Cultural Marxism Defined

I’ve been seeing complaints from people that they don’t understand the term Cultural Marxism. Often this lack of understanding is communicated by labeling the term “meaningless”. I know what it means, and it’s a very appropriate term. Here’s a quick explanation.

Karl Marx was attempting to create a Workers Revolution. He intuited that there are a lot more workers than there are owners, and understood that if he could give the workers moral license to attack the owners, that they could take their stuff without having to produce it themselves. It was a simple plan and it worked well enough to kill hundreds of millions of people.

After the Workers Revolution failed to materialize in the US, a group of Marxists known as the Frankfurt School were theorizing on how to complete the revolution. They took Marx’s economic mechanism of dividing Labor (workers, proletariat) and Capital (bourgeoisie) and abstracted the economic model to a generalized Oppressed and Oppressors model, which is not economic but ideological. This is generally known as Critical Theory.

The Critical Theorists then realized that they could apply this method to any cultural/ideological space. Where Marx thought in economic terms (labor/capital), the Frankfurt school could divide any cultural space:

Social Space Oppressed Oppressor
Gender female male
Sexual Orientation gay straight
Race non-white white

Thus we see the Marxist divide-and-incite technique applied to culture : Cultural Marxism.

Once you have divided the space, the next step is to critique the ideology of the ‘oppressors’ as being self-serving and parasitic (Rule #3: SJWs Always Project). This is the ‘critical’ as in ‘critique’ part of Critical Theory. In essence, it boils down to chimping out while using scientific sounding terms like ‘marginalization’.

Bonus points for politicians if they can then herd all of the oppressed groups into a Big Tent Rainbow Coalition of Aggrieved Victims. The only problem is that you’ll have to be careful to work out a victim-status hierarchy, including intersectional victim status, which turns out to be a lot more complex than one might think, as we see with Political Correctness.




Dear Butch: Am I a Leftist?

BrightAbyss replied to my Dodging Leftward post. I thought it would be easier to respond on a new post than to put a longish response in the reply. I have responded inline.

“I like that you did your homework.

Couple things:

Just because I support gender equality, revolution, re-engineering society to mitigate climate change, and i’m against the plunder and domination of vulnerable populations by dominant institutions doesn’t mean in “leftist”, at least not how I understand it. Why? Because I don’t see the world through the prism of high school poli-sci heuristics. Those are your labels and lists, and that is the simplistic framework upon which you want to demarcate things and people to create your in-group. Yeah for you. But ‘Left/right’ is meaningless to me, and so I refuse your categories and rhetoric and all the bullshit antagonisms and logics (decisional binary sets) that go with it. Ideology is not my focus and ultimately meaningless to me – although unavoidable in subtle ways.
I’m a pragmatist and an empiricist. So I’m ‘against’ all things damaging to the human (and other) species and ‘for’ all things that might lead to a more health inducing arrangement of populations. Those are my guiding commitments. So I’m not lying I’m just refusing your game. Period.”

Hahaha! Now this is amusing: you are not sure you’re a Leftist!

Personally, I don’t buy it. You’re retweeting articles from Marxists calling each other ‘comrade’ where they emphasize the importance of building a New Left to fight the capitalist crisis. But you’re not a Leftist? Come now. Let’s drop the pretenses.

You claim to be an empiricist. Are you telling me that you have never done an empirical analysis of your own beliefs? Let’s say you did a cladistic analysis of this idea of ‘plunder and domination of vulnerable populations by dominant institutions’. That means you would try to figure out where that idea originated, because you are definitely not the originator. That sounds identical to the Marxist idea that ‘the bourgeoisie (owning class) dominate the proletariat (working class) by controlling capital (the means of production)’. And you are an anti-Capitalist. Doesn’t that mean anything to you? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that what you are against is what Marx was against. Again, I’m not buying this bullshit.

You can refuse my labels and lists, call it simplistic and refuse my categories. The truth is you don’t like the labels. You don’t want to be labeled a Leftist. You’re fine with thinking and acting like a Leftist, just so long as you’re not labeled as such. That’s your entire point. Sorry. Words have meanings. If you walk like a Leftist, and you talk like a Leftist, then you are a Leftist, whether or not you like that label. That’s why your bullshit is so petty. You understand clearly that we have norms of language, and that by flouting those norms, by refusing to use the words and their actual meanings, that you degrade our commons. When you refuse to label something that clearly deserves that label, because the application of that label would make you uncomfortable, then that is the same as lying. I’m sure cigarette manufacturers don’t like the labels either.

