence*

    Moronic statement indicative of the idiocy that is multiculturilism. There IS a difference in culture, and western culture is effin winning, hands down in every aspect. Its not perfect….lots of flaws…but there is nothing else even close.

    1. Hey man it only matters when white people did something bad. Other people aren’t moral agents but at the same time they are morally superior to us and also the world will be better when they murder all of us or force us to mix ourselves into an unrecognizable mongrelized abomination of a people.

  22. Quick! Give him a TV show so we can bravely shriek for it to be cancelled

    1. Quick! Make no sense

  23. Quick! Give him a TV show so we can bravely shriek for it to be cancelled

    1. Squirrels, you’ve bested me again…

  24. Conspiracy theories, like cultural Marxism, are pretty lame. There was the Frankfurt School that did rebrand Marxism, but there was no well organized conspiracy to implement some nefarious plan. Useful idiots of the faux intelligentsia have always been gaga for socialism.

    But, let’s not pretend like Paul is the only one who pushes conspiracy theories. The mainstream media pushes pro-war Russia fever dream propaganda- each one more unhinged from the last- with absolutely no basis in reality.

    So, I guess the difference is that Ron Paul at least doesn’t push bogus pro-war propaganda like Reason.

    1. Or maybe Reason just needs to find that Filipino prostitute who is going to vindicate all of Bill Kristol’s talking points.

    2. There was the Frankfurt School that did rebrand Marxism, but there was no well organized conspiracy to implement some nefarious plan.

      Who is claiming that it is a “well organized conspiracy”? Neo-Marxism is an ideology rooted in greed, envy, pride, and wrath, vices that many people love to engage in.

      The ideas of the Frankfurt school are so widespread and popular because they appeal to a wide range of people. Unlike old style Marxism, where you had to be a blue collar worker, under neo-Marxism and critical race theory, you just have to be someone other than a straight white male and you can blame everything that ever went wrong in your life on oppression. Neo-Marxism lets Colin Kaepernik (net worth: $60 million, grew up upper middle class) and Susan Wocicki (net worth: $410 million, privileged daughter of a Stanford professor) claim that they are victims of opppression by the white male patriarchy.

  25. Reason’s cafeteria commissar should take waway Brian’s bowl of cultural revolution warmed over, and force him to eat shredded back-issues of Jacobin for a week.

    He’s ignoring a burgeoning cultural disaster, as the Frankfurt school’s postmodern proteges force feed university students, faculty and administrators alike a diet of badly digested Marcuse and Lacan, and chipped Focault and Adorno on gluten-free toast, eroding their freedom ” to make personal choices, personal social relationship, personal sexual choices, personal economic choices.”

  26. Hmmm. Which are worse: racists, or marxists?

    Hard to tell, really.

    1. I’ll take racists over Marxists any day of the week. Racist Brits ended the global slave trade. Racist Americans like Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves in the USA. Racists de-colonized and set free brown people willingly. And so on. You can be a full on racist and still not be into oppressing those races. Marxists HAVE TO oppress people to make their shit work.

    2. Hmmm. Which are worse: racists, or marxists?

      Racism is the belief that some races are genetically superior to others. That’s just a scientific belief (an incorrect one as it happens), and as such is politically neutral. It doesn’t contradict liberal democracy, equality under the law, or equality of opportunity, or any other principle of an open and free society. Many racists were exceptionally kind and compassionate towards races they considered inferior.

      Marxism is a totalitarian, genocidal ideology.

      I think the question answers itself.

  27. Brian needs some time off. The cartoon is just fine–especially as cartoons by antichoice mystical statists opportunistically cross-dressing as libertarians for shock value go. And Ron and Randal set good examples the Byzantine branches of God’s Own Prohibitionist party would do well to emulate. Yelping at shadows is not a good sign, nor the sort of example other Reason writers need to follow.

  28. The lesson to learn from this is that the identity politics brigade on the left has soooooooooooooooooo overplayed their hand that people who were once sensitive to the problems of minorities have become intensely less so. It’s become worse because the left has doubled down on those tactics since Trump was elected–not in spite of the media’s contempt but because of it.

    I don’t think the cultural right lashing out like this is really about the minorities themselves. It’s more about the tactics used by the left to advance those causes. Treating the white, blue collar, middle class with contempt–for being white, blue collar, and middle class–earns you a lot less empathy than you’d get otherwise. Anybody surprised?

    What’d you expect?

