PART ONE: Understanding Marxism
– The True Purpose of Marxism
– Proto-Cultural-Marxism: Race
– Proto-Cultural-Marxism: Gender
PART TWO: ‘Cultural’ Marxism
– What is Cultural Marxism and where did it originate?
– The Frankfurt School
– Just a bunch of Marxist nobodies?
– Lumpenprole Revolution?
APPENDIX ONE: Marxism and International Finance
APPENDIX TWO: Woke Capital
Addendum: What’s in a Name?
Originally, I was going to publish this via a PDF. However, said PDF is has turned into something longer than intended, so I figured that I would publish this section separately.
This article will cover everything you need to know about Cultural Marxism; it’s history, origins, influences, legacy, and more.
This piece is by no means an attempt to absolve the traitorous Western Liberal ultra-elite who have worked hand-in-hand with the Eastern Communists to bring us the globalized wonders of the New World Order — it simply aims to highlight a huge blind spot that is currently being overlooked.
At present, there is a prominent trend among nationalists in the West, particularly among the Alt-Right, of absolving Communism, Marxism, and the USSR of their colossal contribution to the creation of the New World Order and Globalism as a whole.
The main line of argumentation is, of course, ridicule and slander. They claim that discussing the influence of Communism, Marxism, or Western Marxism (aka Cultural Marxism) is “boomerish,” a “2016 talking point,” and “Cold War paranoia revivalism.”
Ironically, most of these people endorse some sort of imperial Neo-Eurasianist alliance in opposition to the, in their words, “American” Empire. So, they are, quite literally, advocating a revival of the Cold War. Many of them hope that a revived Cold War will turn “hot,” as that would likely lead to the total destabilization of the already collapsing “American” Empire. Anyway…
Alongside labeling the discussion of Marxist influence “retrograde and boomerish,” Cultural-Marxism-deniers claim that the rise of “Woke Capital” completely disproves any Marxist influence in present-day Western politics. They frequently and inexplicably claim that Marxism miraculously disappeared with the “fall” (retreat and re-branding) of the Soviet Union, and that the only problem we have today is Liberalism. Apparently, Marxism and Communists simply did not exist before the founding of the USSR. In protest of the term “Cultural Marxism” (which is simply a colloquial variant of the academically-accepted term “Western Marxism”), they have spread the nonsensical counter-memes of “Cultural Liberalism” and “Cultural Capitalism” — both of which completely miss the point of why the “Cultural” prefix was chosen in the first place (this will be explained later).
“No, you Reactionary fool! Marxism is not the problem, Liberal Woke Capital is the problem! Everything wrong with our societies today is a logical result of Liberalism itself. Marxism is completely irrelevant now, it’s a dead ideology!”
It’s completely permissible that somebody with an extremely rudimentary understanding of both history and politics to conclude this to be the case. However, those who are currently propagating all of this ludicrous sophistry are the supposedly-intellectual “thought leaders” of the Alt-Right.
Marxism has been immensely influential upon modern politics and continues to be immensely influential to this day. There isn’t a single leftist-dominated space in the West (colleges, protests, etc.) that isn’t littered with an array of Communist paraphernalia. Western (“Cultural”) Marxism forms the basis of all modern left-wing ideology within the Western World and its sphere of influence. This influence cannot be overlooked, and it certainly cannot be understated, if we wish to understand the mess that we find ourselves in today.
Cultural Marxism (known as ‘Western Marxism’ to libtard intellectuals and academics) has permeated our society so thoroughly that the vast majority of people, both left-wing and right, have unwittingly absorbed and embraced a multitude of Marxist political positions. Unfortunately, most people will likely never discover the true origin of their buffoonish beliefs, or come to terms with the fact that they have been swindled. Similarly, those who oppose Cultural Marxism often have no idea that what they are opposing is a variant of Marxist ideology. They instead refer to it as “Political Correctness,” “Social Justice Warrioring,” “Progressivism,” “Multi-culturalism,” “Identity Politics,” “Postmodernism,” and so on.
It’s extremely unfortunate (for us) that the origins of this political subversion are not widely known — but then again, Marxists wouldn’t have been able to subvert very effectively if they were wearing Communist Party name badges. Even more unfortunately, the origins of Cultural Marxism are becoming more and more obfuscated due to the rise of the Alt-Right, NazBols and Duginists, who incessantly claim that Marxism did nothing wrong, and that Liberalism is the only Big Bad around today.
This ‘mystification’ (to use a Marxist term) greatly reduces our ability to combat Cultural Marxist subversion. If we don’t even understand who or what our enemy is, then how can we fight it?
Consider Nietzsche’s words on Slave Morality:
We have lost sight of [the slave revolt in morals] simply because it has triumphed so completely.F. Nietzsche, ‘On the Genealogy of Morality’ (1887)
PART ONE: Understanding Marxism
To understand ‘Cultural Marxism,’ you first have to understand ‘Orthodox’ Marxism. The common belief that Marxism is simply an “economic theory” is completely wrong. Of course, economics is an extremely important aspect of Marxism, but economics is simply a tool that Communists can use to modify culture, behavior, and the political landscape. Marx would be the first to admit that but, for some reason, modern Communists completely deny that Marxism has any cultural aspect at all, or that the fundamental aim of Marxism is the modification of culture.
According to Marx, society is divided into two symbiotic halves: The Base and the Superstructure. ‘The Base’ refers to the “means of production” or the economy, while the Superstructure includes everything else in society, which can be boiled down to “Culture.” In Marx’ view, the Base is dominant over the superstructure, thus, he concluded that changing a society’s economic system (Base) was the most effective way to change its culture (Superstructure). This is why Marxism is often, incorrectly, referred to as an “economic theory,” rather than an economics-focused ideology.
The True Purpose of Marxism
Everything that we currently regard as ‘Cultural Marxism’ is firmly rooted in Orthodox Marxism. Read the Communist Manifesto and you’ll notice that the overarching aims of Marx and Engels can be boiled down to four key points (http://archive.vn/UtFPO):
1. Destruction of Family
2. Destruction of Nation
3. Destruction of Religion
4. Destruction of Private Property
In other words, the fundamental aim of Marxism is the uprooting of all of the foundations upon which tribes, nations, and civilizations have historically been constructed. This isn’t a “between the lines” interpretation, they’re pretty open with their objectives, even if they do wrap everything in a thick layer of economic autism.
