Cultural Marxism
An essay into the history of the imperialistic subversion campaign launched against the roots of the White race.
“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
Introduction
Cultural Marxism has permeated our society so thoroughly that the vast majority of people, both residing on the Left and Right, have unwittingly absorbed and embraced a multitude of Marxist political positions. Unfortunately, most of these people will never discover the true origin of their inhumane beliefs, or come to terms with the fact that the way they see the world, is the result of a major subversion campaign aimed directly at Western/White civilisations. Similarly however, the majority of people who oppose Cultural Marxism, often have no idea that what they are opposing is just a branch of Marxist ideology, instead referring to it as “political correctness”, “multi-culturalism”, “identity politics”, “post-modernism”, “progressivism”, etc.
It’s extremely unfortunate for humanity that the origins of this vast political subversion campaign are widely unknown. Even more unfortunately, the origins of Cultural Marxism are becoming increasingly 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 enemy of humanity today. This ‘mystification’, greatly reduces our ability to combat Cultural Marxist subversion.
The Name
A quick disclaimer as to why the name ‘Cultural Marxism’, is more appropriate for this degeneracy as opposed to ‘Cultural Liberalism’, ‘Cultural Capitalism’, or just ‘Liberalism’, etc:
-> Marxists have continually enacted and advocated for this degeneracy in every place they appear throughout history, dating back to Karl Marx and Freddy Engels, the geniuses who gave us hysterical quotes such as “the natural state of relationships is a promiscuous horde”, and “the first act of Capitalist oppression is man against wife”, respectively. The major objective of Marxism, from day one, has been to erode the social and cultural foundations of society (nation/family/religion).
-> Orthodox Marxists invented ‘Cultural Marxism’, aka ‘Western Marxism’, because they realised 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.
-> Adding the ‘Cultural’ modifier clearly emphasises the fact that this form of Marxism has deviated slightly from ‘by-the-book’ (Orthodox) Marxism; which is exactly what Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc did, but nobody claims that they were not Marxists.
-> Cultural Marxism only began in the West after WW2 and the fall of National Socialist Germany, and when Communists from the USSR began to infiltrate the West en masse. Before this point, Western Liberal nations were extremely ‘bigoted’ and anti-Cultural Marxist - even figures like Churchill were bigoted. This degeneracy was exported straight out of the Marxist Frankfurt School.
‘Orthodox’ Marxism
To understand ‘Cultural Marxism’, you first have to understand ‘Orthodox’ Marxism. The common belief amongst Westerners in particular that Marxism is simply an “economic theory”, is inherently incorrect. Whilst economics is an important part of Marxism, the focus on economics in the agenda is simply a tool used by Communists to modify culture, behaviour, and the political landscape. Marx would himself admit this, yet modern Communists outright 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, whilst 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.
Everything that we regard as ‘Cultural Marxism’ is firmly rooted in Orthodox Marxism. Upon reading ‘The Communist Manifesto’, you’ll notice that the overreaching aims of Marx and Engels can be boiled down to four simple and key points:
Destruction of Family;
Destruction of Nation;
Destruction of Religion;
Destruction of Private Property.
In other words, the fundamental aim of Marxism is the uprooting of all the foundations upon which tribes, nations, and civilisations have historically been constructed. This is not an interpretation that “reads between the lines” - they are quite open about their wishes for the world.
The purpose of Marxism is not to “free the worker” from ‘Capitalism’, but instead to manufacture a new breed of serfs; an entire planet full of deracinated, God-less, nationless, subjects without families or any conception of the world beyond materialistic conditions - even the Marxists’ alias for this “new man” - “The International Worker” - reduces him to a mere economic unit. The “Neo-Liberals” at least disguise their malevolence by labelling the economic unit as “The International Consumer”. The Neo-Liberal fools the slave into thinking that he isn’t a slave at all, but someone who instead has the “privilege” of being showered with “luxuries” and “products”.
The utopian fantasy of the ‘Full Communist’ stateless society, in which total world peace has been achieved, is the bait dangled on the hook of Communism, designed to trick the impoverished proletariat into revolting against their government and subsequently handing power to the rootless internationalists who hide behind the mask of Communism. Through this, the workers are “saved” from the serfdom of the gentry, military, and religious nobility of their own kin/tribe/nation, and are immediately forced into the serfdom of the bourgeois internationalists, who ‘LARPed’ as ‘fellow proletariats’, and now constitute the leadership of ‘The Party’. The dictatorship of the “proletariat” stage never ends, because it was never designed to end. The USSR is the archetypal case, demonstrating all of the above.