    What we’re seeing is mostly a reaction to that contempt from the left. It isn’t about equal rights for LGBTQI+, really. It’s about people getting sick of being subjected to bullying and contempt in their name.

    1. “Identity politics” is just what you get when you have different racial groups competing for the same resources in the same territory. You can use dumb Orwellian terms like identity politics, or you can just make the is-ought distinction and come to the sensible conclusion that “racial diversity” is a bad thing, which it is.

      1. No, because the left has made a fetish out of various identities (race being only one example), that doesn’t mean I have to believe that racial diversity (or any other kind of diversity) is a bad thing.

        1. I agree. Tribalism is bad. Individualism good. Useful idiots get easily led into pushing the “us vs them” mentality.

        2. Here’s the problem: You’re wrong.

          The fact is we’re hard wired because of evolution to be tribal, and to prefer people that look like us. We can consciously fight this to a large degree, but it’s still there. Babies who can’t speak, can’t walk, prefer faces of people of their own race/ethnicity. It’s built into our wiring.

          I don’t hate anybody just because they’re a member of a group… But I think that history shows us that when two groups live in proximity there’s trouble, and violence, very nearly 100% of the time. This usually only ever ends when one group so dominates the other that it can’t resist, OR when the groups merge over time to be indistinguishable, hence creating a new hybrid tribe.

          IMO just like communism ignores certain bits about human nature, to its ultimate doom, so too does the utopian thinking on multiculturalism. It simply creates a TON of problems historically. There are essentially no concrete benefits that can actually be pointed to from it… Other than ethnic food of course! Sharing ideas and trading goods between cultures is good, and beneficial, but you don’t have to cram people into the same nation state.

          1. England didn’t need non whites to have the industrial revolution. Later Germany didn’t need to be multiracial to develop the greatest scientific advances in the world. Japan didn’t need Mexican immigrants to become the most successful non white nation on earth. Etc. Show me a multi racial society that doesn’t have infighting out the ass, and that gets any REAL benefit from it that’s not burritos.

            Just sayin’ man. Things aren’t always the way we want them to be in the real world…

          2. Vek said it all. Multiculturalism is an evil and aggressive ideology, and if that sounds just like Communism, well that should come as no surprise, because its the same thing. The commies invented Multi-culti to destroy Western, Capitalist society, and guess what, it has worked.

            Western Societies today are balkanized with filthy low-IQ Turd Worlders. Go walk down the streets of what were once the most beautiful and orderly and civilized cities in the West and they are filled with subhuman garbage. Just go to Paris and look at all the Africants and how they clutter up the scene and destroy the peace and tranquility of French civic life. They litter, they lounge, they spit, they panhandle, they swindle and cheat, jump queue, and are in general the obnoxious beasts of the jungle their race has always been, merely given proper clothes and transported into a modern advanced civilization. But their essential nature hasn’t changed.

            That’s the main fallacy of this commie agitprop that the left has bought into…that human character and culture are just externalities. They are not. They arise from what is within the human, not from what is outside.

        3. You can continue being an ideologue all you want, but it doesn’t make your ivory tower nonsense true. Maybe read a few texts on evolution and study some world history.

    2. Yes, its racism fatigue. Its ridiculous. Seriously the cartoon is racist? What if it was just some random (non-Jew) white guy on it. It would be Ok then. I mean this stuff is just ridiculous.

  29. ‘Western law customarily treated women and gays unjustly.’

    throughout all of human history this has been the case. Western cultural moved first away from this.

  30. This is the most unintelligible crap I’ve ever read. I don’t even like Ron Paul, but what’s the authors point? I sure as hell can’t figure it out from reading his article.

    1. The point is that he fans his own balls by signaling against “racism.”

      “Don’t do racism! Racism is bad. I am brave and not at all parroting corporate HR.”

      There’s no deeper message, it’s all just braindead signaling. The world would not be worse off if this guy’s vehicle was turned into a flaming wreck as a result of some big pileup accident on the highway. It would in fact probably be better because then there theoretically wouldn’t be as many garbage articles like this clogging up the interwebs. Perhaps there would, though–maybe this is the one case where The Free Market Demands It would actually produce results since someone would pay another uninteresting person to write this kind of drivel.

    2. His point is that he’s a crypto-Marxist and he’s goddamned tired of people pointing it out.

  31. I like Ron Paul. He is reality based!

  32. There’s a difference between tolerance (which Ron Paul has always demonstrated and continues to demonstrate, and which Doherty describes in this piece) and authoritarian political correctness, which the term cultural Marxism describes.

