That doesn't challange the point I am making. It's hypocritical to call Trump sexist and homophobic and not make similar claims about Obama/Hillary, their support for countries like Saudi Arabia is nauseating.

I agree with you to an extent. However the rabbit hole goes further than that, and it has to do with the whole middle east. USA chose Saudi as the necessary evil, long ago. 

This is reflection of the whole government for a long period of time. 

The problem with actions is that Trump has no history of that. What we do know is how volatile he can be and that politics and business are not the same thing.

The thing about Trump is he can actually make what Hillary or Obama may have done wrong in that definition even worse. No one really knows what Trump's actual agenda is. All his answers are a redirect.

FUCK TRUMP. I am not a Trump supporter.

I am just saying that I chuckle internally each time media outlets paint Trump as a monster because of something he said, and when the democartic party nominees hold his SEXIST attitude against him. Hello? Slap some fucking sanctions on the likes of Saudi Arabia then I'll take your criticism of Trump seriously. (criticism of things related to social justice and what not, not his economical plans)

I know, that's why I share most of his arguments in principle. He i (and I) are on Trump's side in many issues ideologically, but Trump's implementation and persona comes in the way.

Cultural Marxism, yes sadly it's associated with the extreme right and anti-semites, but since it's an accurate term for a phenomenon I prefer it.

My definition, I'm using my own terminology and understanding for a variety of reasons. I try to understand this and discover this largely "by myself" and not copy pre-defined definitions. Also there are few (as in not many) good sources about Cultural Marxism, it's largely a meta-subject so to speak. By following for example feminism, SJWs, Alt-Right, immigration debate and nearly all ideological debate in modern society, but also analyzing practical reforms in state politics, you get an understanding of the nature of Cultural Marxism and its impact.

My definition is not all-encompassing or complete. And lengthy reply following here because other members have questioned my use and claims about Cultural Marxism.

Cultural Marxism is an ideological movement that largely stems as a result of post-revolutionary communism failures and the realization that socialism wouldn't be able to conquer society with physical revolution and socialism wouldn't most likely win over capitalism by following traditional methods. So socialist thinkers examinated themselves, identified and accepted some of the limitations of traditional communism and incorporated ideas from philosophy (Freudianism, critics of Westernism) and sort of created a new ideology. They entered a new field where they thought they could win, the field of knowledge and ideology, the battle of our minds. The idea was to infiltrate classical culture, academia and media step by step and conquer society by changing people's minds on a very deep level, to change the nature of humans.

It started perhaps in the 50's or the 60's and the so called Frankfurt School, I don't know. Then came the '68 student revolution and the Vietnam protests. I think that was the first public victory and I don't think it was an accident that it started in academia. But in the last 10-20 years in the West it has absolutely exploded. It permeates so many different fields nowadays and has made society increasing political.

I know my own country the best, but the trend is the same all over the West. Even our foreign policy now is outspokenly feminist. Our right wing parties a little over a century ago made a huge analysis, admitted loss and came to the conslusion that they can't win elections by traditional conservatism, but they had to adapt. So they decided to simply leave the ideology debate, and instead incorporated leftist ideology in many fields just to concentrate on the money issues. Many other Western right wing parties did the same. Note that in most Western countries, the economic policies haven't become more leftist, many claim economic inequality actually has increased in the last 20 years, in the more ideological issues, the value/ethics/soft issues, the left is increasingly dominant. If this claim is true, it's exactly what would follow from the original Cultural Marxism strategy.

When the police defines a new action plan, in the past they might write the plan based on the number of crimes reported versus how many police officers are employed, but today the concerns are if the plan accounts for gender aspects, minorities, how it's communicated, what words they use. You take video games, and increasingly we have not just a debate but a general awareness of how to portray values, inequality, minorities, women - politics really. These things were just unheard of 20 years ago.

The agents who work to advance Cultural Marxism in society don't do it only consciously (and they certainly don't identify themselves in this way) but also largely unconsciously. So I don't claim there's a "huge conspiracy" behind it. The term political correctness ties into the definition of Cultural Marxism, but is too narrow of a term. And to just say "post modernism" or "post cold war socialism" is not accurate enough.

Political correctness I think is an excellent term and most people understand it well and I like how it has become popular in debate and in the mindshare. But when talking only about PC we miss a lot. We miss the historical background and the driving motivation. PC is diffuse and it sounds like people are passive and just following some "popular opinion" that magically popped out in existence from above. Cultural marxism explains that there actual people acting as the driving force behind an ideological phenomenon and explains its ideological and political identity.

Another aspect of Cultural Marxism is extremely un-pragmatic. I claim it doesn't care about the realities on the ground nearly as much as about theory. It doesn't care about people's practical suffering nearly as much as about justice in theory.

