How Cultural Marxists Distort Language To Achieve Their Goals

There can be no doubt that cultural Marxism is the ideology du jour in the western world. To achieve its insidious agenda, it uses many weapons of psychological manipulation: mass media, the internet, and social engineering just to name a few. The one thing linking these weapons is language. Whether written or spoken, language is the primary delivery system for the subversive payload of this movement, and without it the agenda would obviously fail.

As the saying goes, “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will eventually come to believe it.” Over the last forty-five years, we here in the West have been told the same lies over and over until they have now become accepted truth. As masculine men in an emasculated culture, we’re constantly encountering people who will label us using these lies, trying to shame, ostracize, and silence us for what we are. I say fuck them.

“You’re Homophobic!”

Homo: Greek root meaning “same.”

Phobic: Derived from the Greek phobos, meaning “fear.”

The literal translation of homophobic is “fear of the same”.  In this case same refers to gays, so when someone labels you as homophobic, they are literally accusing you of being scared of gays. However, that’s not how it’s perceived in our society, is it?  No, in our society homophobic implies that you are hateful and even violent towards gays. You’re a bigot, and your very existence is a hate crime that should be punished.

Of course the notion of fearing the least-threatening people on the planet is laughable, but if the “you’re just a scared little boy in a macho man’s body” accusation seems familiar, that’s because it’s straight out of the radical feminist playbook. Feminist harpies love using emasculating imagery and language against masculine men, because it reinforces their delusions of power.

Always remember, misandry doesn’t exist

They constantly shriek that men are scared of female strength.  Yes, that’s why we hate feminism so much: because we fear it.


This is the key reasoning behind the use of “phobic.” It’s not enough to call you “anti-gay” or even one of their hip little Hollyweird portmanteaus like “gaycist.” They must make sure to attack your masculinity at its core: by calling you a pussy. In essence, you don’t like pillow-biters because you’re obviously scared of your own latent homosexuality, which you’re actively suppressing to fit in with your knuckle-dragging Neanderthal buddies.

This word’s purpose is to shame you into accepting and condoning behavior you don’t agree with. Call them out on their bullshit and show them you’re not scared after all.

“You’re Intolerant!”

Tolerance is defined as the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.  The very definition tells us that we don’t like what we’re putting up with, which is the core tenet of the word.

  • “Man, my new girl can cook, clean, and gives the best blowjob I’ve ever had, so I tolerate her,” said no man ever.
  • “Man my new girl is getting on my last nerve, can’t cook for shit, and won’t shut the fuck up, but she could suck-start a leaf blower (or some variation thereof), so I tolerate her,” said every man at some point in his life.

By this logic, the Museum of Tolerance should be renamed The Museum of Things We Don’t Like Yet Put Up With Anyway. Yet in America, tolerance has been twisted to become synonymous with acceptance. To tolerate someone’s lifestyle now means to accept and support it as normal, good, or natural, where before you could find it unacceptable and didn’t have to worry about being crucified in the court of public opinion for it.

The men of the manosphere are called intolerant all the time, yet we’re actually some of the most tolerant people on the planet. We put up with an entire culture that we don’t like every single day, and what’s the worst that we do? We write some articles mocking fatties and sluts.

You know who’s intolerant? Fascists. Fascists don’t tolerate things they don’t like. They forcibly remove them, eroding freedoms as they go, by changing laws and brainwashing people to accept falsehoods about the true nature of the world.  Since that’s what radfems do every day, it sounds to me like feminism should be synonymous with fascism.

If we here at ROK were truly intolerant of gays, we wouldn’t be putting up with them. We’d be out there beating them up or writing articles calling for such action, but we’re not. So the next time you’re labeled intolerant, give your accuser the true definition of the word, and remind them they should be thankful you’re such a tolerant guy.

“You’re A Misogynist!”

I saved the best for last. We men are certainly no strangers to this word. In fact, it’s likely the most popular insult hurled at us. Women in the western world are being taught that they live in a patriarchy, a system in which men have complete power and women have no rights, so I thought I’d find another place that has a patriarchy and compare it to ours.

Welcome to sunny Afghanistan, where from 1996 until 2001 a group of sadists known as the Taliban ruled with an iron fist. They operated under a strict interpretation of sharia law, which placed severe restrictions on the freedoms of women that were enforced by religious police who were permitted to beat grown women in public with rods and whips.  Let’s take a look at some of those restrictions and compare them to the atrocities being committed against our women in the West.

Afghanistan: Women should not appear in the streets without a blood relative or without wearing a ninja costume burqa.

The West:

Slut Walk Boston

This is what patriarchy looks like

Afghanistan: Women should not wear high-heeled shoes, as no man should hear a woman’s footsteps lest it excite him.

The West:


Rights = Trampled

Afghanistan: Women must not speak loudly in public as no stranger should hear a woman’s voice.

The West:

Define “loudly”

Afghanistan: Photographs or films of women are banned as is displaying pictures of women in books, newspapers, shops, or the home.

The West:


Looks like it’s time for a book burning.

However, this is just the tip of the iceberg, because the true measure of a patriarchy is how the women who break the rules are punished.

Afghanistan: If you marry someone other than who your dad tells you to, or have premarital sex, then he can commit an honor killing, which means he can murder you for “shaming the family.”

The West: Go ahead and embrace your sexuality by riding the cock carousel (guys have casual sex all the time, why can’t you?) and when you’ve had enough of penises filling your various orifices, rest assured there will be an emasculated beta chump of your choice on deck to cater to your every whim for the rest of your life, starting with a ridiculously overpriced wedding centered around you so you can fill your quota of attention whoring for the day.

kim the ho

“O. M. G.  I cannot believe he fell for it!”

Afghanistan: Under sharia law, women over the age of 8 are no longer to receive an education. The ones who try (in secret of course) get acid thrown in their faces.

The West: 60% of college students are now female and entire “fields of study” have been created that are dedicated strictly to women. Women with useless degrees in nonsense such as women’s studies are being put into leadership positions within the workforce that they are woefully unqualified to hold, and yet there hasn’t been a single Harvey Dent incident yet.

They Don’t Know How Good They’ve Got It

All joking aside, THIS is what a real patriarchy looks like, where women truly have no rights whatsoever and are treated like absolute garbage. Women in the West have all the same rights provided by the law as men do, and more freedom of choice than anywhere else on the planet, yet they have the audacity to complain about “women’s rights.” So the next time a feminist starts bitching at you about the pay gap myth, rape culture, or misogyny, hit her with these facts and challenge her to renounce her western citizenship and protection, go live in Afghanistan under sharia law for a month, and then report back. That is, if she’s still alive and has the ability to speak.