The purpose of Marxism is not to “free the workers” from ‘Capitalism,’ but to manufacture a new breed of serfs; an entire planet filled with deracinated, godless, nationless, slave-tier plebians, without families or any conception of the world beyond ‘material conditions.’ Even the Marxists’ alias for this “new man” – ‘The International Worker’ – reduces him to a mere economic unit. At least the “Neo-Liberals’” term for this economic unit – ‘The International Consumer’ – attempts to disguise their malevolence. The “Neo-Liberal” fools the slave into thinking that he is not a slave at all, but someone who has the “privilege” of being showered with wonderful “luxuries” and “products.”
Nothing is more evident than that modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism. The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical; both of their ideals are qualitatively identical, including the premises connected to a world the centre of which is constituted of technology, science, production, “productivity,” and “consumption.” And as long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production, and as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, and that, generally speaking, human progress is measured by the degree of wealth or indigence—then we are not even close to what is essential…Julius Evola, ‘Men Among the Ruins’ (http://archive.vn/wip/vvXz5)
The Utopian fantasy of the ‘Full Communist’ stateless society, in which total world peace has been achieved, with all peoples miraculously collaborating in perfect harmony, is nothing more than a pipe dream swindle. It is the bait dangled on the hook of Communism, designed to trick the impoverished proletariat into revolting against their government and handing power to the rootless internationalists who hide behind the mask of Communism.
Through this simple bait-and-switch, the workers are “saved” from the serfdom of the gentry, military, and religious nobility of their own kin/tribe/nation, and immediately forced into the serfdom of the bourgeois rootless internationalists, who LARPed as ‘fellow proletarians’ and now constitute the leadership of ‘The Party.’ The ‘Dictatorship of the “Proletariat”‘ stage of Communism never ends, because it was never designed to end.
The USSR is the archetypal case, demonstrating all of the above — immediate brutality and suppression rained down upon the workers as soon as the Bolsheviks took power.
It may (or may not) surprise you to hear that the Communists of the USSR — Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, and friends — were strongly outspoken against the evils of “racism.” You may also be aware of the fact that the term “racism” was popularized by these Bolsheviks.
It is often claimed that “Leon Trotsky invented the word racism,” which is not entirely accurate, but close enough. “Racism” as per its current definition — that acknowledging racial differences is an act of “oppression” — did not exist before the Bolsheviks.
See results from Google’s ‘Ngram viewer’ (below):
Many people today have an incredibly warped view of Communism, seeing it as some sort of chauvinistic, nationalistic and racist ideology, responsible for widespread racist oppression of ethnic minorities and so on. While it is true that there was oppression of minority groups within the USSR (especially under Stalin) few people understand that this was the result of anti-racist policies.
That sounds insane, doesn’t it? How can a state oppress minorities in the name of anti-racism? Well, take a look at the president-day situation in South Africa. The situation was engineered (ideologically speaking) almost entirely by Communists who moved into South Africa from the USSR, who acted as the driving force behind and political leaders of the anti-racism/anti-apartheid movement. The White minority class are currently being oppressed to the point of genocide in the name of anti-racism and equality.
Most importantly, you need to understand that the Communist views race as a “bourgeoisie abstraction” and an obstruction that must be smashed in order to unite the workers of the world under their new monoculture of the “International Worker.” Is this not strikingly similar to the stance of the modern “Neo-Liberal,” who regards race as a “regressive abstraction” and an obstruction that must be smashed in order to unite the consumers of the world under their new monoculture of the “International Consumer”?
As Marx and Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto: “The working men have no country. […] National differences are daily more and more vanishing. […] The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat”
Within the USSR (and other Communist states) minorities were oppressed for behaving nationalistically (or ‘racistly’).
By identifying with their ethnic groups they undermined the state-imposed Communist culture. This is corroborated by multiple quotations from the writings of all major USSR leaders; Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin.
Marxism is irreconcilable with nationalism, be it ever so “just,” “nicely-washed,” refined and civilised. Marxism puts forward internationalism to replace all forms of nationalism, the fusion of all nations into a highest unity, which we can see growing, under our very eyes, with every mile of railway that is being built, every international trust, with every workers’ union (international in its economic activity, and then in its ideas and aims).Lenin – Cultural-National Autonomy http://archive.vn/HNzk6#selection-669.1-669.452
He who would serve the proletariat must unite the workers of all nations, and struggle unwaveringly with bourgeois nationalism, both his “own” and foreign. He who defends the slogan of national culture has his place among the middle-class nationalists and not among the Marxists.Lenin – National Culture http://archive.vn/hnzk6#selection-463.1-463.281
He who does not acknowledge and defend the equality of nations and languages, he who does not fight against all forms of national oppression or inequality, is not a Marxist nor even a democrat. That is certain. But it is just as certain that he who pretends to be a Marxist, but violently attacks the Marxist of another nation or “assimilation” in practice, is just a petty bourgeois nationalist.Lenin – The National Spectre Of “Assimilation” http://archive.vn/HNzk6#selection-559.1-559.404
Not even the slightest degree of oppression or the slightest injustice in respect of a national minority—such are the principles of working-class democracy. […] The workers of the whole world are building up their own internationalist culture, which the champions of freedom and the enemies of oppression have for long been preparing. To the old world, the world of national oppression, national bickering, and national isolation the workers counterpose a new world, a world of the unity of the working people of all nations, a world in which there is no place for any privileges or for the slightest degree of oppression of man by man.Lenin – The Working Class And The National Question http://archive.vn/unvp0#selection-223.0-225.474
The theory of race, specially created, it seems, for some pretentious self-educated individual seeking a universal key to all the secrets of life, appears particularly melancholy in the light of the history of ideas. […] On the plane of politics, racism is a vapid and bombastic variety of chauvinism in alliance with phrenology. […] To investigate retrospectively the genealogy of ideas, even those most reactionary and muddleheaded, is to leave not a trace of racism standing.[…] [sarcasm] Personality and class – liberalism and Marxism – are evil. The nation – is good. [/sarcasm]Trotsky – What Is National Socialism? http://archive.vn/VEcep
we can and we must find a way to the consciousness of the negro workers, the chinese workers, the indian workers, and all the oppressed in the human ocean of the colored races to whom belongs the decisive word in the development of mankind.Trotsky – Closer To The Proletarians Of The Colored Races http://archive.vn/8spjy