Race
It may (or may not) surprise you to hear that the Communists of the USSR - Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin … - were strongly outspoken against the evils of “racism”. In fact, the term “racism” itself was popularised by these same Bolsheviks, and it is often claimed that Leon Trotsky invented the term, which is not entirely accurate, but close enough and reasonable to assume. “Racism”, as per its current definition - that acknowledging racial differences is an act of “oppression” - did not exist before the Bolsheviks.
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 oppression was the result of ‘anti’-racist policies. To emphasise this point that may confuse some people, take a look at the present-day situation in South Africa. The situation there was ideologically engineered almost single-handedly by Communists who moved into South Africa from the USSR, who acted as political leaders and the driving forces behind the anti-racism/anti-apartheid movement. The White minority class in South Africa are currently being oppressed to the point of genocide, in the names of “‘anti’-racism” and “equality”.
Communists view race as a “bourgeoisie abstraction”, and an obstruction that must be decimated in order to unite the workers of the world under their new monoculture of the “International Worker”. This is strikingly similar to the stance of the modern “Neo-Liberal”, who regards race as a “regressive abstraction”, and an obstruction that must be decimated 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 ‘racially’). By identifying with their ethnic groups (biological in-groups), they undermined the state-imposed Communist culture. This is corroborated by multiple quotations from the writings of all major USSR leaders; Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin.
‘What is National Socialism?’ - Trotsky:
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].
‘The Working Class and the National Question’ - Lenin:
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.
‘Marxism and the National Question’ - Stalin:
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 organisation 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.
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 the 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-WW2 civil rights movements, though they attempted to avoid being labelled as such, as they had already been called out as foreign subversives. American 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 campaigns 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 3,000 biologists were imprisoned, fired, or executed for attempting to oppose Lysenkoism, and strive for realism as science should, often accused of being “Fascists” (similar smearing is now found in the West). 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 out-lawing 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:
“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, 12 January 1931.
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 - Cambodia for example - has done so in spite of Marxism, not because of it.
It is important to note that whilst the USSR was, paradoxically, committing genocide against minorities in the name of anti-racist globalist internationalism, the Western Liberals (who the Alt-Right and Duginists claim are responsible for all our problems today), were busy implementing 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: Naturalisation Acts: 1790, 1795, 1798), were segregated by law, and so on. The UK meanwhile were still maintaining the British Empire. Even ultra-globalist Winston Churchill gloated about “shooting savages” in Sudan, and waging “jolly little wars” against “barbarous people”.
The Liberal West’s attitude toward race only changed after the end of WW2, when Communist & Bolshevik agendas succeeded in crippling Germany, and began to move on to England and the USA. Other factors, such as laws created by the United Nations, also contributed.
Gender
Moving on from race and focusing on gender policies, the early USSR could easily be mistaken for a modern “Neo-Liberal” society with regards to their feminist, pro-LGBT, and anti-family policies. When the Bolsheviks came into power in 1917, they almost immediately decriminalised homosexuality, legalised abortion, divorce, banned adoption, cancelled ‘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 legalisation of male prostitution, alongside the decriminalisation 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.
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”. The anti-family stances of Marx and Engels make much more sense when you realise that both of these ‘men’ were degenerates; Marx an adulterer, and Engels a promiscuous man, with numerous mistresses, who (he) refused to marry.
Of course, the USSR did change when Stalin took over, he softened and rolled back many of these policies. Presumably, he realised that the USSR did not have the infrastructure to support such a decadent and degenerate society. It’s likely that Stalin also realised that a decadent and degenerate (“Liberalised”) country would be incapable of both industrialising and preparing for the war with Germany that Stalin deemed inevitable (proven by his attempt at fulfilling ‘Operation Thunderstorm’, which outlined plans for a Soviet invasion of Germany and Western Europe. ‘Operation Barbarossa’, the German invasion of the USSR, was conducted shortly after). The Soviet ‘Family Code of 1936’, increased restrictions on abortion, divorce, and introductions of pro-family propaganda.
