What is Cultural Marxism? Some people define Cultural Marxism as ‘an ideology which emphasizes culture as a main cause of inequalities.‘ Others define Cultural Marxism 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.’ Still others dismiss the whole idea of Cultural Marxism as a ‘right-wing conspiracy theory’, worthy only of a footnote in a German political history text.
I hate to say that I have personally witnessed Cultural Marxism firsthand, in Austin, TX. It’s a very politically and financially polarized college town, and I believe that Cultural Marxism is prevalent here to a degree, because this town was built to exploit in-group/out-group politics via fraternity-esque social classism, so the practices of Cultural Marxist exploiters play right into that, as well as into the ‘college liberal’ PC/SJW culture. After all, college is the place where promising youngsters are homogenized into blank slugs for the corporate machine, so that makes it pretty easy for bad influences to hi-jack the signal, and inject their own programming.
Austin residents have actually become so paranoid about becoming the victims of Culturally Marxist local social establishments, that even the rednecks act ‘politically correct’, if only because they don’t want to be accused of ‘intersectionality‘, the irony here being that Cultural Marxism is far more institutionalized than Intersectionality, even in little old Austin, TX! If you ask me, Intersectionality is a Dallas thing, and Cultural Marxism is an Austin thing. I consider myself a refugee from Dallas Intersectionality who ran to Austin for some liberal empathy and compassion, only to find myself a victim of Austin Cultural Marxism.
I think it’s totally possible to be the victim of both Intersectionality AND Cultural Marxism at once, or more commonly in direct sequence: If you are a cannabis user, no matter your race, the bigoted government will rob you and confine you to an artificially low social class, and then liberal Cultural Marxists of the community will take advantage of your shitty situation, by selling you short with one compromising situation or another.
I was having a conversation with a local male feminist about Miss USA dumping Tim Tebow because he practices abstinence, and he said that the NFL star needed to be ‘reprogrammed’. I said ‘What do you think a shrink is gonna do for this guy besides reinforce his pre-existing value system?’ People put way too much stock in shrinks in this town. It’s a replacement that atheists use instead of religion. Instead of confessing to a priest, you confess to a shrink. Instead of being advised by a clergyman, you are advised by a therapist. Instead of the dogma being controlled by the Vatican, it is controlled by the academic elite. Instead of Heaven and Hell, there is assimilation and commitment. Instead of a tithe there is an insurance premium. Instead of congregation there is group. Instead of communion wafers there are anti-depressants.
There is very little difference between psychology and religion. Both are for people who are too stupid or scared to think for themselves, and make their own choices. Anyway, shrinks are professional yes-men who reaffirm whatever you want them to as long as your payments clear. That’s why everyone thinks they are right all the time here, because they have a shrink that tells them they are right. It’s probably the same guy telling everyone they are right, even bitter enemies with directly conflicting agendas. His throwing up a green light in all directions makes me question whether the shrink is a psycho, actually.
Anyway, my point being that Austinites aren’t very good at living up to the stereotype of being good social liberals, tolerant of others’ cultures. Look what happened when this guy’s Cadillac rims got badly critiqued on reddit. Perfect example of Culturally Marxist intolerance, complete with appeal to authority in order to induce State intervention:
I don’t know what’s worse sometimes: that Austin has become too ‘Hollywood’, or that it’s the phony, overly-idealistic, snooty, spoiled liberals who hypocritically complain the loudest about Austin becoming too ‘Hollywood’. Too many princesses, not enough people willing to be subjugated as peasants. Irrational fantasies conflict. Douchebag photographers and Southern beauty queens manipulating eachother to a point where you can’t tell who is exploiting whom. What’s sad is that Cultural Marxism has actually been used in extremely closed and elitist modelling communities by Machiavellian moguls who attempt to have a monopoly on beauty.
It seems like there are so many locals who have ‘gone Hollywood’: Models, photographers, SJWs, cokeheads, DJs, swingers, etc… They even had a nightclub party called ‘Damn the Paparazzi’. Yeah, there’s lots of paparazzi around here. You wish your life were that interesting. Austin people being Hollywood is the definition of ‘pretentious’. If you could understand the ridiculousness of Texans imitating stereotypical Hollywood culture, and then complaining when actual Californians move here trying to get away from all that, then you would understand the ridiculousness of this town. Of course, these are the same people who use words like ‘poseur’, ‘inauthentic’, and ‘cultural misappropriation’.
