![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have removed this material again - it is my third revert, but for the record I claim a BLP exemption if people are worried about edit warring. We cannot say Anning referred to, let alone "espoused", a conspiracy theory without a reliable source. All we have is the primary source - and Anning may well have used the phrase without knowing its meaning, history, or connotations (and I think he probably did). So as it stands we have a BLP violation. I take Bacondrum's point that you can't criticise something that doesn't exist, so perhaps we could have Anning criticised what he called "cultural Marxism". Otherwise we can leave it out. After all, it did not receive much coverage at the time, since people were focused on the "final solution" phrase. (As a side note, he did not refer to the final solution either.) St Anselm ( talk) 23:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
In contemporary usage, the term Cultural Marxism refers to an anti-semitic conspiracy theory which claims that the Frankfurt School is part of a continual academic and intellectual effort to undermine and destroy Western culture. According to the conspiracy theory, which emerged in the late 1990s, the Frankfurt School and other Marxist theorists were part of a conspiracy to attack Western society by undermining traditionalist conservatism using the 1960s counterculture, multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness.How are we supposed to check if he knew what he said before he said it? Let's pretend we don't know anything about Fraser Anning, why would we assume he doesn't know what something is if he said it? Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
On 14 August 2018 Anning delivered his maiden speech to the Senate. In it, he called for a plebiscite to reintroduce the White Australia Policy, especially with regard to excluding Muslims. Anning's maiden speech also referred to the final solution and the antisemitic conspiracy theory of cultural Marxism, he went on to criticise the Safe Schools Coalition Australia as "gender fluidity garbage" and condemned what he described as the abuse of the external affairs power of the Australian constitution. He also spoke in support of the right of civilians to own firearms, and the Bradfield Scheme irrigation proposal. [1] [2] [3] Bacondrum ( talk) 00:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
It's the name of the conspiracy theory, it's not a phrase or anything else. It's an antisemetic conspiracy theory. You hide behind rules to present Fascists in the most favourable possible light...Christians do their faith a disservice when they get in bed with the far right. Jesus rejected this kind of barbarism. Bacondrum ( talk) 03:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
So, explain how "Cultural Marxism" and "the final solution" can be interpreted as anything other than what they are, if I was to say Anning is a man, I wouldn't need a source, because it's patently obvious that he is a man. To say "cultural Marxism" is an antisemitic conspiracy is the same, there is no other meanings to that combinations words, if there is, please enlighten me...it is what it is, and it is an antisemitic conspiracy theory, nothing else...If I said the same about the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I wouldn't need a citation showing that the protocols are an antisemitic conspiracy theory because that's what it is 100%, it's the only context it is ever used in. Same with the "final solution", would a reasobnable person assume anything but a reference to the holocaust? Would a reasonable person assume either of these wording meant anything other than exactly what was meant? This is a stupid argument Bacondrum ( talk) 22:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
So, I hear what you're saying @ StAnselm:, sorry for being belligerent with you (again). I reckon that there is a need to mention the cultural Marxism remarks - especially seeing as the words "The final solution" also appeared in the same speech - I think we can all agree that most fair minded people would, at the every least, concede that these phrases are loaded and could be perceived as profoundly racist (as myself and others have perceived them), even if racist dog-whistling was or wasn't Anning's intention, the phrases are still loaded with deeply offensive connotations. How about this for a compromise:
Or some variant on that? Informs the reader of the phrases use and history, but does not suggest Anning intended it in a conspiratorial sense, just that he used the phrase. Bacondrum ( talk) 00:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Reference: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/full-text-senator-fraser-anning-s-maiden-speech Adrian Fey ( talk) 02:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with StAnselm's comment "the phrase is not the theory" here. The phrase "cultural Marxism" is used frequently by mainstream right-wing media sources in Australia – googling "cultural marxism"+site:theaustralian.com.au brings up five pages of results. Whatever the origins of the term, it seems to be used quite often shorthand for left-wing social policy. It's quite possible that Anning does subscribe to the conspiracy theory behind it, but I think it's too big a leap for us to say that he does so based only on him mentioning the term. It would be different if we had sources criticising him for doing so. I don't think the fact that he mentioned it should be omitted entirely, but Wikipedia shouldn't be a first-mover on things that are potentially defamatory; i.e. it shouldn't be in Wikipedia's voice. It would be like going to every Republican who has criticised George Soros and saying they subscribe to the anti-semitic George Soros conspiracy theory – it may be true, but where there's plausible deniability we should err on the side of caution. Ivar the Boneful ( talk) 07:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@ StAnselm: we really need to know what exactly of WP:BLP you are talking about. As far as I see it, there is no risk of damage to saying Anning has referenced a conspiracy theory or an antisemitic idea. It is not saying that Anning is antisemitic, which may risk damage. Before you may dispute what I have said, please tell us exactly what part of WP:BLP you feel contravenes the article. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