While Stalin did dislike “degenerates”, he was by no means a ‘traditionalist’, nor was he 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 Marxism, not because of Marxism.
Stalin doing what had to be done at that time does not prove that Communism is traditional, 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 for children. Even today, modern-day Russia’s abortion and divorce rates are among the highest in the world, White Nationalists are and have been imprisoned by the masses, and mass migration has started to displace actual Russians in Moscow.
The Frankfurt School
As explained, Cultural Marxism is firmly rooted in Orthodox Marxism, but 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 a rootless think-tank, born in Frankfurt.
After the success of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, and the failure of Communist revolutions in Europe and the Western world, Marxists were left in a state of confusion. To address questions such as ‘Why did the soldiers of WW1 fight for their respective nations instead of rising up against Capitalism?’, Marxist ‘intellectuals’ in Germany founded a think-tank called the ‘Frankfurt Institute for Social Research’, or simply put, the ‘Frankfurt School’.
The School was founded during the Weimar Republic era in 1923, shortly after the failed 1918/19 Communist revolution in Germany. The Frankfurt School was bankrolled by Hermann Weil, who was the biggest grain trader on the planet at that time. There have been claims that the School was bankrolled by the “KGB”, which was presumably a catch-all term for the various Communist Secret Service groups, such as the Cheka and NKVD.
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.
Economic agitation worked perfectly to ferment revolution in non-industrialised Russia, but was practically a non-starter in the West, and this conundrum was pondered by the people at the School. In the words of Herbert Marcuse, who was a member of the School: “All questions of material existence have been solved”, i.e., nobody cares about Marxist ‘economic’ ideologies when they live perfectly comfortable lives. Regular people, quite reasonably, don’t want to tear down a society that comfortably satisfies all of their basic materialistic needs. Shelter, bread, even circuses and entertainment 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 wasn’t 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.
The question of why Marxism failed in the West was not answered by the Frankfurt School, but by a lone Communist who was dying of tuberculosis and multiple organ failures in an Italian prison cell. Antonio Gramsci, the leader of the Italian Communist Party, had been imprisoned by the Italian Fascists, and he was left to rot in jail while the Russian Bolsheviks had led a successful proletarian movement. Whilst in prison, Gramsci wrote over 3,000 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 possibly took inspiration from the Fabian Socialists of the United Kingdom, who advocated for a slow evolution towards Communism (which they call ‘Socialism’ for optics purposes). Their strategy of infiltration is known as “permeation”, whereby they slowly colonise 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. Every single piece of cinema, art, music, and literature nowadays seem to promote complete degeneracy. Every journalist seems to have ties to ‘ANTIFA’. Every college professor, just another degenerate Marxist. Since the end of WW2, every social institution has slowly been colonised and subverted by Communist agents - this includes card-carrying members of the Communist Party, KGB & NKVD agents, Communist “true believers”, and hapless fools who simply absorbed the ideology via osmosis.
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. 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 justice”. 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. For the record, Freud’s most renowned theory is the ‘Oedipus Complex’, which essentially posits that “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 was a psychoanalyst, and Marcuse was a philosopher. The fact that Critical Theorists drew inspiration from sources other than the Communist ‘Bibles’ (I winced putting these two words next to each other), Das Kapital and the Manifesto, has caused much angst among Marxists who are still 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 mentioned before, 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 instead to overthrow the “oppressive” forces of society; the family, religion, monogamy, hierarchy, order, beauty, etc.
So what does this mean for society? It supposedly means that women are oppressed by men, homosexuals are oppressed by heterosexuals, ‘people of colour’ are oppressed by Whites; a ‘man of colour’ can occasionally oppress a White woman, depending on the circumstance, but usually not, because she has the power of ‘White privilege’; a ‘woman of colour’ can oppress homosexuals, so long as she is a heterosexual herself; and, unfortunately, transgender people are oppressed by everybody. In reality, it means that society has been transformed into a completely dysfunctional mess, in which each unique substrata of precious individual is intent on cannibalising everyone else, in a race to the bottom of the barrel. Unless you're a straight White male, then you’ve got the Ace card ability to 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 the devil. 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 work of two of the most renowned Cultural Marxists at the School: Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno. In 1965, Marcuse authored ‘Repressive Tolerance’, in which he argued that free speech was inherently oppressive, as it tolerated the voice 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 tolerance 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”, 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 synthesise the theories of Marx and Freud via his work ‘Eros and Civilisation’ (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 discipline during childhood, repressed homosexuality, and a fear of being ‘castrated’ by one’s father - this is not a fabricated assessment of the work. Adorno also claimed that the “Authoritarian Personality” was inherently ‘Right-wing’, and inherently ‘insane’. 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 (and) secretly gay”.
