Comment by zahlman

> Cultural Marxism is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory

No, it isn't. I've observed people to espouse it without any reference to Judaism whatsoever. (I don't care how Wikipedia tries to portray it, because I know from personal experience that this is not remotely a topic that Wikipedia can be trusted to cover impartially.)

> Greedy bankers is not a conspiracy theory

I didn't say it was. It is, however, commonly a dogwhistle, and even more commonly accused of being a dogwhistle. And people who claim that Jews are overrepresented in XYZ places of power very commonly do get called conspiracy theorists as a result, regardless of any other political positions they may hold.

> Terrorists targeting minorities very frequently use Cultural Marxism to justify their atrocities.

This is literally the first time in 10+ years of discussion of these sorts of "culture war" topics, and my awareness of the term "cultural Marxism", that I have seen this assertion. (But then, I suspect that I would also disagree with you in many ways about who merits the label of "terrorist", and about how that is determined.)

> honestly I fear you might be operating under some serious misinformation about the spread of anti-Semitism among the far-right.

There certainly exist far-rightists who say hateful things about Jews. But they're certainly not the same right-wingers who refuse to describe the actions of Israeli forces as "genocide". There is clearly and obviously not any such "spread"; right-wing sentiment on the conflict is more clearly on Israel's side than ever.

The rest of this is not worth engaging with. You are trying to sell me on an accounting of events that disagrees with my own observations and research, as well as a moral framework that I fundamentally reject.

I should elaborate there. It doesn't actually matter to me what you're trying to establish about the depth of these atrocities (even though I have many more disagreements with you on matters of fact). We have a situation where A accepts money from B, who has a business relationship with C, who demonstrably has said some things about X people that many would consider beyond the pale. Now let's make this hypothetical as bad as possible: let's suppose that every X person in existence has been brutally tortured and murdered under the direct oversight of D, following D's premeditated plans; let's further suppose that C has openly voiced support of D's actions. (Note here that in the actual case, D doesn't even exist.) In such a case, the value of X is completely irrelevant to how I feel about this. C is quite simply not responsible for D's actions, unless it can be established that D would not have acted but for C's encouragement. Meanwhile, A has done absolutely nothing wrong.