Recognizing the way that cultural Marxists twist words to suit their purposes will give you the ammunition you need to shred their ideology to pieces. Their language relies heavily on shaming and ostracization, so stand your ground, refuse to be shamed, and accept the fact that your views are not going to be popular. Hopefully your logic will reach some of them and wake them up to the truth, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Read More: The Man Who Created His Own Language

131 thoughts on “How Cultural Marxists Distort Language To Achieve Their Goals”

  1. As I’ve always said, the best way to cure the spoiled bitchy attitude of modern western women is to ship them all to Pakistan or Afghanistan and let them live there for a month. Then they will truly know the meaning of intolerance, misogyny and real merciless violence towards women.

    1. The funny thing is, the same “strong, independant” womyn that are so vocal about mysogyny and women rights will gladly debase themselves with an individual from a 3rd world country, where true rape culture and sexism run rampant.

      1. That probably explains why I see more and more white guys around here sporting the “full-on Taliban beard”. Must have something to do with trying to copy some of that exotic, foreign swarthy charm, eh? The females set the terms of male attraction and the guys simply follow suit. What’s next? A full Thawb, Keffiyeh or turban, and Misbaha in hand to complete the transition? And some “lunatics” complain that we will become a Caliphate in short order.
        Actually makes me want to try one on for some reason. Now I’m beginning to scare myself here.

        1. Taliban beards (or simply a well-groomed beard), thick eyebrows, no more epilation of the arms, legs, chest, dominant eyelook = things like this are getting more and more common in EU. Islamization and third-world penetration in our western culture make possible for western fags to see that trying to be pretty boy, is not sexually appealing to western women.

        2. Something I always repeat to Myself. Its good to be brown, cause its true. Many european women have admitted to me that they are no longer atteacted to their white counterparts and that their carousel nowadays is strictly filled with us arabs, muslims, middleastern or whatever men. Some latin americans as well if they can make it to the borders.
          The reason for that is apparently (quoting) fewer of us are corrupted with pussification, we’re still men, bearded, testosterone infused and raised in families with traditional gender roles that actually stick together.
          Yet more and more of us are being corrupted, its spreading really fast.

        3. The cathedral is trying to pull everybody in, you guys included. Hard to stand fast when faced with such a veritable juggernaut. Unfortunately, this is one monster that cannot be pulled down through conventional means, as it really is a sophisticated form of socio-psychological warfare at its finest. See what it has done to the West and let it be a lesson to all. The beast is voracious and its tentacles literally reach right around the world for anybody it can get a hold of. It really does not discriminate, that much is for sure.

        4. You do know that faggets and hipsters sport beards these days yes?Its kind of badge of honor to them.Saw it on yahoo news last week.

        5. Bestiality is much more common for a white woman, than genuine sexual interest in non-whites. Even though 99% from brown/black men are obsessed over white women, only 2-4% will respond to you.
          White men (thanks to your invasion and exploitation of our system) are waking up. Russias are awake, Eastern europeans, south europeans… motherfuckers like you are Objects for training of young skinheads (your bodies are tool for phsyical training, knife sharpening and your wallets are funding NationalSocialists).

        6. Any woman who is into black or muslim guys is instant fuckbuddy material. No white woman with some self-respect would date any of those things.

        7. i currently am trying to get the edward norton beard from american history x going (cant get the mid upper lip and side part of the gotie going) and all i see around me are fags with neck beards

      2. I once knew a strong independent woman. She told me I couldn’t handle a strong woman. She lived in a one bedroom welfare flat, had a child being looked after by her parents, and was mad at me for not giving her money to get her car back after it was towed for non-payment of parking fines.
        But she was strong though…

        1. Ya you didn’t know that just because you have a broke ass job, get medicaid and ebt(food stamps) and rely on people for everything means you are independent because you live on your own in government housing.

      3. They say, “Oppression is NOT a contest!” To them, getting a whistle on the street is just bad, if not worse, than a brutal beating, as seen above.

    2. It’s always amusing that one of the main criticism “conservatives” have for Muslim countries is that they aren’t feminist enough.

    3. This. Really wish I could arrange to have feminist leaders kidnapped and taken to a REAL hole for a full week. See how they complain when they see women that are actually oppressed.

  2. Excellent article! I hate these fuckers and the backwards world of lies they’ve created.

  3. We are already on the verge of moral collapse. The American sheeple will fiddle while Rome burns, and finally the Marxists will have achieved their goal. So sad, so sad.

    1. The moral collapse already happened. America is just adrift in a sea of nihilism now, awaiting the final death blow. Sure there’s still a country called the USA, but it disappeared a long time ago.

  4. I tell people I am *too* tolerant — I put up with way more than I should. And it’s true.

    1. Thanks, that’s a good one. Agree and amplify. Very nice. You are not denying their accusation but you are alluding that you’re on the verge of being worse han you already are.

      1. Take your silly red-pill terms somewhere else.
        Lol at guys talking about “agreeing/amplifying”, “push and pull” ,”holding frame”.

  5. I’m not a misogynist; that would mean women would be worthy of my hatred.
    I love them, for all of an hour or two! 😀

    1. Misogyny can also mean that one distrusts women, which I do, but doesn’t necessarily hates them, which I don’t.

    2. I know. How on earth does the desire to control and dominate a woman for personal pleasure and social cohesion equal “hatred”?I love women

  6. Americunts complain about not receiving more preferential treatment than they already do and betas appease them. We need to break the cycle somewhere.

  7. The ‘phobic’ suffix literally means fear, but in the psychological context implies irrational fear. The implication carried is that one is mentally ill to hold opinions/ideas contrary to the promoted narrative.

  8. Feminism is the epitome of the self-victimization so prevalent in our society. Women in the West have every single right they could possibly want and still they persist in crying about the societal abuse and terrible trauma they receive when a man cat calls them. WHEN A MAN CAT CALLS THEM! I watched a TED talk where this below average woman is complaining about being cat called, and you would think someone had raped her on the spot for how traumatized she is about it, just fucking incredible, there is no problem for women in the West but they will convince themselves that there is until they get everything they want on a golden platter.

    1. To modern Western women, “oppressive” and “misogynistic” behavior is simply anything that holds them to any standard of decency and any level of accountability for their actions.
      They are disingenuous; they do not really give a fuck about the true oppression of misogyny against their fellow women, they care only for themselves, as usual.

