Politics

The Dysfunction Of Modern Society Is Proof That Cultural Marxism “Works”

146 Comments

The social and political climate took a very sharp left turn during the mid-1960s, seemingly overnight. By the 1990s, political correctness began stifling free speech. Today, urban riots are back in style. California still had a conservative majority in the early 1980s, but today there’s serious talk of secession since the last Presidential election. Why did things change so much?

This cultural revolution wasn’t a spontaneous trend occurring from the normal ebb and flow of politics. The Frankfurt School started cultural Marxism; better known to the public today as progressivism. They were a think tank of Marxist professors and top-level psychologists, with significant inspiration from Communist theoreticians Antonio Gramsci and Gyorgy Lukacs. They wanted to wreck the foundations of traditional societies (the USA in particular) that made them strong; weakening social ties to make them ripe for Communist takeover. Their students became professors, educating the young Baby Boomers in the 1960s and creating the Counterculture. Today, the aging Boomers are holding the levers of power.

Today, progressivism—“Communism Lite”—is the leading ideology among Washington careerists, the media, academia, and ultra-wealthy managerial elites. Whether or not it’s really progress is an evocative question. Still, ultimately this ideology is inherently dysfunctional. The only more dysfunctional thing imaginable would be a brigade of Californian hipsters attempting a second Pickett’s Charge.

The 1960s political buffet

Man, I wouldn’t believe half this stuff if I wasn’t stoned all the time, dig?

This multifaceted strategy became several movements:

  • Second-wave feminism was sold as equality. It was really about abortion, wrecking families, and driving a wedge between women and men.
  • The LGBT movement was sold as respecting personal lifestyle choices. That was a blow to traditional morality.
  • Minority identity politics was sold as civil rights. The reality wasn’t always quite so lofty, and the result was inflaming grievances. Another result was promoting guilt trips, and expressions of majority identity politics got shrill condemnation.
  • Mass immigration was sold as multiculturalism. This was a long-term population replacement strategy.
  • Secularism was sold as religious neutrality. The result was diminished respect for this part of tradition, as well as later attempts (such as Atheism+) to push the SJW agenda. In practice, some religions are exempt from criticism.
  • The sexual revolution was sold as liberation (“if it feels good, do it”). This other blow to morality unleashed a Pandora’s Box of social ills: single motherhood becoming normalized, runaway welfare (a sociopolitical battering ram), and the deregulation of the sexual marketplace.

These viewpoints did exist in far more moderate forms previously, and every society does have its tensions. However, things were much more peaceful before all the demagoguery kicked into high gear during the crazy “kill your parents” 1960s. Society’s acquiescence to their initial demands didn’t placate them; it emboldened them, and they kept turning up the heat. By the 1990s, these movements had become politically correct orthodoxies. Questioning their premises openly could get you ridiculed, shouted down, or even targeted for a witch hunt.

Lately, the results have been far in excess of what the Frankfurt School ever imagined. Today’s generation of cultural Marxists have developed elaborate rationalizations: privilege rhetoric, microaggression, “the personal is political”, etc. Lately, the push is to erase all meaningful social distinctions:

  • Women are encouraged to be unladylike (making them unattractive); men are encouraged to be wimps (which ruins the social life of anyone who believes that)
  • The differences between the sexes are being blurred, which is picking up speed with the transsexuality fad
  • Not only are meaningful distinctions between diverse population groups denied, there’s been a long-term effort to dissolve humanity into a biological stir-fry, which would destroy diversity in the name of diversity

Individuals differ by biology and personal choices, so differences in outcomes are inevitable. Thus, their quest to make everyone the same is impossible, but they’re doing a lot of damage in the attempt. Other than that, there’s a general hostility toward any sorts of standards. Effectively, this has turned society on its head. Abnormal is the new normal. Fair is foul and foul is fair. Still, it gets worse yet.

Suicidalism

The article “Gramscian Damage” (worth a read in its entirety) further describes some items promoted by other pointy-headed leftist intellectuals. For starters:

[I]n the 1930s members of CPUSA (the Communist Party of the USA) got instructions from Moscow to promote non-representational art so that the US’s public spaces would become arid and ugly.

Americans hearing that last one tend to laugh. But the Soviets, following the lead of Marxist theoreticians like Antonio Gramsci, took very seriously the idea that by blighting the U.S.’s intellectual and esthetic life, they could sap Americans’ will to resist Communist ideology and an eventual Communist takeover. The explicit goal was to erode the confidence of America’s ruling class and create an ideological vacuum to be filled by Marxism-Leninism.

What’s truly remarkable is that the CIA got promoted this too (along with feminism); how brilliant! And then, a damning bill of particulars:

  • There is no truth, only competing agendas.
  • All Western (and especially American) claims to moral superiority over Communism/Fascism/Islam are vitiated by the West’s history of racism and colonialism.
  • There are no objective standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. Anyone who claims that there are such standards is an evil oppressor.
  • The prosperity of the West is built on ruthless exploitation of the Third World; therefore Westerners actually deserve to be impoverished and miserable.
  • Crime is the fault of society, not the individual criminal. Poor criminals are entitled to what they take. Submitting to criminal predation is more virtuous than resisting it.
  • The poor are victims. Criminals are victims. And only victims are virtuous. Therefore only the poor and criminals are virtuous. (Rich people can borrow some virtue by identifying with poor people and criminals.)
  • For a virtuous person, violence and war are never justified. It is always better to be a victim than to fight, or even to defend oneself. But ‘oppressed’ people are allowed to use violence anyway; they are merely reflecting the evil of their oppressors.
  • When confronted with terror, the only moral course for a Westerner is to apologize for past sins, understand the terrorist’s point of view, and make concessions.

These memes have far-reaching effects. Naive pacifism is an obvious one.  (In fact, Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School came up with the slogan “Make love, not war”.) Suicidalism also inspired the liberal 1960s-1970s “soft on crime” approach which backfired badly and took far too long to start fixing. Gun control is another obvious one, a dead horse the left still hasn’t abandoned. (Light sentences along with a disarmed public—what were they thinking?) This victim mentality is even why Social Justice Warriors brag about their mental problems to one-up each other about who is “least privileged”. The article continues:

As I previously observed, if you trace any of these back far enough, you’ll find a Stalinist intellectual at the bottom. (The last two items on the list, for example, came to us courtesy of Frantz Fanon. The fourth item is the Baran-Wallerstein “world system” thesis.) Most were staples of Soviet propaganda at the same time they were being promoted by “progressives” (read: Marxists and the dupes of Marxists) within the Western intelligentsia.