“I’m against the Koch bros because they put profit over ecosystems and do some in illegal and brutal ways. I’m against Marxism because it puts bureaucracy and ideology over people. I’m for reorganizing the economy to decrease carbon emission in order to mitigate global warming. I’m against involuntary taxes (socialism) because it consolidates money in the hands of wayward institutions. I’m for small government. I’m against financial oligarchy. I’m for valuing the family and individual responsibility. I’m against identity politics and the culture of blame. I’m for collectivising modes of production (for efficiency). I’m against fundamentalism.”

Collectivising modes of production? Probably you were thinking ‘means of production’. Collectivism, as in socialism, communism, fascism… consolidating the means of production into the hands of the state. Got it. But you’re against involuntary taxes because it consolidates money in the hands of wayward institutions. As though consolidating the means of production into the hands of government institutions is not exactly the same as consolidating money into the hands of wayward institutions. The lack of logical consistency and awareness of what you are saying is astounding. Amazingly empirical.

Also, you’re not against fundamentalism, you’re against Christianity. Please stop with that bullshit. Remember: I’ve read your Twitter feed.

And I draw from a lot of sources – left and right, but mostly empirical studies. Doesn’t mean I am committed to every organization or theoretical stance I re-tweet or draw from. Life is messy and so is one’s intellectual growth. SO where do these commitments put me on your color by number chart? Left-right? 

Where does that put you on my chart? Let me see.
[Beep boop beep bop… ping!].
Yep. As I suspected. You’re a Leftist.

Look, I suppose it’s possible (in the same way that a coin landing on its edge is possible) that you are so immersed in Leftism that you think you understand the sum of all things that might lead to a more health inducing arrangement of populations, but you don’t know that the aggregation of all those things has a name, and that name is Leftism. You just think it is common sense. Of course, you would be wrong in that assessment.

I also suppose you think you are some rational atheist. You should read RadishMag’s Reign of Reason article. Or maybe Free Speech, you know, so you can do an empirical cladistic analysis of your ideas to find out from whence they originate.

Dodging Leftward

Apparently, BrightAbyss disagreed with my assessment of him as a Leftist using Marxist tactics, as expounded in my previous post: Christians and Boiling Pitch.

He feigns ideological neutrality on Twitter: 

1h1 hour ago

– ya, the problem is I’m neither “leftist” nor Marxist so your ideological frames just don’t fit. Sorry.
This is typical of Leftists. They are persons without virtue, they have a dual set of morality. They shamelessly lie to those in the out-group. I decided to take a moment to peruse BrightAbyss’s Twitter timeline to see if his interests really were not Leftist or Marxist. Guess what I found? Wait for it… a boatload of Leftism and Marxism. 
Why does he lie? Because he must. As I stated in the previous post, it is the business of Leftists to spread lies and discontent. BrightAbyss, you do know that I can read your Twitter feed, right? Why play this game? I had you pegged from that single tweet of yours that I referenced.
I have documented BrightAbyss’s tweets below. But my absolute favorite is his retweet of the article Piketty, Marx, and the Political Economy of the Internet, which states (emphasis mine):
all three reactions do not help the task of creating a New Left that is urgently needed in the situation of sustained capitalist crisis. Marxists will certainly view Piketty’s analysis of capitalism and political suggestions critically. I argue that they should however not dismiss them, but like Marx and Engels aim to radicalise reform suggestions.
Wow. Interested in creating a New Left to take on that whole capitalist crisis, are we? The Marxists are having some internal discussions on the topic? But you’re not a Marxist are you, BrightAbyss? Are you sure we shouldn’t take another look at those ideological frames of mine?
Here’s what I found on the rest of his Twitter feed. It seems that BrightAbyss is extremely concerned about Climate Change and Ecological Disaster. He thinks that all aspects of our lives should be re-oriented to address climate change. He implores President Obama to DO SOMETHING. He Tweets about oppressed minorities being crushed under the Capitalist boot. He retweets on behalf of the journal of Decolonization, which is anti-colonialist. He retweets against the evil Koch brothers. He calls for riot and a Revolution Now at some Occupy Wall Street rehash. He calls to gang rush the Capitalist Devils. He defines nationalism as pathology. He mocks others for calling out him and his causes as Marxist agitation – insisting that Communism and the Cold War are dead. (nice deflection) He tweets about how disgraceful it is to be wealthy and honored in an unjust society. Oh, wait. That sounds awfully like social justice to me. He tweets that real men support gender equality. He defines Whiteness as entitlement. He accuses others of ideological projection, while pretending that he has none. He’s openly anti-Christian, but I didn’t bother documenting that.
So we have: radical climate change support, anti-capitalism, class warfare, anti-colonialism, anti-nationalism, social justice, gender equality and anti-racism. Really, BrightAbyss? My ideological frames just don’t fit? Ha! They fit you like a glove.
Let’s look at Eric S. Raymond’s list of Leftist memes infecting the West and propagated by Marxists, enumerated in his Suicidalism post:

Consider the following propositions:

  • There is no truth, only competing agendas.
  • All Western (and especially American) claims to moral superiority over Communism/Fascism/Islam are vitiated by the West’s history of racism and
  • There are no objective standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. Anyone who claims that there are such standards is an evil oppressor.
  • The prosperity of the West is built on ruthless exploitation of the Third World; therefore Westerners actually deserve to be impoverished and miserable.
  • Crime is the fault of society, not the individual criminal. Poor criminals are entitled to what they take. Submitting to criminal predation is more virtuous than resisting it.
  • The poor are victims. Criminals are victims. And only victims are virtuous. Therefore only the poor and criminals are virtuous. (Rich people can borrow some virtue by identifying with poor people and criminals.)
  • For a virtuous person, violence and war are never justified. It is always better to be a victim than to fight, or even to defend oneself. But “oppressed” people are allowed to use violence anyway; they are merely reflecting the evil of their oppressors.
  • When confronted with terror, the only moral course for a Westerner is to apologize for past sins, understand the terrorist’s point of view, and make concessions.

Having read Raymond’s list, read through BrightAbyss’ tweets that I have selected below. I think the tweets speak for themselves.

BrightAbyss, you are a Leftist and a Marxist agitator and a liar.

Boiling pitch for you.

 ·  Nov 6

“Whiteness” as kernel of essentialist racial ontologies is not about biodiversity but rather about existential entitlement.
[m]: retweeted
We can’t afford a climate movement that’s just an ethical add-on to business-as-usual. Climate action must become the new business-as-usual.
[m]: retweeted
ICYMI: As Casualties Mount, Scientists Say Global Warming Has Been “Hugely Underestimated”
[m]: retweeted
Piketty, Marx, and the Political Economy of the Internet … great new essay from comrade
If I read the word ‘neoliberal’ one more time I’m going to punch something in its pinky toe. Let’s call it what it is: corporate mafia. Thx.
Monsanto has a revenue of over $10.5 billion per year, yet it is currently suing farmers in poor countries who make less than $500 per year.
“To be wealthy and honored in an unjust society is a disgrace.” – Confucius
[m]: retweeted

Our new issue is OUT! Check it here, and please share!  

Note: Overview of Decolonization Journal

Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society is an undisciplinary, peer-reviewed, online Open Access journal committed to supporting and advancing decolonization scholarship, practice, and activism within and, more importantly, beyond and against, the academy. We believe in connecting decolonization struggles across locations and experiences, in connecting academics, activists, and artists – and their production – within larger communities of decolonial struggle, and connecting knowledge production to histories of resistance to colonial power; we believe in a lived out decolonial praxis. Decolonization is not new and we do not aspire to meet the academic demand for new and invigorating paradigms; it is not the academy we are interested in invigorating. Instead, we seek to ground decolonization in the lived experiences and histories of those individuals and communities that have and are living out decolonization, seeking to invigorate connections, struggles, and knowledges that reside beyond the academy.
[m]: retweeted

Inside the Koch Brothers’ toxic empire:

Northern Cree occupy Manitoba Hydro dam over longstanding grievances
the COMMIES are coming the COMMIES are coming! For yer guns and yer monies!!!
– commies?! LOL you do know the Cold War is over? The Red scare is not necessary. Do you have any real thoughts?
“We cannot condemn our children & their children to a future that is beyond their capacity to repair” < THEN DO SOMETHING
do you have a right-wing nutter bingo card you need to fill? Your tired arguments are all ideological projection
Insurrection is the appropriate response to inappropriate social conditions.
Emma Watson to men: Gender equality is your issue too Real men support gender equality
The cops would be powerless to stop hundreds of thousands of people rushing Wall Street with riotous intent. REVOLUTION NOW
. Stop Capitalism. End the Climate Crisis. LETS GANG RUSH THOSE DEVILS!!!
That unawkward moment when an interview with your 15 year old activist daughter is interviewed on p.2 of the daily newspaper.
Nationalism is pathology but regionalism is an opportunity to align local priorities with geo-affordances via infrastructural innovation.

Christians and Boiling Pitch

The other day I read a particularly disgusting piece of White Hate, which prompted me to write this rather Nietzschean response:

To which BrightAbyss responds:

Ah, so now I’m on top of the socioeconomic hate machine because of my Will to Power over those who would destroy me and my brothers. I smell anti-racism and social justice, two ugly babies of Cultural Marxism. Anyone who uses the word hate to denounce the other is a Leftist. Among Leftists, Hate is overloaded  to mean heresy, denoting any thoughts which a Leftist finds distasteful. My refusal to submit anti-racism may be the worst of the Leftist heresies. His use of the word socioeconomic is a reference to class, which is classic Marxism; as socioeconomic status is a primary division used in critical theory to divide oppressors and oppressed. The article that he defends even bemoans the dead end that critical race theory has encountered in South Africa. I’m sure that breaks BrightAbyss’s heart too.

You can read the thread, but the short of it is that BrightAbyss tries to pick up Christianity and use it as a moral club to beat me into submission to the Marxist ideology. Good luck with that.

This approach fails miserably because I am not terribly philosophical, ideological or moralistic. I’m thedish. My consistency is in loyalty, loyalty to my in-group and to my thede (still working on phyle). I come from a long line of Christians. I can trace my lineage back the the Revolutionary War (really more of a secession, but that’s for another time), and to a Christian doctor who was jailed, pilloried and had his ears cropped for criticizing the Anglican Church in England.

“In this sign, you will conquer”

You see, unlike most Christians in America, I understand that the current state of Christianity as BrightAbyss (mis)understands it, is a watered down, Leftist shadow of its former glory. The reason for this is that for hundreds of years now Enlightenment philosophers have reformulated Christianity in Enlightenment terms and imbued it with Enlightenment values.

To the side is a bronze of Emperor Constantine, who conquered under the sign of the cross. Christianity has been the light of the West, and Westerners have bathed the world in blood to bring Christian peace. You see, paradoxically, peace is achieved through violence. Peace does not occur in Nature, because Nature is a Hobbesian war of all against all. Peace is unnatural, it is manufactured. Peace can only be manufactured by men who have the Will to Power.

The West rose to power through the creation of Capitalism (an economic or social technology, in addition to other engineering technologies), a system which suppresses involuntary transfers of property, leaving no choice but to engage in the market. The Christian exhortation of men to behave peaceably, and to obey the authorities, has been extremely helpful in the creation of productive markets which lead to Western power. The Catholic church operated much as the House of Commons in modern systems, being the voice and advocate of the people to the Executive Branch function performed by the feudal lords, the Aristocracy. The story of the survival of Christianity through the Middle Ages, is the story of Aristocrats using violence, technology and economics to create and maintain walled gardens of civilization in a sea of barbarism.

You see, Christianity only functions in a civilized society. The rules of Christianity only apply within that walled garden, they do not exist in the sea of barbarism. This is why Christians built walls around their tiny pockets of civilization, to specifically exclude the barbarians. Christianity is a social technology, but social technologies do not work with all peoples and in all times and places. We must use the right tool for the job. To our fellows within the walled garden, we turn the other cheek. To the barbarians on the other side of the wall, we pour down boiling pitch. Get the idea?

Leftists are the barbarians, intent on tearing down the walls which keep our civilization safe. They are an infection, eating out our normative commons, dissolving norms of behavior, sowing discord and distrust in every corner. They subvert the Will to Power, spreading the lies listed in hacker hero Eric S. Raymond’s Suicidalism and Gramscian damage posts, leading to a listless and defenseless Christianity.

