What Is Cultural Marxism?

I’m sure you’re aware that feminism shares a lot of the same beliefs as liberalism, so the stereotype that feminists tend to be liberal, is true and justified.

Things like….

  1. Gender is a social construct and gender roles are harmful and need to be abolished (Laci Green)
  2. Affirmative action style diversity quotas (Feminists in Sweden and France put in affirmative action in parliamentary seats and company boardroom members)
  3. We need more media diversity and media representation (Jessica Valenti thinks that libraries should stock more books written by women)

So liberals and feminists, share a lot of the same beliefs.

Here’s some more notes I wrote up that I’ll probably type up into a blog article

First and Foremost

There’s another ideology that is connected to cultural marxism. It’s something that isn’t widely acknowledged and if you claim it does exist, then you can experience accusations of anti-semitism.

What cultural marxism is, an ideology designed to turn the pyramid structure hierarchy of how privileged someone is on the oppression scale, the higher up they are the more privileged they are, to the inverse the pyramid by turning it on its head, flipping it 180 degrees, for the sake of certain demographics gaining prominence in the media and cultural institutions.

Whereas marxism split the privileged oppressor and the underprivileged victim, in a dichotomy of the bourgeoisie (or capitalists) who owned the means of production and the proletariat (or employees) who worked for the employer by exchanging their labour for money, Cultural Marxism instead looks at the types of people who proliferates the media and the legal institutions and cultural institutions, to see that they are heterosexual white men, to then claim that they are the privileged oppressor, as if somehow they are harbouring their privileges by actively and routinely trying to prevent other groups from acquire those benefits so they can also benefit from it.

Why is it viewed as problematic?

The problem that someone who is conservative, would find with Cultural Marxism, is typically two things

1) Under Cultural Marxism, the victim class ALSO is the protected class, as they are given a monopoly over virtue. In order to invert the pyramid structure of the oppression hierarchy, they will allow the victim class to benefit from double standards and remain exempt from criticism. They are given the agency to do something, that the other demographic isn’t given the benefit to be allowed to do with impunity.

2) Being associated with (moral authoritarain stuff)

What’s the difference between liberalism and cultural marxism?

In a sentence, liberals believe in equality of outcome whereas conservatives believe in equality of opportunity. However cultural marxists do not care about making the outcome be equal for all groups, as they have to implement an inverted pyramid in order to rectify the historical wrongs of the past. Once this is achieved, in theory, the required preliminary steps needed for true equality, will be an arm’s length away within the upcoming week.

Examples Part 1

I’ll explain what that is later. Now for some examples.

1) Using newspeak and political correctness to prevent CERTAIN demographic, knowledge and interest based groups from banding together
2) The double standards that’s being applied by Big Tech, mainstream media and FinTech
3) Turning a blind eye to crimes committed en masse (latin for huge collective numbers) when they are committed by a minority demographic
4) The way that society has double standards towards behaviour that is both legal and socially acceptable, yet embarassing and unsavoury to publicly admit (maybe on live tv), as if you’re admitting to being a frequent coupon user
5) Eligibility criteria, course material and pass thresholds for tests, all being arbritarily and selectively lowered to be dumbed down, in order to boost the pass rate of minority groups

Examples Part 2: Sharing moral authoritarianism with liberals

Moral authoritarianism is an extension of the nanny state, except that it’s being applied by the citizens instead of the government.
The nanny state is when the government tries to dictate what consensual and victimless actions, you are not allowed to do because they feel that they know better about what is good for you, than you do, even if your actions do no affect any third parties. For example
1) sugar tax, they made the fizzy drinks more expensive based on how much sugar is in them, to tackle obesity
2) In the UK they’ve actually banned children from buying energy drinks, you need to show ID to buy them
3) Banning junk food (and fast food) adverts on tv
4) Australia wants to ban cartoon characters on cereal boxes, to prevent unhealthy food from being marketed at children
5) Putting mandatory internet filters on all public wifi networks, that cannot be turned off

Now the moral authoritarian would apply the same type of logic except it’s done by the citizens
1) Cultural appropriation, like when liberals say that Miley Cyrus, Avril Lavinge or that singer pop from that Little Mix pop band, should not be using black culture in their music or wearing black hairstyles like dreadlocks, or using japanese culture in music videos
2) When an employer changes a Code Of Conduct into a Speech Code, so instead of preventing certain speech, they now mandate certain speech, to then force you to adopt a sociopolitical belief in a public manner (eg. inserting a sociopolitical belief onto your name badge and employers ID card) otherwise you’re fired (eg. Halifax Bank)
3) When you pitch a book to a book publisher to then have their (liberal) “sensitivity readers” do their copyediting of it, then they tell you that they won’t publish the book, until you make the edits they want, which is to dilute and debase your sociopolitical opinion, to make it more in line with their sociopolitical opinion, so then you have to follow “the party line” where you can never disagree with what the political party, ahem, sociological ideology, says.

