What Is Cultural Marxism?

Any man who may care to look at history will find it obvious that nations have always been the products of their people, and not once the way around. Therefore, it is just as obvious that the first step in maintaining the status and character of a nation must be to preserve the brand of men who made it that way. While we continue to debate these self-evident truths; our enemies have learned to exploit them as part of their doctrine. The war they wage is no longer fought with guns, artillery, and air support, but rather with information. Their front is cultural and their mission, covert.

Postmodern ideologies have for decades challenged the traditional family structure, faith, and culture of Western society. Thus, replacing the backbone and identity of nations, leaving them susceptible to dramatic changes that were once unfathomable under the traditional values in place. What is important to note is that these changes are not the result of coincidence, but rather the opposite.

A rarity today

Neo-Marxist intellectuals as early as the 1920s understood it was imperative to their cause to put forth an effort to intrinsically change the populaces of the West. As far-fetched and improbable as this approach may seem, keep in mind the only alternative was a military victory. And that would demand nothing short of an act of God.

Where communism failed militarily and economically; it triumphed culturally by entering through the back door. Cultural Marxism can be defined as:

The gradual process of destroying all traditions, languages, religions, individuality, government, family, law and order in order to re-assemble society in the future as a communist utopia. This utopia will have no notion of gender, traditions, morality, god or even family or the state.

This excerpt provides a more in-depth introduction into cultural Marxism and one of its chief proponents, Antonio Gramsci. During his years as a prisoner, Gramsci filled 32 notebooks with his political and philosophical meditations on how Marxist theory could be applied practically to the conditions of advanced capitalism.

Gramsci accepted Marx’s assertion that perpetual struggle between the ruling class and the subordinate working class was the driving mechanism that ultimately made social progress possible. But he rejected the notion that direct physical coercion by police and armies was the method of choice for achieving and maintaining victory in that struggle. Rather, Gramsci held that if a population at large could, for a period of time, be properly indoctrinated with a new “ideology”—specifically, a set of values, beliefs, and worldviews consistent with Marxist principles — a Marxist system could be sustained indefinitely and without coercion or force. In short, Gramsci held that Marxists needed to focus their efforts on gaining “hegemony” (i.e., control or dominion) over the core beliefs of non-Marxist societies; to change the population’s understanding of what constitutes basic “common sense.” Such a development, said Gramsci, would never occur naturally as a result of some inexorable, unseen, “historical laws” that Marx had accepted as axiomatic.

Rather, Gramsci asserted that Marxism’s potential for transforming society was wholly dependent upon the willful initiative of activists committed to using a “reversal strategy” designed to establish a “counter hegemony”—i.e., an alternative dominant worldview—in opposition to the existing capitalist framework. Specifically, Gramsci called for Marxists to spread their ideology in a gradual, incremental, stealth manner, by infiltrating all existing societal institutions and embedding it, largely without being noticed, in the popular mind.

This, he emphasized, was to be an evolutionary, rather than a revolutionary, process that, over a period of decades, would cause an ever-increasing number of people to embrace Marxist thought, until at last it achieved hegemony. Gramsci described this approach as a “long march through the institutions”. Among the key institutions that would need to savage were the cinema and theater, the schools and universities, the seminaries and churches, the media, the courts, the labor unions, and at least one major political party. According to Gramsci, these institutions constituted society’s “superstructure,” which, if captured and reshaped by Marxists, could lead the masses to abandon capitalism of their own volition, entirely without resistance or objection.

Arts and Entertainment

The cinema and theater are evident instruments of America’s cultural demise. Hollywood is primarily responsible for the loss of innocence in America. We willingly allow our children to be constantly exposed to violent, immoral, and sexually explicit films and TV shows. Popular music is no different. As our tolerance for obscenity increases, what was once unacceptable has now become standard.

Young Minds

American universities are perhaps the most liberal institutions on Earth. Affirmative action has reversed discrimination. Students are now force fed nihilistic, anti-white, anti-male, and anti-religious, propaganda promoting false ideals of equality and acceptance of everyone and everything regardless of how wicked and wretched it may be.

We are coaxed into believing that objective knowledge does not exist and that therefore we should avoid imposing opinions on things that cannot be quantified. Common sense has since been murdered. Mozart is no longer superior to Nicki Minaj. And a culture that follows traditional values is no longer preferable to one that condones drug dealing, excessive materialism, and rap music. Also, I fear being labeled a racist or white supremacist for having these views. There is no bipartisanship in higher education, and the effects are visible in the political leanings of the educated.

Religious Structures

The seminaries and churches are diminishing in prevalence and significance. Materialism has effectively replaced God. Merry Christmas now offends people. Religious tolerance has confused the masses into forgetting that this is first and foremost a Christian nation.

Information and Influence

The mainstream media is exclusively leftist, and the same can be said about modern culture in general. Dozens of celebrities threatened to leave the country in the event of a Trump victory (why you don’t give children participation medals), only to learn the countries they wished to immigrate to have rigorous immigration processes.

Don’t worry, Hillary will get a participation medal

The Law

The courts have also contributed to our demise, with the legalization of gay marriage being a small stepping stone in what is to come. The issue of transgender bathrooms is now picking up steam. Political correctness inhibits my 1st amendment right to have views contradictory to the left. Facebook now decides what constitutes legitimate news in addition to having 71 gender options. I can lose my job and any legitimacy I may have for publicly making anti-gay comments. I am now forced to think twice about defending my faith, race, and heritage.

Government Policy

The rise of Bernie Sanders is a testament to the influence, reach, and the resurgence of socialist ideology. Millennials supported Bernie Sanders more so than any other candidate. The demise of Christianity and the patriarchal family unit has left an inescapable void in the lives of many. Failed social welfare programs have fostered countless into relying wholeheartedly on the government for support. Increased government dependency naturally cultivates an environment in which communist sentiment can thrive and propagate. The era of Democrats and Republicans is over. The next great power struggle will be between Populists and Socialists. “The long march through the institutions” has entered its final stages.

Although the situation in America is very deranged, it is dwarfed in comparison to the crisis in Europe. We don’t have millions of uncivilized brutes pouring into our borders each year. Our immigrants tend to assimilate much quicker and fuller. According to a study conducted by Oxford Professor David Coleman, Caucasians will be a minority in England by the 2060s. A similar study carried out by the Brookings Institute estimates the same will occur in America by the 2040s. The most tragic component of this Trojan Horse story is the sad truth that the people have lost the will to fight for their existence and that of their cultures. Two possibilities exist: Either they are too distracted by the Kardashians, Snapchat, and Fantasy Football to even know what’s going on, or their drug induced fantasies have replaced their need to care about the real world.

Today, America is nothing more than an economical residence. There is no commonality amongst its people other than finances. A divided people are less inclined to self-sacrifice, and without it, higher existence is unfeasible. In multicultural states, no one cares about the community they live in, but just their place in it. Nationalism must be defeated but once, while globalism can triumph after a million fails.

A dictatorship is as efficient as its leader in the same fashion a democracy is as good as its common man. The modern common man is a testament to our plateau as a people and as a society.

Read More: What’s Worse: Cultural Marxism Or Real Communism? 

221 thoughts on “What Is Cultural Marxism?”

    1. OK, good try, thoug Cerno is married to a persian, and…no pic For Henry, Jacob and David ?????

    2. Milo saying the alt-right is not about white-nationalism was the last straw for me with regards to these guys.
      He’d rather go in front of rooms of 20 year-old kids and tell them about how much he likes getting fucked up the ass by black men.
      The next step is for whites to organize. Anything else is just more talk and no action.

      1. Milo is just trying to save his butt, because, he knows that when the Muslims take over in the future, the gays will be the first victims of the new order. They’ll be got rid en masse, then any females who dare to speak their own minds, dye their hair, and have independent thoughts of any kind will be disciplined in accordance with the teachings in the Koran.
        And so they shall reap what they sow and the bitter, blue dyed tears shall wash their faces for the glorious days of their great former leader, President Trump, who saw it all come! (In the year 2045)

        1. Far from it. Muslim countries practise rampant levels of homosexuality, albeit which young boys, which Milo has stated he experienced as a child and thinks should be legalised.