I might add that the first item is heavily promoted by postmodernism and deconstructionism, big fads in academia. (Plato shot that down already; see Gorgias or the Republic.) Later:

[M]ost of us no longer think of these memes as Communist propaganda. It takes a significant amount of digging and rethinking and remembering… to realize that there was a time… when all of these ideas would have seemed alien, absurd, and repulsive to most people—at best, the beliefs of a nutty left-wing fringe, and at worst instruments of deliberate subversion intended to destroy the American way of life.

And that’s exactly what they were. The article also describes the KGB’s “active measures” campaign, disinformation as well as useful idiots spreading their propaganda. This is what KGB insider Yuri Bezmenov called ideological subversion.

Constructive or destructive?

I have to give credit where it’s due.

Note well, the Soviet version of feminism was a token effort compared to ours. They left out the part about turning women against men, or trying to make people unisex. The USSR had a very diverse population, but promoted unity, and certainly didn’t tolerate agitation against the Russian majority. Gay rights didn’t exist; they got put in mental institutions. (Leftists today conveniently forget this, along with many other items of the USSR’s less than stellar human rights record.) They were officially atheist, though largely co-opted the Russian Orthodox Church rather than stamping it out. The USSR exported revolution to impoverished nations, but didn’t welcome in tens of millions them. They were prudish, rather than libertine. Although they spoke of pacifism, they didn’t practice what they preached.

All the same was generally true for other Warsaw Pact nations. Also note well, Communist countries promoted high culture and didn’t dumb down their educational system. Despite a token fuzzy internationalism, they promoted national pride, rather than guilt trips. They weren’t soft on crime, to say the least.

Although they (and especially their sympathizers abroad in education and the media) were pushing cultural Marxism in the USA and other NATO countries, the Soviets weren’t implementing that stuff themselves! Anyone there who proposed any of that would’ve been in serious trouble for deviationism. The reason is simple; “Communism Lite” was the “for export” version, meant to subvert Western countries and pave the way for the real deal.

So this is why progressivism is dysfunctional: it was designed that way. It wasn’t about addressing inequities in society; they keep moving the goalposts as soon as their demands are met, now well beyond the point of absurdity. It wasn’t about peace and love, but rather agitation. It wasn’t even about social justice. It was all about ripping society apart at the seams to make the public angry and discontented. To put it bluntly, they wanted to make society suck as much as possible, to stir up revolutionary ferment. The ultimate goal was totalitarian power and control. Actually, it still is, but who benefits now?

Cultural Marxism deconstructed itself

One might ask: if the USSR is gone, why does cultural Marxism still exist? By the 1990s, a strange event had happened: mutual subversion. Russia ended up with a dysfunctional form of capitalism, while “Communism Lite” became the Western world’s ruling ideology. The remaining Frankfurt School members were elderly and no longer at the forefront, but those they influenced had made Gramsci’s “long march through the institutions.” It’s like one of those Star Trek plots where a powerful robot carries out orders it doesn’t understand issued by its long-dead builder.

Cultural Marxism became a decentralized memeplex, spread by the media. Even those unenthusiastic about it wouldn’t threaten their livelihoods by going against the grain. Educational bureaucrats are also deep in it, like ticks on a shaggy dog. “Inside the Beltway” politicians have taken it up wholeheartedly, even co-opting establishment Republicans into a controlled opposition. For all these types, it’s their bread and butter.

Then there’s a hive of professional activists and others implementing cultural Marxism, memebots still on orders from dead Soviet dictators. This includes foundation heads and staffers, community agitators, civil rights lawyers, petty bureaucrats, advertisers using their company’s money to push sneaky social messages, diversity consultants hired by your HR department, and so forth. Social Justice Warriors are at the bottom of the barrel.

Some activists are genuine idealists believing they’re saving the world. Others profiteer from it. Regardless, all think they’re fighting the Establishment, not realizing they’re part of it. These tools are exploited by those at the top, and they’d all be in for a big surprise if Communism ever emerged.

Other than that, champagne socialists enthusiastically support cultural Marxism. They live like kings in their gated communities, safe from street crime and engineered riots, making ridiculous amounts of wealth in cushy jobs. They have little in common with ordinary people, seldom interacting with them except for their servants.

Now wait a minute – aren’t those the very types that the original Marxists bitterly opposed? That’s as clear a sign as any that cultural Marxism has outlived its usefulness! If all they wanted was to make more money, it would be understandable, but they really should quit rocking the boat they’re on. They too might one day be in for a big surprise if their hubris goes too far.

Read More: How Feminism Led Us To Demographic Annihilation

146 thoughts on “The Dysfunction Of Modern Society Is Proof That Cultural Marxism “Works””

    1. There’s been articles posted on the web about how much easier it is to get laid at political protests than it is at night clubs.

      2. I wanna try it.
        But how to simultaneously remain my perfectly handsome masculine fuckable self, and lib-fag?
        without getting killed by either side???/

  2. “One might ask: if the USSR is gone, why does cultural Marxism still exist?”
    Because with the defeat of communism (and the triumph of capitalism…Fukuyama etc) there appeared no longer to be a need to fight against communism / marxism. There are even some conspiracy theorists who believe the whole thing was a sham. I don’t think that’s the case but it is perfectly fair to reason that the fall of the Berlin Wall triggered the explosion of faggy marxism we’ve seen over the last 25 years
    What’s interesting though is the rate of change going on here. Sure violent revolutions had their 5 year plans etc,. but there is something desperate about the way the transformation of society is being (mis-)managed. The elites try to keep the wool over people’s eyes because deceit is an essential part of their modus operandi yet the faster they go, the more momentum they try to produce the more the whole ridiculous progressive juggernaut threatens to de-rail…or should that be jack-knife in the middle of the road. It’s true the singularity is supposed to happen through increased acceleration to the point everything goes exponential, but it doesn’t feel as though that’s what’s happening. It seems more like there is growing resistance to their unholy designs, and that they’re jamming the pedal down in the hope that – Nice / Berlin style – they can run down anyone standing in their way.

    1. Good points made. Communism did NOT end, it simply got re-branded under several designer political beliefs including, but not limited to: environmentalism, and multi-culturalism.

        1. That would make for a killer bumper sticker, btw.
          We have a alot of oil riggers in my state and they say the EPA is a globalist’s best friend. It allows conglomerates like Exxon to stomp out domestic competition via legislation. And since no local mom and pop oil company has any ties to the Saudis, the conglomerates are able to corner the market. A scam, indeed.