"In contemporary usage, the term Cultural Marxism refers to an antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims that the Frankfurt School is part of a continual academic and intellectual effort to undermine and destroy Western culture. [8] According to the conspiracy theory, which emerged in the late 1990s, the Frankfurt School and other Marxist theorists were part of a conspiracy to attack Western society by undermining traditionalist conservatism using the 1960s counterculture, multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness. [9] [10] [11] This conspiracy theory is associated with American religious paleoconservatives such as William S. Lind, Pat Buchanan, and Paul Weyrich; but also holds currency among the alt-right, white nationalist groups, and the neo-reactionary movement. [12] Weyrich first laid out the conspiracy theory in a 1998 speech to the Civitas Institute's Conservative Leadership Conference, later repeating it in his widely syndicated " culture war letter". [13] At Weyrich's request, William S. Lind wrote a short history of his conception of Cultural Marxism for the Free Congress Foundation; in it Lind identifies the presence of openly gay people on television as proof of Cultural Marxist control over the mass media and claims that Herbert Marcuse considered a coalition of " blacks, students, feminist women, and homosexuals" as a vanguard of cultural revolution. [9] [10] [14] A year later, Lind began writing Victoria: A Novel of 4th Generation Warfare (published in 2014) about a societal apocalypse in which Cultural Marxism deposed traditionalist conservatism as the culture of the Western world; ultimately, a Christian military victory re-establishes traditionalist socio-economic order using the Victorian morality of Britain in the late 19th century. [15] [16] The anti–Marxism of Lind and Weyrich advocates political confrontation and intellectual opposition to Cultural Marxism with "a vibrant cultural conservatism" composed of "retro-culture fashions", a return to railroads as public transport, and an agrarian culture of self-reliance, modeled after that of the Amish. [17] In the Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment: The Frankfurt School as Scapegoat of the Lunatic Fringe (2011), the historian Martin Jay said that Lind's documentary of conservative counter-culture, Political Correctness: The Frankfurt School (1999), was effective propaganda, because it:
Heidi Beirich likewise holds that the conspiracy theory is used to demonize various conservative " bêtes noires" including "feminists, homosexuals, secular humanists, multiculturalists, sex educators, environmentalists, immigrants, and black nationalists". [19] According to Chip Berlet, who specializes in the study of far-right movements, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory found a place within the Tea Party movement of 2009, with contributions published in the American Thinker and WorldNetDaily highlighted by some Tea Party websites. [20] [21] The Southern Poverty Law Center has reported that William S. Lind in 2002 gave a speech at a Holocaust denial conference on the topic of Cultural Marxism. In this speech Lind noted that all the members of The Frankfurt School were "to a man, Jewish", but it is reported that Lind claims not to question whether the Holocaust occurred and suggests he was present in an official capacity for the Free Congress Foundation "to work with a wide variety of groups on an issue-by-issue basis". [22] [23] Although the theory became more widespread in the late 1990s and through the 2000s, the modern iteration of the theory originated in Michael Minnicino's 1992 essay "New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness'", published in Fidelio Magazine by the Schiller Institute. [18] [24] [25] The Schiller Institute, a branch of the LaRouche movement, further promoted the idea in 1994. [26] The Minnicino article charges that the Frankfurt School promoted Modernism in the arts as a form of cultural pessimism and shaped the counterculture of the 1960s (such as the British pop band The Beatles) after the Wandervogel movements of the Ascona commune. [24] According to Samuel Moyn, the fear of "cultural Marxism” is originally "an American contribution to the phantasmagoria of the alt-right", while the theory is "a crude slander, referring to something that does not exist". [27] More recently, the Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik included the term in his document "2083: A European Declaration of Independence", which—along with The Free Congress Foundation's Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology—was e-mailed to 1,003 addresses approximately 90 minutes before the 2011 bomb blast in Oslo for which Breivik was responsible. [28] [29] [30] Segments of William S. Lind's writings on Cultural Marxism have been found within Breivik's manifesto. [31]" In July 2017, Rich Higgins was removed by US National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster from the United States National Security Council following the discovery of a seven-page memorandum he had authored, describing a conspiracy theory concerning a plot to destroy the presidency of Donald Trump by Cultural Marxists, as well as Islamists, globalists, bankers, the media, and members of the Republican and Democratic parties. [32] [33] [34] In July 2018, the Twitter account of Ron Paul posted and then deleted a cartoon about Cultural Marxism which depicted racial stereotypes. Paul later claimed that he had not posted it personally. [35] [36] [37] In "The Origins of Political Correctness" (2000), William S. Lind established the ideologic lineage of Cultural Marxism; that: "If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the Hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I [to Kulturbolshewismus]. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with [the basic tenets of] classical Marxism, the parallels are very obvious." [23] Such an historical lineage demonstrated that the ideology of "The Alt-right’s Favorite Meme is 100 Years Old" (2018), in which Samuel Moyn reported that fear of Cultural Marxism is "an American contribution to the phantasmagoria of the alt-right"; while the conspiracy theory, itself, is "a crude slander, referring to Judeo-Bolshevism, something that does not exist". [38] Philosopher and political science lecturer Jérôme Jamin has stated that "[n]ext to the global dimension of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, there is its innovative and original dimension, which lets its authors avoid racist discourses and pretend to be defenders of democracy". [39]" |