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 today. These theories are taught in almost every single educational institution in the West, in some form or another.
Critical Theory (via ‘Critical Race Theory’ and ‘Gender Studies’), is largely responsible for the pseudo-psychology that is integral to the modern Leftist’s worldview:
-> “Cultural Appropriation”,
-> “Microaggression”,
-> “Toxic Masculinity”,
-> “White Supremacy”,
-> “x Privilege”,
-> “Heteronormativity”.
And also for their Orwellian redefinitions:
-> A child is now a “clump of cells”.
-> Infanticide is now recognised 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 criminals into your homeland.
-> No matter the personal experience, a White person is oppressive and a racist.
We’re all very familiar with this.
Approximately 50% of the Frankfurt School’s “notable thinkers” listed on the Frankfurt School Wikipedia page, either worked for the KGB, CIA, US government, or had links to organisations such as the United Nations. This is only the publicly available information that you can find, especially via sources on Wikipedia, so 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, fled to New York, where they were graciously taken under the wing of the Liberals at Columbia University. Some of the Frankfurt School intellectuals were taken in by the Rockefeller-funded ‘New School’, which established a ‘University in Exile’, designed 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”.
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 and Claude Levi-Strauss, were major architects of the United Nations’ various “Statement[s] on Race (and Racial Prejudice)”, which were the foundation of all modern racial legislation adopted by Western nations. 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”.
After the ‘United Nations’ of the Western Liberals and Eastern Communists had won WW2, the intellectuals of the Frankfurt School were granted scholarships in the US and the UK, with many becoming teachers and professors. They then subsequently taught the next generation of teachers and professors, who are currently indoctrinating the youth with Cultural Marxism - this is the ‘Long March’, as theorised 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, fled Germany after the rise of the NSDAP, joining the Frankfurt School intellectuals 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. Neumann’s 1942 book, ‘Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism’, basically concluded that the National Socialists were a group of people who were simply united in their hatred of the “Labour movement”, 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’ in 1950, which led to all of the Leftist “racist Nazi incestuous regressive bigot” smears that we have today. During WW2, 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, worked on projects analysing political tendencies of Germany under the NSDAP, eventually producing a ‘de-Nazification’ guide, and playing a key role in the Nuremberg trials.
Later in life, Neumann worked for the US State Department, in addition to working closely with the Rockefeller Foundation to increase “political theory”, i.e., Cultural Marxism, as a component of political science in the American university system. In addition, Neumann was outed as a Soviet spy, and was identified in the renowned ‘Verona Papers’. This is just one of the less influential Frankfurt School figures, and you could probably 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 were simply a bunch of Marxist-nobody intellectuals, is false.
Marxism & International Finance
The Bolsheviks were funded by the same City of London and Wall St bankers that established the Federal Reserve, IMF, and the World Bank. This includes Kuhn, Loeb & Co (those who pushed for the Federal Reserve), and their German brother Max Warburg (who founded Kalergi’s European Union alongside Rothschild and Barurch), as well as British financiers such as George Buchanan (a British Knight and ambassador to Russia that “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, that cofounded the ‘Rhodes-Milner Round Table’ secret society). A “Swedish” (Jewish) bank named ‘Nya Banken’, contributed a large quantity of capital to the Bolshevik movement, and eventually became the Soviet state bank. The Young Turks’ financial adviser, Israel Gelfand (“Parvus”), also likely contributed funds. Additionally, the Bolsheviks were assisted in their travels by various allies and gents of these international financiers, such as Woodrow Wilson (whose presidential campaign was funded by Kuhn, Loeb & Co), who provided Trotsky with a fake passport to return to Russia during WW1. Not to mention William Wiseman (an MI6 agent and employee of Kuhn, Loeb & Co), who saved Trotsky from being imprisoned by MI5 whilst he was in Halifax.