        2. “The green tree has red roots.”
          ~ A German politician, about 20 years ago.

        3. It is an All American Scam, indeed; now that we have Exxon’s Rex Tillerson as the current United States Secretary of State. During his 41-year career as an Exxon employee; he’s served as president of Exxon Yemen Inc. and Esso Exploration and Production Khorat Inc. As Chairman and CEO of Exxon since 2006; Tillerson’s close business ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin have generated controversy. In 2014, Tillerson opposed the sanctions against Russia; and he has previously been the director of the joint US-Russian oil company Exxon Neftegas.

        4. “Replacing local men with Muslims is a good thing.”
          ~Another German politician, less than 5 years ago.

      2. “The West: The Last Vestige Of The Left” was an article from National Review written shortly after the Berlin wall came down. That’s when third wave feminism accelerated.

      3. Thanks. I agree, although I do think of it is as also evolving. People don’t recognise it in the systems they live within because communism is not what it says on the tin.

      4. Like crime in general, collectivism will always crop up as a sinful impulse within flawed people. We’ll be fighting it forever in one form or another.

        1. “. We’ll be fighting it forever in one form or another”
          Unfortunately you are correct, good sir.

      5. To be fair, communism converged to the natural ideology. Now russia is ruled by the mafia state, and fairly effectively too. There is a lot of organizational continuity, but those organizations can’t really be called communist, as they’re more interested in their own bureaucratic interests than ideology.

    2. It’s because communism didn’t originate within Russia itself. It was financed and implemented in Russia via the jewish money elites out of London & New York which included secret societies as well. They financed the Bolshevik Revolution that genocided millions of Christians so the USSR could be established. Once the USSR dissolved, the money elites, oligarchs, and secret societies still exist world wide and are still pushing their agena in western civilization through cultural marxism. Russia was a great Christian country to begin with, they didn’t become communist on their own by chance. Class warfare was financed by elites outside of Russia to destabilize and overthrow the king at that time. Once this was accomplished, Jewish elites from New York and London ran to Russia to become government officials and oligarchs controlling Russia and it’s flow of capital.

      2. Exactly. Bankers were behind it all. Jacob Schiff helped Trotski in New York.

        1. “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.”
          ― Thomas Jefferson

      3. “It’s because communism didn’t originate within Russia itself. It was financed and implemented in Russia via the jewish money elites out of London & New York which included secret societies as well. ”
        Anthony Sutton shows the help Trotsky received from America, including it seems from Woodrow Wilson on obtaining a passport. He was also given $10,000 to fund his return to Russia with 200 revolutionaries, although in theory this was from German groups. Gary Allen – I’m not sure how reliable he is – suggests that Jacob Schiff provided many millions towards the success of the Bolshevik revolution, and since the Schiff family and the Rothschilds were historically joined at the hip one might consider the Rothschilds implicated too. I’m not familiar with the source for those assertions, so I can’t attest for their accuracy, but Sutton’s work certainly suggests that Wall Street and the US government at least are heavily implicated in financing the Bolshevik Revolution, and the fact that this has been known for so long yet remains largely ‘stigmatised knowledge’ is concerning. Having said that I do think one needs to be very careful about the nature of the assertions. Even if Schiff was a big part of it, and therefore the money elites, parts of Wall Street / parts of the America government, these are a tiny faction – a small group of enormously powerful men who it seems have had an inordinate influence on the course of russian / european history.
        We need genuinely non-partisan historians etc to investigate what actually happened i.e. historians not financed directly or indirectly by the Warburgs or Rothschilds etc

    3. “They” never lose. They play both sides and pretend to lose wars to keep the people from revolting. All the fake revolutions in colonies like Haiti and Portugal are the same game. The people realize they’re being shafted, rise up and start a revolution, and the government arms both the rebels and the state militia. After a few more years of extracting resources under the guise of a civil war, the parent government claims to have lost and continues to shaft the country while the people think they’re independent. No different with the USSR and communism.

      1. I think betting on / financing both sides is now a proven way for elites to stay in control of the inevitable groundswells of discontent that occur now and then. Certainly financing opposition groups is bog standard policy for intelligence groups. I do worry though that people assume that everything is ‘played’ like this. Certainly there is a great deal of the world that functions like a Casino – thrilling games where the House always win because that’s how its set up, but one still needs to evidence each and every occasion rather than assuming it.
        Of course, people do beat the Casino’s – card-counters and the like – at which point the management shows itself. At that point – when the card-counters are marched out the casino and their winnings confiscated – that’s when the House reveals it’s actual hand

  3. I appreciate these type of articles because it shows just how mental our society has become. Liberalism and leftist media is an assault of the male mind – to not be a normal man and to submit to your own demise……. You have to turn off the tv, radio and liberal propaganda to clear this nonsense like an invasive cancerous disease or you get mentally and physical poisoned. Before you know it; you become just another disposable, wack job leftist male and fodder for the feminist man hating meat grinder.

  4. All made possible by the Race Card™.
    Every country that has banned Soros funded NGO’s sleeps well at night knowing their population won’t be genetically displaced by 2060. Their neighborhoods haven’t been turned into No-Go zones. Nor are their women being raped en mass by muslim migrants.

      1. “Ah, Soros… Lots of people have ideas about his destiny…”
        Here’s mine. Isis style.

    2. We in Serbia are flooded with Soros NGO’s, they are humiliating our country and people ever since drugged out paid protesters under the name “OTPOR” (Resistance) with well known fist symbol did “revolution” in 2000.

    3. the epitome of communism – equality for everyone (except for me :-).
      “champagne socialists enthusiastically support cultural Marxism. They live like kings in their gated communities, safe from street crime and engineered riots, making ridiculous mounts of wealth in cushy jobs.”

    4. America is back in the Soros zone with Steve Bannon out. Trump just sold himself out but the groups plotting against him are doubling down.

    1. He writes a great article and screws it in the conclusion.
      Dead robot controlling marxism? How naive.

  7. It’s your sole fault, muricans. You greedy protestants did not kick the blacks on time, because you liked the money they made you gain. Cultural marxists took advantage of that. The rest is history.

    1. Were it that simple, South America would be leading the charge instead of us (or possibly the Middle East and Africa, where the majority of slaves were and are).
      No, it’s more nefarious than that. A few generations back, the majority of black folks were hardly distinguishable from their white neighbors – I base this primarily on some family history involving freed slaves in a German settlement, fondly known by my grandparents as “Onkel” and “Tante”. Friendly, occasionally noticeably dimmer than their counterparts, but otherwise just plain good people.
      It took a few generations of propaganda to make them believe they were an oppressed victim class who should be Kangz. That, I think, is perhaps the most sickening thing you could ever do to people.