      1. Of course, if they did feminist issues would move on to treatment of women in the middle east but it remains in why women think they’ve been “forced” to wear makeup.

  9. All joking aside, THIS is what a real patriarchy looks like, where women truly have no rights whatsoever and are treated like absolute garbage.

    Correction. This is what a primitive, backwards, outright savage “culture” looks like. Under the kind of EVOLVED patriarchy that once truly existed in the West, women may have had less “rights” than they do now, but they were also treated with kindness and respect when they maintained their end of the social contract, while risking a medium form of social ostracism at worst if they chose to slut it up as per their “career choice” for the most part (any claim to the contrary is nothing more than modern-day Marxist propaganda and historical revisionism). None of this honor killing or acid scarring nonsense was ever a part of any truly evolved patriarchy, which rightfully saw it as the reserved practice of unwashed barbarians and dimwitted bearded numskulls. It is very important not to conflate the two here.

    1. Women in the west had plenty of rights but just different ones. Those comfy Titanic lifeboat seats, for example.
      Feminism arose not out of patriarchal oppression but rather a bunch of bored, rich housewives deciding to bite the hand that feeds them.
      My wife is amazed that there seems to be a strong correlation among her women friends between husbands who are generous with their wives and buy them everything they like and… the wives treating their husbands with contempt. Seething contempt.

      1. Your wife’s friends are viscerally repulsed by the fact that they are married to veritable doormats (it’s a hindbrain response of which they themselves are not always fully aware of). It may seem nice at first to have a man who will do everything for you without so much as a hitch but it actually goes deeply against the kinds of traits women are most instinctively attracted to. This creates a catch-22 where their push for independence leads them to avoid men whom they cannot control, but then they also eventually become disgusted by those whom they can control. Add into the mix a law-enforcement apparatus that has been subverted to remove any kind of veritable authority men used to have in society together with professional and economic disfranchisement and you end up with a perfect recipe for passive, feckless herbivores and frustrated unhappy women. In other words, the society we are presently inhabiting right now.
        If you can’t fight it why immolate yourself uselessly. Might as well enjoy the decline as Aaron Clarey thus coined the term.

    2. Patriarchy is an invention by feminists. Women did not vote because most were uneducated. (Hell, originally the US constitution only allowed land-owning men to vote, which was only 6% of the population. The founding fathers were elitist, they were not egalitarian.) The reason women were uneducated is because the West lacked modern medicine, so there was a high infant mortality rate. Because there was a high infant mortality rate women couldn’t devote their 20s to “getting an education,” and “building a career,” or “finding myself,” or whatever other bullshit they tell themselves. If the vast majority of babies born would not live to adulthood, then she had to devote herself exclusively to motherhood, lest she fail to have 2.1 children per couple and civilization would go extinct. Further, until MEN invented shit like dishwashers, washers and dryers, frozen dinners, etc. keeping house was a REAL job. Men created the technology that FREED women from the house, but hey they’ll call you a misogynist piece of shit if you start pointing facts out. White men, despite contributing more to the world than anyone else in history, don’t expect any thanks, ever.
      The truth is, a version of Marxism has replaced Christianity in the West. Pure egalitarianism, which has absolutely no evidence to back it up, is the new religion of the West. All these new ad hominems that they use are just variations of “heretic.” When you point out that men and women’s brains are different they’ll call you a “misogynist.” Heretic. When you point out that all the races have a common ancestor, but each race evolved to survive in their home environment and are thus at a different spot in their evolution, they’ll call you “racist.” Heretic. When you point out that the very notion of human “equality” completely contradicts everything we know about Evolution by Natural Selection they’ll call you a “fascist.” Heretic.
      Welcome to the Cathedral, folks. Your high priests are academia and the Leftist media. Just like the Catholic Church in the middle ages they control all mainstream knowledge and information. They want to create a world of peace and harmony (never going to happen) by spreading pretty lies to the ignorant masses. It’s no different than regular Marxism, they’re trying to create a utopia, and anyone who questions their utopian dream is the enemy. Their problem is that they don’t understand human nature. Not only are humans NOT equal, but we have no desire to be equal, we only say that we do. The nature of human beings is to achieve dominance and power.

      1. So true. Libtards remind me more of church ladies than of anyone else. At least the church ladies felt obligated to love everybody, but the libtards would gladly kill you if they weren’t so nutless.

      2. You know what’s interesting about women’s education during the nineteenth century? While it’s true there were not many women with a college education, the odds were that if you were a woman you would make it much further in highschool than men. Most of the boys got pulled out of school when they were around 9 or 10 – at least when there was work on the farm that needed to be done, and after a few years of only attending school half-time, most boys quit and worked fulltime. Women, however, mostly went much further – to graduation – because someone needed to know how to balance the books on the farm and write letters and such things.
        So, while it is true that of the perhaps 2% of the population that attended university, it was almost all male, the vast majority of kids in the highschool grades were actually women, not men – meaning that on average, women were much better educated than men in the general population.

      3. “They want to create a world of peace and harmony..”
        Thats not actually what they want. But they want everyone to believe that.
        Also, there is no “leftist media”. There is only “mainstream media”, and this includes almost everything you can see on TV.
        If you want to know what is going on, reading history is probably better. Because the story doesn’t change, it just gets replayed with different actors.

  10. I’d have to say the most destructive hijacked term of all is “equality.” Take the use of the term “marriage equality.” The cultural Marxist left says gays need “marriage equality” yet ignore the fact that gays have always had full equality according to the traditional definition of marriage (in the Western context and some others).
    If gays could not marry each other BECAUSE they were gay, then a gay man could not marry a lesbian. As far as I know, this has never been prohibited and in fact you can read many stories online about that happening. Now, that’s two gays getting married – a gay marriage. That marriage will receive all the benefits that come with any marriage – aka equality.
    What they really want is do redefine the terms of an institution as to fundamentally change it (which may or may not have its benefits but that’s another topic) all while severely distorting the meaning of equality. I’ve had this conversation so many times and people who support “marriage equality” can never, ever admit this.

    1. Denmark allowed said marriage ‘equality’ in 1996. The results have been staggering. Aside from a precipitous drop in marriages generally, the homo unions end in court at ridiculous rates. For the male/male ‘unions’ the divorce rate is over 70%; for the female/female ‘unions’ over 90%. Salad days for Danish lawyers at least. Seriously, these people generally are quite unstable. I can only think of 2 homosexuals who I didn’t suspect were mentally ill before they ‘came out’ to me.