slavophilism, the messianism of backwardness, has based its philosophy upon the assumption that the russian people and their church are democratic through and through, whereas official russia is a german bureaucracy imposed upon them by peter the great. Mark remarked upon this theme: “In the same way the Teutonic jackasses blamed the despotism of Frederick the Second upon the French, as though backward slaves were not always in need of civilised slaves to train them.” This brief comment completely finishes off not only the old philosophy of the Slavophiles, but also the latest revelations of the “Racists.”Trotsky – Peculiarities Of Russia’s Development http://archive.vn/1omql#selection-87.0-87.613
Racism leads to fascism.Stalin – Conversation Between I.V. Stalin’s And Romanian Leader http://archive.vn/qhoef
what is a nation? A nation is primarily a community, a definite community of people. This community is not racial, nor is it tribal. […] a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people. […] Thus, a nation is not a casual or ephemeral conglomeration, but a stable community of people. […] equal rights of nations in all forms (language, schools, etc.) is an essential element in the solution of the national question. […] The only cure for this is organization on the basis of internationalism. To unite locally the workers of all nationalities of Russia into single, integral collective bodies, to unite these collective bodies into a single party – such is the task.Stalin – Marxism And The National Question http://archive.vn/f60d9
national and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism. […] In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.Stalin – Reply To An Inquiry Of The Jewish News Agency In The United States http://archive.vn/m8qjo
I consider it impossible to assume that the workers of any particular nation are incapable of mastering new technique. If we look at the matter from the racial point of view, then in the United States, for instance, the Negroes are considered “bottom category men,” yet they master technique no worse than the whites. The question of the mastery of technique by the workers of a particular nation is not a biological question, not a question of heredity, but a question of time: today they have not mastered it, tomorrow they will learn and master it. Everyone, including the Bushman, can master technique, provided he is helped.Stalin – Talk With Colonel Robins http://archive.vn/luvbc
The Communists’ total opposition to race (and “racism”) couldn’t be clearer. Anti-racism is, and always was, a central pillar of Communist ideology, especially of the Marxist-Leninist variety.
Communist Parties all over world have been at the forefront of anti-racist activism for decades: The British Communist Party fought against colonialism and racism within the country. In African countries, such as Mozambique and Angola, various Marxist-Leninist parties led the fight against colonialism. Chavez advocated for a multi-racialist Union of South American Nations and Castro passed anti-racist, anti-discrimination laws. In the USA, Communists were influential leaders of the post-Second-World-War civil rights movements, though they attempted to avoid being labelled as such, as they had already been called out as foreign subversives. US Communists adopted a variety of disguises to conceal their Communist identity– in many instances they even LARPed as Christians. Perhaps most famously, as mentioned earlier, the Communist Party of South Africa played a crucial, leading role in the struggle against racism and apartheid. To this day, Communists around the globe can be found spearheading anti-racist activism.
Under the USSR’s ‘Lysenkoism’ policies, implemented during the reign of Stalin, genetics research was declared a “bourgeois pseudoscience. Over 3000 biologists were imprisoned, fired, or executed for attempting to oppose Lysenkoism, often accused of being “Fascists” (wow, that sounds familiar, doesn’t it?). A multitude of biological fields, such as neurophysiology or cell biology, were either damaged irreparably or outlawed completely. Genetics research was functionally eradicated within the USSR, until the death of Stalin, when Lysenkoism began to lose influence.
Additionally, the Bolsheviks of the USSR introduced the world’s first “Hate Speech” laws by outlawing anti-Semitism almost immediately after they came to power. Due to the fact that those who violated these laws were executed, it’s possible that they were the most extreme Hate Speech laws in history.
All of the above barely scratches the surface, there are countless examples that highlight the thoroughly anti-nationalist and anti-racist nature of Communism. Race and nation are the largest obstacles that Marxists must overcome in order to construct the artificial identity of the “International Worker.” Any Communist state that became nationalistic (North Korea or Cambodia, for example) has done so in spite of Marxism, not because of it.
It’s important to note that while the USSR was, paradoxically, genociding minorities in the name of anti-racist globaloid internationalism, the Western Liberals — who R*TARDS claim are responsible for all of our problems today — were busy doing state-imposed pro-racism in the name of White nationalism.
The USA had immigration laws that were designed to be specifically anti-Semitic (see: Madison Grant, Johnson-Reed Act of 1924), restricted citizenship to free White men of good character (see: Naturalization Acts: 1790, 1795, 1798), was segregated by law, and so on.
The UK was doing it’s British Empire thing, oppressing every brown-person country that they could get their scheming Anglo hands on [How the mighty have fallen!]. Even the ultra-globaloid Winston Churchill (who was best friends with the Rothschilds and various Wall Street and City of London financial elites) gloated about “shooting savages” in Sudan, and waging “jolly little wars” against “barbarous people.”
The Liberal West’s attitudes towards race only changed after the end of the Second World War, when Communist agents left the USSR en masse to infiltrate the institutions of the West. Other factors, such as laws created by the United Nations, also contributed — these will be covered later.
The foundations of Liberalism are completely rotten, of course, built upon the principles of the eternally cursed “Enlightenment” (as was Marxism). In a sense, this societal decay was inevitable. These Enlightenment foundations are the philosophical equivalent of our civilizations wearing giant “SUBVERT ME” signs on their backs — absolute cancer. The Enlightenment and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
The early USSR could easily be mistaken for a modern “Neo-Liberal” society with regards to their pro-women, pro-LGBT, and anti-family policies. When the Bolsheviks came to power in 1917, they almost immediately decriminalized homosexuality, legalized abortion, divorce, banned adoption, canceled ‘bastard’ status, gave women equal property/education/working rights, and so on. The Soviet ‘Institute for Social Hygiene’ published multiple reports (‘The Sexual Revolution in Russia’) stating that homosexuality was “perfectly natural,” and that it should be respected legally and socially. The USSR was even involved with the German Institute for Sexual Research (or “Institute of Sexology”) which pioneered transgenderism (before the NSDAP burned all of its contents). Members of the German Communist Party were among the first permanent residents of the Institute. German Communists even called their Social Democrat allies “Fascists” because the SocDems refused to support the legalization of male prostitution alongside the decriminalization of homosexuality. Communists around the world led similar movements.