  8. Not only are meaningful distinctions between diverse population groups denied, there’s been a long-term effort to dissolve humanity into a biological stir-fry, which would destroy diversity in the name of diversity

    And we can attribute this proposal to Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, the intellectual father of the European Union. Back in the 1930’s he wrote:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi#Views_on_race_and_religion

    The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals. […]
    Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit. This happened at the moment when Europe’s feudal aristocracy became dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation.

    1. First line in the wikipage is…
      “Richard Nikolaus Eijiro, Count of Coudenhove-Kalergi[1] (November 16, 1894 – July 27, 1972) was an Austrian-Japanese politician”
      Why does a half Japanese dude get to have any sway in European politics in the first place?
      Also… The idea of Europe becoming a modern version of Ancient Egypt doesn’t really bode well for the Jews does it? Is it possible they were enslaved back then for treasonous behaviour but it is pre-historical?

  9. What a lot of people don’t realize is how brilliantly the Christian Bible was written and the meaning of the accounts detailed.
    You see, communism/socialism is the work of satan and is the spirit of Judas to be exact. (Judas is the one that betrayed Jesus btw). This was exposed by the Bible. Judas was the first communist:
    John 12:
    Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. Then
    Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured
    it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was
    filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
    But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages. Judas did not say this because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief. As keeper of the money bag, he used to take from what was put into it.
    **************************************************************************************************
    Liberalism, “equal rights”, socialism, communism all have one aim: complete control of the flow of capital by one entity, and redistribution of wealth. Judas was the communist. While he pretended to champion the poor by saying the perfume could have sold for money and that money given to the poor, what he really wanted was for the money to be put into his money bag so he could have control over it, spend some for himself as a thief, and redistribute the rest as he saw fit. Just like a true communist.
    For example, there’s nothing wrong with welfare as long as the money for someone else’s needs came from the individual themselves that contributed that money by their own free will to that person’s financial needs. But welfare is THIEVERY when money is confiscated via taxes and redistributed to low lives of society so they can reproduce like rats. The government acts as Judas in this sense. And it’s the same thing with Affirmative Action/EEO. Any time a white female is given an affirmative action job at XYZ corporation, that’s a job that could have gone to a man thereby stealing a man’s future earnings. That’s thievery and redistribution of wealth when an HR department wants to play “diversity”.
    The Bible is brilliant people. Ever wonder why liberals hate Christianity so much? Liberals, communists, HR Departments, socialists, and SJW’s ARE THE JUDAS’s OF OUR TIME. These people will go head first into a lake of hellfire one day. They’ll get theirs since they enjoy stealing from men that are the natural owners of civilized society, businesses, inventions, and job markets.

    1. The bible was a story about a Jew, written by other Jews.
      How can anti-Jewish posters respect a Jewish book?
      I mean WTF?
      Almost as bad as an Austrian, black haired, brown eyed, guy convincing German, Blond haired, blue eyed people they are the master race!

      1. No, the Bible is about the Messianic faith, from Genesis to Revelation. The religion of the Jews is called, by Jesus Himself, “the synagogue of Satan”.
        You should only really comment about something if you are more than just superficially familiar with the subject.

        1. There’s a reason the Jews were the ones who pushed Pilate to kill Jesus instead of scourging Him and then letting Him go.
          Jesus is of the priestly line of Melchizedek, not the corrupt line of Aaron so He was a threat to the religious establishment’s domination of the people.
          The Pharisees were hypocrites. They partook of what the forbid their constituents from doing. They stole from the offerings. They were, and still are, vipers and whited sepulchers.

        2. It’s so very sad when devout (conservative) Jews are put in the same boat as the corrupt left-wing JINOs that are helping corrupt this world.
          The same guys who place them in the same boat conveniently forget about the countless number of high-ranking non-Jews who are also helping in bringing about the world’s destruction.

        3. Those were the JINOs; and they deceived the rest of the Jews by spreading propaganda that Christ’s body was stolen in the night.

        4. They are both the same. Conservative Jews believe in cultural Marxism just as much as the liberal ones.

    2. I’d never thought about that, but you’re right: Judas behaved exactly like Socialists do. Well spotted.

    4. If Christians did as the Bible said (as they used to), they’d be accused of the same things Muslims are today. There’s also a lot of inconsistencies between the Books.

    5. I agree with your Judas example and was previously aware of the similarity of the Judas account with modern day liberalism. He also comes across as sanctimonious, and the reply of Christ to Judas here was the opposite of the bleeding heart hippie that liberal faux-Christians insist was the real Jesus.
      Unfortunately, authentic Christianity is about as rare as a unicorn nowadays, as it has been corrupted by Jacobinism, which was a precursor to our modern Cultural Marxism.

  10. Also note well, Communist countries promoted high culture and didn’t dumb down their educational system.

    The educated Russians I’ve met have at least a passing acquaintance with classical music, opera and good literature, more so than I’ve noticed with American college graduates these days. Orthodox Christianity also connects Russians with the culture of Greek antiquity.
    Dystopian novels like Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four by contrast show totalitarian regimes which suppress knowledge of and access to the Western literary tradition. Our progressive degenerates apparently treat these novels as how-to guides, because they have started to erase knowledge of Western literature voluntarily, even in universities. The black grievances writer Ta-Nehisi Coates, a celebrated “intellectual,” said awhile back that he had never heard of Augustine; but he knows a lot about comic books. And so-called college students want to remove writers like Shakespeare and Milton from the curriculum because these youngsters’ coarse and animalistic minds can’t make sense of the thoughts these writers try to express through challenging syntax and unfamiliar words.
    .

    1. Well, it was one of few good points for the soviet regime. They didn’t mess with general education, and they produced top notch scientists.
      (Lysenko was not a scientist, but a product of Stalin Political agenda)

      1. The Soviet system produced the best mathematicians and physicists in the world, along with some capable aerospace engineers.

  12. “There are no objective standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. Anyone who claims that there are such standards is an evil oppressor.”
    Well, the thing is, relativism and nihilism are actually the reality of the universe. All moral systems beyond survival of the fittest must be imposed by fiat. The mistake the progressives made was assuming they would be the ones to step in and take the reins once they destroyed the old edifices. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/381b50e8f25932c3baa8f9ac362aa75eabac21aef146efb6e58b30a7831d6d23.jpg

    1. I’d posit that relativism and nihilism are the realities of the human mind more than the universe. The universe spins about in its unknowably complex way, and here we stupid creatures are trying to fit it all into a 3 pound sack of fat and electrodes.
      Realizing our inherent limitations tends us toward nihilism and relativism, but I am not as-yet certain this is inevitable.