    There’s a difference between “you should allow this, even if you don’t like it” and “you must approve of this, or you will be sent to the proverbial gulag”. Tolerance lives and lets live. Cultural Marxism gets people fired from their jobs for holding ritually impure opinions.

    Regarding the cartoon, the person who wrote the (admittedly trash bin worthy) article just did an image search for cultural Marxism and found one that was eye-catching enough to illustrate his work. Like me, he didn’t notice the characters in the cartoon until someone else pointed it out to him. Not everyone is obsessed with the offensive or eager to take offense. (Ask yourself, do you think anyone in their right minds would publish this in a respectable outlet if they had noticed?? Not only is the narrative I just recounted, hearing it from someone close to the RPI, the most logical one, to think otherwise is just silly.)

    1. The person who wrote the (admittedly trash bin worthy) article just did an image search for cultural Marxism and found one that was eye-catching enough to illustrate his work. Like me, he didn’t notice the characters in the cartoon until someone else pointed it out to him

      That sounds unlikely.

      The image being circulated via Paul (or claimed to have been in his original tweet) is heavily modified from the original image.

      For some reason its attributed to “ben garrison” in the lower right, when said person (afaik) had nothing to do w/ it.

      (apparently making racist cartoons, and attributing them to “ben garrison” is a thing, and has been for a while)

      The original image that was modified to feature racist caricatures is here.

      the original image, interestingly enough, was sourced to a socialist group “Eijaa”

      The only thing that can be said w/ any certainty is… the opposite of what you claim: this wasn’t some accidental posting of something randomly found searching for ‘cultural marxism’; someone purposely reconfigured a hard-to-find image for specifically racist purposes. How it ended up being sourced to Paul is an open question.

      1. As someone on twitter pointed out…..venezuela/

        “Eijaa” (the original message on the cartoon)

        is an acronym for
        Encontro Internacional da Juventude Antiimperialista e Antifascista

        Venezuelan Socialist Youth.

        1. I literally just did a google image search on cultural marxism and the edited image came up. Who knows if it’s a result of the buzz made by this story (Ron Paul’s tweet also appears), but it’s perfectly plausible.

          This style of cartoon is all over 4chan /pol/ and that stuff tends to leak out into the rest of the internet, especially alt-right hubs. Ron Paul’s staff isn’t putting Jew faces on cartoons. The Ben Garrison joke is ancient history.

          1. Yeah, that. These edited cartoons are all over the internet and very easy to find.

  33. “cultural Marxism,” a vague conspiratorial theory that roughly claims that various changes in Western cultural character and traditions over the past 70 years or so are the deliberate result of Marxists’ attempts to bring down liberty and impose communism.

    Lol. Yes it’s a vague conspiracy theory alright. Just because it’s a strategy publicly laid out over and over again by Marxists since the 1950s doesn’t mean it’s true you nut jobs! Opposing Marxism is anti-libertarian! War is peace! Freedom is slavery!

  34. See this 2008 Reason account of the earlier “Ron Paul newsletter” controversy for more.


  35. A Republican mistakenly slips, showing the public some of the bigoted material meant solely for private enjoyment (perhaps for sharing with conservative friends behind closed doors)? This is news?

    Carry on, clingers. So far as your lousy educations, bigoted souls, superstition-laced backwardness, and depleted communities can carry anyone, that is.

    1. Arthur L. Hicklib takes a break from gargling anti-depressants for another copypasta shitpost.

      1. He’s not special, just differently-abled.

    2. How is it “bigoted”? Learn what words mean, ya retard.

  36. “”cultural Marxism,” a vague conspiratorial theory that roughly claims that various changes in Western cultural character and traditions over the past 70 years or so are the deliberate result of Marxists’ attempts to bring down liberty and impose communism.”

    Holy balls! SERIOUSLY? Have you never read ANY of the countless writings by Marxists explicitly stating these intentions? Undermining the culture goes waaay back with communists. It is necessary to unglue society, so that The Party can become the new glue that holds everything together. You must destroy the family, and many other “norms” to do this.