        2. “the gays will be the first victims of the new order.”
          It would be more pleasant if the first victims were “gays and lesbians” !

        3. That’s because they don’t consider it homosexual if you are the one on top. That’s why they can rape a boy or teenage boy and consider them to be homosexual, while they remain heterosexual. I read one day that this 17 year old kid was in Saudi Arabia, he was a blonde hair young man who looked very youthful, he couldn’t walk the streets without older men hitting on him, so much so, he needed an escort to walk around.

      2. Milo is not alt-right. He just used the movement as a vehicle to promote his career when the mainstream media incorrectly fingerd him as it’s leader. The alt-right is a leaderless movement working in the collective interest’s of white people with European heritage.
        Below is a sample press conference by the alt-right if you are interested in how it differs from the likes of Milo.

        1. Thanks, I’ve recently been tuning into this conference actually.
          This to me seems a lot more like the right direction, and I’m happy to see the far-reaching connections being made such as Jason Jorjani from Iran. It’s honest and gets right to the bottom line issues of importance.
          Milo championed free speech throughout Trump’s campaign but it seems he has reached the limits of what he is willing to talk about.

        2. If you’re into it, I suggest redice.tv as a repository for Alt-right news and interviews. We’re not a bunch of basement dwelling ne’er-do-wells as some would have us be portrayed as.

      3. Why not start with masculinity and nationalism?
        Focusing on white nationalism is going to ostracize a lot of men who would otherwise have your back. Not because there’s anything inherently wrong with it but because we already have a full plate just fighting feminism and globalism.
        A lot of men will react in a knee-jerk kind of way when you start separating yourselves by race. I think at this moment, it’s counter productive. There’s nothing wrong with defending yourself as a white man.
        Your greatest adversary is white women because they know how to co-opt the SJW issues of other races and (confused) genders. You’re not going to win this on race because half of your men are complete pussies and sell outs.

        1. “Why not start with masculinity and nationalism?”
          Because Donald Trump went through living hell to push for civic nationalism and he is still called a fascist. I don’t think rational debate matters anymore. When half of America hears “Let’s put America first!” I think they just stick to their identity politics but put on an exterior of pleasantness. I think the future of American politics is going to be nothing but antagonism and strife.
          I want to find some race realists in real life simply for the purpose of survival. I’m not expecting people to engage in rational debate on a societal scale. I think that can only work when basic human needs are already accounted for.

      1. Because Whites are the only ethnicity that fights against their own interests; and we can’t comprehend that literally no other group thinks the same way. I’m beginning to think it’s something genetic.

    3. Shhhhhhh ! The First rule about the repitlians: you don’t talk about the reptilians.
      Repeat after me:
      הלקוח שילם לפרוצה 300 דולרים.

      1. orthodox jews are unlikely to have anything to do with cultural marxism. They are easy targets because they look different

        1. if they are haredim, then presumably they would be against anything that could be described as cultural marxism – obviously there the occasional accusation that jews may favour something for others but not themselves but that would presumably contradict the idea that everybody, jew or gentile, is supposed to abide by noahide laws. I might be getting that confused, but the point I’m making is that there seems to be a Sabbatean element in a great deal of what is called ‘cultural marxism’ – that is the turning the world upside down element. That element may be more or less present amongst the differing jewish groups, but I would expect it to be prominent amongst haredi or orthodox groups. Here is a quote from the wikipedia article on Haredi:
          “Haredi Judaism coalesced in response to the sweeping changes brought upon the Jews in the modern era: emancipation, enlightenment, the Haskalah movement derived from enlightenment, acculturation, secularization, religious reform in all its forms from mild to extreme, the rise of the Jewish national movement, etc.[5] In contrast to Modern Orthodox Judaism, which hastened to embrace modernity, the approach of the Haredim was to maintain a steadfast adherence both to Jewish Law and custom by segregating themselves from modern society.”

        2. I would say that depends on whether cultural marxism and progressivism is the same thing. There may certainly be an overlap. Zuckerberg ticks all the progressive liberal boxes (especially if he has the same views as his sister (the one who fancies Roosh). I don’t know who the second guy is. Bernie Sanders is probably too much off a classical marxist to be called a cultural marxist – I would say out of the two Hillary was more the CM than Bernie, who probably appealed more to the traditional working class (+ radical progressive students). Soros I would be inclined to allow. Ideologically he is not explicitly marxist, culturally or economically, but His Open Society supports every kind of ultra-progressive cause

        3. The second is Jon Stewart (((Liebowitz))). The two episodes of his program I slogged through say to me he’s tied into the whole CM thing.
          But as a rule I’ve ignored these guys. Progressivism and CM are certainly connected, as you note, but there may be more distinction than I have previously allowed.

        4. I fully acknowledge that there are normal Jews out there… And probably a very many blue-pill Jews who just have no clue.
          But I’m not going to get into these fine details. You often have the deeper and more refined analysis MM, but the big realization here for me is that there are generations of Jews who do not see themselves as part of the European/American tradition, who have made significant profits through treasonous actions.
          Until this general basic fact can be openly discussed I am not interested in all the minutiae to be bluntly honest.

        5. “the big realization here for me is that there are generations of Jews who do not see themselves as part of the European/American tradition, who have made significant profits through treasonous actions.”
          that’s pretty much true, although it may be more complex than just profit: profiteering, zionism, messianism may partly be an expression of an existential insecurity that reinforces itself both externally and internally – (defence against) anti-semitism is unfortunately a much bigger part of jewish identity that it should be. The problem I think is that collective blame and collective exoneration work very similarly – if any group perceives attack en masse that attack (or the perception of that attack) will reinforce a collective defence quite regardless of whether 99% or 50% of jews or whatever are innocent of whatever they accused of. Feminism has very successfully managed to blame men collectively for things that a minority of men do, or have done, and there is my opinion a danger of going down the same path – I think it is both unjust and bad tactics to go down that path, even if has worked in the short-term perhaps.
          There are however areas which are clearly jewish salient (as there are for Islam etc.) yet cannot be spoken without ramifications for career etc.) You are absolutely correct that it should be possible to speak of such issues openly and straight-forwardly, but as will see from all the little anti-semitic memes even on this comments thread that’s a very difficult thing to make happen. Both anti-semites and and antifas share a common interest in keeping things as distasteful and as combative as possible. It doesn’t help that the jewish world is enormously – and I think for the most part genuinely – complex

        6. that lampshade gif: how could you not win an argument with such a rhetorically subtle flourish. The SPLC must love you and hate you in equal measure

        7. I’m in the UK so I haven’t seen much of Jon Stewart. Jews tend as a whole to be far more socially liberal than everyone else, and there are certainly historic reasons for that. How far communism / marxism can be mapped onto progressivism is more complex. There are certainly some points of contact, but one could perhaps exaggerate them

        8. you should definitely apply to the diplomatic corps….or maybe some kind of counselling career or something

        9. I spent a day on the samaritans hotline once
          4 people comitted suicide – 2 of which called by mistake

        10. Well; it’s voluntary so there’s no cash
          but I make sure I get their address’ so I can ransack their houses, to feed my meth and hentai addiction – it’s the right thing to do