Almost every single feminist and LGBT movement in history has been riddled with or led by Marxists, yet Marxists still deny that their ideology has any cultural/social aspect whatsoever. Why? Probably because they can’t sell you their cancerous ideology if you realize that they are the ones responsible for tearing apart the fabrics of your society.
Again, all of this is simply a continuation of the work of Marx and Engels. Their (debunked) theory of ‘Primitive Communism’ claims that the natural state of sexual relations is a “promiscuous horde” without restrictions, and that the family is simply a product of capitalism. In ‘Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State,’ Engels himself wrote that “the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.” If you were to claim that this was said by a present-day purple-haired SJW otherkin, nobody would doubt you in the slightest. The anti-family stances of Marx and Engels make much more sense when you realize that both of these men were completely degenerate; Marx an adulterer and Engels a promiscuous man, with numerous mistresses, who refused to marry.
Of course, the USSR did change when Stalin took over, he softened and rolled back many of these policies. Presumably, he realized that the USSR did not have the infrastructure to support such a decadent and degenerate society. It’s likely that he also realized that a decadent and degenerate (“Liberalized”) country would be incapable of both industrializing and preparing for the war with Germany that was evidently on the horizon. “Our demands grow day to day. We need fighters, they build this life. We need people,” he said (http://archive.vn/BGT5L). The ‘Family Code of 1936’ increased restrictions on abortion, divorce, and introduced of pro-family propaganda.
While Stalin did dislike “degenerates,” he was by no means a ‘Traditionalist’ or a big respecter of family and culture. He was merely a pragmatist who saw his country disintegrating. As with any Communist society that becomes “racist” or “nationalistic,” those that become “pro-tradition” or “pro-family” do so in spite of their Marxism, not because of it.
Stalin doing what had to be done does not prove that Communism is “Trad,” merely that it is so fundamentally dysfunctional that a large chunk of its core tenants had to be abandoned for it to work in practice. Stalinism staved off the modern-world poz the same way that a modern “conservative” staves it off by insisting that transgenderism should be for over 18s only, not six-year-old children. Check modern-day Russia’s abortion rates, how many White nationalists it has imprisoned, the vast quantity of mass migration into the country, and so on.
Oh yeah, and Lenin didn’t massacre any prostitutes. That’s total bullshit: http://archive.vn/ngg1S
So-called ‘Cultural’ Marxism has always been an integral part of Marxism in general, creating a Marxist “utopia” would be impossible without this cultural aspect. The family, nation, and religion have always been the Marxists largest roadblocks.
PART TWO: ‘Cultural’ Marxism
What is Cultural Marxism and where did it originate?
As I’ve already explained, Cultural Marxism is firmly rooted in orthodox Marxism, however, Cultural Marxism as we understand it today – Marxism that is largely divorced from economics (private property/capitalism) and focuses almost exclusively on society and culture (family/nation/religion) – originated mainly in two places: a prison cell in Italy and rootless think tank that was born in Frankfurt.
After the success of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, and the complete failure of multiple Communist revolutions in the Western world, Marxists were left scratching their heads: “Why has this happened? How did Lenin succeed where we failed? Why did the soldiers of the First World War fight for their respective nations instead of rising up against capitalism? Why was a non-industrialized, non-developed society the only one to have a revolt? Daddy Marx said that the Communist revolution was inevitable in all capitalist societies!”
To address these questions, Marxist intellectuals in Germany founded a think tank called the ‘Frankfurt Institute for Social Research’ (or simply the ‘Frankfurt School’). Presumably, the name was chosen for optics purposes; ‘Institute for Social Research’ is slightly more covert than calling your institution ‘The Marxist Think Tank for Revolutionary Social Subversion,’ or something.
The School was founded during the Weimer Republic era in 1923, shortly after the failed Communist revolution of Germany (1918-19), which was particularly influential upon the mission statement of the School. It was bankrolled by Hermann Weil (who was the biggest grain trader on the planet at the time). Some people have claimed it was bankrolled by the “KGB” (presumably a catch-all term for the various Communist secret service groups, such as the Cheka and NKVD). Though I haven’t found any concrete evidence for this, it is likely the case (I’ll explain why later).
The purpose of the Frankfurt School was, firstly, to figure out why Marxism had failed in Western countries and, secondly, to rework 19th Century Marxism in such a way that it would be applicable to Western 20th Century societies, which had undergone monumental changes since the days of Marx.
As Marx wrote in his ‘Theses on Feuerbach,’ “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it,” the purpose of Critical Theory is to actively change society, not just to criticize society.
The question of why Marxism failed in the West was not answered by the Frankfurt School, but a lone Communist who was dying of tuberculosis and multiple organ failure in an Italian prison cell. Antonio Gramsci, the leader of the Italian Communist Party, had been imprisoned by the Italian Fascists because he was a particularly intelligent man, and they didn’t want his giant brain to destroy Fascism. This gave Gramsci a lot of time to self-reflect on why he was, quite literally, rotting in jail, while the Russian Bolsheviks had led a successful proletarian revolution.
Economic agitation worked perfectly to ferment revolution in non-industrialized Russia but was almost a non-starter in the West. Why? In the words of Hebert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School: “All questions of material existence have been solved” or, in my words, nobody gives a fuck about Marxist economic jibber-jabber when they live perfectly comfortable lives. Normal people, quite reasonably, don’t want to tear down a society that comfortably satisfies all of their basic material needs. Shelter, bread, and circuses were all available in surplus within the materially prosperous Western world. A violent, economic-grievance driven revolution is only possible in a society that has material conditions suited to such a revolution: widespread poverty. Even the great depression was not enough to win the masses over to Marxism and the side of the “International Worker.” Shockingly, they still had loyalty to their own nations and ethnic groups.