Adrian Fey ( talk) 20:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Adrian Fey ( talk) 21:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
it's the claim that anyone who uses the phrase is necessarily referring to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.We're not making that claim, it's just Fraser Anning referring to "Cultural Marxism" as defined by that. Anning is clearly not referring to anything else, such as a method of analysing history and culture. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 22:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/national-news/senator-fraser-anning-uses-first-speech-call-safe-schools-gender-diversity-garbage/171114 Satisfied? Now we no longer have to keep invoking the "B-but primary sources are bad!" cliché to insert said sourced paragraph to his biography, and academic and politological consensus generally agrees that cultural marxism is indeed an antisemitic conspiracy theory commonly pripagated by the extreme right to paintnsocialy liberal or centrist values as "orchestrated intellectual plots to systematically destroy and undermine Western civilization and the traditional nuclear family", as evidenced in the by now collapsed list of references I presented.
And in this specific instance, Anning was obviously not referring to "cultural marxism" in the rare "non-antisemitic" fashion you proposed, and judging by his outspoken far-right views and hostility to anyone who is not a white and Anglo-Saxon Australian, there is little reason to believe he didn't say it in a malicious and deceptive fashion. Adrian Fey ( talk) 02:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
" "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.
Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." Virtually every source I've presented clearly states Fraser Anning did indeed invoke the Cultural Marxism trope in his speech, and academic/historian consensus agrees that cultural marxism is either a conspiracy theory and snarlword used by the extreme-right to defame or wrongfully accuse anyone opposed to them from the left of "trying to destroy Western culture and traditional values", or outright refers to it as an antisemitic canard, directly descended from the "Judeo-Bolshevism" trope used by Joseph Goebbels in Nazi propaganda, as stated in the above references which are now collapsed. What on earth is still disputable about that I am not aware of. Adrian Fey ( talk) 02:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
So, there's been a fair bit of debate about this now. I think most of us agree that fair minded people would probably assume Anning was referring to the antisemitic conspiracy theory, especially when mentioned in a speech that also refers to a "final solution" to immigration. That being said, it is going to be challenged over and over as is because the detail of reporting around it has mostly focused on the "final solution". His use of the term cultural Marxism is covered in news and it is in the Hansard - given the comments context i think it's important that it does get a mention, it is noteworthy - Anning has a well documented connection to the extreme-right and neo-Nazis: https://honisoit.com/2019/01/neo-nazi-academic-and-alleged-fraser-anning-final-solution-speechwriter-taught-at-usyd/
So, how about a compromise and add StAnselm's wording -Anning criticised what he called "cultural Marxism"- and perhaps also mention that the maiden speech was allegedly co-authored by a known neo-Nazi, Frank Salter. Bacondrum ( talk) 01:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I say we should restore the "cultural marxism" part as it was originally inserted there by Bacondrum prior to the article's protection due to a ongoing edit war between me and Bacon versus StAnselm, with an reference immediately following the "antisemitic" phrase with either the SPLC's article on the topic, or the "The Alt-Right's meme is 100 years old" analysis as presented in the Frankfurt School article's subsection of the conspiracy theory, or even citing them both. And after that paragraph, we are adding in the news article that referenced Fraser Anning's full verbatim text of his maiden speech to prove he did indeed invoke the phrase in his own words and thus it is not a "BLP!" violation to refer to it as such. This sort of compromise should hopefully satisfy all sides of this dispute, and prove once and for all that referring to inconvenient truths such as the "cultural marxism" theory being a antisemitic canard is not defamatory. Adrian Fey ( talk) 00:16, 8 April 2≤019 (UTC)
Question In order to move the discussion forward, can someone specify exactly what language is being proposed to be added to the article, and the sources that would support it? To aid evaluation, it would be helpful if you would point to the exact paragraphs/sentences in the sources that the proposed text is intended to reflect/summarize. Abecedare ( talk) 09:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html, https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching, and https://www.smh.com.au/world/cultural-marxism--the-ultimate-postfactual-dog-whistle-20171102-gzd7lq.html, as for Anning's speech itself, the source for that is: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/full-text-senator-fraser-anning-s-maiden-speech and https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/while-all-muslims-are-not-terrorists-certainly-all-terrorists-these-days-are-muslims-senator-anning-said/news-story/c0753644cfccdda0394619e6f9dc01b5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Fey ( talk • contribs) 09:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