    Much of this HAS been a very intentional act. The fact is that as with any end result, you can come at it from different angles. The commies came at saaay the womens “liberation” thing not because it is the right thing to do based upon some principle, like libertarians might come at it from… But because it is simply one more small thing they can do to destabilize the nuclear family, and to create infighting and divide people. You can see signs of this IN THE WAY they have gone about pursuing these goals. They didn’t say “Hey, women should be able to choose to do what they like, whatever that is. If you want to be a stay at home mom, that’s great! If you want to be a lawyer, that’s great!”

    1. No. That’s a libertarian approach. They came at it like “If you’re a women, you should eschew motherhood! Men are all evil! You should go out and compete with men because you can do anything they can do! As a matter of fact you’re better than them!!!” etc etc etc.

      You notice a difference there? The same thing could be pointed out for nearly every single “good” thing that the cultural Marxists have pushed. Even when they’re ostensibly in the right liberty wise, they always come at it from a warped perspective, and push it in dangerous/bad ways.

      Also, Ron Paul is sooooooo much better than you. ALSO, that cartoon is pretty hilarious. I give no fucks that it’s technically “racist,” it’s also largely truthful. I mean mostly Jews (Lenin and most of his top guys) took over the USSR, then eastern Europe. Stalin wasn’t a Jew, but he retained a fair number in top positions. And let’s not forget Marx himself… And basically every other actual communist country on earth was either in Asia, South America, or a couple in Africa. So, while a bit insulting it’s not technically incorrect. Did I mention Ron Paul is more awesome than you?

      1. How is it “racist”? Jesus christ, you really are dumb aren’t you? Get a fuckin dictionary pal!

  37. Fuck Dipshit Dave Weigel, and fuck all the rest of you cultural Marxist con artists here at Reason too.

  38. Cultural Marxism is what rightwing fucktards have taken to calling “having basic manners,” yes?

    1. No Tony. I’ll use a personal example.

      I don’t mind people being gay. You’re A Gay right? That’s cool. I was the 2nd person in the world one of my friends came out to in middle school, because I’m a pretty chill dude. I was friends with the only openly gay kid in my whole small town high school too.

      That’s being tolerant. However, I also do not think being gay is “cool” or anything. Being gay is pretty gay brah! LOL Also the thought of two men doing the nasty is fucking disgusting to me personally. The image of it is simply gross. I still don’t care if that’s what you want to do.

      However if I, living in SUPER WOKE SEATTLE where I do, were to publicly say “The thought of gay men having sex is fucking disgusting. It really grosses me out. I don’t care if people are gay, but it’s pretty nasty IMO.” people would freak out and oppress me for speaking my personal opinion, even though I’m tolerant. And even though MOST straight men think the exact same thing but dare not say it.

      THAT is what Cultural Marxism is all about Tony. Being accepting of Big Brother isn’t enough, you must TRULY LOVE Big Brother, or you’re a heretic. Fuck that.

      1. And even though MOST straight men think the exact same thing but dare not say it.

        And the majority of women, gay and straight.

        Being accepting of Big Brother isn’t enough, you must TRULY LOVE Big Brother, or you’re a heretic.

        This is a excellent. Being tolerant isn’t cultural Marxism. Cultural marxism borders on religion, where you must devote yourself body and soul.

        1. mad.casual

          Yup. Most straight people don’t find man on man sex, errr, sexy. I’d bet my ass if I posted that on facebook I’d have my house vandalized since I live here in the Super Woke People’s Republic Of Seattle.

          It is truly a religious fervor many of these loonies have with this stuff.

      2. Right. Thinking of one’s parents getting it on is pretty gross too.

      3. Cool story. Paul opposed the Lawrence v Texas decision, supported DADT, supported DOMA, and whined that gay people should try to abolish all legal marriage.

        That’s not tolerance. That’s literally being okay with states making it a felony to be gay, and wanting the federal government to enforce second-class status for gays.

        1. 1. Am I Ron Paul? Nope! I am not. He is a Christian, I am not. I think DADT was a reasonable standard for the time. Keep in mind standards change, what is socially acceptable changes. At the time that was about as good as it was gonna get. DOMA I didn’t care for but see next point…

          2. Allowing states to do their thing is still probably a step in the right direction from a libertarian perspective, at least at the time since much was illegal federally back then. As is getting the government out of marriage entirely. That is of course THE ULTIMATE libertarian position on the subject, if you didn’t know. Throwing it to the states would have in fact probably got gays more rights faster than how it went down. It’s all settled now though so who cares?

          3. I never said the guy was perfect, or that I agree with him 100% of the time. I still think he’s the best and most principled politician who got elected to any office of importance in this country in the last several decades though.