As an avowed socialist, I find it important to say that Cultural Marxism is not exclusively linked to economic socialism, as some of the biggest Cultural Marxists I’ve met here were avid capitalists, people who try to exploit systemic AND inherent imbalances in order to bend the people around them to their wills. Think of the movie ‘Trading Places’ with Dan Aykroyd and Eddie Murphy. The Duke brothers in that movie broke a rich white man down, and built a poor black man up using the principles of Cultural Marxism, despite the fact that they were avowed capitalists, though some may question how true Scotsmen they could possibly be, if they were willing to abandon business ethics and common sense the way they did, in order to hurt someone they knew to be good, and help someone completely random, of unknown status. But regardless of their professed and actual politics, cultural Marxists can be easily identified by their behavior.
So what does a Cultural Marxist’s playbook of tactics and ideologies look like?
1. In order to make someone what you want them to be, you must first break down their pre-existing identity.
After reflecting on this anti-Muslim Austin shit, I have this to say: It didn’t become obvious to me how prejudiced, xenophobic, and classist Texans are until I moved from one Texan city to another. I mean, I had some idea, but I guess in my hometown I was somewhat on the winning end of it. Don’t get me wrong, there were definitely people who were pretentious about being too rich, too popular, or too pretty for me in my hometown, but at the very least, I had a place, which is more than I can say that Austin has offered me so far. Though my hometown’s opportunities for creative people were highly limited, I was at least somewhat respected by the local establishments and institutions, because I grew up there and they could clearly trace my social lineage.
Austin has been highly different: there are plenty of opportunities for my kind of people here, but they are hoarded by a social elite of cliquey protectionists. Even as a person of relatively privileged background (I’m actually the product of a mixed-class divorce, so my background is a bit hard to define- suffice to say that I am familiar with a broad spectrum of social and financial classes), I have been exploited, oppressed, and misclassified by small-minded locals. And so often it is done by people who consider themselves ‘progressive’, often rationalized with liberal rhetoric.
Austinites will not even tolerate ‘normal’ white Judeo-Christian people from Dallas, SA, or Houston, so why do you think they would tolerate foreign national Muslims? Muslims have Christian capitalist conservative enemies here. They also have liberal atheist feminist enemies here. They want a piece of the Austin pie? It won’t come easy. I’m not endorsing that fact, just acknowledging it. The social conflicts between varying flavors of ideological purism and cultural Marxism will tear a new-jack down in this town. You start out young, naive idealist College Freshman, and end up jaded, hardened, wizened College Senior.
The locals see outsiders as one of two things: blank lumps of clay to be molded to the local whims, or ‘closed-minded people’, and if you have any kind of integrity or identity, the locals are not going to really respect that unless it’s compatible with their own. Seeing how petty white, upper-middle class, Judeo-Christian capitalists are with eachother, I can only imagine how they are to a person of completely different race, religion, and nationality.
The local reaction to this Anti-Muslim incident has been blame-shifty as Hell. Conservatives have been blamed (‘Damn intolerant hicks!’). Out-of-towners have been blamed (‘Only people who don’t understand what Austin is all about would do that’). Of course, those pointing fingers have no justification to assume that the ‘racists’ who did this were strictly conservative. There are liberals who are bigoted and conservatives who aren’t racist. No one wants to admit that most people are at least a little prejudiced. They actually make ‘non-prejudice’ an ‘us and them’ thing. Which is ridiculously hypocritical, and only encourages socio-political polarization.
The sad reality of which I am a perfect example, is that even if you are a white, Judeo-Christian, and upper-middle-class out-of-towner, there are many Austinite locals who will still refuse to accept you in any but a subservient and assimilating role, simply because you are not from here. They don’t recognize you as one of the people they went to one of the local high schools with, so you will always be a second-class citizen to them. There is also quite a bit of ‘Austinite exceptionalism’ going on, where the locals get to be royalty by way of social privilege, and the transplants have to swim or sink due to lack of social capital and independent agency. Hell, even if you share the same weirdo niche interests with the locals: socialism, environmentalism, New Ageism, atheism, recreational drug use, scene subcultures, alternative diets, polyamorism, etc, they are still going to treat you like a new-jack and make you pay dues, and by the time they finally accept you, you will resent them and no longer want to be a member of their group.