        1. They don’t want to be married…its a ruse and an under-handed way to accelerate their agenda. Indeed, I accept the whole homo marriage lever to dissolve the nuclear family, but, at the tactical level the root of homosexualism is quite pathetic, in that, the right(s) they seek are to force others to accept and like them. And as follows to be viewed unconditionally, again by force, as “normal”. As such, marriage is one of their agenda items that they think will give them the perception of normality. The trouble is, and the inherent flaw of homosexualism, that forcing independent people to like, accept and see you a specific way (in this case normal) violates individual rights and, with emphasis, an individual’s consciousnesses. That’s not to say that homosexuals should be treated poorly, assaulted or denied equality under law…heck no, like everyone else that should apply to them, and left out of the fine print always has. The optimal arrangement for this fringe, sex obsessed group to broader society is tolerance…sadly, that came and went and, like any other group, once they realized power they then insisted on forced acceptance, which has led to today’s tyranny.

        2. I disagree. I think homosexual messages in any format should be censored burned and prosecuted as if it were child pornography. Force them back into the closet.

      1. Give Hamburg native Karl Lagerfeld his due. Flaming queer. Hated the idea of gay marriage. He though homosexuality was a way to avoid respectability and boring family life.
        At least he knew what homosexuality meant.

        1. A study referenced in a Barbarossa video (Traditional Relationships…nothing but business & the bottom line) of a couple years back. The survey is linked to the video, iMAPP marriage survey; and it was Sweden, not Denmark, my mistake.

    2. It goes further because marriage can never be fundamentally “equal” when you think about it, at least as long as marriage remains defined as two consenting human beings. You see, plenty of people are denied access to marriage because they were born that way, consider ugly, deformed, sick, retarded people. And in terms of total suffering those people far exceed homosexuals, unless the homosexual is also apart of those groups. So, per progressive dogma aren’t these people worthy victims? Aren’t they deserving of compassion and, importantly, “equality”?

      1. Gays don’t believe in marriage equality because if they did they would advocate marriage benefits for singles. Why discriminate against singles? Gays want in on the privileges, not equality.

  11. I had a conversation with this braindead dolt about bullfighting (he was disgusted by it being the good progressive drone that he is). I asked him if he considered himself a “multiculturalist” and when he eagerly confirmed he did I gently reminded him that his objection to bullfighting and subsequent condemnation of the Spaniards who enjoy it was ethnocentric. Well, he wouldn’t have that, and began arguing that this was simply an ethical concern and all, but I kept hammering him that these were “his” ethics, not the ethics of the Spaniards he was talking so much smack about and to judge them by his ethical standards was ethnocentrism. We kept going round and round, and he angrily conceded he was guilt of being ethnocentric but only because there was an even worse evil afoot. I then asked him if he was guilty of the dreaded sin of ethnocentrism how he could still consider himself a multiculturalist … he stopped for a moment and said maybe he wasnt.
    Cultural marxism has holes in its logic large enough to fly a 747 through and we should remind the brainwashed of these logical short circuits every opportunity we get. Who knows, maybe they could see the light and question their programming … if not, its fun just to fuck with these assholes.

    1. It’s like arguing with members of a religious cult, because that’s essentially what they are.

      1. I define a cult as: a secretive group of exclusivistic people who’s moral teachings are esoteric and unavailable to the general public. That’s why Mormonism is a cult. Their religious doctrines are secretive, subject to sudden change by a secretive authority, and generally unknown to those who would like to know. Add to this the fact that if your family member is marrying a Mormon you will not be allowed to go to the ceremony, and you have a match.

    2. You got to drop the phrase “cultural imperialism” in there next time. Watch their head asplode.

  12. Cultural Marxism has done a lot of damage also on man-to-man interaction too. In the Anglo countries, I noticed when men hug they try very hard to not touch each other too much. On the other hand, French men kiss each other THREE TIMES on cheeks. In Eastern Europe it was not long ago when men would hold hands without being gay. They started feeling awkward about it when democracy brought the idea that homosexuality is something normal.
    Another victim is the notion of male beauty. Whenever someone brings it up, they are labelled as being gay immediately. Whereas any free thinking and intelligent person will agree that a well defined male’s body is far superior in terms of form and function. To someone from outer space surely men would appear infinitely more worthy of admiration than women, for man has intelligence as well as beauty.
    Besides, if woman was naturally a beautiful thing why would she have to apply cosmetics, designed to preserve that precious baby? Man finds woman beautiful because she thinks she is beautiful.
    Men are not aware of their own beauty and no one mentions it. There is so much rubbish written and talked about the charm of women. Even children and animals are considered graceful, adorable and delightful – but never a man. Men are at best praised for their steadfastness, courage, reliability – all qualities useful to women, having nothing to do with physical appearance.
    Men are not used to having their looks discussed. Grown women, as a rule ugly creatures, have time and opportunity to admire men, but rarely see them. It is not that a woman is mean or envious; it is that she thinks of him as a machine – a machine for the production of material goods. And who regards a machine as an object of beauty?
    All this is a pointless discussion anyway, for basically men are not interested in the possibility of being beautiful. What point would that give to their labors? Women must be the ones who are beautiful, helpless, adorable – they must be, in fact, lacking a more precise definition, `the fair sex.’

    1. Women are traditionally way less open and confident than men, they are also more delicate and care driven that’s why they need that reassurance for beauty and that is why there is such a big movement of feminism nowadays… and I believe men are more naturally/ physiologically aware of their beauty or strength and so they just not question it that much.

  13. The equality idea draws with magnetic force society’s kooks, scolds, misfits and losers with conflicting grievances and agendas. So we can only hope that these different groups start to fight each other.
    Examples: Health scolds like the current first lady versus the feminist pigs who promote the disimprovement philosophy of “fat acceptance.”
    Transgender freaks who take female hormones and have surgeons cut off their dicks, versus progressive feminists who find these mutilated guys creepy and don’t want them hanging around their events.
    And a big one which will probably lead to urban violence before too long: Native American blacks versus the Hispanic population America’s elites have basically hired to replace the American people. The Democrat Party claims to represent both groups, but the math doesn’t work out in the blacks’ favor any more. Black writers have probably ramped up the reparations propaganda lately because they’ve figured out that if blacks don’t cash out soon in a lump sum payment, in a few years they’ll have to fight Latinos in the streets for the scraps of the welfare benefits – and the brown team already way outnumbers the black team.

    1. How can it not be more obvious to everyone what they are dealing with then it comes to LGBT? The T stands for transgender, and these freaks are nothing more than sickos chopping off their junk and wearing dresses. Its so obvious. The suicide rate goes UP post “operation” and the gender therapy shit has never been proven therapeutic. Its been proven opposite to therapy.