And it's totalitarian. It's so important what everyone thinks. While priding itself with words like tolerance, multicultural, open-minded, diversity, globalist etc it's actually very much an intolerant thought police (largely itself being unaware of this paradox). It's not satisfied until all minds are conquered.

But aren't all ideologies like this somebody, might ask? Of course an ideology wants to spread to as many people as possible! But actually no. There are elitistic ideologies who are reserved for a few selected (racism, fascism, Nietscheism, satanism just off the top of my head, but Iäm sure there are better examples). In religion, you have ideologies like Christianity to whom it's very important to conquer all minds and therefore is somewhat totalitarian, while religions like Buddhism are very cool about what others believe ("you take it in your own pace, your reality is yours"). In a Middle Eastern tyranny and many other dictatorships the leaders actually don't care very much what people think and believe as long as it holds on to power. So I argue it's not inherent to an ideology to want to conquer all minds. But it's a defining characteristic of CM, and it's almost hysterical about this. It hates free speech like the plague.

To me, again and again and again I get so surprised how important it is for Cultural Marxists that other people adopt their world view and understanding of things and how upset they become when somebody holds a different opinion, and how prone they are to block, censor and shut down. Tolerance, my ass. Multicultural, my ass. Open-minded, my ass. Diversity, my ass.

Okay, this was a spontaneous and somewhat random definition. Long because I don't want to be misunderstood and I want to make a real case here. There are lots more I could say and I wish I had a more "to the point" definition but this is still a work in progress and I guess I haven't described the complete picture even for myself yet.

That's not wise. Economy has a limit, social aspects have not. When the country is what people call "economic stable", it should focus on the social aspects.

The social drives the economical, not the other way around. You can have a country of wealthy people, if they have no education, no health, no security, no freedom of expression, no freedom of thought, all of that money means nothing. There will always be civil wars. People wanting rights, laws, things that money can't buy.

The big problem is this. People always think that they know what is more important. Money, or job, or family, or church or whatever and the list goes on. People think they know how to achieve freedom but in the path to freedom they deny someone elses'.

So yeah, countries should focus on the economic aspect until it is stable. Meaning that corruption is low, poverty rate is low and the GINI coefficient is low. After that, socialize the wealth. There's no point in having 300 houses and 200 cars while others can't have a decent meal at launch.

Also, take a look at how the social aspects of the world are right now. People killing each other because of creed, money, and desperation. To focus on economy right now, in a wealthy country like the USA, or Canada, or Sweden or Germany for instance, is just wrong.

I get that there's no point in dieing of starvation in south Egypt while you respect others opinions, but it's equally idiotic having two mansions and trying to kill your neighboor because he's a catholic and you're a protestant.

Why is liberalization such a bad thing? There's no 'movement' needed for it, it's simply the natural evolution of reasoned thought. Yes we don't treat women and minorities like second/third class citizens anymore. That's a good thing. 

If the entire world was liberalized it would be a great thing (and it will be eventually, you cannot live in the 18th/19th century forever, sorry Saudi Arabia and etc.). 

Sure there is always a balance to be had and there are random nuts who go to far to the left, but by and large we live in a better society today. 

Hell, even for me in my 30s, I look at kids today and find in some cases at least they're far more enlightened about things than my generation was in high school in the late 90s. If we had an openly gay student at school, that kid would've been bullied unmercifully, probably even physically beaten up, and certainly would have next to no shot at being embraced by the school community. 

Even if you disagreed with that behavior you would shut up and not say anything because it wouldn't be popular to do so. But today I look at kids and this is much less of an issue and treating someone like that today you would encounter big push back. Which is good. 

I'm Hispanic and I have always been in legal status in the US. My family has paid thousands for me to be legally in the country and I think just as you, the only path to citizenshipy/residency should be applying and getting in line. It annoys the crap out of me that they want to legalize people and even going as far as letting them work before the millions of people that have been doing it the legal way.

I am a bit worried for the future, namely since our nations are about to hit retirement baby boomer age. I just value a more balance approach namely from the conservative side of the parties, I don't want them to be concerned with taking away the rights or trying to start new battles that they will not win. 

Again it is just the cutting taxes part that gets to me. Namely since a lot of the cuts go for the top, not the bottom. I also do not want to raise the minimum wage to lets say $15 dollars an hour, mind you. 

However I do understand that you have to invest in the future, and do not get me wrong about that. 

This is actually true and I wish a lot more people would realize it.  Many of the things Trump has said he will do as President he would not have the authority to do.  Place a punitive tariff on companies?  He can't do that.  Change State laws?  No.  Target civilian family members of known terrorists?  He has already been told those orders would be refused.

The main problem Trump brings is that the government would be in deadlock for four years.

Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to be taking him at his word when many of his promises are worthless.