While in prison, Gramsci wrote over 3000 pages of philosophical and historical analysis (published today as the ‘Prison Notebooks’), eventually developing the hugely influential theory of ‘Cultural Hegemony.’ He accurately identified that political hegemony is mostly enforced not through overt power, threats, and violence, but by an overarching societal ‘Superstructure’ that propagates culture and ideology. Obviously, a political elite can theoretically maintain their power through overt violence and force, but they run a much greater risk of being beheaded by their angry subjects.
In modern society, the Superstructure consists of all of the social institutions that are responsible for controlling culture and “programming” the populace: education, church, arts, literature, theatre, TV, radio, news media, corporations, etc. Thus, Gramsci concluded that attaining cultural hegemony should be achieved before attempting to attain political hegemony.
Rather than trying to overthrow the state or system outright, Gramsci advocated for slow and steady colonization of all of the institutions of the Superstructure in unison (which would include infiltrating the government, but primarily to shape culture). Through Gramsci’s strategy, an entire population could be covertly converted to Marxist thought against their will via social osmosis, which is exactly what has happened in the West. This entryist strategy was later named the “Long March Through The Institutions of Power” by a German Marxist named Rudi Dutschke.
Gramsci possibly took inspiration from the Fabian Socialists of the United Kingdom, who advocate a slow evolution towards Communism (which they call ‘Socialism’ for optics purposes). The Fabians’ logo is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Their strategy of infiltration is known as “permeation,” whereby they slowly colonize existing parties and institutions, steadily dragging them towards Communism. While they disagree with the revolutionary methods of the Bolsheviks, understanding that they were inappropriate for the West, leading Fabians were strongly supportive of the USSR. For more info see Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb, etc.
Why does every single piece of cinema, music, art, and literature promote completely degenerate garbage? Why does every journalist rat seemingly have ties to ANTIFA? Why is every college professor a disgusting, unwashed Marxist hippie? Because, since the end of the Second World War, every social institution in the West has been slowly colonized and subverted by Communist agents – this includes card-carrying members of the Communist Party, “KGB” (NKVD, etc.) agents, Communist “true believers,” and hapless fools who simply absorbed the ideology via osmosis.
The Frankfurt School
Since the workers’ material needs had been satisfied, the Marxists needed a new host through which they could parasitically inject their ideology into society. For this, a new form of Marxism was required, meaning that new forms of oppression were required. This is where the Frankfurt School comes in.
If I had known about the Frankfurt School in time, I would have been saved a great deal of work. I would not have said a certain amount of nonsense and would not have taken so many false trails trying not to get lost, when the Frankfurt School had already cleared the way.Influential postmodernist, Michel Foucault
Though the School was founded and initially occupied exclusively by orthodox Marxists in 1923, by the 1930s it had developed the foundational theories of what we regard to be ‘Cultural Marxism’ today.
These theories are known as ‘Critical Theory,’ as defined by Max Horkheimer, the Institute’s director, and leading intellectual, in his 1937 essay ‘Traditional and Critical Theory.’ Critical Theory was significantly inspired by the political theories of Gramsci. According to Horkheimer, Critical Theory seeks to “liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them” and advance “the abolition of social injustice” (the Social Justice Warrior lineage is already pretty clear).
While Critical Theory was/is still firmly rooted in Marxist ideals and objectives, the intellectuals of the Frankfurt School drew inspiration from a range of other sources – the work of Sigmund Freud contributed a significant amount to the formation of Critical Theory. If you somehow aren’t familiar with Freud, his most renowned theory is the ‘Oedipus complex’ (TL;DR “children desire incest with their parents”). To assist in the modification of Marxism, Horkheimer recruited intellectuals with backgrounds in various fields; Adorno was a philosopher, sociologist, and musicologist, Fromm, a psychoanalyst, and Marcuse a philosopher.
The fact that Critical Theorists drew inspiration from sources other than the Communist bibles (Das Kapital and the Manifesto) has caused much butthurt among Marxists who are stuck in the 1800s. They accuse Critical Theorists of being “revisionists” and “not REAL Marxists.”
In layman’s terms, the purpose of Critical Theory is to “question the norms of society” or, in other words, to undermine and deconstruct the foundations upon which society is built. As I’ve already covered, orthodox Marxists had already mounted a considerable assault upon these foundations (attacking the family, the nation, and religion) via their ‘proto-Cultural-Marxism.’ Cultural Marxists simply took this attack to its next logical conclusion.
While orthodox Marxists primarily only applied their “oppressor vs oppressed” theory to class, the Cultural Marxists predominately discounted class and instead applied this theory to things such as gender, sexuality, race, religion, age, etc. The Marxists no longer aim to overthrow “capitalism,” but the “oppressive” forces of society; the family, religion, monogamy, hierarchy, order, beauty, etc.
So, what does this mean for society? It means that Women are oppressed by men, homosexuals are oppressed by heterosexuals, People of Color are oppressed by Whites; a Man of Color can occasionally oppress a White woman, depending on the circumstance (but usually not, because she has the power of White Privilege); a Woman of Color can oppress homosexuals, so long as she is a heterosexual herself; and, unfortunately, transgender people are oppressed by everybody. It means that society has been transformed into a completely dysfunctional mess, in which each unique substrata of precious individual is intent on cannibalizing everyone else in a race to the bottom of the barrel. Unless you’re a White male, then you’ve got the ace card ability oppress anyone and everyone else regardless of race, gender, sexuality, etc. As a White male, you are the single unifying force within this dysfunctional mess: You’re basically Satan (or “literally Hitler”). The “Straight White Patriarch” replaces “Capitalism” as the ultimate evil.
Thus, the Cultural Marxists engineered a new grievance-ridden, “disenfranchised” revolutionary class to replace the materially-satisfied workers.
Let’s consider the works of two of the most renowned Frankfurt School Cultural Marxists: Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno.
In 1965, Marcuse authored ‘Repressive Tolerance,’ in which he argued that free speech was inherently oppressive, as it tolerated voices of the “intolerant” – by which he meant the “right-wing” (socially, not economically):
“Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left… [this requires] the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements that promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or that oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.”