      4. Sounds like you’d be happier in Alabama or Mississippi, where the bigotry is still open, and casual, and common.

        1. How do you figure? I don’t hate gay people. I have plenty of gay friends. I just think that when they do the nasty with their BFs it’s gross. Pretty much every straight person agrees.

          But if I wanted to all I’d have to do was take a 20 minute drive outside of Seattle city limits and I’d be back in America where people are sane and rational human beings. The few little socialist dots scattered around the country on maps are far and few between, and surrounded on all sides… Just remember that Rev!

      5. Well its not loving Big Brother, its that the Gay Mafia wants everyone to “Accept” their perverted behaviors as normal, and it isn’t, that’s just the reality.

        That’s what they really want, is to force other people to believe in this lie, and to repeat it to others, to “normalize” it. So in other words, by repeating it enough, that people will believe it.

        That is what makes all these faggots so dangerous. If they were just content to be a bunch of degenerate ass-bandits in the privacy of their own homes, it would be fine. But they have to be in your face with all their faggotry, all the time.

        The “Love that dares not speak its name” has become “the love that simply won’t shut the fuck up.”

    2. Nah.

  39. Weak sauce, Reason. Do y’all really have no understanding of how the term has been used in the last 20 years? Do you know nothing of the pedigree of the oppressed-oppressor analytical paradigm? Are you so committed to believing, against overwhelming evidence and logic, the conspiratorial and paranoid theory that Ron Paul is a secret racist? Is it so hard to use Occam’s Razor and accept that people don’t always pay close attention to meme imagery?

  40. How the hell does Ron keep hiring autistic schmucks to manage his media?

  41. Yawn, so black people can’t be Marxists. See Africa, Asians can;t be Marxists, see North Korea, Hispanic can’t be Marxists, see Venezuela.

    I haven’t seen a propensity for Jews to be Marxist. But Jews are mostly white so white people can also be Marxists, see Karl Marx.

    Once again who gives a fuck. Really aren’t we all supposed to be equal including getting picked on?

    1. I haven’t seen a propensity for Jews to be Marxist.

      I guess you missed the founding of modern day Israel and you definitely didn’t grow up in New York City.

      Like most people who primarily identify not as individuals but as members of a group, Jews tend naturally towards some form of collectivism.

      This isn’t just a Jewish trait. If you ask a person “Are you someone who happens to be X or are you an X?” (“X” being any group – black, Jewish, Latino or even deaf) you’ll find out that those who identify as members of a group will tend to vote for collectivism.

      This is part of the reason that immigrants tend to vote Democrat and as their children move out of the ethnic neighborhoods their children’s voting patterns change.

      1. Interesting stuff.

        But really I am going revert back to my final conclusion on this matter regarding the cartoon.

        Seriously, who gives a fuck?

    2. Actually Marx was a Jew, and almost all the founding members in charge of the USSR were Jews, and Jews led the communist parties in most countries in Europe and the USA… So yeah, lots of Jews were/are communists. In the USA Jews vote 70% or so left wing. In other places, like Israel, Jews are very right wing, so it’s probably not some magical genetic thing or anything… But Jews have been disproportionately involved in communist organization in the USA and Europe since day one.

      Just sayin’.

      1. First off, Jews were mass murdered in Russia, leading to a mass exodus into These States beginning about 1905. This brought new business to the port of Galveston recently leveled by a hurricane. The rate at which republican christianofascists are attracted hither with their ignorant spewings does not speak well for Matt’s editorial competence.

        1. Do you have a point? Humans have mass murdered each other all the time, throughout all of history, all over the world. Jews MAY be able to say they’ve been especially fucked with, but it’s debatable. If that is the case there is an obvious reason: Jews have chosen to never integrate into the nations they lived in. This is always a recipe for disaster. Keep in mind I don’t blame them for not wanting to abandon their heritage, I don’t want to abandon mine… However people that do this when a minority in a foreign nation tend to bring trouble on themselves. Jews have also tended to become involved in politics in recent history and pushed hard for perceived Jewish interests. Again this tends to annoy majority groups, especially when those politics are perceived as against their interests.

          The fact is there are millions of Europeans who are ethnically Jewish or part Jewish who have faced ZERO oppression, and never have. Why? Because they integrated and stopped waving around/pushing their Jewish identity. My own family may in fact have some Jewish blood, at least according to one old great aunt of mine. Victim cards don’t get any sympathy from me.