        1. I do, but even when I did not I refused the idea that nihilism and relativism were necessary and final conclusions. It cuts off too many possible lines of inquiry for me to embrace, and its ramifications as observable in our current societies are (to my thinking) more destructive than beneficial.
          As I am neither a nihilist nor a relativist, though, I haven’t put enough into it to determine whether a purely naturalistic worldview necessitates those philosophical stances. I just genuinely hope it doesn’t.

        2. I don’t care about the implications. It is on people to adapt to reality not reality to adapt to people. There are only two foundations upon which to build an ethical system: divinity, or utility. I categorically reject divinity, which leaves only utility. But utility is inherently relative; there is no absolute “good”, merely “good, for me”. To believe that this could not be nihilist requires selective ignorance akin to solipsism.
          “whether a purely naturalistic worldview necessitates”
          It does. Darwinism and relativism are inseparable. Ask the gazelle the lion is eating.
          Now, divinity is the fast road out of this quagmire. Simply inventing a moral absolute out of thin air works, as long as enough men (and I say men specifically here) have a vested interest in the absolute moral system it imposes (better still if its mysticism has even a shred of plausibility). But most of the religions that exist today are laughable parodies of their original values, and those that have stayed true to their texts aren’t very admirable. Christianity in particular failed because its increasingly selective readings have removed any value it offered men.

        3. Interestingly, we agree somewhat more than you yet realize. When I operated without a divinity in my worldview (a short-lived experiment, but an experiment nonetheless), I considered the utility of nihilism and relativism to be their greatest weaknesses. Nietzsche went completely insane; Sartre argued that all we had left to contemplate was suicide; relativism turned man against man and made society unworkable (as I observe in the US today). None of that was good for me, nor was it good for my tribe, nor for my people or my community on any level.
          You do make an interesting point, though. It is largely held that Darwinism is an inherent property of naturalism, but is that so? After all, only a few elements of Darwin’s theories remain in modern naturalist theory, and even those are oft ignored by his adherents. I wonder what could happen to naturalist worldviews if they were reconstructed off different doxa.
          And finally, Christianity has not failed; Churchianity has. We were warned from the beginning of the Christian Church that lying hypocrites, seducing voices teaching doctrines of devils, conscience-free leadership, hierarchs that forbid marriage (I’m looking at you, popes), and vegans would come. The doctrine remains, but just try to find one orthoprax orthodox in Joel Osteen’s massive congregations.

        4. Man has always been against man. Relativism didn’t cause it, biological imperative did.
          In order to function and endure, fiat morality must provide a utility appeal to enough people with real power. In practical terms that means men.
          A fiat morality system that legitimizes the subjugation of the weaker half of the species to the stronger half, is a system that will endure. It is giving people with real power a reason to be invested in the moral system. Christianity used to do this. Islam still does. Guess which one is ascendant.

        5. Relativism shatters tribes, so that only the tribes who reject relativism remain a unit. My observation suggests that it is a disease that eradicates even the most fit from the pool.
          I stand with the ancient philosophers in my belief that there is but one truth. There is simply a problem with our stupid minds and short lifespans that prohibits us from mastering that truth. Relativism comes from assuming that because we individually cannot grasp the perfect truth, it does not exist.
          I accepted at the outset that we would not find total agreement on the subject, but between us I believe we have two rational thinkers (or, at the minimum, two people who have conversed in a rational and dialectic manner) with opposing perspectives. I appreciate such conversations, and I want to take a second to thank you for keeping this out of a name-calling contest.

        6. Not truth.
          Objective.
          “Thrive. At any cost.”
          That is the biological imperative.

  13. I’ve wondered about the difference in the propaganda we see about Cuba versus North Korea, considering that both regimes arose from the same system of Bolshevik utopianism in the last century: Cuba the socialist paradise versus North Korea the dangerous rogue state run by unstable people.
    I suspect Cuba fits the Cultural Marxist mythology better because a bunch of brown Caribbean people live there, and not very bright ones at that. By contrast intelligent East Asian nerds live in and run North Korea, and despite the country’s poverty, they have the IQ’s to build the nuclear weapons and the rockets to deliver them that Cubans simply lack the brains to attempt. North Koreans’ intelligence makes them a more plausible threat to the United States than Cuba.

    1. North Korea is more of a feudal system of government. Almost all the Asian governments are essentially feudal systems hiding under a veneer of something else.
      The veneer is usually to make them appear more worthy to the richer country that finances (or threatens) them.

  14. In 1960 white Americans who held Alt-Rightish views like patriarchy, closed borders and segregation could move in polite society and receive respect. Yet by the 1970’s, the same people had mysteriously become pariahs without changing their beliefs at all.
    If society can swing one way, I don’t see what it can’t swing the other. Perhaps the Alt Right are the early adopters of what many Americans will accept as commonsense, mainstream doctrines in the 2030’s – not that far off, really.

  15. Demographics is destiny. If my college is any indication of society in general, it is that the STEM students go on to earn good money, vote generally conservative, and reproduce. The liberal arts crowd go on to dead end jobs, remain sterile, and vote democrat.
    Flash forward a generation: Which side do you think will hold the power? If this holds true, and barring any major influx of pro-left immigrants, I think America is in the beginning phase of a massive shift to the right. It is a corrective market action of the gross leftisms of the boomer generation.

    1. Lots of impoverished lefties in Science and Math, I’ve found. It’s probably at least partly because they’re forced to take more propaganda classes and have more free-time to join the cults known as Student Organizations.
      Tech people and engineers, though, literally don’t have time for that. We have to work our asses off just to stay afloat each semester, and so we come to appreciate labor. You can’t indoctrinate us, because instead of going to your seminars we’re cursing at a breadboard whose LED just won’t light up.
      Unfortunately, we get to make things that work. Why would we go into power politics when we can experience the thrill of making something useful out of essentially nothing (and get paid good money to do it)?
      EDIT: I count Computer Science as a Science and not Tech or Engineering. They have too much freedom in their coursework and their homework is too short, so they waste a lot of expensive learning time on social causes instead of mastering useful skills.

      1. STEM is the ticket to a comfortable lifestyle. It just takes willpower, like you said, to master it.
        My best friend got out of the Corps, learned how to program software by watching Harvard engineering videos on YouTube for free… This guy now wakes up at noon everyday, does freelance programming from his couch[usually high on pot], drops off the product to a local tech firm, and collects 2 to 4 grand a month in cash.