On the matter of Marxist economics, Marcuse believed that since “all questions of material existence have been solved” (that people within the West are affluent enough to afford material comfort) then “moral commands and prohibitions are no longer relevant.” In short, that meant that he would instead turn his attention to issues such as sexual liberation. Marcuse attempted to synthesize the theories of Marx and Freud via his work ‘Eros and Civilization’ (1955), in which he essentially argued that society was evil because it was “sexually repressive.” This work was influential among Communists in the 1960s, who (foolishly) believed that sexual promiscuity would somehow undermine capitalism. Herbert Fingarette credited Marcuse as being the first man to develop a systemic philosophical concept of a utopian society free from “sexual repression.”
Adorno is renowned for his 1950 book ‘The Authoritarian Personality,’ in which he uses Freudian psychoanalysis to identify the root causes of the “Authoritarian Personality” (anyone who is anti-egalitarian, anti-democratic, or anti-Marxist). The basic summary is that the Authoritarian Personality is formed via excess spanking during childhood, repressed homosexuality, and a fear of being castrated by one’s father. No, sadly, I have not fabricated any of that. Adorno also claimed that the Authoritarian Personality was inherently right-wing and inherently insane. I assume that the left-wing Neo-Liberals who grant us “sexual liberation” but place us in jail for saying the wrong word do not count as “authoritarian.” Adorno’s argument is a precursor to the modern: “everyone I don’t like is a Nazi, and they are a Nazi because they are mentally ill, secretly gay, and have a small penis.”
The Frankfurt School’s ‘Critical Theory’ provides the framework for all of the “identity politics” or “politically correct” theories that are still used by globalists – both elite and plebian – to this day. These theories are taught in almost every single educational institution in the West, in some form or other. Of course, they aren’t labeled “Critical Theory,” just as the Frankfurt School was not labeled “The Marxist Think Tank for Social Subversion.”
Critical Theory (via ‘Critical Race Theory’ and ‘Gender Studies’) is largely responsible for the psychobabble that is integral to the modern Leftoid’s worldview:
- “Cultural appropriation”
- “Toxic masculinity”
- “White supremacy”
- “X privilege”
And also for their Orwellian redefinitions:
- A child is now a “fetus” or “clump of cells.”
- Infanticide is now recognized as the highest “right” of a woman.
- A mass invasion of foreign nationals is now a flood of “helpless refugees” or “economic migrants.”
- It is “humanitarian” to allow masses of rapists into your homeland.
- Racism = “power + pee poo.”
We’re all very familiar with this.
Just a bunch of Marxist nobodies?
“Surely the Western Liberal countries, the most powerful countries in the world, wouldn’t listen to a bunch of scruffy Marxist nobodies from Frankfurt, right? How did these theories end up in every classroom, on every TV show, and in the head of every Libtard politician?”
The leading intellectuals of the Frankfurt School were certainly not nobodies. 50% of the “notable thinkers” listed on the Frankfurt School Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School) either worked for the CIA, KGB, US government or had links to organizations such as the United Nations. This is only the publicly available information that you can find via sources listed on Wikipedia – imagine what sort of secrets have been buried in history.
In the 1930s, with the rise of Fascism in Europe, the School (which was almost entirely Jewish) packed up their bags and fled to New York, where they were graciously taken under the wing of the Libtards at Columbia University.
Some of the Frankfurt School intellectuals were taken in by the Rockefeller-funded ‘New School,’ which established a ‘University in Exile’ for intellectuals fleeing Fascism in Europe. According to Wikipedia, “the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School exerts an especially strong influence on all divisions of the [New] School.”
The school and New York itself had become a sanctuary for hundreds of extraordinary European Jews who had fled Germany and other countries before and during World War II, and they were enriching the city’s intellectual life with an intensity that has probably never been equaled anywhere during a comparable period of time.Marlon Brando on the New School
Franz Boas, the father of “Modern American Anthropology” – or, more accurately, the father of modern race-denialism – was the anthropology professor at Columbia University during the Frankfurt School Marxists’ stay. His students were almost singlehandedly responsible for obliterating the concepts of gender and race.
Two students of Franz Boas, Israel Ehrenberg (Columbia University) and Claude Levi-Strauss (Columbia University and New School), were major architects of the United Nation’s various “Statements On Race (and Racial Prejudice),” which were the foundation of all modern racial legislation adopted by Western Nations (read more here: http://archive.vn/dIzBJ). Ehrenberg authored “Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: the Fallacy of Race” and the work of Levi-Strauss was a key factor in the development of “structuralism” and “structural anthropology” (Google it). Additionally, another student of Boas founded the Anthropology course at the New School.
After the ‘United Nations’ of the Western Liberals and Eastern Communists had won the Second World War, the intellectuals of the Frankfurt School were granted scholarships within the US and the UK, with many becoming teachers and professors. They taught the next generation of teachers and professors, who are currently indoctrinating the youth with Cultural Marxist cancer — this is the Long March, as theorized by Gramsci.
For an example of just how connected the Frankfurt School was, let’s take a look at one of the less renowned figures: Franz Leopold Neumann.
Neumann, a Jewish Marxist (like every other notable figure of the School), fled Germany with the rise of the NSDAP, joining the Frankfurt School gang in New York. He was influential in developing the School’s theories on National Socialism, Fascism, and anti-semitism. Due to this work, Neumann played a key role in helping the School secure the support of the American Jewish Committee. (FYI: The AJC played a large role in the Civil Rights Movement, for example, they contributed to the landmark ‘Brown v. Board of Education’ case).
Neumann’s 1942 book ‘Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism’ basically concluded that the National Socialists were a hodgepodge group of people who were simply united in their hatred of the “Labour Movement” (presumably, by this he meant Jewish Marxists), that they were unpredictable and disorderly, and behind their “autocratic facade,” there was nothing but “unbridled terror, egotism and arbitrariness.” This thesis likely had an influence on Adorno’s ‘The Authoritarian Personality’ (1950), which led to all of the r*tarded Leftoid “small peepee racist nazi incestuous regressive bigot” shit that we have today. During the Second World War, Neumann worked as the deputy head of the Central European Section of the Research and Analysis Branch of the CIA (OSS), where he, alongside Marcuse and Kirchheimer, worked on projects analyzing political tendencies of Nazi Germany, eventually producing a ‘de-Nazification guide’ and playing a key role in the Nuremberg trials.
Later in life, Neumann worked for the US Department of State, in addition to working closely with the Rockefeller Foundation to increase “political theory” (aka Cultural Marxist theory) as a component of political science in the American university system. His son is currently a Berkeley civil rights lawyer; the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.