They might use the state to break you down, or your career, or your school, or your church, or whatever. They might use the counter-culture or the underground to do it. Whatever they have control of, from the highest office to the lowest dungeon. Cultural Marxists exist at all levels of society. And they aren’t just going after religious fundamentalists and conservatives, either, but a lot of them attack the subcultures as well. Whether you are a punk, metalhead, Burner or whatever, they don’t like that and want you to be more mainstream and mass-marketable.
2. A fish-out-of-water or newcomer will be easy to control, socially, because they have low social capital and agency, especially relative to the local establishments.
Because they don’t know anyone, trust the wrong people, don’t trust anyone, are either too open- or too closed-minded, and thus predictably manipulated. Literally any new entrant’s social, legal, or professional status can be manipulated socially by their new community, as these are all dependent upon social class that is malleable by perception. Remember that money, social class, etc, are all social and legal constructs, and thus can be manipulated socially and systemically by those with more pull than the intended victim.
This is what Ayn Rand would refer to as ‘the Aristocracy of Pull’, as much as I hate to quote Ayn Rand. Basically a popular, desirable, or especially capable person could be just as socially over-privileged as someone of high financial class, and there are plenty of broke-but-popular performers who are examples of that. This is why cultural Marxists tend to favor college town environments, because they are full of non-local residents, who are easy to manipulate, because they are young, open-minded, and socially unincorporated with the locals. In such a town, the local establishment usually exists solely to fleece the college flock.
Because so much of what defines us as people is actually a social construct, with little to do with our intrinsic natures, cultural Marxist can use that to make people into the antithesis of themselves. Think about it: when you say that someone is ‘classy’, is that because they intrinsically have class, or because they were raised a certain way? In other words, is that variable internally or externally defined? Stripped of their money and social support structures, would this person also be stripped of their ‘class’? What if they are only ‘classy’ because they are cloistered, and haven’t had the opportunity to misbehave?
And that’s exactly how the cultural Marxists strips them of their class by convincing them of this idealistic delusion of a classless society. You believe in that and let your behavior follow that belief, and you will eventually end up in a lower social class than you started. Probably lower than the people who sold you down that river. And you might notice that those people sell a lot of people down that river.
3. You can control someone’s actions (and therefore the public’s perception of their identities) by controlling their personal circumstances.
A sure sign of prejudice is actively restricting someone from being a good person, and then blaming them for being a bad person. This is basically just ‘why are you hitting yourself’, where people are put into a ‘damaged goods’ class and then not allowed to be anything but a victim thereafter.
Examples: deprived of money or legitimate employment, a person may turn to crime and can then be intervened upon by rationalization that they are intrinsically a criminal. Deprived of sex or other meaningful social contact, they will act in a predictably anti-social or phonily schmoozing manner, etc… If you send some black people to consistently antagonize someone or rob them, they may develop racial complexes. If you tell gay people to mess with them, they are going to become homophobes, etc, which brings me to my next point:
4. Self-fulfilling social prophecies:
If you tell everyone that someone is a sexist, racist, or classist, the other races, sexes, and classes will treat them poorly, and they will eventually become what you have called them. At that point, they can be victimized in the typical way that sexists, classists, and racists will be victimized by a liberal community. The underlying principle here is that people will become what you have convinced the people around them that they are. Thus, even if you are wrong at first, they will eventually fulfill your expectations, if you put them in the right social conditions.
Note that Cultural Marxists will almost always omit the first part of that story. The part where you were nice and open-minded when you first arrived in their environment, and one by one, their entire community ripped you off until you then became ‘closed-minded and uncool’. What they’re gonna tell everyone is that you simply are an asshole and always were, and none of their actions or the actions of their friends had anything to do with it.
5. Misinformation is the cultural Marxist’s bread-and-butter.
Remember, the cultural Marxist takes advantage of information deficits between you and your community. Because your community doesn’t know much about you, an unscrupulous person can easily mischaracterize you as this or that. They can tell lies about your private behavior, past or present. Single and lonely? They can create the impression that you are the biggest player in town, and thus keep people away from you by making them believe that you don’t NEED any more friends. They can convince the world you are feasting when you are actually the victim of famine.