      2. “Unfortunately, we get to make things that work. Why would we go into power politics when we can experience the thrill of making something useful out of essentially nothing (and get paid good money to do it)?”
        Because you DON’T get paid good money to do it.
        Technicians/engineers are low paid compared to Human Resources/Finance/Politics.

      3. “I count Computer Science as Science and not Tech or Engineering. They have too much freedom in their coursework and their homework is too short” maybe at the university you attend but my university i always have a butt load of homework that has to be done in a very specific format(i got marked off for not doing the heading in a specific way). The guys that have the time for all of that socialist activist stuff will probably change their majors when they realize computer science is not some easy degree to obtain.

        1. I’m quite happy for you, truly.
          The several universities with which I’m most familiar (from which my standard has derived) treat CS as an academic discipline as opposed to the more trade-education approach of the engineering field. Life-long academic professors who’ve never written a meaningful program in their lives, subtle coddling of students, and pressure towards leftist nonsense is as normal among CS at these schools as among, say, Biology students.
          To put it bluntly, I’ve rarely found a CS student or graduate I can stand to spend time with. They fear the computer because their Sophomore architecture courses were so difficult for them (in contrast, my CE program put us through assembly programming as first-semester freshmen, then gave us a former ARM designer to teach us senior-level architecture). They spout all kinds of nonsense about racism and sexism in tech, the inherent evil of Capitalism, and why white people suck. And, perhaps most heinously, they don’t put enough thought into the CS buzzwords their professors give them to determine their actual value and practicality (e.g. they all think the “Internet of Things” is a guaranteed future reality, a simple concept, and a good thing).
          In short, tons of midwits and unattractive women with way too much time on their hands.
          If you’re not one of these weak-minded sheep – and the fact that you’re here speaks volumes toward that – I’m glad to have you around.

    4. The guy with the British accent on Infowars would agree with you…he says generation Y or Z is awake to red pill truths….

    1. America is like Oceania; although we have been in a constant state of war for the past 16-years; American’s daily lives have not been disrupted, so we live in a duplicitous peaceful-state of continuous war; hard to get more double-thinky than that.

      1. Sure can. Little girls can be little boys. Some guy who got a boob job and wears women’s pantyhose is a woman. There’s no greater “double-thinky” than that.

        1. While that particular issue is pertinent in your life, and apparently the lives of many other Americans; it has never been something I’ve needed to give much thought to.

  17. It is sadly too rare to find a person who has realized that the USA and Russia have effectively swapped places. We’re on the descent into destructive, centralized communism, while they are rising into the light we’ve fallen from.

  18. Here is a powerful and eloquent call to resist from Steve McNallen, the founder of the Asatru Folk Assembly:

    Mr. McNallen is a former U.S. Army Ranger officer, mercenary soldier and war correspondent. He is a Nordic Pagan, but he is speaking here without bringing in religion, so this should resonate with all of you White Men who don’t want to be part of a gene pool that is currently going extinct. This video should be shared far and wide.
    Steve’s war cry is: “The existence of my people is not negotiable!”

    1. A great, heartfelt speech. And it wasn’t racist. It is reality. The double standard hurts white people more than it helps us. Next time I visit YouTube, I am subscribing to his channel. It’s about time I heard a white man express love for our race without sounding like the goddamn KKK!

      1. Your reply made my day, Edward! It means that I did some good today. Thank you.

      2. To be honest, it wouldn’t matter if he went full out WHITE POWER in his video versus the path he actually took, which was very moderate and positive. To the Progs, unless you are condemning the white race as evil, you are a Nazi.

  19. I don’t know how much (((Ayn Rand))) knew about her kinfolk’s Cultural Marxism, but she thought along similar lines. She noticed from her fan mail and from personal contacts how many Anglo-Americans loved her novels, so when she set up her cult, she tried to alienate these fans from their own literary tradition by disparaging Shakespeare, and then set up a phony alternative tradition which would make her novels look better. She hints around at this in her collection of essays about art and literature, The Romantic Manifesto.
    Of course, Rand died over three decades ago, so she can’t scold or disown her living cultists now who publicly disagree with her. Some of them have backed away from her more embarrassing pronouncements about literature, and one of them even has good things to say about Shakespeare:
    https://campus.aynrand.org/blog/2016/05/16/is-ayn-rand-a-writer-of-didactic-fiction
    Yet Rand showed basically the same pattern as the Cultural Marxists by discrediting the received culture in American society and offering an inferior substitute for it which better served her interests.

    1. Rand was paid by the Rothschilds. The other side of the same coin in their hegelian dialectics,

      1. I’ve heard that claim, but I haven’t seen it plausibly substantiated.
        Her official biography really makes no sense because of all the mysterious lucky breaks she got that her own accomplishments don’t justify.

  20. The New York Times has begun to actively eulogize communism, while playing down its faults. Look up their “Red Century” series that started in the end of February.
    Also, this is a very good article.

  21. NO, NO, NO!!!
    Cultural marxism is not driven by a dead robot.
    The same globalist bankers who created it are still in control.
    It is a tool for control of the masses, as useful today as ever.
    Marxism destroys individual freedoms and traditional values, so the Luciferian bankers have no resistance against them. Now we are experiencing the beginning of the new world order, libertarian economics for the billionaires and cultural marxism to control the plebe.
    Go back to the library, you completely missed the most important point.

    1. “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people”-Karl Marx
      This statement has the ring of truth; especially when considering that the people elected to power do not express the same values that many Americans say are important to them.
      I know that in my everyday life, it’s the principles of humility, kindness, empathy, patience, manners that are valued the most. The quality of my spiritual connection on any given day is reflected in how well I express these principles during my day-to-day interactions.
      How interesting that the further away from “us” our “leaders” get: Left-Right or In-the-Middle, the less they tend to express those principles.

      1. You ain’t part of ‘us’, and we share none of your corrupt values, you are actually our enemy. You are a woman who chose career over family and that’s everything this forum is against.

  22. The thing about Marxism is that it only saw things in terms of material realities, whereas culture is more of an anthropological or metaphysical function. Orthodox Marxists found Frankfurt School types to be useful for destroying their Western enemies, but other than that they detested the Judeo-Bolshevism of the Frankfurt School, especially Stalin and post-Stalin Communists.
    This is why you will see many ex-Communists in Eastern Europe actually ally themselves WITH the Alt-Right, like Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico who is a socialist and arguably a Marxist, but standing his ground against the Islamic invasion and “Cultural Marxism”, just like Viktor Orban of Hungary.
    Marxism (at least Gentile Marxism) wasn’t interested in the destruction of social institutions.
    Cultural Marxism is a VERY Jewish thing.