To top this all off, Neumann was a Soviet spy, as identified in the renowned ‘Verona Papers.’
This is just one of the less influential Frankfurt School figures. You could fill an entire book just by listing their connections to the political, economic, and academic elites of the West.
The idea that the intellectuals of the Frankfurt School – who worked for the CIA, KGB, US government, and had links to the Rockefellers and the United Nations, whose close compatriots had links to the most powerful institutions on the planet, who created laws that defined the 20th Century – were simply a bunch of scruffy Marxist nobody intellectuals, is absolutely insane. Only somebody with absolutely no knowledge of the Frankfurt School could ever make such a ridiculous claim — either that, or somebody who is an outright liar.
But we are still left with one gigantic elephant in the room…
The fundamental aim of the Cultural Marxist is to invert all values; anything that is viewed as good, right, strong, should be denigrated, everything that is weak, degenerate, reprehensible should be venerated.
This is a question that plagued me for years.
Why did these literal Marxists wish to engineer a society filled with reprehensible, degenerate freaks, who would be completely incapable of orchestrating a revolution? People who Karl Marx himself would have decried as ‘lumpenproletariat’? Surely there was a better way to create a new ‘Revolutionary Class’ than this?
After much deliberation, it finally clicked: The paymaster of the Bolsheviks – international finance, the swine behind the mask – already had almost total control of the political establishment in the West. The United States government was already in the hands of international capital via the Federal Reserve, the government of the United Kingdom was on the leash of the Rothschilds and the City of London.
By the time this degenerate Cultural Marxism shit had been forced onto our populations in the 1950s and 60s, the New World Order had already been founded.
The UN dates back to the ‘Arcadia Conference’ of 1942, at which both Liberals and Communists signed the ‘Declaration by United Nations’ (http://archive.vn/0e344) that would form the basis of the official United Nations organization. This declaration was based on a draft produced by the US government in 1939 (two years before America entered the Second World War). The UN, led by the ‘Big Four’, UK, USA, USSR, and China (aka the ‘Four Policemen’), was officially founded in 1945, immediately after the Second World War ended. The UN’s World Bank and IMF were founded in 1944 at the Bretton Woods Conference, which also abolished the gold standard, leading to fiat currency and the petrodollar. All of this was the collaborative effort of Western Liberals and Eastern Communists, all of whom were being pimped by the international bankers — hence why their first collaborative governmental act was to establish a global central banking system. Dominance over the world’s financial systems has granted the United Nations and Friends colossal influence in every aspect of sociopolitical life. For example, through this finance network, the United Nations provides grants to scientists, researches, and governments, thus controlling scientific narrative. “Politically incorrect” project? Wave goodbye to your funding. The European Union (which was founded by Kalergi, the Warburgs of the Federal Reserve, the Rothschilds, and Bernard “Wolf of Wallstreet” Baruch) functions in a similar way. Who authored the sociopolitical theories that formed the basis of the United Nation’s racial laws? The Frankfurt School and the New School: Cultural Marxists.
Why did Lenin only endorse and enact socially degenerate policies AFTER coming to power?
The array of degenerates, SJWs, reprobates, and freaks created by Cultural Marxism are not revolutionaries, they are societal AIDs designed to prevent a revolution. They are the Agent Smith of the System, it’s white blood cells.
The ultimate aim of Communism – which is the ultimate aim of international CAPITAL and the international FINANCIER – the creation of a monoclass of deracinated slaves, can be achieved perfectly without the need for full Communism. Hence why the System today, the New World Order, exhibits a nameless synthesis of both Liberalism AND Communism.
What better way to encourage a population to embrace their own slavery than to program them to race to the bottom of the barrel of society via victimhood culture? What better way to create a legion of dedicated “True Believers” than to elevate the status of those who would have no status whatsoever without the existence of your system?
Of course, programming a population for slavery like this is nothing new, see quotes from Nietzsche on the Slave Moralist mindset:
“Equality” to the slave moralist means dismantling everything until the whole world is as depraved as they are. Self-improvement is hard, dragging everyone else down to your level considerably easier. Those at the helm of the System are more than happy to engineer a society in which the plebians tear each other apart for minor gains in social status.
We already live under occupation. There are no more Communist Revolutions to engineer.
APPENDIX: Marxism and International Finance
“International financiers and Communists?” you ask? Yes, a combination as old as Communism itself, a true vintage classic. Remember: Communism is merely a tool of a wider conspiracy.
The Bolsheviks were funded by the same City of London and Wall Street bankers who established the Federal Reserve, IMF, and World Bank. This included Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (the Federal Reserve gang) and their German brother Max Warburg (who founded Kalergi’s European Union alongside L. N. Rothschild and Churchill’s close friend, Bernard Baruch), as well as British financiers, such as George Buchanan (a British Knight and ambassador to Russia who “failed” to evacuate the Tsar from Bolshevik Russia, resulting in the murder of the Tsar and his family) and Alfred Milner (a Balfour Declaration signatory and Rothschild employee who co-founded to the ‘Rhodes-Milner Round Table’ secret society). A “Swedish” (Jewish) bank named Nya Banken contributed a large quantity of capital to the Bolshevik movement, eventually becoming the Soviet state bank. The Young Turks wealthy financial advisor, Israel Gelfand (“Parvus”), also likely contributed funds. Furthermore, the Bolsheviks were assisted by in their travels by various allies and agents of these international financiers, such as Woodrow Wilson (whose presidential campaign was funded by the Federal Reserve gang) who provided Trotsky with a fake passport to return to Russia during the First World War, and William Wiseman (an MI6 agent and employee of Kuhn, Loeb & Co.) who saved Trotsky from being imprisoned by the MI5 while he was in Halifax.
The founding of the Communist People’s Republic of China also had significant influence from international finance cartels, who had by that point established the World Bank and IMF to use as a front. A few notable international finance agents tasked with assisting the rise of Communist China include Harry Dexter White (a major architect of the IMF and World Bank and a US Treasury Department official who worked closely with Henry Morgenthau), Virginius Frank Coe (Secretary of the IMF, consultant of the US Treasury Department, advisor to the head of Federal Security Agency, and a technical advisor at the UN’s Bretton Woods conference), Solomon Adler (a US Treasury Department economist and US Treasury representative to China). These men greatly assisted the Communist Party’s rise to power by doing things such as preventing bail-out loans to the nationalist forces in China, intentionally causing hyperinflation that destroyed the Chinese middle class, the nationalists’ primary base of support.