Cultural Marxists love to create this impression of a ‘Participation Trophy Society’, because it creates this false standard that everyone actually got a participation trophy. The reality is that some people didn’t, and some people’s trophies were nicer than others. A Cultural Marxist Panglosses that over. They create the perception of privilege and stability in individuals who have never enjoyed either, just so they can continue to prop up those who have always had both!
They can perpetuate terrible situations for you, using nothing but gossip power. The thing that they love to do most is convince people that you are the opposite of who you actually are, so that way you will be perpetually misunderstood by those around you. Even if the well-intentioned in your community want to help you, which they probably won’t because you’ve been demonized, but they wouldn’t know how anyway, because they’ve been misled about how you actually are and what you actually need to be happy. The misinformationists have convinced them you are a gay, meth-addicted, rapist racist, when in fact you are merely a serial monogamist who smokes pot and prefers fair-haired, pale-skinned ladies.
6. Social ostricization is the cultural Marxist’s weapon of choice.
The idea is that, even if capitalists or the government were able to build a materially perfect world (I don’t believe this is possible, but assume for a minute), social liberals could still ruin it socially, by making everyone emotionally miserable, usually in protest for some pie-in-the-sky cause that very few people care about. And they do it with polyamory, race-baiting, divisive echo chambers, etc… Creating artificial social problems for someone who is otherwise healthy and normal, usually as a means of negative reinforcement, in order to manipulate the target into changing their behavior in the desired way, for the purpose of ending the negative stimulus.
Consider this: a handsome man or beautiful woman moves to town. S/he has money and education. Obviously, this person will be high status, and give little consideration to people and things which are ‘beneath them’. But if you destroy their social life collectively, demonize them professionally, criminalize them systemically, that will bring them down to a lower level of society, and now they will compromise in ways they never dreamed of doing before. Then this compromise will be fundamentally misattributed to their identity, or some aspect of their core being, rather than to the crummy situation that the community has collectively put them in. For men, it’s usually a ploy to get to your money, your connections, or perhaps even your extraordinary capabilities. For women, a ploy for sexual exploitation.
7. Cultural Marxism is highly correlated with sexual and racial ambiguity.
Hate to say it, but transgenders, with their ill-conceived notion of ‘fluid gender identity’ are extremely guilty here, as are plain old gays, bis, and polys, all of whom depend upon people with poorly defined self-concepts for ‘new recruits’. Also, people who want to have sex with those outside of their race, or stick others with inter-racial partners. These people can all be perverts who tend to prey upon normal people who want to ‘experiment’ in college. Now, don’t get me wrong: transgenders, gays, and inter-racial relationship advocates don’t HAVE to be culturally Marxist, by definition, but frequently they are.
Think about it: these people can say that race is a social construct, and they can even get people to believe that, but the only way to truly eliminate race is to make everyone a mulatto with no perception of ethnic roots. Now, I don’t have a problem with black men going after white women. I really don’t, unless it’s the same one I want. Some white women can only be satisfied by a black man, and that’s their prerogative. I’ve had white women discriminate against me for reasons far pettier than skin color, ie: I wore the wrong jacket, so I figure if a black guy finds a white woman who’s into him, more power to the guy.
On the other hand, that leaves a lot of black women jilted, and who do the Cultural Marxists try to set them up with? That’s right: beta white guy! Beta white guy will settle for a black girl. We’ve kept him single for years. He must be desperate by now. All the skinny white girls passed him up, because we called him ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’, and that’s so uncool. Now’s his chance to prove us wrong. Stick him with a black girl. Make sure she’s overweight, too, get some body-type acceptance going there, as well. Basically, let’s give the beta white guy Precious. He should be thankful he gets anyone.