BrightAbyss is not in my thede. He admits in the thread that he’s not a Christian, yet he wants to throw Scripture in my face and to tell me what it truly means to be a Christian. The intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy is astounding: Why would a non-Christian exhort me to behave in a Christian manner, to follow rules that he admits he does not believe? Well, the answer is obvious: it is a transparent manipulation. He wishes to bind me down with the chains of modern Enlightenment Christianity, which lock me onto the Progressive plantation. I’ve got your number, buddy:

We Christians have been fools. We have been too trusting. We have allowed snakes in our midst to spread lies and discontent. We have treated our enemies as though they are Christians, rather than as the barbarians and destroyers of Christian virtue that they truly are.

Christians have always been willing to fight, kill and die for their civilizations. I am no different. Leftists like BrightAbyss need to understand this: it is Christian forgiveness for those inside the wall, and boiling pitch for those outside of it. Many modern Christians have lost the Will to Power, but my eyes are open: Peace is forged through Power.

So, I don’t need BrightAbyss to tell me what Christianity means, but maybe he can help any Leftist readers with some of their other burning questions:

Leftism vs Liberalism

I’ve been trying to tease apart Leftism and Liberalism, and I think I’ve found a formulation that is a pretty good predictor of Leftist positions: the Leftist drive is to destroy all hierarchy, which is the natural shape of human organization. Leftism is rebellion against Gnon.

This is in contrast to the Rightist or Reactionary position as illustrated in Nick B. Steves’ Reactionary Consensus, item 1:


Reactionaries affirm that hierarchy is not only natural, but almost purely beneficial to group success. Hierarchy is not merely not evil, but an enabling trait of civilization. Since hierarchy is adaptively advantageous, it is easy to see why reactionaries believe it to be part of the law of nature or nature’s god or both. Public policies that ignore hierarchy as fundamental to human nature, or worse attempt to subvert it by artificial means of social leveling are foolish at best and likely to be catastrophic for human flourishing.

Liberals are those who advocate for Liberty. Capitalism is primarily a liberal system, because a fundamental aspect of it is the ‘spontaneous order’ of the market: for spontaneous order (self-order) to occur, then that presupposes that external order is not being forced upon it. Freedom of speech is a liberal value, as are freedom of association and gun ownership. Because America has always been a liberal project, Leftists have used the tactic of exploiting Liberal values that advance Leftist ideology.

Leftists want to attack, dismantle and destroy established orders; to ‘free’ the masses from hierarchical order imposed on them from the upper classes; to flatten hierarchies. To them, order and hierarchy is oppression, and it is… when viewed from the perspective of the Left. Civilization is the systematic suppression of animal drives, barring behaviors which have negative effects on group fitness. Capitalism is the suppression of involuntary transfers of property (parasitism/theft). Even in a liberal order, such as a Capitalist society, hierarchy does emerge because humans are fundamentally un-equal and will self-sort into hierarchies. In a liberal order, given a choice, most people will fall into that order willingly, understanding that the hierarchies that are formed are to their benefit. Leftists want to destroy these orders and impose anti-Liberal (totalitarian) economic and social policies.

To be fair, neither the Left or the Right holds ‘civil liberties’ in very high regard, though the Rightist drive to succeed and prosper makes the Right tend align with Liberal ideologies such as Capitalism, which appears to function better with open communications or free speech and meritocracy. Although a productive Capitalist implementation does not require a completely Liberal order. Capitalism succeeded demonstrably under Kings, see ‘The British Empire’. The Left doesn’t care about real world outcomes and will destroy the goose that lays the golden egg happily as a sacrifice to Moloch.

I see the Left as rebellion against Gnon, and the Right as submission to Gnon. This is the basic Left/Right spectrum on the X-axis. Then Liberty/Authority is mapped as a spectrum onto the Y-axis. It can be very difficult to discern if a particular position held within the Left-Liberal quadrant of the map is driven there by a Leftist or Liberal vector. I think it is important to do so, because Liberal drives, which allow enough freedom for spontaneous orders to emerge are important in creating flexible, adaptable and dominant social orders. Gnon demands fruitfulness. But Leftist drives, which lead to death and infertility, must at a minimum be ostracized.