This is supported by the sources already used for the paragraph.Can you point to which sources discuss Anning's use of "cultural Marxism" and refer to it as "a Nazi-era conspiracy theory with antisemitic undertones"? Abecedare ( talk) 10:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
a Nazi-era conspiracy theory with antisemitic undertonesare supported by the existing sources on the topic. Just to be clear, I am not attributing conspiracy theory or antisemitism to Anning here, which is why I have purposefully distinguished it. The primary source should be the transcript of the speech as reported by SBS. However, the passage should refer to "cultural Marxists" as this is how he expressed it, three times. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 10:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
...existing sources on the topicis not helpful. Please re-read my question and explanation of what type of sources would be needed to comply with wikipedia policies. We can resume discussion if/when such sources become available. Abecedare ( talk) 11:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Abecedare: Just to be clear, I'm only advocating that we amend the article in a way that does not violate BLP, to read the following:
Anning holds far-right and anti-immigration views and has faced criticism for his remarks on Islam, including his use of the Nazi euphemism for genocide, calling for a "final solution to the immigration problem" in his maiden speech and referring to "cultural Marxism", a Nazi-era conspiracy theory with antisemitic undertones. Shortly after the March 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings in New Zealand, Anning released a statement blaming the attacks on "the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate".
This is not making any claim about Anning other than the words he said, which are attributable to many sources already in the article, but particularly the transcript of the speech by SBS. I also do not support any synthesis of sources, we should only report strictly what the sources say, as my proposal does. I'm very much open to suggestions as to how this paragraph can be further improved on, since this is not intended to be a final version. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 23:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
This is going nowhere. I share you're frustrations good sirs, believe me. If/when some quality analysis comes along that explicitly makes the connection between Anning's use of that vile term and it's antisemitic connotations, we can make the connection then (I know it's frustrating, we all know what was meant by "cultural Marxism" and it's disgusting, but he's dog whistling and no one in the media or academia has explicitly called him on it, yet). As StAnselm and Abecedare have pointed out, we just don't have a quality academic paper or news article that makes the connection, doesn't matter that it's blindingly obvious to us. How about this for a compromise, we note that he used the phrase, and leave it there for now (we all know what he was referring to, and most readers will also, at least it's out there that he said it).
The alternative is no mention at all, StAnselm and Abecedare are correct in that it doesn't matter that the antisemitic undertones are there, we have no acceptable citation and as such it's inclusion doesn't cut it. This compromise would put the BLP and improper synthesis debate to rest while allowing the reader to be informed in regard to the language used (keeping in mind that most people do know it's a racist trope). Bacondrum ( talk) 22:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
entire Australian mediascape has called out Fraser Anning's painfully obvious dogwhistling (Like seeing a elephant in the room but not bothering to say it to anyone for hundreds of days), it's fair to say that no one there will call him out on it anytime soon (Possibly for decades), either because Australian society is not yet adequately informed about the antisemitic links, or because they think it should be so obvious it doesn't need explicit calling-outs. And since already existing sources (Including academic analyses) do not satisfy Anselm and Abecedare's redlines (Apparently since they are "not australian" and "not mentioning Anning" hence they are unreliable and shouldn't be used to describe the theory as antisemitic) and watering it all the way down to just "cultural marxism" alone would only serve to legitimize his screeds and thus unwittintly abet obfuscation of information, we might as well just blank the disputed paragraph entirely and get it over with, considering that Anselm wouldn't accept anything else than denying it mention and the alternative, AKA "sources made in Australia only" (Australocentrism at it's best) do not exist and will likely not for a indefinite amount of time, the only way to break the deadlock seems to settle around blanking it. Adrian Fey ( talk) 11:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Alright, how about this version (sans the Hanson bit, I couldn't figure out where to place that suggestion):
I hope that can get us to a consensus. 22:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC) Bacondrum ( talk)
Alright, one more time sans wikilink:
Can we please just agree to this compromise and allow editing again? Bacondrum ( talk) 07:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
So, that's enough total and utter irrelevancies (unless someone can find a SINGLE, RELIABLE, SECONDARY SOURCE to end the bloody cultural Marxism debate) :