Of course, once you’ve gotten the beta white guy to fuck a black chick out of desperation, you can just as easily accuse him of exploiting woman of lower social and financial class by subjecting her to a possessive and exploitative patriarchal relationship… That’s pretty much what liberal revisionist historians did to Thomas Jefferson. Sorry, I’d fuck a black girl, but I don’t want to be accused of being a ‘slave rapist’ 200 years from now. And the misinformationists are getting so bold that they now do that to people within their own lifetime! Of course, I guess it all depends upon whether or not you got the girl off. Let’s not pretend, even for a second, that there aren’t feminists out there who will, post hoc, call sex that was, at the time consensual, ‘rape’.
My point: I can’t hate black men for liking white women, or women with paler skin than themselves. I like white women, especially those more pale than myself. I’m just saying that biracial romance, on a mass scale, creates logistical complications that can leave some people out if they don’t want to compromise, and still others never even get offered the opportunity to compromise!
Of course, the feminist matriarchy will always intervene to protect a woman’s right to be romantically racist, ensuring that they are never made to feel racist for maintaining racial romantic preferences, but they most certainly don’t offer men this same service. It’s more likely they will racially ad hominem the man who prefers some races to others in dating.
8. Cultural Marxists tend to be atheists.
Look at the bumper-sticker above. Did a Cultural Marxist make that? NO! A multi-culturalist did. A Cultural Marxist, like Stalin, doesn’t want anyone to have a religion or a culture unique to their geographical region, genetic heritage, or even their personal tastes! Cultural Marxists are globalists, Statists, and Authoritarians. A multi-culturalist celebrates diversity, and a Cultural Marxist wants to eliminate it altogether. That’s the difference between the two. Cultural Marxists aren’t the KKK, and they aren’t the Black Panthers either. They are people who are intolerantly GREY. They want everyone to be generic and interchangeable, with no relative strengths, weaknesses, or individually defining characteristics.
Let’s all be interchangeable Lego blocks for the Cultural Marxists. Anyway, I’m not much of a religious person, but I do see value in spirituality, the religious component of world culture, the historical significance of figures like Christ, Buddha, etc… That’s more tolerance than you will get from an atheist.
9. Cultural Marxists use your desires and needs to get you to conform to their expectations.
You new in town? Well I guess you want employment, social accommodation, food, and shelter, right? Well, then you are going to have to do/be A, B, and C, because all the employers, landlords, and social groups around here only accept those who are A, B, and C, and they specifically hate X, Y, and Z, so you better not be those at all!
The lines you hear from Cultural Marxists are often generalizations about the local community that imply you must conform with local expectations in some way in order to fit in socially (and often by extension professionally, and even legally). In other words: ‘No one around here hires Republicans’, or ‘Everyone around here hates Male Rights Advocates.’ Key words: no one and everyone. I always tell those people that no one likes generalizers, but the irony is usually lost on them.
The bottom line: Cultural Marxists cock-block you, deny you employment, etc… for ‘liberal reasons’… but the end result is a stagnant or even regressive society, so you can’t really call them ‘progressives’… They may think of themselves that way, but their deliberate misapplication of liberal ideologies does not lead to a progressive society. Also, most of their ‘crusading’ behavior is entirely self-serving, but masked as altruism.
10. Cultural Marxists are con artists who fly false flags of liberal idealism.
‘You’re not racist, are you? That’s good, because I’m collecting for inner-city children’s basketball teams.’ You don’t want to be racist, so you give that guy your money. He goes around the corner and spends it on crack. You find out it was a scam later. You feel stupid. You stop trusting black people. Black people pick up on that, and start calling you ‘racist’. It’s a negative feedback loop created by liberal pettiness.
The sad truth is that liberal ideals are commonly the basis of urban scams. Growing up in Dallas, I learned to ignore the word ‘Hey!’ when traversing the ghetto, because a zillion experiences interacting with ghetto people had taught me that if you make eye contact with that person, their next words will be, ‘You got a cigarette/dollar/ride uptown/spare kidney?’ Of course, when you ignore people in this way you are at risk of being called ‘racist’, no matter how many taxes you pay or how much you donate to local charities. ‘There goes that racist classist who doesn’t even want to acknowledge the poor or blacks.’
Of course, these same people will not hesitate to stereotype white people via Privilege Politics, and all of the racist assumptions they entail.