        11. Good post.
          “anti-semitism is unfortunately a much bigger part of jewish identity that it should be”
          I think this is a really important point. It seems that their entire identity is wrapped up in being victims… which to a certain degree is true… but like SJWs they use this to dodge any legitimate criticism in the public sphere, and this is one thing I am currently frustrated about.
          Also as an aside, I genuinely think that on average Jews, mainly Ashkenazi, are not blessed with the same kind of physical vitality as Europeans, and this only compounds their lived frustration. I have met many frail Jews who are entirely intellectual and do not find any solace whatsoever in eroticism. Many Europeans in contrast find peace through beauty and simplicity I would argue. Thus I can understand some of the visceral dislike Jews have for Western men when they reach their highest ideals.
          “Feminism has very successfully managed to blame men collectively for things that a minority of men do, or have done, and there is my opinion a danger of going down the same path – I think it is both unjust and bad tactics to go down that path, even if has worked in the short-term perhaps.”
          So you’re saying that the Alt-Right is pushing too hard on the Jewish Question? I’ll tell you why I both agree and disagree with you here. I agree that persecuting a whole group based on the actions of their corrupted few is wrong. I have no quarrel with Jews as individuals. I do believe however that Jews have a distinct moral and spiritual sense compared to whites and I wanted them to understand that Western men have interests distinct from their own, and that they have no right to speak on behalf of white people’s interests.
          I think the JQ is valuable to press on at this moment in time because it demonstrates that the sitcom version of white identity that has been pushed by the (((MSM))) for the last decade or so is not true white identity. If white people are to discover a sense of themselves as an ethnic group, they should turn to their histories rather than the cultural slop that is being pushed on them everyday. To see themselves as distinct from Jewish media propaganda I think is an important step. I’m saying this from the point of view of living in metropolitan Toronto however, which has been almost completely socially re-engineered compared to white Christian rural America for instance.
          “Both anti-semites and and antifas share a common interest in keeping things as distasteful and as combative as possible.”
          This is why I am leaning towards the Richard Spencer side of the manosphere lately. I think he genuinely wants to resolve these issues through diplomacy rather than violence. I am even starting to consider that perhaps Hitler himself didn’t want the level of violence that ensued in WWII, and perhaps it was his less visionary subordinates that lost themselves in the carnage.
          I think there are gains right now with bringing some of these issues to light. The whole Pepe thing I essentially see as the modern Dadaist art of today’s counter-culture youth (as small or large a group as they may be), and it has managed to bring the JQ into public discussion without a violent character. I see this as promising.
          I don’t want to ignore the JQ because there are a few radicals in the alt-right. There are going to be radicals in all factions no matter what, but at some point you need to decide where you really stand.

        12. In the early 1900s the Jews inflicted communism on the West, resulting in the wars and ~100 million White deaths. 100 years later it’s multicult, and it will end the same way.
          If there’s another holocaust I’m sure Jews 200 years from now will look back and wonder why people hated them so much.

        13. thanks. I think you raise some fair points in the above. A sense of historical victimhood may be a part of that identity, including with regard to making a moral claim to the high-ground, but I see the sense jews have of being historically persecuted (and ‘othered’ within the wider gentile world whether by exclusion or by choice) as being part of a self-identity that is highly ‘defended’ in nature. Jews are very aware they have a rich culture and history beyond the fact of persecution and I see no reason why they should not seek a more positive (and I think therefore less damaging) basis for self-identification.
          As you suggest Jews do seem to have a have a distinct moral and spiritual sense – a very complex one at that – and one which seems to permit them and indeed require them to engage in the world with a particularly jewish perspective – I hesitate to say agenda, although in terms of things like tikkun olam etc there is something like a jewish agenda: the world won’t repair itself…and you can’t exactly leave it to the goy, can you? I jest but it’s a serious issue. Jews are too used to being the leadership and setting the agenda – often for secularised but nonetheless – quasi messianic / religious reasons. The problem here is that other peoples are necessarily affected, and not all of those peoples are cool with jews as the ‘light of the nations’ (particularly if they believe that in some cases they may be being exploited (e.g. by jewish financiers etc).
          The problem here isn’t necessarily with the ideas and agendas themselves to the extent that they compete with other ideas and agendas within the wider marketplace but that their influence has been so pervasive that it’s hard to think that it can be considered either democratic or in any genuine way consensual. Indeed one might ask how could an overwhelming influence of such a small minority be truly democratic or consensual?
          The MSM, Hollywood etc. may or may not be “controlled” by jewish companies etc., but there is certainly an inordinate jewish influence. Personally I don’t believe in communism (expropriation of private property etc), so there’s no reason why that has to change, but when you have people like Patricia Arquette, who is jewish, complaining that Hollywood is too white, male and heterosexual, while overlooking the fact that Hollywood is arguably fairly jewish in character, before it is white, or male or heterosexual, then it’s difficult not to think that there is a problem of fairness involved: why is there a discussion of white male privilege (which is historically real, but substantially reduced) but not of jewish privilege (which is both historically real and very much still in place)?
          I don’t like the phrase the Jewish Question to be honest, mainly because of it’s association with the nazis and because it seems to assume these issues are jewish wide rather than concerns that may have a jewish connexion. Moreover the notion of a jewish question suggests that there is an answer. That leads us back to the nazi’s answer to that question, which of course was the ‘final solution’ i.e. asking that question leads back to the kind of logic that both permits the possibility of violence (and notionally of the ultimate form of violence: genocide) as well as in so doing, reinforces the peculiarly defended nature of jewish identity which above I’ve considered to be part of the problem preventing jews from simply enjoying being jews, part of a culturally and historically significant people, amongst many others such ‘nations’. In some sense I quite enjoy occasionally dipping into haaretz or other israeli rags as they are fairly open about talking about jewish issues, including some of the things that one still can’t talk about openly in the western world. So you have a paradox: the jewish world won’t relax to allow things to be talked about openly until they feel ‘secure’ enough to do so, yet as things are more openly addressed they feel increasingly insecure? How does one solve that?
          I’m mixed race myself so I’m in two minds about white nationalism, but I am not without sympathy. I haven’t really seen much stuff by Spencer but when I have seen him speak he seems eminently reasonable – probably the reason he gets so much flak. Personally I don’t care for a revolution, just a bit more openness to discuss issues that affect people – I see these as legitimate issues of democracy. We’ve had white male heterosexual privilege, now maybe it’s time to to continue the same logic – whatever it’s flaws – and consider other types of privilege that continue to work so effectively precisely because they don’t tend to get spoken about. To some extent that’s already happening with respect to women breaking away from feminism to join the manosphere to talk about female privilege (for what it’s worth at least) and I actually quite hope that jews will follow suit and put themselves forward for a leadership role in that respect too

    4. ROK has many fine authors and is the vanguard of Red Pill ideas. The only drawback is that we have to suffer morons like you. How about an original thought someday mensch?

    5. I find this chart confusing. Ezra Levant, Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Gavin McInness, even Milo, are all courageous, unafraid to present truth and buck the MSM narrative. Are you saying that there is a puppet master behind those who expose the truth that the MSM ignores?
      Am I missing something?

    6. Blaming jews as a whole is illogical. Blaming marxist jews is preferable.
      The Lord is with the nation of Israel.

      1. Jews in general have been kicked out of 109 countries. There is something physiologically and psychologically wrong with them in general. Stop shilling for Jews. I don’t want to kill any of them, I just want to reverse the diaspora and send their asses back to the barren wasteland they came from.

    7. In defense of Rebel Media and Paul Joseph Watson, they are building their businesses on YouTube, a 3rd party site. One mention of a racist or anti-semitic comment and their entire business can be shut down which would result in the majority of their income stream drying up.
      So if you don’t hear either Rebel or Paul mention (((them))), that’s why.

    8. It came from the now defunct Soviet Union. People think the coldwar was all about spies running around in trenchcoats stealing secrets, when it was actually about spreading Communist ideology or countering it depending on what side you were on.
      McCarthy was right in that Communists where everywhere but he was wrong in the assertion that they were KGB assets. The real agents were engaged in education, counter-culture, anti-war movements and formented race conflicts between blacks and whites.
      The Korean war, Vietnam and Bay of Pigs conflict were about stopping the spread of Communism with military intervention but where this doctrine failed was at the homefront.

  1. Isn’t it amazing how virtually every single celebrity appears to be a liberal. There are a few exceptions, sure, but those few are relentlessly vilified by the media.
    Now this begs the question – do people become well-known celebrities because they are liberals? In other words, do the power brokers only choose to promote liberals, into the position where they become household names, and highly visible? Or are they merely acting out a role, and provided a script by those very same power brokers? (Or does it all just happen by, um, you know, “coincidence”?)
    Check out Miley’s upper-thigh area in the featured photo for this article, which I highlighted below. Looks like she was riding a horse prior to her performance, what with those shocking bruises being amply evident. (Miley is a liberal, too, which is also an utter and complete shock.)

    1. Her daddy Billy Ray claims her handlers limit his contact with her…Im starting to believe all these nutty stories about that town are more fact than fiction…

        1. No coincidences here…but I’m sure you know that. A good, congruent read is the vigilante citizen website. They go in detail about all of the coincidences in Hollyweird. These forces have finally entered the eastern front through k pop too. So their demise is scheduled for soon after their rise. Very g i joe, after school cartoon type shit but pretty effective to people with child like attention spans

        2. It’s hard not to believe at least a portion when it’s just the same story over and over. Child stars that are traumatized and strung out. Numerous accounts of pedophilia. For a while I wondered why. Why the predilection of abusing kids was so prevalent. That is the right question to ask. Not if, but why. When you research that, you find the end game.