The foundation of the Communist People’s Republic of China also was significantly influenced by international finance cartels, who had by that point established the World Bank and IMF. 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), Virginia’s Frank Coe (Secretary of the IMF, consultant of the US Treasury Department, advisor to the head of the Federal Security Agency, and a technical advisor at the UN’s Bretton Woods conference), and Solomon Adler (a US Treasury Department economist and representative to China). These individuals greatly assisted the Communist Party’s rise to power by doing things such as preventing bail-out loans to the Nationalist entities in China, and intentionally causing hyperinflation that destroyed the Chinese middle class, which were the Nationalists’ primary base of support.
The group to which these agents belonged is sometimes referred to as the ‘Silvermaster Ring’, who were primarily based inside the US government’s financial apparatus. Other members included: Stona Steinman Gold, Bela Gold, Irving Kaplan, and Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, all of whom were Jewish. Some members of the Ring, such as Solomon Adler, later moved to China to work for the Communist government directly.
Many people who attempted to warn both the governments and the public about the threat of Communist entry, were shut down and ostracised for their troubles - Joseph McCarthy is a prime example. McCarthy’s 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 lated 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 Dr Robert Oppenheimer of the Manhattan Project, who concealed himself by accusing others of spying. Upon reading down the list of all of the names in the Verona Papers, you come to realise that it reads exactly like a Tel Aviv phonebook.
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 Russian Left-wing anarchist, Mikhail Bakunin (from ‘Bakunin on Anarchy’, P. 319-320), stated that:
Himself a Jew, Marx has around him, in London and France, but especially in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing, mobile, speculating Jews, such as Jews are everywhere: Commercial or banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades, 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 centralisation in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the […] Jewish nation, which speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail.
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”. Though Bakunin was certainly no ideological role-model being an atheistic socialist-anarchist, he was absolutely correct in identifying a link between international financiers and Communism. In fact, Bakunin’s statement was far more correct than he may have realised: Karl Marx was a cousin of the Rothschilds, with both having links to Barent-Cohen of Amsterdam, born in 1710.
Lumpenprole Revolution
The fundamental aim of the Cultural Marxist is to invert all values; anything that is viewed as traditionally good, right, and strong, should be denigrated, and everything that is traditionally viewed as weak, degenerate, reprehensible, etc, should be venerated.
The question as to why this is the case has plagued a lot of people over the years. 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, and the British government was on the leash of the Rothschild family and the City of London. Thus, by the time this degenerate Cultural Marxist agenda had been forced onto Western populations post-WW2, the ‘New World Order’ had already been founded.
The United Nations dates back to the ‘Arcadia Conference’ of 1942, at which both Liberals and Communists signed the ‘Declaration by United Nations’, that would form the basis of the official United Nations organisation. This declaration was based on a draft produced by the American government in 1939, two years before the US entered WW2. The UN, led by the ‘Big Four’, the United Kingdom, the United States, the USSR, and China (aka the ‘Four Policemen’), was officially founded in 1945, immediately after WW2 had ended. The UN’s World Bank and the IMF were founded in 1944 at the ‘Bretton Woods Conference’, which also established 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 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 UN a colossal influence in every aspect of sociopolitical life. For example, through this finance network, the UN provides grants to scientists, research programs, and governments, thus controlling the scientific narrative. If your project is not “politically correct”, then you will get no funding and nowhere as a scientist. The European Union, which was founded by Kalergi, the Warburgs of the Federal Reserve, the Rothschilds, and Bernard Baruch, functions in a similar way.
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 perfectly achieved without the need for full Communism. Hence why the system today, the ‘New World Order’, exhibits a nameless synthesis of both Liberalism and Communism.
Populations are now encouraged to embrace their own slavery by being programmed to race to the bottom of the barrel of society via victimhood culture. A legion of dedicated ‘true believers’, see their status elevated, and are the same people who would have no status at all if it were not for the existence of this particular system.
“Equality” to the slave moralist means dismantling everything until the whole world becomes as depraved as they are. Self-improvement is difficult, but dragging everyone else down to your level is considerably easier. Those at the helm of this system are more than happy to engineer a society in which the plebians tear each other apart, all for just minor gains in social status.
In other words, we already live under occupation. There are no more Communist Revolutions to engineer.