Example #3 Cultural Appropriation

The way these cultural marxists think, would be like this

  • woman = good
  • man = bad
  • homosexual = good
  • heterosexual = bad
  • coloured person = good
  • white person = bad
  • muslim = good
  • christian or atheist = bad

The more higher up the person is on the oppression scale, the more agency they are given, as because they are given the monopoly of virtue, the victim class can also in conjunction simultaneously benefit from being the protected class, to then be able to get away with things that the “privileged oppressor” class then cannot do.

Mike WiLL Made-It – 23 ft. Miley Cyrus, Wiz Khalifa, Juicy J (Official Music Video)

Mike WiLL Made-It - 23 (Explicit) ft. Miley Cyrus, Wiz Khalifa, Juicy J

Miley Cyrus – My Darlin’ (feat. Future)

Miley Cyrus - My Darlin' (feat. Future)

Avril Lavinge – Hello Kitty (Official Video)

Avril Lavigne - Hello Kitty (Official Video)

These liberals, ahem, cultural marxists, they complained about these white people using black (or japanese) culture in their apperance or music videos. There’s Miley Cyrus, straight after quitting Disney’s record label to work with trap producer Mike Will Made It, to sound more urban, while twerking on stage at the VMAs and wearing sportswear in music videos

The REAL why they get offended is nothing to do with what the article says, that’s just a pretext or false pretenses.
It’s because, in their opinion, if a white person was to do something that is stereotypically black, like what Miley Cyrus did, then she would derive benefits from that behaviour while still maintaining the privilege of being white.
But if a black person was to do stereotypically white things, she wouldn’t derive any additional benefits like the white person would, whilst still keeping the underprivileges of being black.

Kelis – Bless The Telephone

Kelis - Bless The Telephone

Kelis – Change

Kelis – Get Along With You

Kelis - Get Along With You

Kelis – Caught Out There

Kelis - Caught Out There

They see that Miley Cyrus benefits from the best of both world by changing the racial demographic stereotype of her music as a white woman but when Kelis does it as a black woman, she doesn’t get to experience the best of both worlds, like Miley did
The fact that Pharrell had songwritten and produced the 100% of her first 3 albums, is irrelevant. Pharrell’s talent being extremely high and world class, is irrelevant.
Their solution is to then claim it’s cultural appropriation, so that they’re not allowed to do that.

This is where the OVERLAP between liberalism and cultural marxism begins to break down.
If it was so concerned about equality of OUTCOME, then they would be happy for white people to do these things.
But under cultural marxism, the victim class is also the protected class, which then results in higher agency.

  • white = bad
  • black and coloured = good

So they will assign black people the ability to do something, that they forbid white people to do, because they have given the victim class, the MONOPOLY over virtue.
It’s only virtuous if they do it, not of the other side does it.

If they have to assign the victim class slash protected class, HIGHER agency, in order so they can proliferate the media and the cultural institutions in a more equal share split, then that’s what they will do.
The ends justifies the means.
It’s for the greater good.

Example #4 Big Tech’s gender bias for double standards

These social networks, Reddit and Youtube, they have a double standard that is pro-female and anti-male. Their community guidelines are applied in an inconsistent and arbritary way.

Reddit has a rule that allows hate speech against majority groups whilst forbidding it against minority groups.

If I was (or Jordan Peterson) to post on twitter “kill all women” “women are trash” I would get banned but if I changed it to men, it would be allowed. Famous feminist Clementine Ford says “men are trash” on twitter and nothing happens. She KNOWS there’s a double standard while pretending not to know, to EXPLOIT it to her advantage, being disingenous.

What she does is say hateful things about men while insulting the men in her mentions and replies, in order to bearbait them into getting angry and giving insulting comebacks. Once they do, she’ll then screenshot them, then go to the media then the media will publish articles about how she’s a victim of sexist and misogynistic trolling and cyberbullying. This media publicity will ensure that she starts harbouring sympathy and keep the media narrative alive that we live in a patriarchy and how it’s not safe for women on the internet.

Once she’s got this sympathy, she’ll then be given book publishing deals, public speech deals, government grants and other connections, media appearances, publishing, performance and revenue streams. While she’ll be upset and maybe crying the short term, in the long term by the men falling into her trap, they’ve just helped her earn more money, fame, views, connections and sales.

It’s just like when Anita Sarkeesian faked a death threat on twitter, cried to the media and that gave her the publicity to earn $100,000 on her crowdfunding campaign on Kickstarter, then she scammed all the donators by only deliving 5 of the 80 videos, across an entire year.

Example #5 Double standards regarding terrorism and serious organised crime

Just like how they allow the Taliban, Hezbollah and Hamas to have a Twitter account as a TERRORIST organisation while banning white writers who talk about the white race and mass immigration despite not engaging in any political activism (other than signing a petition and sharing a blog/news article)

While they shadowban….

  • @immigrationwatchuk
  • @dufrinord
  • @smashculturalmarxism
  • @polnewsnetwork
  • @millenialwoes
  • @gbnews
  • Muslim = good
  • Christian or atheist = bad

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

It doesn’t matter how diametrically opposed a Christian and Muslim are, if the former is a cultural Marxist, they will WORK TOGETHER towards a COMMON goal

image 3
image 4
image 5

Look at the TIMING of when they published that on their twitter account
The Liverpool Women’s Hospital terrorist attack was on the 14th of November
They have to be VERY careful and selective about what they say because they don’t want to be arrested by the hate speech laws, so they have to IMPLY things.