11. Cultural Marxists tend to be non-confrontational backstabbers and well-poisoners.
Think about it. If someone called you racist, sexist, or classist to your face, you’d be able to defend yourself pretty well, right? You could probably provide examples of past incidents where you have helped the less fortunate, express some kind of current idealism, or even produce witnesses of the female, ethnic, or financially destitute variety, who could testify on your behalf.
That’s why cultural Marxists almost NEVER confront their victims directly. Their whole goal is to create a public misperception of you that will totally ruin your social life, without ever giving you a chance to refute or respond, by quietly gossiping about you, behind your back, taking your statements out of context, caricaturizing the negative aspects of your personality, exaggerating your problems, lying by omitting your strengths, and generally depicting you to others in a way that’s extremely biased against you, personally.
12. Cultural Marxists are hypocritically stereotypers and misrepresenters, of both groups and individuals.
All men are sexists, all Muslims are terrorists, all Capitalist are greedy, all Republicans are bigots, all drug dealers are sexual exploiters… Sound familiar? ‘If so-and-so is X, then that means they are also Y’. This is the kind of bad logic they use to alienate individuals or even entire categories of people from the community. Basically, Cultural Marxists MISREPRESENT their enemies by speaking for them, often inaccurately or poorly, misrepresenting hyperbole as objective fact. Note that there is a thin line between that and Hunter Thompson/Jello Biafra -esque ‘Gonzo Journalism’.
13. Cultural Marxists blame the individual even if their environment (and those who control it) is truly to blame.
This is called the ‘fundamental attribution error‘ or simply ‘victim-blaming‘. And what’s ironic is that we typically think of this as a conservative misconception: The rich blaming the poor for their shoddy circumstances in life, white people blaming black people for the consequences of racism, or misogynists blaming the female victims of rape. Most liberals generally acknowledge this to be bad, but that doesn’t stop them from hypocritically doing it themselves, to others. I find feminists are especially bad about this type of hypocrisy, bitching about conservative victim-blaming even as they indulge in stereotypical liberal victim-blaming, the favorite target of which is the white male, Christianity, Capitalism, etc…
Liberals victim-blame their enemies and opponents, and they do it by deliberately creating a bad social situation for someone, and then blaming them for it by saying, ‘He did it to himself’. One example I heard of this was when someone accused me of ‘alienating myself’… what an absurd accusation, as alienation and ostricization, by definition, are things that the group does to the individual, not vice-versa. This accusation was literally doublethink, but it flew easily in a community where logic and critical thinking abilities are not championed or even possessed by the majority of group members. Which brings me to my next point:
14. Objectivity and critical thinking are the bane of Cultural Marxists.
The only thing Facebook has destroyed is the mainstream media’s ability to make everyone think alike. The author is not lamenting the death of consensus, she is lamenting the death of false consensus, the ability of a ‘Ministry of Information’ to force ‘consensus’ on people who don’t consent.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand the problems that misinformation poses, but those are caveats for the reader, not the publisher. We all have the right to express our subjective opinions, and if the reader gets taken in by falsehood, fantasy, or bias, that’s their own damn fault for not fact-checking. If you want to prevent the repercussions of that, teach critical thinking in public school. Oh, but liberals hate critical thinking, don’t they? It causes people to question their bullshit.
Anyway, the greatest threat to public discourse is ‘politically correct’ people and religious fanatics, both of whom insulate themselves and others into ‘echo chambers’… polarizing society by saying, ‘I’m only going to pay attention to those who agree with me, and pretend that everyone else doesn’t exist.’ Which brings me to my next point.
15. Cultural Marxists create and employ social echo chambers in order to create and exploit divisions between people.
These people literally FEED ON BIAS. They also feed on social division. If two people are not in communication with eachother, they can exploit the rift between them by perpetuating their misunderstanding of eachother. This often relies upon completely false stories. In the case of a rich kid in college, there are a million ways to exploit him. Unscrupulous people could blackmail that kid for anything he might not want his parents to know, or anything that might change their image of him in a way he didn’t want.
The bad guys could also go to the kids parents’ tell him, ‘Your son has gambling debts/bangs cocktail waitresses two at a time/got my daughter pregnant’, etc, whether it happened or not, simply as a means of getting Mommy and Daddy to ‘handle it’ with money.