        2. Also, whatever the case, none of that has anything to do with the fact that it is an objective fact that mostly Jews founded the Soviet system, and were heavily involved in leadership positions in communist movements in the western world. They were also many of the leading libertarian thinkers! They’re not all a monolithic block. But to say you can’t even say Jews largely led communist movements, when it is true, is just silly. Jews did bad things, and Jews did good things… Kind of like all groups.

        3. That’s false..this idea they were mass murdered in Russia. You’re referring to the Odessa pogroms which allegedly resulted in the deaths of less than 3000 Jews.
          But yes, that is when they began infesting us with their commie garbage in huge numbers.

  42. For years, the Left has gotten away with mercilessly battering white males as the cause of all evil. Cultural Marxism, Identity Politics and Post-Modernism were the clubs and whips used. That cartoon is a harbinger of what will happen if white males ever decide to accept Identity Politics and the Post-Modern idea that civilization is based on power relationships between groups. The election of Trump may be a sign that white people have begun to accept Identity Politics.

    The arguments for white guilt have progressed from the semi-plausible to the completely irrational and the sheer lunacy shown in recent events indicates that the movement is collapsing as panic sets in among its adherents. They are baring their teeth as con-men do when their games are exposed. Perhaps the only good that Trump has done is to accelerate this exposure.

    What will happen in the future? If history is any guide then we can confidently assert that we haven’t got the slightest fucking idea!

    1. “The election of Trump may be a sign that white people have begun to accept Identity Politics.”

      Here’s the thing hyper-individualist don’t seem to ever comprehend: A cohesive and organized group will always dominate a larger, more powerful group that doesn’t organize for its own defense.

      That’s just reality. The left cobbled together a bunch of disparate groups that largely hate each other, but organized them and got them to go their direction in unison. Despite being less numerous and less powerful they managed to largely take over everything and slant it their direction. This is because whites, the monolithic block in the USA until the last few years, never stood together to stop the insanity pushed by the left.

      When people are organizing group actions against your group (whites and especially males in the USA and Europe), whether YOU consider yourselves a group or not, and you don’t stand together… You will lose. This is why 100% pure libertarian individualism has never worked in history, and never will. This is why many whites are finally standing together for their group interests, subconsciously IMO in many cases.

      It’s not the way a perfect world would work, but it is the way the real world works… Like it or not.

  43. This is a very stupid or intentionally obtuse article.

    The post is correct about Cultural Marxism. This is a very openly stated viewpoint and agenda. There’s nothing vague or conspiratorial about it, and it’s not just culture war nonsense. Rather, it is fundamental stuff, of paramount importance.

    The author’s stupidity is in failing to distinguish between the broad propositions of equality before the law, equal opportunity and rights for women, gays, etc. — which the vast majority of Westerners agree on — and the drastically, fundamentally different aims of revolutionary cultural marxists. Cultural marxists apply the economic oppression and revolution narrative to all of culture and society as a whole, and specifically wherever it appears opportune to do so.

    They openly state ideologies and aims such as the total destruction and abolition of the family, of religion, of various moral norms, of the biological male/female dichotomy, of the justice system and law enforcement, of national and popular sovereignty, etc.

    1. rights for women, gays, etc. — which the vast majority of Westerners agree on

      That’s a silly assertion. Most Republicans are gay-bashers who abandoned open homophobia relatively recently, and only then because they came to recognize it was a lost cause. Plenty of Republicans are bigots who favor race-targeting voter suppression.

      1. Wow. This is astonishing stupidity.

      2. Some are but the point is nobody advocates infringing on the natural rights of gays or women. As for civil rights it largely has come to mean special treatment and handouts that WE NORMIES have to pay for, and we’re sick and tired of being robbed of our hard earned money to pay for Welfare for Wetbacks, sex change operations for the mentally ill, and a bunch of loony-tune Affirmative Action programs to make low-IQ minorities feel better about themselves. This isn’t civil rights, its “special privileges” and its wrong. Its nothing but robbery.

    2. The problem is that “equal under the law, equal opportunity and rights” remain just unmet ideals and the people who forward them always couch it in sophistry that claims they need special rights and advantages over you because you have some kind of invisible “privilege.” That is, they need ACTUAL privilege over you in the original Roman Latin sense of the word because of some piece of sophistry they’ve concocted.

