I suppose some of the 1960s-70s New Left might have embraced a “cultural Marxist” label, as a way of distinguishing themselves from the old-line Communists and Socialists who focused on economic issues and electoral politics and revolutions and stuff. But I don’t know if any ever did.
Might have to do with the fact that Marxism is an economic theory and nothing further. The book’s called* Das Kapital*, not *Das Kapital und das Endlösung der Schwedischer Kultur, haw haw haw.
Besides, unless I’m very mistaken Marxism (as an ideology) is sort of against religion in their interference in the running of the ship of the State, so your claim that there is a “cultural Marxism” at play and it aims to invite Muslims everywhere to end other cultures is… how shall I say this politely… round objects. Bollocks.
- my German’s more than a little bit rusty so please forgive any declension mistake
Quite the contrary. Soviet Communism and other Stalinist models aimed at a total cultural transformation of society to produce a “New Socialist Man.” (The idea isn’t quite as preposterous as it now seems; human nature might not be as malleable as Stalin believed, but it is highly malleable, and we all know how different environments can produce very different kinds of people.) All cultural and social institutions except the Church were either suppressed or brought under State/Party supervision to some degree. (The Nazis did similar in Germany – they called it Gleischaltung, “coordination.”) The governments censored not only dissident political views, but any art that seemed inimical to the socialist worldview (what art fell under that heading varied with the period).
Not sure about your grammar, but I’m pretty sure that “haw” should be spelled without the “w” in German. 
**No, the burden of proof is on you because you are in favour of changing the demographics of Sweden. **
Therefore you need to demonstrate that your proposal is sustainable. You need to show that the system can continue to function if you are recruiting people with lower labor market participation and lower school achievement levels.
For the system to work, surely you need to recruit people who will not increase the rate of welfare dependency.
The point is why introduce further problems to Europe - and that is the point of the EU report - that muslim immigration has driven the rise in anti-semitic violence.
Also, you seem not to realise that muslim immigration will also make liberal places like Sweden less liberal.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/12/admissions-of-illiberalism/
Please explain how this happened. Especially in Sweden, which (1) seems to have a much leftier native political culture than the U.S. has ever had, and (2) was always too stubbornly neutral even to join NATO.
How?
By recruiting non-liberals.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/12/admissions-of-illiberalism/
You make a claim and I must prove you wrong or risk the future destruction of Sweden? You’re funny. “There’s an asteroid coming right at us! Prove me wrong or else it’s all your fault and U R teh suxx0r!!1!”
I haven’t “proposed” jack sh-t. Either show where and what I proposed or retract, apologize and shut up.
You OTOH asserted - without proof - that Sweden’s current policies will lead to fiscal ruin. And now you’re demanding that I prove you wrong. In this you’re acting:
- Rude (It’s not my damn job to do your work).
- Lazy (Prima Facie).
- Clueless (If you believe anyone is going to buy such a blatant fallacy).
If you’re gonna persist in claiming that Swedens current immigration policies will make the swedish welfare system “unsustainable” it’s long due you either put up or shut up. Bring proof or run away and hide somewhere.
I don’t need to show anything. I wasn’t the one making a claim.
Nevertheless I have already - out of the goodness of my heart - mentioned several reasons why your focus on humanitarian immigration as a fiscal burden on swedens welfare system is both misguided and fact-challenged. No response from you as of yet, but who knows - miracles do happen..
And swedish immigration (humanitarian, labor and intra-EU aggregate) does indeed not increase the rate of welfare dependency since imigrants are predominantly not seniors and hence most of them work and pay taxes. The biggest challenge to the swedish entitlement programs (US terminology) or any western welfare state is aging population, not immigration, and certainly not humanitarian immigration. See my previous post.
Yes of course it’s quite clear by now that your and RalleighRallys point is that (non-white, non-european) immigration is bad and you don’t want it or you want less of it.
By now it’s been demonstrated time and time again that neither of you two are interested in making a principled argument on the merits or backing that argument up with facts and credible cites. The two of you have time and time again evaded challenges, failed to respond to facts and cites provided, and failed to own up to when you were shown to be wrong and your posts false and fraudulent.
The conclusion is obvious: That immigration is “bad” and will lead to doom is an article of faith for the two of you and not something that can seem more or less likely depending on what the facts are.
That makes you at best xenophobes and at worst racists.
Time to face the facts buddy. Are you ready to come out of the closet?
But in the real world I pointed out to you twice already that (in sweden) run-of-the-mill bigoted xenophobe crimes against immigrants are 20 times more common than antisemitic crimes and a considerable part of antisemitic crimes are in fact still commited by ethnically swedish neo-nazis and white supremacists.
But you don’t seem to care. You don’t seem worried about crimes against immigrants and minorities at all.
Unless it could be shown that the perpetrator was a Muslim.
Then you care, and only then.
Why?
Could it be… You. Just. Don’t. Like. Muslims?
In terms of immigration policy with regard to Sweden the onus is on those proposing demographic change to show how it will work. If someone wants to change something they have to show that their alternative is better.
In your own data you showed that populations have significantly different levels of labor market participation. I have also shown you differences in school achievement. The clear evidence is national average IQ is an important determinant of economic outcomes across countries. Therefore, selecting for skilled migrants would seem a pretty obvious policy implication.