  14. OK, I tend to agree with almost everything stated here, however a “phobia” is not necessarily “fear” but rather an “aversion” or “fear”. To that end, I am probably homophobic as I have an aversion to homosexuality (in men, two hot chicks making out is hot (please note this does not apply to Gertrude Stein types!!!!))
    Second, radomes are not fascists and there is a marked inconsistency herein in that calling out “cultural marxists” as fascists is arguing two sides of an issue. Fascism is the merger of business and government in a totalitarian system. Feminists are marxists or communists. They are totalitarian for sure, but they seek to lower everyone and spread wealth on an equalist basis, regardless of risk, capability and effort.

  15. The main premise of this article, that progressivism is about changing and distorting language with a view to changing / distorting the world is correct, but there’s a lot more going on here than appears in this article.
    Firstly the phrase cultural marxism is a convenience. Its a shorthand for the Frankfurt school and modern cultural studies theory and one that is easily dismissed as a slander. twenty years after the critique of the critique of ‘cultural marxism’ by conservative thinkers who began to realise what was happening in the background, those who are appalled at what cultural marxism is doing need to have a better idea of what it involves. If the frankfurt school, or the culture theorists are the enemy, know who they are, and what they say, and by extension why they are wrong and dangerous.
    As for the use and abuse of language, this begins with the structuralist assault on language as referential, that is as simply describing the world around it. The leftist critique that language also shapes the world, limits what we can think (popularised in Orwell’s 1984) and constructs the world around us is legitimate if incomplete. The left has however focussed on studying language and discourse as a tool to a) destroy institutions built up through language, including anything canonical (patriarchal) or oppressive (c.f. Dale Spender’s man made language). Corrupt continental theory has worked alongside the ‘cultural marxists’ to de-stablise the certainties and traditions of an allegedly ‘phallogocentric’ / logocentric language and society, and in doing so to attack men by promoting marginality, for which read the particular groups the left wished to promote, arguably into a governing class. These marginal groups, defined by their marginality or ‘otherness’ in history and culture, are basically women, transgressive sexualities, and non-white races.
    The above mentioned critique of the exclusion of marginal / ‘othered’ groups included the notion of the binary system within language, where one class in the system is privileged over the other, e.g. man over woman etc. What this critique does though is simply to turn this alleged reality on its head, creating a new binary whereby those marginal groups are positioned against ‘all men’ or ‘all white men’ at least, and the division of power (again whether it exists or not) is flipped on its head.
    The above is done in the name of equality, but as the author points out this a lie. Not only is it a means of exercising and abusing power through the manipulation of the language of equality, it also has nothing to do with equality beyond a critique that identifies its absence.
    Crude thought the cultural marxist label is, there is strong evidence to suggest that those thinkers who were at its forefront were indeed looking to destroy society as it was (with its bourgeois and capitalist institutions) with a view to promoting its dissolution and takeover by the socialist state. To the extent this is actually happening this is a tragedy not only for men, but for every one of the other groups, who the new corrupted discourse positions (or in Althusserian terminology interpellates) as an opposing force.
    In other words what the progressives and cultural marxists (if I may use the term) are doing is creating the worst most divisive kind of class struggle (which sometimes we are in danger of re-inforcing by buying into the schemas it sets up)
    Finally as the author points out no consideration of the progressive misuse of language is complete without reference to the nuclear weapon in the progressive arsenal. For the weapon of choice in the above class struggle, is of course the allegation of hatred and fear as the thing which motivates ‘domination’, ‘oppression’ etc.. This positions in language those who are actually doing the attacking as those who are being attacked. Tactics like these – alleging aggression as an excuse for aggression is in fact analogous to instances such as the Mukden incident in the 30s (which permitted the japs to invade china) or any kind of false flag event. Power today depends on demonstrating risk or aggression, and progressive language has evolved to exploit this

    1. What Orwell contributed (among his many contributions) most was the exposure of the concept of “doublethink” and raw hunger for power that the left has mastered in the 20th century.
      Whatever a feminist or leftist says, the reality is that they are achieving none of what they claim to hold dear. The primary purpose of leftism is power for its leaders and the party itself. Actual freedom and empowerment for women is secondary. ALL agendas are secondary. They are merely slogans to justify power grabs by the party and its leaders.
      Another wonderful point in 1984 is the left’s obsession with human misery: If someone, even one of their own supporters, is happy, then they’re not doing their job. When everyone is unhappy, only then will they know they’ve totally succeeded in absolute control.
      Which is a lot like how feminists are. They are always worried a man might be happy someplace. Or heck, even if a woman is happy, then she probably is going to get lazy and not work for the cause.

      1. there is something to be said for the idea that political ‘consciousness’ is conciousness of misery. Achieving a goal e.g. achieving some kind of equality runs the risk of destroying that consciousness whereby the masses / proles can be roused to righteous fury and directed towards ‘revolutionary’ or for that matter purely selfish goals. The failure of every revolution that ever was can be explained in part (and only in part) by this internal tension between the goal and the danger of achieving the goal

      2. “even if a woman is happy, then she probably is going to get lazy and not work for the cause.”
        They ESPECIALLY hate happy women, because the happiest women are the ones who know and adhere to their natural place; providing their nurturing feminine support to a man and the children they’ve made with that man, not sitting behind a desk in a cubicle going over some numbers Monday through Friday and fucking some random popped collar douchebags on Saturday.
        Sometimes their most potent vitriol is reserved for their fellow women. No surprise there.

    2. Wow, this is very good.
      You might want to consider submitting an article.
      Don’t agree with it all, but you raise some good points.

    3. My favorite is calling a man a Paedophile for screwing a younger woman. I read an online article about a 25 year old rapper dating 17 year old Kylie Jenner. Of course, all of the people, mostly women, came out in furious and righteous indignation to shame him as a pedo or “child” rapist. When I explained the real definition of pedophilia, of course they ignored it because it interfered with what they wanted to be true.
      And of course, when I pointed out that if say, Beyonce was getting screwed by a 17 year old guy, as long as most women found him attractive, no one would dare seriously refer to her as a child rapist or pedo. Anyone who did would be accused of “age shaming” her.

      1. yep, its completely nuts at the moment. Absolutely zero recognition that young women are attractive to men precisely because of their youth and fertility. Biology is sexist.