Exes are often exploited the same way. ‘How’s my ex I never see anymore?’ ‘She screwed your best friend. Now you should screw hers.’ Also, an obsolete or stereotypical understanding of a person could be used to mischaracterize them by reputation to those they haven’t seen in years or have ever met at all. In other words, they tell you some bullshit about an individual or a group, and then try to get you to do something stupid in reaction to that. I know a woman whose parents’ divorce made her believe that all marriages were lies, all paternity was spoofed, and she went down a pretty perverted social course after that.
The point is that people who don’t communicate with eachother are not likely to possess accurate understandings of eachother’s personalities, and Cultural Marxists use that to exploit people who are cut off from eachother. Once a person is persona non grata in one camp, a Cultural Marxist will create a dogma about that person that gets repeated and handed down from person to person… and because that person isn’t a member of that group, everyone just assumes that dogma is true, whether it is or not.
And they use intermediaries to do this, mostly. You might not realize that the person who made you feel some way about someone or their category was actually being directed to do that by some disconnected third party who has taken an interest in shaping your worldview. Multi-culturalists, on the other hand, are uniters, not dividers.
16. Cultural Marxists tend to profess to be ‘non-judgmental’, but are actually the most judgmental of all.
They say they accept everyone, but in actuality accept no one. They have nominally accepted you so they could dissect and diagnose you under the pretense of acceptance. These are dangerous people to fall in with, because they sell you short by telling you to suspend your judgment, and then later victim-blame you for having ‘bad judgment’.
Those who pretend that there are no consequences to being non-judgmental are pretty easy to lose respect for when you watch their cycles of social drama play out a few times.
The ‘non-judgmental people’ act like they are these compassionate, enlightened people… the reality is that they are psychos who enjoy watching people get hurt. In not calling a whatever a whatever, they are really just setting people up for failure and selling them short, all in the name of ‘not stereotyping others’… It’s easy to get taken in by that kind of ideology when you’re young, but if you mature at all as you age, you lose respect for those emotionally detached, selfishly manipulative people acting like they are trying to help everyone get along.
Basically, Cultural Marxists are the Spin Doctors of social perception, and based on whether they like you or not, they can use their powers for or against you. But there is so little consistency in how they wield those powers, it is difficult to think of them as having any social or intellectual integrity. On the forums and in theory, these people tend to be idealist who have this all-inclusive ideology that accepts everyone… except ‘bigots’, of course. In real-life practice, they are actually extremely socially manipulative and petty. These are kick-banners and false-consensus-perpetuators and groupthinkers. Of course, ‘they say it don’t be that way, but it do.’
17. The natural enemy and polar opposite of the Cultural Marxist is the ideological purist, but that doesn’t make them right, or any better.
The conflict between ideological purism and cultural Marxism is the conflict between ‘my way is the only way’ and ‘you can’t have a definite, exclusive identity, because that offends someone’. Both are problems in America. Two extremes to avoid. Happiness lies in the middle ground, swaying to whatever side suits your current purpose.
In Austin, you have your typical Texas bigots: ‘I’m white, Christian, conservative, and capitalist, and everyone is wrong but me.’ And it goes without saying that those people are a drag. People who want to maintain the status quo, materialists, social classists, religious fundamentalists, etc…
But then you have your cultural Marxists, who are a liberal reaction to that, and they are not much better (in fact, in extreme cases they are much worse). It seems like they mostly exist to take advantage of college kids, who are geographically displaced, socially disconnected, environmentally overwhelmed, and don’t really have fully-formed identities.
Basically, what I have found is that there are two types of bigots in Texas (or anywhere): conservative bigots and liberal bigots. The conservative bigots only respect people like them, and the liberal bigots only respect people who remain nebulous about their identities… The middle ground between those is the multi-culturalist, I believe. But while multi-culturalism is a very fine and American goal, it is often used as a false flag to mask Culturally Marxist intentions, and thus exploit naive idealism and altruism until there is none left in this world.
Finally, the last piece of advice I can give you is to remember that no matter where you go, they will somehow try to turn you into something that you are not, in order to suit the petty agendas and biases of their particular geography and society. But a person of integrity, who knows who they are, will always maintain their exclusive identity, no matter what situation they find themselves temporarily entangled in, rather than simply ‘going along to get along’ by ‘doing as the Romans do’.