You have mentioned ageing populations. I have responded that:
-
new populations also age. This point is explained further in the UK House of Lord’s select committee on economic affairs, report on the economic impact of immigration. http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm72/7288/7288.pdf
-
Selecting for skilled migrants makes more sense as they are more likely to make a positive net contribution in terms of tax revenues. I pointed to this interesting example in Denmark.
Actually, migrants from China or India would probably be a net benefit - look at academic results and incomes amongst subsequent generations in Western countries.
Because you have a choice about who you recruit to your country. Why are you so keen to recruit non-liberals with these attitudes about gays, women and jews?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/12/admissions-of-illiberalism/
Missed this. You are truly freaking unbelievable.
The first time you posted a link to that Super Economy blogger I pointed out to you that in the very first paragraph of his that I read he made unsourced claims about the unemployment level among swedish immigrants that it took me five minutes to show fraudulent.
Yet you didn’t acknowledge the fact that your favorite blogger had been shown to be a liar.
Instead you went right ahead innocently posting a new link to that very same blogger in support of other claims.
I pointed that out and asked you if you were fine with vouching for the credibility of a shown liar. But you never responded to that. And here we are and you for the third time posting a link to that truth-challenged blog. Do you get kickbacks on his click-throughs?
What does any of that have to do with “gene expression”?
Demographic changes are something that happens, not something that anyone forces to happen. It’s up to he who wants to close his borders and enforce a cultural model to show that it is necessary.
By the way, I want to extend my congratulations to SherwoodAnderson for his infinite patience in this thread. (He’s been much more patient than I would have been.) It’s true that immigration from Muslim countries is changing the demographic makeup, and to a certain extent the culture, of Western countries, and it presents some challenges. But there’s no need to panic and think that it’s a challenge no society has ever faced. It can be done quite smoothly. I’d like it if our anti-Muslim immigration folks, instead of using terms like “cultural Marxism” which nobody quite knows what they mean, blaming the American new left for who knows what, and trying to dance around the subject, would just come out and tell us what they think should be done.
You’re generating a lot of heat but not much light. You haven’t shown anyone to be a liar. The number he quoted may have been incorrect, that doesn’t make someone a liar.
And I can confirm I don’t get any kickbacks for clickthroughs 
Country recruitment/immigration policy, is very much something that people decide on. Therefore it makes sense to consider what will best benefit the people in the country.
What should happen? Look at Japan, they are very careful about who they allow the privilege of entering their country. From populations with a record of assimilation problems, the bar should be set higher in terms of having a high level of skills. Similar to how insurance companies have higher premiums on riskier populations. That also ameliorates the diversity issues that Jason Ricwhine discusses here.
@ Sherwood Anderson
More on the point about an academic achievement gap in Scandanavian countries.
I’ll respond to this right now and the rest later since I’m on my way out and don’t have the time.
His claim was unsourced hence it was his own claim. It was easy enough for me to find the OECD study, yet his claims were wildly off-base. The guy himself is an economist if i’m not mistaken and he pretends to know what the f-- he’s on about on his blog. But clearly he doesnt.
IMHO opinion that amounts in the aggregate to lying or fraud but YMMV.
Suffice to say that a source that claims numbers that are plain wrong as truth in the very first paragraph has shown itself to be unreliable. There’s a proven lack of quality control.
You can’t expect me to go through all the trouble of checking out every single claim the guy makes from that moment on. Him misleading me even once is quite enough to make me feel that my time is being wasted.
On this message board it’s up to you to make sure that the guys you think are legit really are legit. If you wont perform that small amount of quality control you’re wasting time for all of us and you should expect to be admonished for it.
If it’s pointed out to you that the guy who’s opinions you regard as received truth was in fact flat out wrong about stuff that he pretend is his area of expertise then that ought to change your behavior. You should first and foremost come out and acknowledge that the blogger was wrong and can be erratic.
You failing to do so and even failing to respond at all on the subject up until this moment is frankly offensive.
As an immigrant to Sweden, it is somewhat strange to find out that I am apparently a pawn in a (cultural) Marxist conspiracy. Should I be alarmed?
That’s a bit rich from someone who stoops to name calling which is actually not allowed on this forum
In any case, I’ve addressed your argument using the OECD figures you cited. You seem to be making the peculiar argument that it doesn’t really matter whether you are getting skilled or unskilled migrants. It doesn’t matter whether people are culturally assimilable. Well, I congratulate you on your heroic optimism, but I think you are sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the negative social impact of creating a minority underclass.
I stand by everything I said. Consistently failing to apply quality control and refusing to own up to inaccuracies when called on it numerous times indicates a lack of integrity and wastes my time.
In addition I stand by my characterization of you and RalleighRally as xenophobe/racist. I spelled out at length my reasons for believing that.
To reiterate:
You brought up muslim on jew hate crimes in sweden and asserted that they were a big problem. But then you ignored and in fact showed a complete lack of interest in discussing swedish hate crimes in general and kept on only wanting to discuss hate crimes commited by muslims against jews - even though it was shown that antisemitic crimes make up only 5% of overall ethnic/religious hate crimes in Sweden. You were in fact only interested in discussing hate crimes when they could be used to argue in favor of less (muslim) immigration.
That’s quite enough in my view to indicate that you’re in fact a run of the mill xenophobe or racist. It’s not namecalling, it’s an inference from your M.O. in this thread so far.
But why speculate when I could just ask you:
Do you consider yourself a xenophobe? Would you consider it bad if you were one? Not everyone does.
Do you consider yourself a racist? Would you consider it bad if you were one? Not everyone does.