One can think of the Leftist project as the destruction of hierarchy (forcible implementation of a flat order) and the Liberal project as the formation of self-ordering hierarchies. It can be difficult to tease apart a Leftist from a Liberal position, because Leftists cheat and pretend to be Liberals when it suits them. Here are a couple of key quotes lifted from the brilliant RadishMag’s Free Speech issue which display that Leftists are not Liberals, that they do not hold Liberal values such as free speech in any high regard, but merely pretend to do so in order to gain power:

Roger Nash Baldwin, director and co-founder of the ACLU (1934):

“I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers’ rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental.

When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies, at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. […] While I have some reservations about party policy in relation to internal democracy, and some criticisms of the unnecessary persecution of political opponents, the fundamentals of liberty are firmly fixed in the USSR. And they are fixed on the only ground on which liberty really matters — economic. No class to exploit the workers and peasants; wide sharing of control in the economic organizations; and the wealth produced is common property.”

Another quote about the suppression of free speech from Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School, in 1965:

The whole post-fascist period is one of clear and present danger. Consequently, true pacification requires the withdrawal of tolerance before the deed, at the stage of communication in word, print, and picture. Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only if the whole of society is in extreme danger. I maintain that our society is in such an emergency situation, and that it has become the normal state of affairs. Different opinions and ‘philosophies’ can no longer compete peacefully for adherence and persuasion on rational grounds: the ‘marketplace of ideas’ is organized and delimited by those who determine the national and the individual interest. In this society, for which the ideologists have proclaimed the ‘end of ideology,’ the false consciousness has become the general consciousness — from the government down to its last objects. The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped: their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties which grant constitutional powers to those who oppress these minorities. It should be evident by now that the exercise of civil rights by those who don’t have them presupposes the withdrawal of civil rights from those who prevent their exercise, and that liberation of the Damned of the Earth presupposes suppression not only of their old but also of their new masters.”

For example, we now regularly see Leftists calling to limit free speech on the internet. That is an anti-Liberal position. Currently, the Left is in charge in America and in the Democratic party, and the goal is to limit ‘hate speech’ (any speech which offends Leftist sensibilities) so that is a Leftist drive; to further the Leftist ideology at the expense of Liberty. A Liberal will argue for free speech against Leftist impositions.

Here is another Left vs Liberal example using the case of persons who are ‘transgender’.

The Liberal view is that the trannie should be allowed to be openly trans and to talk about being trans and to form alliances with other pro-trans people. This is allowing the basic Liberties or free speech and association to trannies. A Liberal will allow pro-trans and anti-trans schools of thought to both exist. A Liberal will trust that in the ‘open marketplace of ideas’ that the best ideas will win.

A Leftist will claim that the very order imposed by nature, the ‘gender binary’ is an oppression and will demand that gender be removed from all public places and that children should be taught that they can choose their gender and forced to watch pro-transgender propaganda in school. They will fight anyone who takes the anti-trans position, the position that accepts the natural (or God-given) order of ‘gender binary’.

The Liberal and Leftists positions can look very similar, but you can tell the Leftist position because it is the totalitarian one: only the pro-trans position is allowable, which is why currently all other positions are ‘hate’ or ‘hate speech’. When not openly totalitarian, it will be the position in opposition to a natural (gender) or spontaneous (meritocracy) order.

An interesting conundrum is the prevalence of Leftist support for Islam and Muslims, when Islam is obviously an anti-Liberal and anti-Leftist religion. I think that the Baldwin quote above is instructive, especially the line “The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental.” The dominant order of the world is Western civilization, which is White and Christian in origin. Muslims are demonstrably a lower class: an empirical evaluation of their civilization in comparison to Western civilization yields this result. Leftists make this same evaluation, though they would deny it until their dying breath, and come to the conclusion that Muslims are allies in the class struggle to overthrow the dominant White and Christian order. This is also the reason for the alliance between Africans and the Left.

It is similarly interesting to look at the attacks on prominent Atheists Bill Mahr, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, all of whom are devout Liberals, and who have taken reasonable and rational positions against the Islam due to its anti-Liberal nature and in logical parallel to their attacks on Christianity. The Left is hounding all three. You see, attacks on Christianity are not bigoted or racist because the dominant order is Christian. The Left loves when these Atheists attack Christians, but the moment Atheists begin to attack comrades in the class struggle (Muslims), then the Left returns fire. Obviously, none of the three Atheists really understands this, because they don’t grok the difference between Leftism and Liberalism. Their bewilderment is amusing as they sit dumbfounded trying to figure out why they are under attack for being rational and consistent.