    1. This is why Julius Evola’s thinking is so interesting.
      He insists that a nation and its culture depends on its metaphysical principle more than economics.
      Europeans had cast aside Christianity as it did not fit rational scientific conclusions, but the tangible negative consequences of this have now been discovered.
      Europe threw the baby out with the bathwater by conflating the value of religion and philosophy with that of science.
      My hope is that in the same way that Europeans had the courage to follow reason into darkness, they can now, with humility and clear conscience, follow reason back to light.

      1. Metaphysics (anthropology) was a centerpiece for fascism (as Evola pointed out) and what set it apart from orthodox socialism (Marxism), which was focused purely on the material – cultures grew from the availability (or lack thereof) of resources.
        If you take fascism and invert it, you get Cultural Marxism, which is fascism for the mentally ill, sociopaths, and deranged.

  24. It’s important to remember that Cultural Marxism is extremely effective and Cultural Marxists don’t have a copyright or monopoly on the tactics they use. You could easily use their deconstructionism and psycho-babble against them as well as their argumentative practices (that are meant to frustrate opponents, not win debates).
    It is especially effective in their attempts at moralizing. The best way to defeat these attempts, like when they start their virtual signaling accusation of “racism, sexism, bigotry” is to dismantle their moral frame of reference.
    Example: “Racist!”
    Answer: “Race is a social construct. I cannot be ‘racist’ against something that doesn’t exist”
    or: “…Says the ivory tower white guy!”
    Example: “Misogynist!”
    Answer: “Gender is a social construct and your use of ‘misogyny’ is reinforcing the gender binary”
    Learn cultural Marxist tactics and language and USE IT against them.

    1. You forgot:
      2014 – difficult to tell if male or female
      1950 – definitely a male

      2. Looks like a female… I sent the picture to my friends to get some other opinions.

    3. The difference is, in the USSR, the communists won, and brought about a tough life. The tough life brings out the men. If the American left won, they would be the first to go into the mass graves.

  26. I’m writing an essay on Return of Kings and was wondering what you guys thought of the introductory paragraph:
    “Return of Kings is a diverse, international community of gentleman who share information on how to travel abroad and meet foreign women out of thorough dissatisfaction with women in their own locale. It in this embodies the Western ideals of tolerance, multi-culturalism, and globalism. It’s founded and run by a Middle Eastern immigrant who calls himself Roosh V because his real name tangles the tongue of most his readers. Roosh has abandoned his native Iranian culture and adopted the Western culture he feels better represents himself, and he identifies in true liberal spirit as trans-Western and none of his readers ever question this. These guys are all really smart, intelligent people.”
    How am I doing so far?

    1. Sounds like you didn’t do your homework. On this site, we have a saying to the gist of, “You don’t want to look like the prisoner who gets ass-raped. You want to look like the prisoner who does the raping.” You sound like you’re fishing for approval. Not the right prisoner. Save it for the editor, or send it to an E-mail, man. I’m not on here to read letters written by some lazy cock-sucker who doesn’t know where to send an E-mail. I’m on here to read from guys like the one it sounds like you’re insulting. Guys I’m ironically not insulting by expressing their writing’s resemblance to that of an ass-raping convict’s.

      1. I prefer not to look like any sort of prisoner, therefore successfully avoiding homosexual encounters as either ‘giver’ or ‘taker’.
        Entirely too much worship of homos in this forum.

        1. It’s my bad, feeding the trolls. Pulled the line from one of last weeks fitness articles, or Roosh-V forum. Can’t remember which. Yours is a good call though. I should help limit bringing up faggots.

        2. Trolls oft speak the truth though, wise creatures that they are. Roosh is a globalist who supports cultural flexibility and Middle Eastern immigration. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that if Roosh was a nationalist then he’d be joining the Iranian military to wage jihad against Israel and America.
          It truly amazes me how thoroughly ingrained the concept of anti-nationalist radical individualism has become in Westerners that they are so used to its presence that they simply cannot see it.

        3. too bad Bo, Islam and the alt-right/light have much more in common when compared to the left in America and Western Europe. They are based in a traditional patriarchy and have no concern for gays and trannys. go back to playing in the sand box with your friends that prefer to be called “zhe”.

        4. What does Roosh have to do with Islam or the alt-right? He’s abandoned his native culture, and the alt-right are xenophobic and want nothing to do with him. The only group that will have Roosh is the tolerant, multi-cultural Western majority who accept immigrants and different races.

      2. You’re right. I need to add a sentence complimenting how sharp witted they are, and their immunity to satire.

  29. “The USSR had a very diverse population, but promoted unity, and certainly didn’t tolerate agitation against the Russian majority. Gay rights didn’t exist; they got put in mental institutions. (Leftists today conveniently forget this,”
    Thank she for pointing this out. This policy against homosexuality wasn’t solely practiced by the USSR. Fidel Castro’s persecution of gays, especially during the early days of the AIDS epidemic, was brutal and uncompromising. They became either political prisoners if they campaigned for rights, were institutionalized in jail-type facilities if they were deemed sick, or were quarantined in places similar to leper colonies for those that had contracted diseases.
    There are a couple of acclaimed Cuban movies that talk about the gay man’s plight in Castro’s Cuba. Fresa y Chocolate, and Before Night Falls.

  30. A good article. …As far as it goes.
    The bigger picture is (((who))) the originators of “cultural Marxism” were, and (((who))) bankrolled the establishment of the USSR.

    1. So true.
      In all articles about Cultural Marxism, I am always looking for a specific (((key-word))).
      Namely: (((who))) are behind the Cultural Marxist agenda, (((who))) are its promoters, (((who))) benefits from it?
      Without naming (((them))), the whole picture is not full…

      1. We’re always told that The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion is a Tsarist forgery. …Yet it lays out more or less exactly the way things are now — despite having been written over a century ago.

        1. I had a relative who was in politics, and knew the score, who said to me:
          -“Listen, kid: Communists, Jews, Freemasons; these words essentially mean the same thing, the same people.”
          He was not wrong.