        3. Good read. Very good read. Especially for the uninitiated. I mentioned the elites to a girlfriend at the time and she turned and looked me in the eye and asked “what’s the difference? Why does it matter if they exist?” I told her about the thousands of children that go missing just in America every year and where they most likely are. How Catholic priests are most likely affiliated with this because of their “fruit”. And if these most high holy men, unimpeachable in thought for most layman are involved in such a thing as sex magick, then it’s not a far stretch to think politicos and celebs don’t partake if they desire power. There’s a war going on. Them vs everybody

      1. probably same with politicians – they are diddlers/and/or gay…
        given conduit for cash and fame
        but blackmailed into shilling for the left.
        its a beard, beard world

    2. Yes. Take Tom Hanks for example. That guy spewed liberal garbage in the media not long ago about Trump. I believe these “celebrities” are told by their managers and know that they better make liberal statements or they will never work in Hollywood again. So what you end up with is a Tom Hanks that might be saying one thing, but in reality probably thinks something quite the opposite inside his head. Bill Clinton might say the “N” word inside his head all the time. What he really thinks and the policies he represented are probably two different things. Same with celebrities.

      1. Leonardo’s ‘climate change’ Oscar acceptance speech was just cringe worthy mouth-piece stuff.

      2. yes, but you have to understand it’s a cultural movement and once you have $XM in the bank and a position of fame and “respect” – then it’s easy to sit back and fall into more left leaning fashionable ideals… it’s not necessarily all manipulated and controlled – it’s a fashion – it’s a think with the heart not the head attitude. Going right back to Lenin, it was easy to market ideals to the down trodden and minorities and back the so called underdog – it’s now gone full circle where the underdog has become a menace.

    3. There is an element of that – power brokers choosing to promote as celebrities those who are already or may be co-erced into expressing liberal views. But I have to believe that people who are artistic and have a need for love and acceptance by strangers, are people who see the world as they WANT it to be, according to how they FEEL. They lack the cold, analytical knowledge that the nature and the universe is as it IS, not how we WANT it to be. It’s an uncomfortable truth.
      The brilliant Bill Warner, on his site https://www.politicalislam.com/annihilating-art-civilization/, talks about how the left-leaning artist class has a reflexive, automatic need to support Islam. Curious thing, that, as Islam has waged a war on art for 1400 years, and will obliterate all that the artist holds sacred.

  2. There is one, single word I was looking for in this whole article, but I could not find it.
    The word I was looking for starts with the letter ((( J )))!

  3. Cultural Marxism: Mediocrity (education system), banality (entertainment/media), group think (marches, protests, celebrity culture), high group dependent people (use of mobile phones, checking in with the wife every second when out), high State dependent people (cult that no one’s ever wrong “we’re all victims”)
    Goal of cultural Marxism- destruction of the Nation, individual and any extra metaphysical assumptions about life and our place in the universe.

      1. It’s kind of amusing how the most abstract and ephemeral thing in most peoples lives, namely money, has the greatest power to affect them.
        You’ll never defeat them until you see through the plain, hollow heart of this ridiculous abstraction.

  4. This is a great primer for the misinformed. We need to stop calling em libs, and call em what they are- marxists

    1. We can now be a lot more specific in our name calling / identifying than the term Marxists. Too vague.

    1. The mob, those unruly Italian-American gangsters, like [[Meyer Lansky]] in your other graphic.

  5. Its the jews ,the globalists no false it s the common man and a cycle of civilizations they start tough get weakened and then are replaced
    Of course the mentioned factors have a role but i fear that is human nature nothing noble in it .But this time not only cities will burn but the people will too

  6. Besides Cultural Marxism, outright Marxism is becoming quite open and popular.
    See for example the Antifa logo flags with Red for Marxists and Black for Anarchists. (I wonder what would happen if they succeeded: I imagine the day after ‘The Revolution’ these two factions would turn on each other. Maybe they haven’t thought it through that far.)

    1. The commies always slaughter the anarchists. Communism doesn’t brook self-determination of any kind….except for leaders & billionaires

    2. A good example is the Spanish civil war, the communists massacred the anarchists in the middle of the war. And then came Franco.

  7. Cultural Marxism was created and funded by the Luciferian elite of billionaires as a means of destroying any resistance to their new world order.
    Their system is much like China’s: libertarian economics for the billionaires and cultural marxism to control the masses.

    1. Very insightful comment. Also important to differentiate between Luciferianism and Satanism — as both are key to understanding the Ruling Elite’s hive mind.

      1. Yes, perhaps, but the differences may or may not always be clear. Satanism may stand on its own, or as a specifically antinomian ‘negative’ or occasionally even nihilist creed, or one that focuses specifically on the needs of man as ego and desire. With Luciferianism you have something that may or may not be (ideologically) compatible or interchangeable, the focus being again on man, but as someone with a destiny for material / spiritual progress and enlightenment For the most part Satanism seems like the negative moment, Luciferianism the ‘positive’, styling itself as responsible for progress and enlightenment.

        1. Good points. But more simplified, I see Luciferianism as what the less psychopathic Elites identify with and use to justify the destruction of the rest of us for their so-called spiritual & intellectual (but mainly materialistic) progress. For example, these people likely don’t enjoy (and perhaps try to avoid) raping and killing children. Luciferianism is more philosophical / ideological w/ a nod to classical Egyptian / Greek / Roman times. Luciferians are truly elitist. A Luciferian is more likely to act and look “classy” and not desecrate their bodies. Think Gucci suit by day, white or colorful robes by night.
          On the other hand, Satanism is fully embraced by the completely psychopathic Elites and their underlings, who use the rituals and sacrifices of animals and children to gain power via appeasing what they believe are demons (or Satan’s helpers). In fact, these people may by possessed by such entities, who apparently feed on the energetic emotions of fear, terror, pain, etc. Satanism is more practical in that it is based on actual instructions on how to contact / appease / command demonic entities for the purposes of attaining more power, money and influence in the material world. It’s based on the Cabbala and other related “mystical or (black) magic” texts. Satanists are truly evil in orientation, and although they may have a thin outer veneer of respectability, desecration of their bodies is a hallmark — highly symbolic tattoos, piercings, scarring, dramatic hair / body hair styling. They prefer black or dark clothing by day, black robes with Baphomet symbology by night.