  16. Very good article and powerful points for all of us in the mano-whatever. cultural marxism’s perversion of language is disgusting for a variety of reasons, one being how inherently dishonest it is. Apropos to “doublespeak” they create terms that hold dual or multiple meanings and, many times, complex embedded statements that act as vehicles much less than communication. For instance, “homophobia”, as referenced above, when used implies that the recipient is homosexual themselves, which in turn acts to automatically muddy the debate and put recipients on the defensive. The primary goal here is to destroy actual debate and conversation, Its insidious. But so is another non-word (that’s what I like to call them) and one that we should vehemently reject and deconstruct at every opportunity – “gender”. Human beings have a sex, to presume we have a “gender” aligns unknowing users of this term to the false precept that sex is a mere social construct thus denying the scientific, biological reality confirm-able down to DNA. Ahem, and acting consistent with a key feminist agenda item!
    Worse, since cultural marxist language has infiltrated common parlance users, in many instances, are ignorant as to the actual meaning, but, for the c.m. that’s a key feature because its usage is what counts. Seeing “gender” on an official form is grating because its presence serves a singular political agenda and, above all, is categorically false.
    Actions – when confronted with “gender” or “homophobia” 1. don’t use it, 2. call it out and deconstruct it or 3. offer a detailed disclaimer if you have to use it to get a point across i.e. “normally I reject “gender” but for today ‘s purposes…blah blah blah.

  17. Marxism was never about labor struggles, workers, or oppression by profit seekers.
    Instead, it was really about labor organizers, businessmen, lawyers, low level government officials, and bankers all profiting, gaining money/power/control, over people. These individuals, although representing all sides of the bullshit “workers struggle against the Capatalism,” all go to temple together and are friendly members of the same community.
    By getting non community members to fight over bullshit, they get control.
    Cultural Marxism (which describes anything “ism” really) is the same. Get people to fight over bullshit and they’ll give away their time/money/power/labor.
    Ever notice how feminist leaders, anti-feminist leaders, and pornographers all come from the same community? Ever notice how Bush’s lead neocon in Ukraine s actually the husband of Obamas liberal appointee? Ever notice how the people demanding that the Washington Redskins change their name (hint not the Natives), go to the same temple & are BFFs with Redskins owner Snyder’s wife?

    1. Cultural Marxism (which describes anything “ism” really) is the same. Get people to fight over bullshit and they’ll give away their time/money/power/labor.
      Ever notice how feminist leaders, anti-feminist leaders, and pornographers all come from the same community? Ever notice how Bush’s lead neocon in Ukraine s actually the husband of Obamas liberal appointee?

      Very sharp observation. There isn’t a moneymaker quite like Marxism. The only thing that’s missing is the ™ symbol. Most members of the ‘Cult’ have no idea what they’ve bought into. If they’ll buy socialism, they’ll buy the rest too.

    2. Your not supposed to notice or call out who the leaders are. One can criticize Black/White power but never the Tribe’s.
      “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

    3. ‘progressivism’ for want of a better term seems to be in the blood of a lot of jewish people. This may have to do with some of the teachings of the Kibbalah and the Mishnah as far as I understand. This is a quote from a jewish site on the concept of Tikkun al Olam. “Tikkun Olam is Judaism envisioning an ideal world. Often
      translated to mean ‘repair of the world’, and even as social justice, tikkun olam underpins our religious way of life and perspective
      that works towards a time of peace – not just ending war, but a time of
      prosperity, health and justice for all.”
      Couple that with the leadership role implied in the idea that jews are somehow ‘chosen’ and the prominence of so many jewish people can be explained without necessarily resorting to inherently uncharitable explanations. Moreover the kind of thinking that may underlie progressivism can motivate both altruistic behavior and more self-interested behaviour. Is Noam Chomsky for instance a leader in linguistics and left politics because he self-interested? I don’t think so. what he may share with others may be that very sense of leadership which jewish religion and culture seems to prescribe.
      C.f. say the english public school system during the age of empire: it existed to produce the men who dominate the system.

    4. Its the Yojimbo technique.
      I highly recommend the book “The grand chessboard”, and also the documentary “The happiness machine”. The second is hard to get, but someone posted the first part on vimeo.

  18. I love it when the tolerance and equal rights crowd reveal their intolerence and bigotry when the profanity and name calling start. It’s actually a tell for their true agenda: Destruction. Cultural Marxism’s primary objective is the destruction of traditionally bourgeois institutions; Marriage, Family, Patriarchy, Gender Roles, et al. Everything is polarized since their weapons are predicated on systematic dialectical opposites.
    Nothing they do or say is not calculated to manipulate culture via language in the direction of a more Marxist world order.

    1. Again… I don’t see what Marxim there will be in the brainless, manlyless, traditionless, cultureless, totalitarian consummer society they’re trying to create.
      The bourgeois structure, will have disappeared, in fact all structures will have disappeared, men will feel more lost than ever, but the wealth equality will be higher than ever. “Brave New World” is the manifesto of those who rule us.
      All that political correctness crap never came in France, until the U.S achieved to culturally colonize us after the resignation of Charles De Gaulle.

      1. Thanks, for the Alain Soral links. He knows his shit. Is the book in the background (Comprendre l’empire) his only book?
        We’re partly in agreement as usual. You’ll have to explain the non-regulated, capitalistic totalitarian world order to me because in my mind, a laissez faire system would be incompatible with a totalitarian society.
        Also, you’re using Marxism-Leninism as a misnomer for Cultural Marxism. The former is system of political economics. This article is referring to the latter; The methods of the Marxist dialectic and critical analysis adapted to the cultural sphere. Cultural Marxism deliberately aims to reduce holdovers of bourgeoisie culture such as the ones I named above. So, you are correct that the “bourgeois structure, will have disappeared” but this destruction will be achieved by subversion via Cultural Marxism [see Yuri Bezmenov].