  31. Very well said. I didn’t know anyone on this site was really into getting to the truth. It seems to me that communism has evolved far beyond Marxism and the things written in the manifesto 100 years ago. Marxism is often the buzzword used by people like the author of this article to describe any cultural engineering and its really a misnomer. Societies have always been controlled by the wealthy elites, it didn’t start with Marx and honestly Marx was a traditional conservative that supported family values (so long as they obey the state). The only thing Marxist about our current society is the different classes being pitted against one another (feminism, racism, sexism, etc.)
    The elephant in the room is the Jewish/Zionist agenda and Britain has been in bed with them since shortly after the Inquisition in Spain, as you stated. The U.S. has been overrun by Zionists and almost every powerful figure here has some Ashkenazi blood in them. President Drumpf is their puppet and so is Putin. Both are on the same team playing good cop, bad cop with the world. The destabilizing of the Middle East by both NATO and Russia was barbaric and seems to be headed our way when they finish with Syria and Iran.
    How do you think the Syria and Iran situations will play out?

  32. The E.U. is a prime example of the how the U.S.S.R. ran their Eastern European Communist bloc of countries. Communism never went away, it just changed it’s name and absorbed the free Western European countries in the process.
    Check out how many ex Communists who now have been elevated into positions of great power within the E.U.!
    Thankfully, these day’s, there is no Berlin wall and the shooting of those who tried to escape the old style Communism!

  34. Excellent article. Cultural Marxism was unleashed like a plague on the western world and through a series of minor social victories coupled with every western teen’s innate desire to get attention and pretend to be against the grain, it couldn’t have been more of a success. I’m still puzzled at how nothing was done to stop it. This all seems to have began when the US government was at least somewhat representing the interests of their people and still had a grasp on the media. Why at the end of the day did the Marxist ideology come out victorious above ever present national pride?
    I personally think it was simply the rise of narcissism. After the West achieved unprecedented economic success, there was no way for the newer generations to define themselves. At that point they were ripe for latching onto any ideology that distinguished themselves from what they perceived to be the majority opinion just as today’s youth. Contrarians just for the sake of being contrarians while being too stupid to realize that they are actually the majority. This is essentially why new radical sexual orientations are created seemingly every day. Idiots with no skills trying to feel special as a coping mechanism for being normal.
    The bottom line is as it always is and always was, leftism is mental illness.

  35. An essay about Cultural Marxism without any mention of Jews is about as useful as a paper on World Religions with no mention of Christianity.

    1. “An essay about Cultural Marxism without any mention of Jews is about as useful as a paper on World Religions with no mention of Christianity.”
      I hear what you’re saying, and I’ve wondered about this myself – where does one draw the line ? I know plenty of Jews who are anti cultural marxism. One Jewish guy I know heavily criticizes the jewish intellectuals and even stated “Hitler was right”.

      1. The more you learn about Jews, the more you come to the disheartening conclusion that every single one of them is programmed to try and dominate their hosts. Unless they become overtly antisemitic like Brother Nathanael, they are a part of the quiet support network that allows the evil Jews to go unpunished.

        1. “The more you learn about Jews, the more you come to the disheartening conclusion that every single one of them is programmed to try and dominate their hosts. ”
          I’m still undecided about this – I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’ll need further evidence. Aside from Christians, it would seem every group / ethnic or religious tribe’s goal is to dominate.
          Just curious, man – but isn’t the name Freeman jewish?

        2. I’ve had a lot of close Jewish friends (for some reason they really like me) and a long-term Jewish girlfriend. I’ve been in business with Jews, and I’ve had them as bosses, employees, and clients. My views come from extensive experience, in a sympathetic environment. Even the Jews that loved me always had that edge of trying to fuck me over because I’m a goy, or constantly, desperately trying to prove they are better.
          Yeah – every group may be trying to dominate but that’s just all the more reason to expel them from our lands and stop this multicultural nonsense. Diversity + Proximity = War precisely because every group will try to gain the upper hand.
          You’ll see it eventually. And no, I’m not Jewish and neither is my name.

        3. Long term jewish girlfriend? What are jewish chicks like in bed? There may be a difference between a jewish american female and and Israeli chick. What led to the breakup?
          Regarding your name: I was not trying to provoke you, I was simply curious because usually any name with “man” at the end tends to be jewish. Supposedly the last name of “Hess” could be either a Christian name or jewish.
          I do agree that we need to separate cultures into their respective tribes. Seriously. Not only maintain geographic separation for christians, as well as christian only banking within the our tribe. This does not mean we have to hate on other cultures, but indeed we need to look out for ourselves.Christians it seems, are the only people willing to sacrifice their own people and culture in order to help other non Christians. We need to stop that shit NOW. The cultural marxists would have a much more difficult go at achieving their goals if christians (read: useful idiots) we tribal and protective of each other.

        4. Same experience here bro.
          Even my closest of Jewish friends would constantly try to undermine me in weird ways… Say under-the-cuff rude things or try to position themselves socially. Eventually I had to cut out people I hung out with for years because they never changed even as we reached adulthood.
          Others were simply neurotic losers without an inch of solid character or work ethic. Besides their capacity to group together and stir up shit, they seem in some ways weak.
          Also had an ex-gf of four years who was a Jewish, and that gave me a close-up view to their culture. At a fundamental level they have a different moral compass than do white Christians. The idea of consciously choosing to behave in a more ethical way evades them. They are materialists in my view, which is a lazy philosophy.
          I have remaining only one Jewish friend. Even he cannot conceive of why I worry about cultural Marxism and rapid globalization, and his father left communist Russia due to corrupt rule.
          I’m nearly convinced that materialism, neuroticism, and lack of masculine virtue is their genetic disposition.

        5. I think a lot of Christians equate self sacrifice with virtue, because Jesus made himself a martyr to prove a point.
          I see this as an easy way out disguised as courage and righteousness.
          If you take the Bible a little more literally, even Jesus had boundaries and banished the merchants from his temple. I think true hardcore Christians would in fact fight back.

  37. Insane liberals, evil, psychotic jews and non-white subhuman vermin need to utterly, mercilessly exterminated. 14/88!!!!

  38. The current incarnation of Christianity — both Catholic and Evangelical — is also participating in the march of Cultural Marxism, to varying degrees.

  39. “Equality” and “driving a wedge between men and women” has a larger purpose – to flood the labour market, thus keeping wages low. Another benefit is the mindless consumption that women do with their new money.

  40. So cultural Marxism created by some Russians only to be rejected by the Russian people? Seems like it was made for Americans. If this is the “Russian influence” that affected the election – I guess they were right.

  41. Well written, your observations on the ravages that cultural Marxism has inflicted upon twenty-first century American including the ghost ship nature of its continued propagation are spot on. Nice to know that others clearly recognize the serious cultural dilemmas facing our nation moving forward.

Comments are closed.