        2. One of the interesting things about Luciferianism and Satanism is that their meaning and practice, including with respect to their moral implications, may be made deliberately ambiguous. This is in line with the exoteric / esoteric distinction with so much of the occult / western esoteric tradition and the fact that both can involve very different kinds of practice. Indeed as far as I can tell it is possible to be both a Luciferian and a Satanist – or at least I think it should be. The terms are sometimes used interchangibly, and in this they are probably following the Christian tradition that may or may not distinguish between the two. There is an issue of identity even in the bible, and depending on who you read Satan and Lucifer may be the same entity or quite different ones. It doesn’t help that both Lucifer and Jesus may be referred to as the morning star as both are claimed to be ‘bringers’ of light, although only the former is likely to be associated with illumination or enlightenment. The question then arises what kind of light; and from what kind of star?
          Luciferians tend I think to regard themselves as deriving their sense of morality from the idea of progress, or evolution. Lucifer is often identified with Prometheus the God who was cast out for disobeying Zeus and giving fire (enlightenment?) to mankind. Likewise the Serpent in the garden of evil may be regarded as evil insofar as he corrupted mankind and was instrumental in the fall, but from the point of view of the Luciferian and the Satanist by this reading what mankind gained was knowledge. Hence the moral high ground is claimed for Lucifer / Satan as the entity driving progress.
          I think it’s important to consider this, not because it’s correct (necessarily) but because it is this type of claim, this esoteric meaning to the Luciferian / Satanic tradition that is missed when we focus on Luciferians or Satanists as necessarily evil and engaging in nasty activities.
          Now that does not mean that the dark side that we are more familiar with is not genuinely dark, or even monstrous, or indeed that the light in question of which they speak is actually illuminating, but that when one knows them by their alleged misdeeds, including reputedly murderous misdeeds, one may or may not be being fair or accurate. I am pretty sure that some Luciferians understand their creed in terms of the above kind of thinking and would claim to be humanist or moral on such a basis. Their beef is likely to be with traditional religion, or with tradition full stop, or with patriarchy, etc etc. If that is so and their position is in error in some or other fashion, then if we can only argue against that position if we understand it. I suspect that many of them are happy for their creeds and practices to be misrepresented for this reason. Exoteric misunderstanding works to reinforce the esoteric core.
          Satanism likewise may or may not be misunderstood. In its own way many satanists claim to be moral, and claim not to hurt people or animals, unless they have a very good reason to do so. Of course this may be just what they claim. There are certainly murderous satanists out there, who do very bad things, but whether they are the same ‘creature’ is another thing. What I think is true is that occultists and satanists in particular may well practice things like sex magic(k) (popularised by crowley) which may involve some notion of sacrifice and / or re-direction of sexual / life-force energy. Again one has to be careful what one assumes here: sacrificing a child or a goat to Moloch may be efficiacious but so may be masturbating and spilling seed, or for that matter abortion – in fact I believe Crowley dabbled with but disliked animal sacrifice but opted instead for masturbation and (mainly) homosexuality. White and black magic(k) exists by this reading in balance to the same extent as the balance in the universe between good and evil. It is a somewhat disturbing but not illogical creed.
          As for demons / daemons, again this can have a exoteric and and esoteric meaning. Often the two meanings are not clearly distinguished to maintain perhaps a sense of indeterminacy. The daemon for some is a supernatural entity, something existing in a different or astral realm, or it may be understood in terms of some kind of psychic construct or archetype. Since their some suggestion here (at least in traditions like Jung’s) that there is a realm of the collective unconscious, the difference can potentially resolved at such a higher level.
          I have claimed that there is a sense in which satanism / luciferianism may be two sides of the same coin, even if their adherents may be different. I think one sense in which this may be true relates to the different functions of the two. Satanism is often associated with the left-hand path, and with negation. In the occult / hermetic sense, this might be related to the (revolutionary?) destruction of the old order just as the luciferian principle might be related to the construction of the new order – the evolution to the next level.

    2. I understood that cultural marxism originated in Germany as another tool to overthrow white christian nations and their governments, although it would be slow. The reason for it is that the Luciferian elite realized that a violent revolution of the Bolshevik flavor would not work in other western countries, especially the US. In Russia, they were able to agitate and divide the population and start a bloody civil war, then take over the government. I believe there have been attempts in history for this to happen, but it didn’t quite go the way the Luciferians wanted it. With all the racial riots in the 60s and 70s, it very well might have been intended by the Luciferians for it to break out into a much larger violent Bolshevik type of revolt, but it’s never worked. So cultural marxism was pushed.
      The two worse things ever installed in this country are welfare and affirmative action/EEO. Those two policies literally took God give natural power away from men, created a population of degenerative rats that are welfare products that produce nothing but crime and degeneracy, and created feminism in which women are given special privileges by law. To me, no matter what changes we make or how much we push back, nothing will ever truly change until welfare and affirmative action are completely banned and eliminated.

  8. The only thing you can do right now is to stop giving money to people that hate you. Netflix is next on my cancel list. When you look at Target, Kelloggs and their crash after pissing people with money off, you can see a trend.

    1. 1. Hollywood
      2. Music Industry
      3. Big Sugar
      4. Alcohol
      5. Vitamins/Supplement scam
      6. “3 square meals a day” scam
      7. Juice/Energy drink/herbal tea/sports drink industry scam
      8. All forms of media/24 hour news cycle
      9. Be buff/protein industry scam.
      10. Marriage industry; diamond/bloated wedding day/honeymoon/McMansion/Divorce lawyer/Gyno-worship divorce courts/alimony/child support/imputed income.
      11. Buying cars new scam.
      12. Housing industry
      Cut ALL of those out of your life at age 20 and you just scored yourself between 700k and 3 million dollars by the time you’re 55 years old. And all of those things in the list are pathogens anyway.

        1. I am all for abortion on demand for illiterate hood rats, trailer trash bottom feeders, crack whores. Why should my tax dollar$ go towards feeding the spawn of people who can’t buy condoms at the drug store. Every time these retards get an abortion, the ca$h regi$ter rings.

        2. In an ideal world we’d end welfare and demand accountability from parents. If they did’t want the baby they could give it up for adoption to a good home.
          Unfortunately that’s not how it is but I still can’t fathom abortion because “you feel like it.”.

  9. An article on Cultural Marxism and not a word about the Frankfurt school?
    By far the most notorious of the Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse in his book Eros and Civilization takes Freud’s views on sexuality – which claimed Christian morals distorted “authentic” sexuality and openly called for a society where the most sinful of sexual acts are considered normal.
    He also said perverted sexuality can help bring down capitalism and Christianity. His book played a huge role in the development of the American New Left, which gave us abortion on demand, feminism and homosexuality.
    Herbert Marcuse was Jewish, of course!

    1. There have been articles on the Frankfurt School before – quite recently I think. Gramsci was hugely influential, but a more marginal figure – not least because he was banged up most of the time. His ideas have been very influential and are part of the same dynamic

  10. I agree with some points but not with all of them.
    I’m not gonna give up my vidya games, and church needs to go, it was important 2000 years ago but now it impeding all technological and common sense progress.
    You can replace church with meditation, which have pretty much same role, but not preventing progress.
    I am against token minorities. They need to prove they’re equal, they should not get “equality” privilege. If you can prove you can do your job better than white male, do it. But if you can’t, don’t complain then. I’m not racist btw.

    1. An important question: progress from what, and toward what?
      Progress implies a path. We must be clear what we mean when it comes to progress, else we actually say nothing (e.g. driving south from Dallas is progress toward Mexico, but it is not progress toward NYC).
      Once we determine what the path is, we can see two things: are we actually on that path, and does that path actually have a destination we desire. This is the key debate side-stepped by the word “progress” in the modern rhetorical parlance.

        1. To paraphrase the Cheshire Cat, if you don’t know where you want to go, it doesn’t matter which way you go. Eventually you’ll get somewhere, if you only travel long enough.
          EDIT: The unedited reply was “Time will tell”. In that light, this is no more nonsensical than anything from Lewis Carroll’s books.

        2. These are not things solely opposed by the Church, though. Any student of science fiction (before the industry was cucked) knows that many philosophical thinkers outside the church have mused on the ramifications of these things, many quite unfavorably.
          Genetic engineering is an odd one, because we have no mastery in that area. We dabble, we fiddle, but our efforts so far have failed to determine just how our changes ripple throughout the organism. The two key arguments I know of in opposition to GE are the ethical similarities to eugenics (especially where GE involves humans) and the aforementioned problem of our lack of mastery.
          Cloning has some serious practical issues, many of which are not dissimilar to those found in application of fetal stem cells. For one reason or another, we have yet to find a way to artificially clone an organism reliably, without introducing tremendous entropy that jeopardizes quality of life. This is one of the two ethical concerns of cloning, the other of which is the problem of originality (not unlike the Transporter Problem).
          Finally, we have artificial AI. I have honestly never heard that the Church is opposed to it, but I suppose it could be the problem that the Church has no unified ruling body (the Catholics have theirs, the various Protestants have theirs, etc.), so a united stance on such an issue is difficult to ascertain. However, as an engineer I have reason to believe an artificial AI is not practical (at least, not in the way we usually think of them – beings of similar intelligence to humans, but with higher processing power and access). Furthermore, I would think the non-Christian movie The Terminator has done a better job challenging the notion of AI than the Church ever did.
          I want to wrap this up with the words of Chaos Theorist Ian Malcolm (Jurassic Park): “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

        3. Notice that none of the technologies that this “geek” mentioned is conductive to more freedom. All of them are wont to be used in further centralization efforts, whether genetic engineering (complete control of seeds and probably animals authorized to be raised in accordance to international standards), human reproduction (Gattacca will explain it far better than me) and AI (besides the massive displacement, progressive loss of capabilities, loss of privacy, consider the fact that if AI ever becomes self-conscious it will not hesitate to destroy us or least try….).
          He regards himself as intelligent but he is nothing more than an idiot.