        1. “Thanks, for the Alain Soral links. He knows his shit. Is the book in the background (Comprendre l’empire) his only book?”
          No he has written a lot of books. His first book was about the game : Sociologie d’un dragueur (Sociology of a seducer) and how picking up in the street was the only way for a man without money to get laid …
          ” You’ll have to explain the
          non-regulated, capitalistic totalitarian world order to me because in my
          mind, a laissez faire system would be incompatible with a totalitarian
          Well, in my point-of-view, what has been sold to you americans as free enterprise, this economical liberalism which is the mutation of the industrial capitalism, came with a huge downside that was total free hands for the predatorian banksters.
          Because the less the government is putting his nose in economic activities (by opposition to a socialist state) , the more powerful will become the speculators, until they become a sort of aristocracy, that takes all decision. (He’re I’m talking about the UE. 80% of French laws in the passed few years have been voted by this non-elected imperial insitution. I bet this is the same in the U.S with the Federal bank. )
          As Rothschild said : “give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws”.
          They already have locked the access to wealth. If you’re not born in the right family, you can’t become Bruce Wayne anymore. The poors are getting poorer and the richs are getting richer, and this is when totalitarism will come.
          You will be enslaved with no other rights but to consume the infinite choice of useless crap, and untertain yourself until you die. Most people won’t even notice that it’s happening, and will actually enjoy their servitude and fight for it. They already doing it.
          Have you seen the “black fridays” videos ?
          This will be capitalistic, in the sens that you will have no control whatsoever on the means of production, and that any new market, even immoral , will be authorized and encouraged (I’m talking here about any kinds of pharmaceutical drugs that turn
          people into junkies – junkies being by definition the best customers – and child trafficking, for when the feminists and
          homesexuals ideals will have triumphed, natural birth will be despised
          and rejected, maybe even banned).
          That’s why religions (except one), culture, traditions or any knowledge of History must be killed.
          The same for any non mercantile activity or relationship, such as traditional family.
          I had trouble understanding the “Cultural Marxism” concept, because it is non existent in France, but it makes sense how you describe it. We usually simply call them “sophists” here.
          However, I think a better name would be “Cultural Talmudism”…
          I’m writing to you an email, describing to you the French Nationalism among other things, that may make his come back, hopefully, before that the current government throw us into a civil war (things are going worse and worse here).

    2. No it’s worse. The cultural form is aimed at destroying fairly ordinary working class men along with the middle class managers who have a track record of exploiting them a bit but otherwise displaying paternal and pastoral care over that workforce. The marketers of Marxism and whatnot often live traditionally and highly conservatively in their personal lives.

  19. Its funny but no matter how good your woman has it she has something to complain about.
    My answer has been to tell her to point out all her friends with perfect relationships. The answer is usually silence.
    With women in general its the same thing writ large.

    1. Nothing is ever really good enough. We hear a lot about preselection (i.e women want men that are already wanted by other women) as it applies to us, it also applies to cars, houses, clothes, handbags, phones, you name it. Women are herd animals, and if enough women have something, they’ll all want it simply because the rest of them do. That’s why it’s so important to not become too invested in people who are this fickle and emotional. It’s like building a house on sand.

    1. More like “I SAY I want equality, but I really want special treatment.” Feminists only want “equality” when it benefits feminists. You’ll never hear a feminist say, “50% of the deaths in war need to be women.”

  20. I’m plenty tolerant of sodomites. If they want to engage in their disgusting perversion in private, they can go right ahead. Of course everyone knows it’s never about tolerance. It’s about approval.
    “Are you now or have you ever been an opponent of marriage equality?” they’ll eventually ask us.

  21. Is it odd that I want to rawdog that screaming chick with the short dyed red hair?
    I just have a feeling she would way mellow out after a couple of screaming orgasms and a load of baby batter dumped deep into her fallopian tubes, and I’m just the man for the job.

    1. Wanna shag Big Red? Come on over to Toronto then. A lot of the local talent could very well use some friendly rogering to lighten the mood and turn that perma-scowl upside-down. Heck, during our cold, dark winters you could even shack up in order to benefit from the superior body heat given off and save a neat penny on your heating bill. They don’t call it “Canadian bacon” (or “the beaver”) for nothing you know.

  22. As the second wave-feminism was to Marxism, the third-wave is a shallow and delayed version of post-marxism and post-modernism in general. It is pure Gramsci theory applied to sexes (or genders, as they call it), imposing cultural hegemony through the media, education and finally the state. The old marxist ideology is hidden behind the PC speech and contradictory discourse, for instance, rejecting labelling by adopting more labels. The forth-wave will probably be something like Badiou and Zizek, stating the return of openly marxist views.

    1. gramsci’s long march through the institutions does a lot to explain what is going on today. Subvert institutions & there’s no real need to win elections. (rule broken because she raised a relevant point about hegemony that nobody else seems to have mentioned)

  23. The best strategy is just to agree and amplify when called these names. If you get called a racist, don’t argue; you’ll never be able to use logic against this absurdity. Accept the label they give you and state your case. People’s fear of labels like “intolerant” and “homophobic” is what allows our opponents to effectively shut down discussion. Lose this fear, and they lose a lot of power.

    1. Exactly, defending yourself against this name-calling strategy is like letting the enemy choosing the battlefield.

  24. Wow, I laughed at the feminist parody because at first I thought it was a parody of the feminist agenda and attitude.
    In fact they were serious… mindfuck !!!

  25. The article’s author is a feminist. Instead of focusing on female privilege and entitlement in the West he focuses on supposed oppression in the East. The fact is there is NO society on Earth in which women have it worse than men. For every 1 female victim of violence in Afghanistan there are guaranteed to be at least 10 men who received the same treatment and worse (torture, murder, being forced to be suicide bomber, being forced to live under Taliban rules etc)
    He portrays “patriarchy” as an evil concept and basically agrees with feminists that male-dominated societies are a bad thing. This is utter nonsense. A patriarchy is the driving engine of a healthy civilization. When men are in charge of women, everyone’s needs are met, families are together, children are raised right.
    Patriarchy IS civilization
    Matriarchy or Feminism IS anti-civilization
    The Taliban isn’t a patriarchy it’s an Islamic State of living- no happiness for anybody
    Again, this author is just as clueless as a blue-pill guy and uses the same vague, undefined terminology that feminists do (like patriarchy)

  26. I find strange that concept of Cultural Marxism. It didn’t make it oversea, I only hear it from Americans.
    I don’t think Karl Marx or Marxists invented fallacious arguments, name calling and rewriting history, even if they were very exceptionally good at it.

    1. I also recognize how unfortunate the name is, but it is justified. The origins of cultural marxism are in a current of marxists that rejected traditional marxism. Check Gramsci

    2. Sexual Revolution, Identity politics, anti-family stance, beautification of migrants, multiculturalism, multiracialism. All Cultural Marxist phenomenon.

      1. Marx was self-hating jew, he criticized the jewish cabal, he supported German nationalism.
        Marxism is not incompatible with nationalism or traditionalism.
        Marxism is attacked for the wrong reasons. Cultural marxists are simply suicider whitey

  27. Never use left wing neologisms. Always reframe arguments in a way that leftist values are depreciated. For example, when accused of intolerance, the first thing to be done is to point out that tolerance is not a virtue, and some things should not be tolerated.