Can we please just close the discussion? Support or oppose? No meandering debate or accusations about who supports what and where or about anything else, please. Yay or nay? Bacondrum ( talk) 10:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I’m absolutely astonished at this discussion. It’s like 2 or 3 dogs continuing to fight over one bone for 48 hours. Boscaswell talk 11:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have removed this material again - it is my third revert, but for the record I claim a BLP exemption if people are worried about edit warring. We cannot say Anning referred to, let alone "espoused", a conspiracy theory without a reliable source. All we have is the primary source - and Anning may well have used the phrase without knowing its meaning, history, or connotations (and I think he probably did). So as it stands we have a BLP violation. I take Bacondrum's point that you can't criticise something that doesn't exist, so perhaps we could have Anning criticised what he called "cultural Marxism". Otherwise we can leave it out. After all, it did not receive much coverage at the time, since people were focused on the "final solution" phrase. (As a side note, he did not refer to the final solution either.) St Anselm ( talk) 23:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
In contemporary usage, the term Cultural Marxism refers to an anti-semitic conspiracy theory which claims that the Frankfurt School is part of a continual academic and intellectual effort to undermine and destroy Western culture. According to the conspiracy theory, which emerged in the late 1990s, the Frankfurt School and other Marxist theorists were part of a conspiracy to attack Western society by undermining traditionalist conservatism using the 1960s counterculture, multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness.How are we supposed to check if he knew what he said before he said it? Let's pretend we don't know anything about Fraser Anning, why would we assume he doesn't know what something is if he said it? Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
On 14 August 2018 Anning delivered his maiden speech to the Senate. In it, he called for a plebiscite to reintroduce the White Australia Policy, especially with regard to excluding Muslims. Anning's maiden speech also referred to the final solution and the antisemitic conspiracy theory of cultural Marxism, he went on to criticise the Safe Schools Coalition Australia as "gender fluidity garbage" and condemned what he described as the abuse of the external affairs power of the Australian constitution. He also spoke in support of the right of civilians to own firearms, and the Bradfield Scheme irrigation proposal. [1] [2] [3] Bacondrum ( talk) 00:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
It's the name of the conspiracy theory, it's not a phrase or anything else. It's an antisemetic conspiracy theory. You hide behind rules to present Fascists in the most favourable possible light...Christians do their faith a disservice when they get in bed with the far right. Jesus rejected this kind of barbarism. Bacondrum ( talk) 03:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
So, explain how "Cultural Marxism" and "the final solution" can be interpreted as anything other than what they are, if I was to say Anning is a man, I wouldn't need a source, because it's patently obvious that he is a man. To say "cultural Marxism" is an antisemitic conspiracy is the same, there is no other meanings to that combinations words, if there is, please enlighten me...it is what it is, and it is an antisemitic conspiracy theory, nothing else...If I said the same about the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I wouldn't need a citation showing that the protocols are an antisemitic conspiracy theory because that's what it is 100%, it's the only context it is ever used in. Same with the "final solution", would a reasobnable person assume anything but a reference to the holocaust? Would a reasonable person assume either of these wording meant anything other than exactly what was meant? This is a stupid argument Bacondrum ( talk) 22:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
So, I hear what you're saying @ StAnselm:, sorry for being belligerent with you (again). I reckon that there is a need to mention the cultural Marxism remarks - especially seeing as the words "The final solution" also appeared in the same speech - I think we can all agree that most fair minded people would, at the every least, concede that these phrases are loaded and could be perceived as profoundly racist (as myself and others have perceived them), even if racist dog-whistling was or wasn't Anning's intention, the phrases are still loaded with deeply offensive connotations. How about this for a compromise:
Or some variant on that? Informs the reader of the phrases use and history, but does not suggest Anning intended it in a conspiratorial sense, just that he used the phrase. Bacondrum ( talk) 00:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Reference: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/full-text-senator-fraser-anning-s-maiden-speech Adrian Fey ( talk) 02:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with StAnselm's comment "the phrase is not the theory" here. The phrase "cultural Marxism" is used frequently by mainstream right-wing media sources in Australia – googling "cultural marxism"+site:theaustralian.com.au brings up five pages of results. Whatever the origins of the term, it seems to be used quite often shorthand for left-wing social policy. It's quite possible that Anning does subscribe to the conspiracy theory behind it, but I think it's too big a leap for us to say that he does so based only on him mentioning the term. It would be different if we had sources criticising him for doing so. I don't think the fact that he mentioned it should be omitted entirely, but Wikipedia shouldn't be a first-mover on things that are potentially defamatory; i.e. it shouldn't be in Wikipedia's voice. It would be like going to every Republican who has criticised George Soros and saying they subscribe to the anti-semitic George Soros conspiracy theory – it may be true, but where there's plausible deniability we should err on the side of caution. Ivar the Boneful ( talk) 07:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@ StAnselm: we really need to know what exactly of WP:BLP you are talking about. As far as I see it, there is no risk of damage to saying Anning has referenced a conspiracy theory or an antisemitic idea. It is not saying that Anning is antisemitic, which may risk damage. Before you may dispute what I have said, please tell us exactly what part of WP:BLP you feel contravenes the article. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