      Show me where in the world these ideals actually exist. You can’t. Group conflict is the reality of the world and will remain so. “Equality” in the current year men’s white men are the devil and it’s legitimate to discriminate against them. It means blacks and browns have a human right to move to your country and rape your daughter, and pimp her out. It means lunatic barbarian invaders in your universities screaming about “decolonization” even though they are the colonizers.

      1. As for “rights for women and gays” etc. the same kinds of problems exist. “Rights for women” comes to mean women-only perks and advantages and legs up. It means women who look up, see men more competent than them at the top but never look down at the men doing all of the dangerous shitwork to keep a society running because these men are largely invisible to women. “Rights for gays” means an inexorable push towards forcing you to tolerate the spread of disease and their edging towards trying to legitimize raping children, which they have a penchant for given the statistics of them being exponentially over represented in compared to the general population. It’s also more of the same of special carveouts, exemptions, handouts etc.

        Why should anyone tolerate this blatant, straight-up transfer of wealth style of result that is the praxis of these ideas? All of these ideals in practice just lead to what we have now. The ivory tower theoretical models have been proven wrong.

  44. Great. A GOP whore cartoonist, just the thing I need, how nice.

  45. Do we really care, when the definition of racism has been watered down to “saying anything remotely uncomplimentary about a protected race?” It’s objective fact that all those races vote for the left by statistical average. God forbid anyone point that out when condemning cultural Marxism.

    Charges of “racism” are just attempts to deflect from substantive discussion.

  46. Ron Paul has a staff?? Congress been berry berry good to him.

  47. Mr. Doherty, where you go wrong is that you leave out the fact that the state is creating these new western norms and mores. You speak as though they are totally organic and reflective only of self-actualization and self-expression. They aren’t. The state has been actively promoting them (through various means of force) for decades.

    Using the state to force cultural change; Using cultural issues to rationalize a police state; standing idly by while fascists punch “nazis” to prevent them from speaking, nevermind the question of how you can know they’re nazis before you hear them speak. This is cultural Marxism. And it is anti-liberty. And raising it as an issue is pro-liberty.

    1. Too late. The story was a trigger, which unleashed an avalanche of other triggers. Think this one goes in the birdcage, and we can try again next week – maybe then we can be offended that the country is under attack on the cultural marxist front, and not snipe at cartoon artists for pointing out the obvious in a style without the peoples committe approval. Good night, and hope the bold print addicts take their meds.

  48. Oh look, another misleading click-bait article designed to rip apart one of the leaders of the contemporary liberty movement. Your journalistic integrity is almost on par with CNN.

    How about working to grow the liberty movement or fostering a spirit of unity instead of all this petty mud slinging?

  49. Come on you fuck-tards at Reason; haven’t you learned yet that attacking the biggest warrior for freedom is not in your interest?

  50. I didn’t find the original post offensive. What is offensive are the policies of our fascist government.

  51. I am clouds from manchester, i hear how people are talking about The powerful spell caster called DR Ewan in regard of how he bring back ex lover, Winning lottery, getting pregnant and getting married to their dream lover and i also contact him to help me cast a spell in regard of my ex lover whom i love so much that left me 2yrs ago, but today my ex is back to me and we are happily married with 3kids and i am so much happy for the help i found in you DR Ewan. I and my family are very much happy and we are living large now, i am grateful and appreciate your good work . Thank you and may you live long to help people in problems. if you are going through any problem at all he will help you contact him on his email is or add him on watsapp +2349057353987 check out his webpage

  52. Sorry, how is it “bigoted”? Do you people have any editors on staff? Or a dictionary?

    I suggest you start learning what simple English words mean.

    Or, are you lying on purpose? Using the words improperly to bolster your non-argument?

    So you don’t like Ron Paul now. That’s because you’re Anarchists and he is a real American. Yah, that’s right….you guys are unAmerican scum…don’t think we don’t know about you, and your Head Commie Queer, Nick Gillespie. We’re on to you.

  53. Sorry, how is it “bigoted”? Do you people have any editors on staff? Or a dictionary?

    I suggest you start learning what simple English words mean.

    Or, are you lying on purpose? Using the words improperly to bolster your non-argument?

    So you don’t like Ron Paul now. That’s because you’re Anarchists and he is a real American. Yah, that’s right….you guys are unAmerican scum…don’t think we don’t know about you, and your Head Commie Queer, Nick Gillespie. We’re on to you.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.