ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626

I’ve heard this term bandied about for years but never directly encountered someone who uses it.
Because people were using it back in the 80's and maybe late 70's, and when the term started attracting too much negative attention, they promptly started pretending it's a conspiracy theory.
Also, "never met someone who uses the term directly" is an argument that's applied extremely selectively.
Most of the “applied cultural marxists” and postmodernists seem to outright reject Marx and any similarities in their thinking (e.g., oppressor and oppressed) seem to pre-date Marx.
Critical Theory proudly takes inspiration from both Marx and postmodernism.
Some potential meanings I’ve considered and discarded:
Those are fairly decent nutshell descriptions, and there's no reason to reject them.
I wouldn't say the US forced him to abdicate - he was couped in the 1970's by his Prime Minister. But if the question is "why did the US not put Zahir Shah on the throne as part of their policy of building not-the-Taliban?"
Then you'd be wrong, and that's not the question. They forced him to renounce all future claims the throne.
then per Wikipedia
Please, no.
That the US deep state still (wrongly) considered Pakistan an ally who might have a better sense of Afghan politics than they did was obvious if you were paying attention in the noughties.
Maybe, but given this, and the decision to rebuild Iraq as a democracy seems to indicate ideological commitment, and your theory that it was all cynical is far from obvious.
But what the US was actually doing in Afghanistan was spending two trillion dollars to (unsuccessfully) spread not-the-Taliban,
So why did they force the king of Afghanistan to abdicate, instead if putting him on the throne?
- Prev
- Next
Emily Hicks, Richard R. Weiner, Douglas Kellner.
That Cultural Marxists themselves thought that they are taking inspiration from Marx:
More options
Context Copy link