"In contemporary usage, the term Cultural Marxism refers to an antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims that the Frankfurt School is part of a continual academic and intellectual effort to undermine and destroy Western culture. [8] According to the conspiracy theory, which emerged in the late 1990s, the Frankfurt School and other Marxist theorists were part of a conspiracy to attack Western society by undermining traditionalist conservatism using the 1960s counterculture, multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness. [9] [10] [11] This conspiracy theory is associated with American religious paleoconservatives such as William S. Lind, Pat Buchanan, and Paul Weyrich; but also holds currency among the alt-right, white nationalist groups, and the neo-reactionary movement. [12] Weyrich first laid out the conspiracy theory in a 1998 speech to the Civitas Institute's Conservative Leadership Conference, later repeating it in his widely syndicated " culture war letter". [13] At Weyrich's request, William S. Lind wrote a short history of his conception of Cultural Marxism for the Free Congress Foundation; in it Lind identifies the presence of openly gay people on television as proof of Cultural Marxist control over the mass media and claims that Herbert Marcuse considered a coalition of " blacks, students, feminist women, and homosexuals" as a vanguard of cultural revolution. [9] [10] [14] A year later, Lind began writing Victoria: A Novel of 4th Generation Warfare (published in 2014) about a societal apocalypse in which Cultural Marxism deposed traditionalist conservatism as the culture of the Western world; ultimately, a Christian military victory re-establishes traditionalist socio-economic order using the Victorian morality of Britain in the late 19th century. [15] [16] The anti–Marxism of Lind and Weyrich advocates political confrontation and intellectual opposition to Cultural Marxism with "a vibrant cultural conservatism" composed of "retro-culture fashions", a return to railroads as public transport, and an agrarian culture of self-reliance, modeled after that of the Amish. [17] In the Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment: The Frankfurt School as Scapegoat of the Lunatic Fringe (2011), the historian Martin Jay said that Lind's documentary of conservative counter-culture, Political Correctness: The Frankfurt School (1999), was effective propaganda, because it:
Heidi Beirich likewise holds that the conspiracy theory is used to demonize various conservative " bêtes noires" including "feminists, homosexuals, secular humanists, multiculturalists, sex educators, environmentalists, immigrants, and black nationalists". [19] According to Chip Berlet, who specializes in the study of far-right movements, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory found a place within the Tea Party movement of 2009, with contributions published in the American Thinker and WorldNetDaily highlighted by some Tea Party websites. [20] [21] The Southern Poverty Law Center has reported that William S. Lind in 2002 gave a speech at a Holocaust denial conference on the topic of Cultural Marxism. In this speech Lind noted that all the members of The Frankfurt School were "to a man, Jewish", but it is reported that Lind claims not to question whether the Holocaust occurred and suggests he was present in an official capacity for the Free Congress Foundation "to work with a wide variety of groups on an issue-by-issue basis". [22] [23] Although the theory became more widespread in the late 1990s and through the 2000s, the modern iteration of the theory originated in Michael Minnicino's 1992 essay "New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness'", published in Fidelio Magazine by the Schiller Institute. [18] [24] [25] The Schiller Institute, a branch of the LaRouche movement, further promoted the idea in 1994. [26] The Minnicino article charges that the Frankfurt School promoted Modernism in the arts as a form of cultural pessimism and shaped the counterculture of the 1960s (such as the British pop band The Beatles) after the Wandervogel movements of the Ascona commune. [24] According to Samuel Moyn, the fear of "cultural Marxism” is originally "an American contribution to the phantasmagoria of the alt-right", while the theory is "a crude slander, referring to something that does not exist". [27] More recently, the Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik included the term in his document "2083: A European Declaration of Independence", which—along with The Free Congress Foundation's Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology—was e-mailed to 1,003 addresses approximately 90 minutes before the 2011 bomb blast in Oslo for which Breivik was responsible. [28] [29] [30] Segments of William S. Lind's writings on Cultural Marxism have been found within Breivik's manifesto. [31]" In July 2017, Rich Higgins was removed by US National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster from the United States National Security Council following the discovery of a seven-page memorandum he had authored, describing a conspiracy theory concerning a plot to destroy the presidency of Donald Trump by Cultural Marxists, as well as Islamists, globalists, bankers, the media, and members of the Republican and Democratic parties. [32] [33] [34] In July 2018, the Twitter account of Ron Paul posted and then deleted a cartoon about Cultural Marxism which depicted racial stereotypes. Paul later claimed that he had not posted it personally. [35] [36] [37] In "The Origins of Political Correctness" (2000), William S. Lind established the ideologic lineage of Cultural Marxism; that: "If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the Hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I [to Kulturbolshewismus]. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with [the basic tenets of] classical Marxism, the parallels are very obvious." [23] Such an historical lineage demonstrated that the ideology of "The Alt-right’s Favorite Meme is 100 Years Old" (2018), in which Samuel Moyn reported that fear of Cultural Marxism is "an American contribution to the phantasmagoria of the alt-right"; while the conspiracy theory, itself, is "a crude slander, referring to Judeo-Bolshevism, something that does not exist". [38] Philosopher and political science lecturer Jérôme Jamin has stated that "[n]ext to the global dimension of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, there is its innovative and original dimension, which lets its authors avoid racist discourses and pretend to be defenders of democracy". [39]" |