Liberals want Liberty. Leftists want to destroy natural orders. Teasing their positions apart can be tricky, but is best exposed by evaluating their positions which are both Leftist and anti-Liberal. To the Left, Atheism is a tool in the class struggle and nothing more. Just as Free Speech is a tool in the class struggle and nothing more. The Left will use anti-Liberal means to squash free speech from Atheists or anyone else who goes outside the class struggle, the central struggle, which is the destruction of hierarchies and spontaneous or natural orders. The Left is rebellion against Gnon.

MAIDs and Potty-Mouthed Princesses

I was recently treated to a little Social Justice propaganda when I got a link to the Potty-Mouthed Princesses video. You can search for it yourself, I decline to link to it. This video was created by the same group that created the Ferguson children Hey White People video, a group of Social Justice rent-seekers. It features a group of adorable young girls cursing for feminism and Social Justice. Personally, I think that mothers who use their children in such a way a child-abusers, but I’ll not spend too much time ‘concern trolling’ as I wouldn’t spend two seconds worrying about such people or their children… the sins of the father and all that.

Both of those videos are full of distortions and lies. They are intentionally false psychological manipulations, aka mind control. But, no-one can attack them. Here is why.

Anglo-Europeans have evolved a moral duty to practice out-group altruism. As an aside, moral duties are simply expressions of reproductive strategies. This is a quirk of Anglo-European evolution. Most groups practice in-group altruism and out-group parasitism, but it appears that Anglo-Europeans (for whatever reason, but probably Church enforced prohibitions on in-breeding/cousin marriage) evolved a system of out-group altruism. So the quirk is that Anglo-Europeans practice both in-group altruism and out-group altruism.

All of these ‘victims’ claim out-group status and are using moral language to accuse Anglo-Europeans of practicing in-group altruism and out-group parasitism. The claim in the PMP video is that the in-group (men) are getting unfair advantage at the expense of the out-group (women), which is free-riding or parasitism or theft. This invokes a response called altruistic punishment. This response causes the individual to altruistically sacrifice himself to punish the free-rider. This response evolved as a reproductive strategy, and is extremely valuable for maintaining the commons (the marketplace) which allows high-velocity trade (mistrust reduces velocity of trade), which has been such an amazing competitive advantage to Anglo-Europeans over the last millennium. So, Anglo-European individuals will throw themselves in harm’s way to punish free-riders/parasites. This has been identified as MAIDs: Moral Auto-Immune Disorder.

This is the strategy of Leftists, to turn Anglo-Europeans against each other using our own evolved evolutionary response against free-riding/parasitism. Of course, it is all a farce. The free-riding is non-existent. This is why the Left uses pseudo-science such as false research and studies. The claims (gender pay gap, 1 in 5 women raped, etc.) in the PMP video are provably false, but the accusations do not have to be factual, they perform their function merely by evoking an intuitive altruistic punishment response in the Anglo-European. This is the essence of Marxist critical theory: the theory is that all groups can be divided into oppressed/oppressor, so the Marxist must find the dividing line and claim ‘oppression’ (free-riding on the out-group, out-group parasitism). Examples of ‘oppressed/oppressors’: women/men, blacks/whites, poor/rich, gay/straight, trans-gender/cis-gender, Jew/Christian, Muslim/Christian, Democrat/Republican, gun activists/gun owners, etc. The altruistic punishment response is the key psycho-biological feature that fuels (cultural) Marxism and critical (race) theory. Without it, those theories would be useless.

Any denial of the false victim’s victim-hood is perceived as an attack against the out-group (victim blaming) and only confirms the false accusations. Only submission (offering of help/money/resources to the ‘victim’) will end the altruistic punishment. This submission is the end-goal, and is the cause of the false attacks: resources/competitive advantage gained at little expense through psychological manipulation (mind control). This is a form of rent-seeking. This is the conundrum: we can’t attack these false attackers. What can we do? Not to be overly dramatic, but finding the answer to that question may be the key to the future of Western civilization.