The group to which these agents belonged is sometimes referred to as the ‘Silvermaster Ring,’ they were primarily based inside the US government financial apparatus. Other members included: Sonia Steinman Gold, Irving Kaplan, Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, Bela Gold. No prizes for guessing which ethnic group the ring was comprised of. Some members of the ring, such as Solomon Alder, later moved to China to work for the Communist government directly.
Many people who have attempted to warn both the governments and the public about the threat of Communist entryism have been routinely shut-down and ostracized for their troubles. Joseph McCarthy is a prime example. His warnings about Communist agents operating within the US federal government (about which he was completely correct) were met with slander, ridicule, and censorship. He was even compared to Adolf Hitler. Documents that were later released by the US government (the Verona Papers) unveiled huge numbers of Communist spies operating within the highest levels of the US government, including people such as J. Robert Oppenheimer of the Manhattan Project, who concealed himself by accusing others of spying. See a list of people named in the Verona papers here: http://archive.vn/aRQTc and here: http://archive.vn/e7nhP.
The lists read like a Tel Aviv phone book, maybe that’s why they called McCarthy ‘Hitler’?
The suspicious links between Communists and international bankers have been noted by people from all over the political spectrum for centuries. In 1871, while Karl Marx himself was still alive, the left-wing anarchist Mikhail Bakunin stated that:
“…with one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement, and with their behinds sitting on the German daily press — they have taken possession of all the newspapers — and you can imagine what kind of sickening literature they produce. Now, this entire Jewish world, which forms a single profiteering sect, closely and intimately united not only across national borders but across all differences of political opinion — this Jewish world today stands for the most part at the disposal of Marx and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. I am certain that Rothschild for his part greatly values the merits of Marx, and that Marx for his part feels instinctive attraction and great respect for Rothschild. This may seem strange. What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralization in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank…” [Note: I’ve had to edit this slightly because it was too anti-semitic to include without it being a ToS violator].
Bakunin was also a staunch opponent to Marx’ ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ idea, stating that “if you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.” He was completely vindicated by the USSR (http://archive.vn/ID4GE).
Though Bakunin was certainly no ideological role model (he was an atheistic socialist-anarchist), he was absolutely correct in identifying a link between international financiers and Communists.
In fact, Bakunin’s statement was far more correct than he may have realized: Karl Marx was a cousin of the Rothschilds. What an incredible coincidence.
Sauces & extra info:
• Kuhn, Loeb & Co (http://archive.vn/8vwAx) • George Buchanan (http://archive.vn/F6hNe, http://archive.vn/S4Bz7) • Alfred Milner (http://archive.vn/F6hNe, http://archive.vn/S4Bz7) • Max Warburg (http://archive.vn/x6KEW, http://archive.vn/1GmB7, http://archive.vn/x6KEW) • Woodrow Wilson (http://archive.vn/BJjVH) • William Wiseman (http://archive.vn/yKyuS) • Israel Gelfand, “Parvus” (http://archive.vn/vOpxj) • Nya Banken; Olof Aschberg & friends (http://archive.vn/HWfu1) • Virginius Frank Coe (http://archive.vn/95onW) • Harry Dexter White (http://archive.vn/BnNkV) • Solomon Adler (http://archive.vn/ddnp1, http://archive.vn/QhroZ) • Silvermaster Ring (http://archive.vn/tQGCp)
APPENDIX TWO: Woke Capital
I’ll keep this one brief. Woke Capitalism came from the same Gramscian (Long March) entryism as Cultural Marxism. Goons from the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission (all of which are linked to the United Nations and World Banking System) steadily infiltrated and bought up every single corporation on the planet. This is why (approximately) six companies own your media, why (approximately) eight companies produce all of the food in the world, and so on.
If you take anything away from this piece, it should be that the NWO has always been a tag team of Liberals and Communists, with the Liberal elite imposing this shit from above, and the Communists subverting us from below.
Addendum: What’s in a Name?
Quick note on the ‘Cultural Marxism’ moniker.
If it isn’t already obvious from all of the evidence presented in this article, here’s a quick explanation of why ‘Cultural Marxism’ is the appropriate title for this garbage — not ‘Cultural Liberalism,’ ‘Cultural Capitalism,’ ‘Radical Liberalism,’ just ‘Liberalism,’ or any other bullshit that people come out with.
1. Marxists have continually enacted and advocated this degenerate shit everywhere they crop up throughout history, dating back to Karl “the natural state of relationships is a promiscuous horde” Marx and Freddy “the first act of capitalist oppression is man against wife” Engels. The major objective of Marxism, from day one, has been to erode the social/cultural foundations of society (nation/family/religion).
2. Orthodox Marxists invented ‘Cultural’ Marxism (aka Western Marxism) because they realized that orthodox Marxism wasn’t cutting it in the 20th Century, the original foundation for Cultural Marxism is orthodox Marxist theory, and this lineage is extremely obvious.
3. Adding the ‘Cultural’ modifier clearly emphasizes the fact that this form of Marxism has deviated slightly from *orthodox* ‘by-the-book’ Marxism; which is exactly what Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc., did but nobody claims that they are not Marxists.
4. Cultural Marxism only began in the West after the Second World War, when Communists from the USSR infiltrated the West en masse. Before this point, Western Liberal nations were extremely bigoted and anti-Cultural-Marxist, even the overlords’ bitches, like Churchill, were colossal bigots. This degeneracy was exported straight out of the Marxist USSR and straight out of the Marxist Frankfurt School. The New School, which contributed a lot to Cultural Marxism, essentially just copied the Frankfurt School’s homework.
To the people who still disagree: Fuck you, retards.
The great irony in all of this is that Mussolini threw Gramsci in jail because Gramsci’s giant brain was a major threat to Fascism, but jailing Gramsci prompted him to address the question of why economic-grifter-Marxism was such a failure. Thus, the Italian Fascists inadvertently caused not just the fall of Fascism, but the subversion of the entire Western world. Phenomenal.