Adrian Fey ( talk) 20:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Adrian Fey ( talk) 21:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
it's the claim that anyone who uses the phrase is necessarily referring to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.We're not making that claim, it's just Fraser Anning referring to "Cultural Marxism" as defined by that. Anning is clearly not referring to anything else, such as a method of analysing history and culture. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 22:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/national-news/senator-fraser-anning-uses-first-speech-call-safe-schools-gender-diversity-garbage/171114 Satisfied? Now we no longer have to keep invoking the "B-but primary sources are bad!" cliché to insert said sourced paragraph to his biography, and academic and politological consensus generally agrees that cultural marxism is indeed an antisemitic conspiracy theory commonly pripagated by the extreme right to paintnsocialy liberal or centrist values as "orchestrated intellectual plots to systematically destroy and undermine Western civilization and the traditional nuclear family", as evidenced in the by now collapsed list of references I presented.
And in this specific instance, Anning was obviously not referring to "cultural marxism" in the rare "non-antisemitic" fashion you proposed, and judging by his outspoken far-right views and hostility to anyone who is not a white and Anglo-Saxon Australian, there is little reason to believe he didn't say it in a malicious and deceptive fashion. Adrian Fey ( talk) 02:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
" "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.
Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." Virtually every source I've presented clearly states Fraser Anning did indeed invoke the Cultural Marxism trope in his speech, and academic/historian consensus agrees that cultural marxism is either a conspiracy theory and snarlword used by the extreme-right to defame or wrongfully accuse anyone opposed to them from the left of "trying to destroy Western culture and traditional values", or outright refers to it as an antisemitic canard, directly descended from the "Judeo-Bolshevism" trope used by Joseph Goebbels in Nazi propaganda, as stated in the above references which are now collapsed. What on earth is still disputable about that I am not aware of. Adrian Fey ( talk) 02:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
So, there's been a fair bit of debate about this now. I think most of us agree that fair minded people would probably assume Anning was referring to the antisemitic conspiracy theory, especially when mentioned in a speech that also refers to a "final solution" to immigration. That being said, it is going to be challenged over and over as is because the detail of reporting around it has mostly focused on the "final solution". His use of the term cultural Marxism is covered in news and it is in the Hansard - given the comments context i think it's important that it does get a mention, it is noteworthy - Anning has a well documented connection to the extreme-right and neo-Nazis: https://honisoit.com/2019/01/neo-nazi-academic-and-alleged-fraser-anning-final-solution-speechwriter-taught-at-usyd/
So, how about a compromise and add StAnselm's wording -Anning criticised what he called "cultural Marxism"- and perhaps also mention that the maiden speech was allegedly co-authored by a known neo-Nazi, Frank Salter. Bacondrum ( talk) 01:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I say we should restore the "cultural marxism" part as it was originally inserted there by Bacondrum prior to the article's protection due to a ongoing edit war between me and Bacon versus StAnselm, with an reference immediately following the "antisemitic" phrase with either the SPLC's article on the topic, or the "The Alt-Right's meme is 100 years old" analysis as presented in the Frankfurt School article's subsection of the conspiracy theory, or even citing them both. And after that paragraph, we are adding in the news article that referenced Fraser Anning's full verbatim text of his maiden speech to prove he did indeed invoke the phrase in his own words and thus it is not a "BLP!" violation to refer to it as such. This sort of compromise should hopefully satisfy all sides of this dispute, and prove once and for all that referring to inconvenient truths such as the "cultural marxism" theory being a antisemitic canard is not defamatory. Adrian Fey ( talk) 00:16, 8 April 2≤019 (UTC)
Question In order to move the discussion forward, can someone specify exactly what language is being proposed to be added to the article, and the sources that would support it? To aid evaluation, it would be helpful if you would point to the exact paragraphs/sentences in the sources that the proposed text is intended to reflect/summarize. Abecedare ( talk) 09:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html, https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching, and https://www.smh.com.au/world/cultural-marxism--the-ultimate-postfactual-dog-whistle-20171102-gzd7lq.html, as for Anning's speech itself, the source for that is: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/full-text-senator-fraser-anning-s-maiden-speech and https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/while-all-muslims-are-not-terrorists-certainly-all-terrorists-these-days-are-muslims-senator-anning-said/news-story/c0753644cfccdda0394619e6f9dc01b5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Fey ( talk • contribs) 09:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