    2. You can replace church with meditation, which have pretty much same role, but not preventing progress.

      So navelgazing is the path forward? Well at least we know the decline will continue.

  11. Blaming hollywood is so 1990s.
    Then the internet happened… now children grow up with access to hardcore porn 24/7.

    1. IMdB message boards are being shut down within a fortnight. Apparently that has to do with too much trolling or something. I rather suspect that the reason they’re shutting it down – IMdB is owned by Amazon, and therefore by Jeff Bezos who also owns the Washington Post – is because ‘dissident’ discussion on the IMdB boards actually works very effectively against the Hollywood propaganda / ideology machine.
      Hollywood is “so 1990s” only to the extent that it no longer functions as an effective ideology machine, and I’m afraid they haven’t given upon it yet

      1. For fucks sake your female family members are self publishing porn with their smartphones while you walk down to the corner to buy a newspaper from a kiosk, there’s a reason they call them stormcucks.

        1. Probably not. Call who ‘stormcucks’ btw?
          The rise of amateur porn is certainly a social phenomenon of great interest, but it isn’t in direct rivalry with the progressive ideological behemoth of Hollywood. How can you even the pernicious influence of Hollywood?

        2. fingering yourself while live-streaming it to the web isn’t new media any more. Netflix might well put an end to cinema, just as Sky etc put paid to Blockbuster, but if you think Hollywood (or equivalent) and it’s propaganda machine aren’t a part of that then it’s you are naive.

        3. “I try not to talk tech with middle age people.”
          Sounds good to me. I’m middle aged. But seriously, if you’re on this page, on this site, arguing that Hollywood doesn’t have a major impact on shaping our minds, it’s you who needs to wake up

        4. I tend to agree with you here and I don’t think this is a case of new media driving old media. I think it is much more complicated than that. Traditional media creates a world where this new media is a “thing”
          Though she is thoroughly despicable, I think Kim Kardashian and her career is something that is incredibly important to follow and has had more of an impact on american culture than every single person who has run for political office in the last 20 years lumped together. People talk about Trump and Clinton like they actually fucking matter when it is Kim K who is really driving this train.
          The thing is, it is easy to understand it in terms of her creating some kind of gonzo porn industry where every girl kisses her daddy goodnight and then live streams herself taking a dildo in the ass. It is happening all over the country. These girls think it is “cool”
          But it doesn’t exist in a bubble. The foundation needed to be put down by the moving force in america which is traditional media.
          It reminds me of Hegel in the logic of science when he explains how juvenile our concept of causation is. This causes that? What are we 10? The cause of the cause is the effect of the cause. For instance, a hammer causes a bang while the bang causes the hammer to exist qua bang-maker. There isn’t a timeline that flows point to point. It is fluid and all tied up in one larger systemic unity.

        5. well, you’ve covered a lot of ground there. Wasn’t that familiar with Hegel’s concept of causality, but as far as I can gather he doesn’t seem to care too much for separating out causes from effects outside of his take on the dialectic of history. He must be right as I still can’t see quite how a meditation on Kim Kardashian dildoing her ass could causally connect to Hegel’s science of logic. Of course time’s arrow might not just flow from past to future, and Kim might indeed be using a double-ended dildo. I guess it’s all about the direction of the information flow. If causality isn’t as simple as we think then I suppose neither is morality either.
          Re. Hollywood and new media, I don’t think we’ve moved that far along yet for everything to have changed. People still passively consume vast amounts of film and TV, except they consume it in a different way. They are still a captive audience, but no longer for a particular medium, let alone a particular channel. I’m not sure how influential the Kardashians really are: people follow them but at the same time as outwardly despising or ridiculing them. Trump may or may not have a major impact upon the culture, but if he has an impact on Hollywood, it will probably be in the form of a reaction against rather than a direct taking inspiration from.

        6. Mobes: just wanted to say I will get to this excellent post tomorrow I’m just not in the reading/writing/thinking mood today

    2. People use the internet to pirate hollywood movies. When at malls, parents take their children to see Zootopia-type animations. Hollywood has great influence.

    3. I really think that internet porn in its current iteration is one of the top most dangerous things in the world. I avoid porn like the fucking plague. As a single guy I try to avoid whacking it altogether but I don’t think an occasional beating of the bishop is necessarily destructive. Porn is just fucking terrible and if it isn’t worse than all the garbage that big multi nationals are putting in the food it is at least just as bad.

  12. Good article. I especially like the extensive quote about Gramsci. Gramsci is an important figure, and his notion of ideological hegemony is an important one. The Trump quake has torn a bit of a hole in the ideological fabric, which the ideologues are desperately trying to plug by focusing on shutting down ‘fake news’ and getting IMdB comments re-routed to anonymity-free social media etc – but in every other respect progressivism (“communism”) still enjoys ideological hegemony – it still provides the categories in which we think; it’s “discourse” is still dominant; a more or less communist definition of equality is still fully operative, and premised on class conflict based notions of oppressed and oppressing classes.
    Also good to see the notion of ‘common sense’ addressed with respect to ideology. Although I happened upon Gramsci a while back,I only really became aware of the marxist notion that ‘common sense’ was ideology that had come to be ossified and taken for granted when I did some social science / discourse theory courses a few years back. The purpose of these courses, which were as soon as you scratched the surface implicitly marxist, seemed to be to analyse discourse, including with regard to it’s common sense tropes, with a view to changing it. Inevitability this tended to be described as the identification of potentially oppressive forms of discourse, but the corollary of this is that if you identify oppressive discourse you have to substitute it with something else, which obviously, given the nature of the analysis will be a less oppressive kind of discourse – i.e. a marxist, feminist, progressive discourse of the kind we see being introduced across the universities of the land all the time.
    One other figure of great importance here perhaps is Kurt Lewin. These people are change agents, and Lewin is the great guru of ‘change’, although these days he’s as likely to be encountered within a management programme as on a psychology course. In order to manage change from one thing to another, you first have to ‘unfreeze’ the old way of doing things “which involves break[ing] down the existing status quo before you can build up a new way of operating” and then re-freezing it. Cultural marxism, which we primarily experience as negative and destructive of existing institutions operates along the same lines. The destruction becomes first, then the re-building.
    Likewise you can see this in occult / masonic terms. The order must come out of the chaos. We must descend into the abyss, into disorder before we can ascend to the heights and rebuild –
    to quote the article “to re-assemble society in the future as a communist utopia……[a utopia] that “will have no notion of gender, traditions, morality, god or even family or the state” (does anyone know where that quote is from?)
    If that is correct then that means destroying every institution of value in society and defiling every last vestige of morality and decency as we must – like Miley Cyrus – descend into the abyss – in order to ascend once more like the phoenix….although in Miley’s case I think she’s going to skip the ascending like a phoenix bit and stick with slutting around at the absolute bottom of the abyss.

  13. I don’t disagree with assigning blame to a self-destructive element that could be described somewhat accurately as Cultural Marxism.
    But, I don’t like ((((thick cunts who can’t read and blame life failures on jews))))

      1. Relevancy lacking. I’ve never supported multi-culti’
        You’re a failure? Then own the fuck up

        1. Nothing fails like failure. Stormcucks are in self re-enforcing negative thought loop of being cucked because they are cucked and its all the cucking.
          Seig fail.

        2. Yeah, relevancy lacking for sure. So is he trying to say the manosphere starts out as far left multi-culturists? Weak.

    1. It’s the double standard. What the tribe practices is 180 removed from what they preach, and to call it out is to be dismissed as racist.

    2. Even if it were the Jews that is the only way one (and jews) could avoid persecution. We should rise above dualities just like the highly intelligent ashkenazi jews have done become the controller instead of being the controlled. Follow rather than blame jews!

  14. The narrative that Cultural Marxism is left-wing doesn’t really make sense in a modern context. Cultural Marxism may have initially been loosely based on Marx’s teachings, but the modern version is clearly a right-wing fascist ideology. That is why Cultural Marxism is propagated by billionaires and not by the working and middle classes. I would also add that most “antifas” are really fascist foot-soldiers themselves who are pretending to be anti-fascist.

