Thursday, December 14, 2017

The Alternative Reality of Cultural Marxism

By Thomas DiLorenzo

Academic Rigor is Racist, Sexist, Homophobic says one Donna Riley, the dean of the school of “engineering education” (as opposed to real engineering) at Purdue University.  Academic rigor has too much “hardness,” “stiffness,” and “erectness,” says the apparently sex-obsessed Ms. Riley.  It is therefore a tool of oppression by “white heterosexual males,” who she characterizes as the root of all worldly evil in keeping with the standard cultural Marxist  mantra.  She calls for the abandonment of academic rigor in the teaching of engineering education at Purdue University in order to combat white heterosexual male privilege and oppression.

You would have “engineering education” at Purdue University.  The Purdue administration apparently picked Ms. Riley from what must have been a large list of candidates for the job based on her desire to destroy academic rigor in the engineering education program.  One wonders if there was any real engineering faculty input into the hiring decision.  Probably not, from such a white heterosexual male-dominated field.

Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

1 comment:

fickbowt said...

Actually Cultural Marxism "is a method of critiquing a consumerist society for reducing everything to a commodity and the phenomena of mass marking reaching into all parts of our lives"...

It was a critique of The Culture Industry (a term The Frankfurt School came up with).

Basically they believed that the mass media was funded by corporate interests, as claimed by Adorno here:

"The Culture Industry not so much adapts to the reactions of its customers as it counterfeits them."

"this bloated pleasure apparatus adds no dignity to man’s lives. The idea of “fully exploiting” available technical resources and the facilities for aesthetic mass consumption is part of the economic system which refuses to exploit resources to abolish hunger."

"The ruthless unity in the culture industry is evidence of what will happen in politics. Marked differentiations such as those of A and B films, or of stories in magazines in different price ranges, depend not so much on subject matter as on classifying, organising, and labelling consumers. Something is provided for all so that none may escape" -Theodor W. Adorno, Enlightenment as mass-deception

So there you go; from the horses mouth. What you're complaining about is Privilege Theory. Here is a Socialist critique of Privilege Theory: