Skip to main content

Cultural Marxism

Cultural Marxist is not Marxist in the traditional sense. There are no Marxists in terms of working class advocacy nowadays. Union membership continues to decline and most unions that remain survive through providing financial services like superannuation. The only Marxists are 'Cultural Marxists' and I don't think Marx would agree with them - why?
Because Cultural Marxists (CMs) support Capitalism and oppress the working class.

Cultural Marxism, for example, the promotion of 'diversity' and privileges for designed victimhood classes (female, POC, etc.) is pushed by the largest corporations and mass media. Large corporations recognise that CM is no threat to them and they actually use it to promote themselves and increase profit.

CMs think the working class is bigoted, uneducated backwards, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. It will take you less than a minute to find evidence of this on social media and use of anti-working class slurs like 'bogan'. CMs mask their envy with calls for equality. Driven by envy and resentment, the CM seeks to gain social and political power for the purpose of provoking destruction as compensation for his own personal impotencies and failures.

Cultural Marxists don't bare the costs of their ideology but push the cost onto the working class in poorer suburbs. For example, refugees, ethnic ghettos, poor infrastruture, high crime - the result, in part, of the CMs embrace of mass immigration - are borne by the working class, not the CMs in their white, gentrified, inner city post codes. Higher electricity prices through renewables are also disproportionatley felt by the working class.

The working class subsidies the CMs to obtain their basket-weaving degrees at university. The working class, with their actually productive labour, then subsidises CMs in cushy government, HR, and other parasitical bullshit jobs.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Multiculturalism is responsible for every war in history (almost)

people informally segregate all the time. You will find various ethnic enclaves in Melbourne and Sydney. Ethnocentric in-group preference is also seen in choice of friends and communication levels among work colleagues of different ethnic backgrounds. While there may be enough tolerance to allow semi-deracinated individuals to participate in capitalism and consumerism, the reality is that in-group preference is innate and Multiculturalism/diversity should be avoided a much as possible, because it breaks down social cohesion and trust. Diversity is our greatest weakness - an observable, scientific reality (footnote: Robert Putnam). Remember that forced integration has lead to many conflicts in the 20th and 21st century. WWI and Hitler would not have happened if various ethnic groups had sovereignty rather than being under the thumb of oppressive empires. Iraq and Israel/Palestine are two current examples of Multicultural conflicts. There is widespread revolt against forced integrati...

How Liberalism enslaves

Aristotle, the Stoics and other ancient Greco-Roman moralists posit a very different idea of 'freedom' that involves combating the tendencies that divert us from human flourishing and contributing to our community as social animals. It is naturalistic, albeit pre-Darwinist, but it is not dogmatic like Liberalism, Leftism, etc. This ancient teach us what freedom really is, and Stoic practices in particular can inculcate an honest sense of autonomy. Liberalism claims to grant people autonomy but it only gives them a false sense of it. It effectively enslaves people to denial of their biology, hedonistic consumerism, keeping up with the Jones', seeking celebrity, lower quality social and family relations, workplace and other forms of alienation, pursuit of happiness in all the wrong places: career, travel, shiny things, sleeping around, taking drugs, etc. Liberalism won't necessarily lead to all these things, but it makes people vulnerable to their marketing, and being h...

Equality, Liberalism and the Big State

Shelley makes Liberalism sounds as idealistic and Utopian as any religion. I even see some parallels with the Sermon on the Mount. What is the relation between 'equality' and the 'individual'. (I don't think we are equal and my reification of the 'individual' has become weaker lately). Must one have a strong view of equality to have a strong view of the individual and their 'rights'? I think so, although those regimes pushing equality the strongest - the Communists - have ended up being the most hierarchical and totalitarian of all, with the State on top and the plebs below. Equality ends ups sacrificing individual 'rights' for the sake of whatever new set of individual 'rights' are trendy at the time. e.g. we need to pretend that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones therefore our 'free speech' right is sacrificed so as to protect the new 'freedom from hurt feelings' right of another. New indiv...