This is supported by the sources already used for the paragraph.Can you point to which sources discuss Anning's use of "cultural Marxism" and refer to it as "a Nazi-era conspiracy theory with antisemitic undertones"? Abecedare ( talk) 10:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
a Nazi-era conspiracy theory with antisemitic undertonesare supported by the existing sources on the topic. Just to be clear, I am not attributing conspiracy theory or antisemitism to Anning here, which is why I have purposefully distinguished it. The primary source should be the transcript of the speech as reported by SBS. However, the passage should refer to "cultural Marxists" as this is how he expressed it, three times. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 10:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
...existing sources on the topicis not helpful. Please re-read my question and explanation of what type of sources would be needed to comply with wikipedia policies. We can resume discussion if/when such sources become available. Abecedare ( talk) 11:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Abecedare: Just to be clear, I'm only advocating that we amend the article in a way that does not violate BLP, to read the following:
Anning holds far-right and anti-immigration views and has faced criticism for his remarks on Islam, including his use of the Nazi euphemism for genocide, calling for a "final solution to the immigration problem" in his maiden speech and referring to "cultural Marxism", a Nazi-era conspiracy theory with antisemitic undertones. Shortly after the March 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings in New Zealand, Anning released a statement blaming the attacks on "the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate".
This is not making any claim about Anning other than the words he said, which are attributable to many sources already in the article, but particularly the transcript of the speech by SBS. I also do not support any synthesis of sources, we should only report strictly what the sources say, as my proposal does. I'm very much open to suggestions as to how this paragraph can be further improved on, since this is not intended to be a final version. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 23:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
This is going nowhere. I share you're frustrations good sirs, believe me. If/when some quality analysis comes along that explicitly makes the connection between Anning's use of that vile term and it's antisemitic connotations, we can make the connection then (I know it's frustrating, we all know what was meant by "cultural Marxism" and it's disgusting, but he's dog whistling and no one in the media or academia has explicitly called him on it, yet). As StAnselm and Abecedare have pointed out, we just don't have a quality academic paper or news article that makes the connection, doesn't matter that it's blindingly obvious to us. How about this for a compromise, we note that he used the phrase, and leave it there for now (we all know what he was referring to, and most readers will also, at least it's out there that he said it).
The alternative is no mention at all, StAnselm and Abecedare are correct in that it doesn't matter that the antisemitic undertones are there, we have no acceptable citation and as such it's inclusion doesn't cut it. This compromise would put the BLP and improper synthesis debate to rest while allowing the reader to be informed in regard to the language used (keeping in mind that most people do know it's a racist trope). Bacondrum ( talk) 22:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
entire Australian mediascape has called out Fraser Anning's painfully obvious dogwhistling (Like seeing a elephant in the room but not bothering to say it to anyone for hundreds of days), it's fair to say that no one there will call him out on it anytime soon (Possibly for decades), either because Australian society is not yet adequately informed about the antisemitic links, or because they think it should be so obvious it doesn't need explicit calling-outs. And since already existing sources (Including academic analyses) do not satisfy Anselm and Abecedare's redlines (Apparently since they are "not australian" and "not mentioning Anning" hence they are unreliable and shouldn't be used to describe the theory as antisemitic) and watering it all the way down to just "cultural marxism" alone would only serve to legitimize his screeds and thus unwittintly abet obfuscation of information, we might as well just blank the disputed paragraph entirely and get it over with, considering that Anselm wouldn't accept anything else than denying it mention and the alternative, AKA "sources made in Australia only" (Australocentrism at it's best) do not exist and will likely not for a indefinite amount of time, the only way to break the deadlock seems to settle around blanking it. Adrian Fey ( talk) 11:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Alright, how about this version (sans the Hanson bit, I couldn't figure out where to place that suggestion):
I hope that can get us to a consensus. 22:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC) Bacondrum ( talk)
Alright, one more time sans wikilink:
Can we please just agree to this compromise and allow editing again? Bacondrum ( talk) 07:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
So, that's enough total and utter irrelevancies (unless someone can find a SINGLE, RELIABLE, SECONDARY SOURCE to end the bloody cultural Marxism debate) :
Can we please just close the discussion? Support or oppose? No meandering debate or accusations about who supports what and where or about anything else, please. Yay or nay? Bacondrum ( talk) 10:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I’m absolutely astonished at this discussion. It’s like 2 or 3 dogs continuing to fight over one bone for 48 hours. Boscaswell talk 11:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)