    1. What is the distinction between “right” and “left” these days? I can’t seem to find a consistent answer that those I consider “right” and “left” would agree to (begging the question a bit, but we’ll let it go for the moment).
      Classically, of course, the “left” is the division opposed to the way things are, and the “right” is the establishment. This dates back to the origin of the term, and under the “conserve vs. change” paradigm it makes sense.
      Now, though, we have people who claim to be “right” fighting for the same basic things as what has been considered classically “left” policy, and we have people on the “left” arguing to return to a prior era (in terms of culture and policy, primarily). The terms have lost meaning to a substantial degree due to the current state of cultural and political confusion.
      I think it may be time to retire those terms, unless we come to an agreement that “left” is the direction of centralized governance and “right” is the direction of self-governance (or vice versa, but it makes little sense at the red hot moment).

      1. Those who call for a new order always want to be on the top of that order. Revolutions are usually spearheaded by those who stand to gain the most power over others.
        The left embraces corporatism because it’s their corporations that benefit. As they build up power in an economic sense, they employ what leverage they have to ensure the political powers will at the least not take away that economic power, and at the most will actively promote that power.
        This is one of the reasons they love Cuckerberg and Soros but despise Trump. The former are economic powers that favor their ideology, but the latter is at least somewhat opposed to them (the degree may be argued).
        At the end of the day, it comes down to power.

    2. It is also propagated by the a section of the middle class. Just look at the BBC, created by jews, forced to be funded by Britsh taxpayers, and staffed by the liberal middle class (mostly jewish, or jewthinkers) who push the same marxist agenda as the jewish financier/Billionaire class.
      Look into any other field, be it acedemia, politics, legalBS and the manegerial class running this system are jews and their judeo-Freemasonic dupes, all pushing marxism. And any open opponents of this system, are people placed into power by jews for jewish goals, such as Trump and Farrage.

      1. Some middle class stooges may serve the elite, but that does not change the fact that Cultural Marxism originates from the top 0.00001 %.
        Cultural Marxism is just another tool usef by the elite to crush anyone who might challenge them.

    3. they are not right wing, the victims of Cultural Marxism are the middle class not the top 1% or 10%. they just use the very poor and other fool like cannon fodder to do their bidding.

      1. Modern Cultural Marxism is a klepto-fascist system that helps funnel wealth upwards to the top 0.00001%. In fact, SJWs in general are klepto-fascists, even though many of them don’t think of themselves as such.

  15. Collectivism: The inferior of the species, once empowered, seeks to change its environment to accommodate its parasitic existence in it by redefining things:
    – superior is now, inferior
    – good is now, bad
    – normal is now, abnormal
    – equality is now, merit
    – merit is now, bias
    – privilege is now, a right
    – Natural rights are now, privileges
    – in-group-bias is now, racism
    – female is now, male(gender)
    – Degenerate is now, normal
    – Science/truth is now, sexism
    – etc, etc.
    How ? Indoctrination, habituation, desensitization,emotions: words,education,media
    Why? The brain will eventually accept anything that is repeated, as being normal, even if you disagree with it, it becomes like background noise, then it becomes part of your culture, and then the state(collectivism) creates laws. People support the state because it offers “free” equality, free technology and free opportunities to everybody. When young people see TV, women, gays, etc. repeating the same behavior, their brains develop, change their structure, to that new “normality”.
    People believe they are in control of their thoughts, but they are not.

  16. Seminaries have long been a favorite target of Cultural Marxists. Marx himself despised religion, but his successors found it a powerful tool for controlling the masses. For them, control of the seminary (the seat of clerical instruction for the Church) is a win-win, because those who continue to follow will follow them, and those who leave in disgust will fragment the enemy of their ideology.
    I study the Bible and I love my God, but I refuse to go to seminary. Those I’ve seen go in with tremendous faith and love, and leave with nothing.

    1. Exactly. And what they did also was purposely recruit homosexuals into the seminary knowing what would result once those homosexual priests were around kids. Plus those same practicing homosexual priests would also be giving out communion which was a way to mock and invalidate the Holy Eucharist. Apparently Christianity must be the true religion, otherwise the Luciferian elite would not bother to attack it. They don’t bother attacking false doctrines. And ironically, it was actually Catholicism that helped give women freedom of choice because the Catholic Church would not marry a man and woman together if either did not want to be in the marriage. Therefore, this stopped arranged marriages that you find in Islam and other turd world countries. But of course the Catholic hating feminists don’t understand that.

  17. Don’t forget the Violence Against Women act that most gals use during divorce proceedings. Stealth way to take the man out of the family and ensure he has NO rights to own a gun for the rest of his life. Even when there was NO actual violence involved. That was the most draconian law ever passed in the history of this Country and nobody really noticed. Take the man out of the family and ensure he won’t be able to defend himself against all forms of tyranny as he has no gun rights.

    1. Another thing about VAWA is how it fast-tracks foreign women to their green cards. Just the accusation of DV and they are in; no proof, no evidence, no trial, just make the accusation. Hubby can go to jail, unless his paycheck is needed for garnishment by her majesty ex-wife, then all of a sudden the DV never happened. Perjury is never mentioned.

  18. Seeing that picture of Billy Ray’s kid, I’m reminded how I’ve gotten back to enjoying hairy pussy. It’s what the men before us enjoyed, they didn’t complain, they worked hard at their trade and demanded that they are properly compensated. They didn’t listen to a lot of woman bullshit either.
    Many of today’s conservative women who are in their twenties and thirties are very good-looking, do not buy into the feminists garbage and are rocking a full triangle because that bald trash is for dumb bar whores who are poisoned by marxist media.

    1. I would think I would enjoy looking at a crotch shot of a young woman; however these Hollywood/music biz women leave me cold.

      1. wow man, to each their own, but I will not even accept a small landing strip. I want that shit freshly waxed at all times.

    2. I’m 58. There used to be no such thing as shaved pussy, until there was. And no, we didn’t take any sh## and the ones before us took less.

    3. I have, in my apartment, stopped mid getting it on and sent a woman into the shower to remove a landing strip. Of course, personal preferences and nothing against ya Dick Nixon if it is a little muff you crave, but I will not abide by hair on a pussy. After the late 90’s that toothpaste is out of the tube and can’t get squeezed back in.

    4. …sounds like you’re banging women over 50 y/o and over 50 lbs over weight and justify that with politics. Females who keep it neat and trim are marxist?
      (((stormcuck game)))

    5. I enjoy a bit of retro pubes…
      Made my girlfriend grow it out last winter so I could chase her around in the woods like a couple of savages…
      And the 90’s where there was usually at least a large landing strip requiring Bic before dick.
      However, my gf has found a new type of waxing — ready for action immediately and so smooth…2 thumbs up!

  19. You can find the genesis of so-called Cultural Marxism in the writings of the Radical Enlightenment in mid 18th Century France, cranked out by the likes of Denis Diderot, the Baron d’Holbach and Claude Adrien Helvétius. They wanted to replace every belief and institution in Europe that they felt lacked rational justification, and they started their version of the march through the institutions two centuries before Gramsci came on the scene. Refer to Jonathan Israel’s books on the Radical Enlightenment, if you want to take on that much reading.

  20. The progressive utopians have worked so hard at subverting women because women act like miners’ canaries: Their weak and conformist minds make them more vulnerable than regular guys to the PU’s most damaging and preposterous ideas.
    This shows why the rise of white nationalism scares the crap out of our elites: We have not just rejected the propaganda, white-shaming and gaslighting, but we have started to confront and oppose these elites and their agenda to erase white people from the planet. Just imagine the reaction if a million white nationalists marched on Washington DC.

    1. “Their weak and conformist minds make them more vulnerable than regular guys to the PU’s most damaging and preposterous ideas.”
      Women and black people both.