  28. Taliban can’t be all bad…after we baited the Soviets into invading we used the Taliban to fight a proxy war with the USSR. Remember the Zionist dominated media were calling them “freedom fighters”. Now they’ve all of sudden morphed into savages and sadists. Same with Saddam when we helped him fight the war against Iran.
    US foreign policy = whichever way the Zionist political wind is blowing.

    1. Yep. Like the “moderate rebels” in Syria who become “fanatic islamists” when they threaten the Kurdistan oil.

    2. the things Soviets did in Afghanistan would make Hitler cry… savages and sadists are not born, they are made…
      as for US foreign policy, it’s fairly simple in general. Petrodollar. Afgan was more about pipeline though.

  29. There is way too much mental straining going on here with all the possibilities of how to handle the feminist problem. There has only ever been one working solution that is feasible. One that only men could accomplish, something women themselves biologically do not have the detachment, aggressiveness, and guile to carry out in a clean and methodical manner. I’m going to stop there. When you can sacrifice your humanity and become a greater being, nothing can stop you, not even the police state’s bullets and gas, nor the heat and shrapnel from their drones’ bombs. Frightening to think such a creature could exist, but they do. Think about it. If you are resistant to modern human weapons, nothing can stop you. Look into this before you criticize me for being over the top.

  30. 1. I’m glad to know that someone still uses proper Greek, which the English language manages to butcher all the time.
    2. Tolerance has been warped into “putting up with other people’s drama”. I previously outed people before for their dramas and to be accused of intolerance is just asinine. You can only imagine the disgust how tolerance got warped.
    3. Typical lopsided misandry from the Angle woman; instead of owning up for her own mistakes, she blames it onto others. That exact kind of misandry did lead to Jack the Ripper in Victorian England.

    1. Ripper was no ordinary guy. It was rumored he was from house of nobility. Another psychopathic blueblood. He’d sneak back into the castle which is why he was never apprehended.

  31. You may have been taught that Fascism is about restricting freedom. That’s simply untrue, Fascism would never have appeared without Bolshevism triumphing in Russia.

  32. “Under sharia law, women over the age of 8 are no longer to receive an education. The ones who try (in secret of course) get acid thrown in their faces.”
    Unrelated to Cultural Marxism, but interesting nonetheless, is why the word “vitriol” is used to describe anger and hatred.
    The word comes from “vitriolic acid,” which in our very own culture, under the heavy hand of patriarchy when women had no rights, was used by women to harm men during the 1800’s. It was a known practice for women who had been jilted by a suitor to buy vitriolic acid, which was available in most general stores, and throw it in the face of the man who made a fool of her, scarring him for life. Women were rarely prosecuted for this crime.

  33. The word “homophobia” was invented in 1969, the same year as…what else? Hmmm. Oh yeah, the gay rights movement. What a coincidence, huh? It’s almost like they planned it like that. And the whole idea that being uncomfortable with homosexuality= latent gayness is absurd. Name one other area of human society where if you are uncomfortable with something, it means you actually, secretly think you are that thing. If I’m uncomfortable with Chinese people, does it mean I’m secretly afraid that I’m Chinese?

    1. Exactly. And pedophiles will very soon using the same “self-repressed” argument to attack those who hate them, and gain acceptance.

    2. Great point, that’s why this isn’t a “word” because it’s “meaning” is false, rather, its doublespeak or just a political vehicle. Either way, it must be destroyed and in the spirit of this post, none of us have to endure “homophobe” if we don’t want to. Another possible response if someone lobs this at you is to accuse them of hate-speech or slur. In the absolute, “homophobe” is still an unpleasant description someone can use for another, which makes it according to progressive dogma a slur.

  34. might be slightly off topic but if we’re comparing Afghanistan and the west. If Afghanistan is the grave of Empires, what is the west grave of?

  35. I have never heard feminists come to the aid of their sisters in Muslim countries, Africa and many parts of the third world where their rights count for little. And this is where it becomes clear, feminism in just part of a much larger minority victim culture hierarchy, where race, homosexual rights and religion trump feminism. Feminism trumps childrens rights, as the rights of women rank higher than those of children.

  36. I don’t know, this article is a little weak.
    First of all, that’s one of the lamest arguments around, to say, “Well, we’re better than Afghanistan” . That country has been in a state of war for the last 40 years. Some of the radicalism was actually encouraged by the US to counter the Soviets. Also its a very poor country. So yes we’re better, but thats not much.
    So i’m going to pay my employees in game tokens. Just be glad that you’re not in Borneo, where you get paid in beans. Thats a lame comparison.
    Second of all, there is a strong stream of political correctness in the US, but you haven’t shown its coming from “Cultural Marxists”. How about words like “Terrorism”, “Freedom” and “Support the troops”.
    The reality is these things aren’t coming from a few Marxists or the Frankfurt school. They are mainstream, and they are used to carefully control and restrict the populace. They are used to divide the country into two halves, so that they can fight each other and not see what is really going on.
    By focusing on these content-free phrases you have just fallen into that trap.
    Let me guess: you vote republican, you view liberals as evil, and you blame them for anything that you disagree with.
    Did i get it?
    Thought so.

    1. %-“Hey $, how’d you get into this trap?”
      $-“I was showing # where the trap was and fell in myself.”

    1. Yeah, it was a developed, functioning place which still had a lot of terrorism and violence, but it functioned rather well until extremists were able to take control.
      America will go the way of Afghanistan.

  37. Where do I go to get away from Communists, Freemasons, Jews, Muslim Fundamentalists, Occultists ect and all the utter shit these groups spew?

  38. Bitches don’t know how good they have it over here. Also can we get a vid of big red holding a meeting like this in front of a masque in the middle east? I’d love to see how the Muslims would react.

  39. A woman recently told me, “…. I learned that if it’s got tires or testicles you can’t rely on it.” I told her, “You could if you bothered to service it regularly!” I trumped her alliteration with euphemism….you’ve gotta love language.

  40. Good article, I would say “homophobe” is the main go-to ad hominem for the left. Except one thing I didn’t think was correct – the author’s use of the word “patriarchy”. Ironically, Cultural Marxists have turned the word “patriarchy” into something to automatically be identified as “bad”, “the ultimate evil”, etc. When in reality, patriarchal societies can and do function well, such as Western society in the 1950s and previous decades (women under men’s protection and guidance). So I don’t feel that the Afghanistan example demonstrates what a patriarchy looks like at all – but rather it is an example of, as the author stated, “sadism” (and I would also add, real “oppression”).

Comments are closed.