  21. Wow, the comments section to this article reinforces my theory:
    There are a few types of RoK readers:
    1. The Libertarian (example: GhostofJefferson) Generally is against PC, SJW-ism and Cultural Marxism. Questions government power but is not an anachro-capitalist. Only is against Jews that are SJW/Left of center.
    2. The Nationalist, same as 1, but more willing to use government power to promote the red pill domestically. Can be very isolationist or interventionist, depending on the flavor.
    3. The Imperialist. Similar to 2, but supports a more aggressive pursuit and destruction of cultures that wish us harm. Takes tribal loyalty very seriously, and supports destroying nations/terrorist organizations often supported by SJW’s that have stated their intent to murder Americans.
    4. The sane alt-right man. Fervently red pill, and finds there to be legitimate questions about the Jews and subscribes to race-realism, but would not harm a non-white individual simply because they are non-white.
    5. The crazy alt-right man. Fervently red pill, and is convinced the Jews literally get into a smoke filled room to plan the destruction of the world. Often has penis envy for every single other category of RoK reader. Is probably a little bothered by the fact that Roosh’s Iranian dick has been in so many white women. Can’t seem to post without mentioning the Jews, even in response to articles about game/women.

    1. The fact you put penis envy into a catagory says more about yourelf, and you have probably just outed yourself as a kike enev stating such garbage.
      And, of course, jewish financiers, media barons, bankers, tech owners, film producers, advertising executives, university professors and the like, never get together and organise in their own groups interest against what they call the goyim. Sure. Nice try kike.

      1. I called him out ages ago. I fucken detest these shills that deceptively disguise their shit under different masks.

    2. Your definition of Imperialist is the byproduct of pure autism. Imperialists are fundamentally globalist and pro-multiculturalism. You don’t go around conquering and colonizing other cultures to “defend the tribe.” Britain did that and turned London into the third world cesspool that it is today.

    3. 6. The Zionist that attempts to manipulate reader’s, disguising their point of view (agenda) under different masks.

    4. a good start, but could probably refine even more. A “10 types of ROK commenters” article would have a comment section that would be hilarious. I think if you really wanted a serious taxonomy of this, however, you would have to totally discount the people who are just totally fucking ridiculous and don’t really warrant having attention paid to them…not hard to figure out who they are. There is always a small 1-2% of the group which just needs to be ignored as feeble minded and not worth consideration. Other than that, an interesting meta-project here.

    5. I wouldn’t break it down into so many hard camps since people are always learning and changing. With learning and by having life experiences, a person can change their perspective on who the bad guy is. With a fixed objective like the health of nation, tribe, race, family, bloodline, culture – the end goal won’t change but the villian can be misidentified. Sometimes the villian is YOUR OWN misdeeds or inaction and sometimes it’s another party. The ‘villian’ can flip flop from one figure to another. A Christian pro family televangelist who ‘flip flops’ and comes out as a fudge packer was never on keel in the first place and can be completely disregarded. They were undeveloped mentally and had no business in an authority position. Likely they had no beard either.
      Also a similar kind of ‘flip flopping’ by someone who has no true grasp of self, who is similarly unevolved and which also does not involve either the identification or misidentification of the enemy would involve the person who sells out their nation/culture or tribe for pittance. A person who loves their nation or culture and then turns to apparantly hate or disregard their own camp (Benedict Arnold) is most likely steered by a controlling woman.
      Men of the world, men of the West – – WE MUST BEAT THE WOMAN first with our BEARD, BRAINS and BEEFSTICK and the legions of she beast dominated and circumcised dogs on chains from the enemy camp will be far less able to menace us.
      The key is to learn to spot those who can be called to amass against your culture. Spot the enemy and their potential fodder. Learn to spot subtile signals, similar to microexpressions in pickup but with the larger community. People may take an innocuous shot or jab at your culture, harmless but when they’re on their field of expertese, it becomes a real joust and that’s when they deal a hard blow. The key is to spot and identify them when they’re practicing a swing on your tribe like an aborted golf warm up stroke. The real blow is coming and it’s already past the critical time to mobilize, individual level, community level and national.
      GET YOUR BEARDS ON men, read ROK and practice the swing of your BIG WESTERN DICKS! Keep your women’s worldview clearly defined with her eyeballs occluded by a very close panoramic view of your two spherical hairy balls. YOUR BALLS are the real world to her and like venetian blinds YOUR BALLSACKS are the only eyelids she will ever need. YOUR DICK is the key to resurrecting the life and culture of the west. STUFF her problematic yapper and bulldoze the victory path for the west all the way back to her vocal chords, pounding and pounding her chirp box with your spring loaded rock sock until she sees the world as it truly is in 3D wonder, and then blast ye seed in her fertile soil down where her grass grows.
      Hail the west.

  22. I was talking to a work colleague about how degenerate the music industry is with the likes of Marilyn Manson, Miley Cyrus and Lady Gaga. His response blew me away.
    He was convinced they must be incredibly talented to be able to get away with that. The idea that they are selected and promoted based on their hedonistic behavior was ‘conspiracy theory’ crazy talk.

  23. Richter should win some kind of trophy just for curating these photos without having his fucking head explode. Holy christ there is 50 pounds of ugly in a 5 pound sack going on.

  24. “The era of Democrats and Republicans is over. The next great power struggle will be between Populists and Socialists. “The long march through the institutions” has entered its final stages.”
    Bold talk but probably quite accurate.

  25. Hollywood…..what year is it? Is it time for another Holocaust movie yet?
    Funny how it’s always ONLY Jews who died in their movies too…

  26. Samantharsmith even if you would have got Miley Cyrus to do porn movie with me, I wouldn’t do it for no less than $500 an hour ?? Even then I might refuse ??

  27. I was planning on writing on marxism, and how it is illogical from an economical point of view. Seems you beat me to the punch sir.
    Anyway, good article. Cultural marxism seems just another way for corporations to try to cheapen the workforce and try to lower the value of each individual, by making them less willing to bargain, less educated and unable of logical, critical thinking. And by “corporations” I mean the big ones, the ones with a good legal department to deal with the minor annoyances – lawsuits. The smaller ones however seem to get crushed by the unprecedented pressure put on them to all the new standards they must uphold (like the one that forces them to hire women to a certain percentage – is that still in effect?), so even more profitable for Big Corp – elimination of competition.
    This is getting real bad. Not just in USA (non-USA dude here). It is a worldwide trend, population mobility. Few notable exceptions (Russia comes to mind) actually try to resist it, but unless the country is strong enough on its own, it will be torn apart financially – there are corporations out there that make more money than entire countries. This is fast becoming their age.
    From the age of kings, to the age of democracy and elections, to the age of corporations and boards…

  28. One of the most evident declines I have noticed – remember the ‘born again Christian’ movement of twenty some odd years ago? The most prominent celebrities in Hollywood were jumping on the band wagon, declaring themselves on every talk show they could appear on as being ‘born again’.
    Notice now how this is no longer the case. Christianity is, at best something celebrities never talk about, and at worst just a little weird and creepy – not to mention stuffy and old fashioned.

  29. Three words, “Marxism is Satanism”
    The perversion and destruction of Christianity, the destruction of the family, the perversion of art, literature, and science, the spread of immorality, all of it has roots in Satanic theory. The author of all lies, the great deceiver, has made his masterpiece in the end times. No matter what genera of liberalism, (Communism, Socialism, Feminism, “Social Justice”, etc.), all of it leads one away from Christian values and towards selfishness, sin, and entrapment.

  30. World War II was the ultimate fight between nationalism and globalism. Globalism won and the powerful bankers who control most of the world set out to CRUSH nationalism, once and for all. If you look at EVERY single development after the war, it’s usually something that weakens nationalism: mass immigration, multiculturalism, identity politics, offshoring, corporate chains, multinational brands, cable television and it goes on and on.
    The true resistance to global capitalism is not the left nor the right. It’s nationalism the German and Italian people knew it and that’s why their countries got unified. Why hasn’t the left succeeded anywhere they tried to impose their revolutions? Because the people reject these values, the left, marxists, communists are all servants of global capitalism, they go hand in hand. Only the PEOPLE who love themselves, their families, their countrymen,their nation and their God can stand against EVIL and overthrow it.

  31. You just never lived in USSR.
    About 100 mln. people could easily fight back whole capitalist world besause theft (aka business) was impossible. We had industrialized from poor agrocountry to the only USA counterpart in 20 years or so.
    There were no feminists and men could go to jail for homosexualism.

  32. Great article, a fantastic primer for introducing people to what has actually happened in the West.

Comments are closed.