The obvious refute I would receive is

Are you saying that ALL muslims are extremist?

That is irrelevant and not the point.
The point is, that they want to compartmentalise the criminal’s religion and the criminal’s behaviour, on an INDIVIDUAL case-by-case basis.
They are underplaying the individual’s religion, irrespective of whether it’s representative of the collective or not. The collective is irrelevant.

This is a newspaper that is excusing, trivialising and ignoring islamic terrorism, by applying a double standard to favour them, that would not be afforded to the white nationalist brexiteer who assassinated Labour MP Jo Cox for voting to remain in the EU and allegedly trying to obstruct the brexit process in parliament whist obstructing the democratic referendum mandate.

The difference between these newspapers, is that when Jo Cox died, ALL the newspapers fully acknowledged the person’s race, religion and political ideology. They never downplayed it on an individual basis.

But these liberal newspapers which are infected with cultural marxism, they DID downplay the islamic terrorist’s religious background on an individual case-by-case basis.

Modern slavery accusations resurface among textile workers in Leicester (Sky News)

Modern slavery accusations resurface among textile workers in Leicester

‘Conspiracy of silence’ around slave-like conditions in Leicester (Sky News)

'Conspiracy of silence' around slave-like conditions in Leicester

On a surface level, the police and council ignored the modern slavery, grooming gangs and terrorism because the cities they are happening are tend to be Labour controlled cities with a Labour council, so as they use mass immigration for cheap and easy votes, if they do something to tackle it, then they’ll lose their core voter base, as those minority groups, mostly muslims, will stop voting for them.

On a surface level, that’s true.

But on a deeper level, there are a lot of these cultural marxists, as The Guardian newspaper shows, who will trivalise, excuse and ignore, grooming gangs, terrorism and modern slavery, by downplaying it, in order to ENABLE minority groups to get a 50/50 split in the cultural institutions like the media, or regulatory agencies or school teaching boards.

Imagine working for £3.15 an hour making clothes as an illegal immigrant. Minimum wage is something like £9 now

I think there’s probably some corrupt public sector worker on the inside who managed to make them slip past their automated computer checks

Example #6 Apparent “couponistic value” things

Another example

Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross Abuse Andrew Sachs via Phone 1

Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross Abuse Andrew Sachs via Phone 1

Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross Abuse Andrew Sachs via Phone 2

Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross Abuse Andrew Sachs via Phone 2

Also for this article.

Comic Relief stand by Stacey Dooley over ‘white saviour’ backlash: ‘We’re really grateful to her’

The premise behind the argument in the article, it’s implied but not stated, is that she as a white woman born in the 1990s, she should be held responsible for what her ancestors did hundreds of years ago and that the british government should use taxpayers money to give money to black people.

reperations image 1

muh reperations!

guilt by association

Jack Monroe to sue MP after he says ‘she makes fortune from the poor’

I have to make up my own word for this one. I don’t think there’s a word to describe it in the english language


Imagine something that is treat with the same stigma or scorn as coupons.
Everyone likes getting coupons so they can get free stuff.
You’ve got people on tv talking about how they’ve helped thousands of people by running Free Coupon websites
People enjoy being given a coupon
But you wouldn’t want to be seen in the supermarket paying for your entire food shopping with coupons
You wouldn’t say on live tv that you are a serial coupon user who keeps a huge stack of coupons

So there is a shame or stigma there. It’s encouraged but shameful to admit.

Imagine those situations in those links above
Doing a prank call on live radio to say that you had sex with someone’s daughter
A white person going abroad to film a segment for a charity tv show, whilst volunteering abroad and encouraging people to donate to charity to help poor people, by leverging their celebrity status to induce donations
A millionaire being shamed for campaigning to make school meals healthier for poor children whose parents can’t afford healthier food, to ensure that schools can still deliver healthy food on a low budget.

From an ethical standpoint in the context of what behaviours society deems as socially acceptable or not, those actions would not be considered wrong. However there is something that is tasteless, untoward and off-colour about that behaviour, given the context of the situation, even if the behaviour per se (latin for its own seperate entity) is allowed.

Taylor Swift is notorious for making Top 10 songs about her exes without their consent in a bitchy and one-sided manner but nobody criticises her as she didn’t deliver it within the context of a prank call.

When it comes to these grey areas where the line between black or white or right and wrong is a bit blurred, like the coupon-esque value, in my opinion, a HUGE amount of the criticism, condescending nature and condemnation is ROOTED in cultural marxism.

People want to use Jamie Oliver’s money against him, as if he’s some type of neo-colonialist or imperialist. The irony is that Jack Monroe is published by one of the Big 4 book publishers after getting a tv show, while her book is selling NATIONWIDE in the high street book shops. So she’s obviously making a LOT of money from her books while she cries and feigns poverty to help her brand, whilst claiming to want to sue an MP who claimed that she profited from capitalising on sympathy held for the poor.

What Taylor Swift did is worse than what Russell Brand and Johnathon Ross did.

Given the potential for a libel lawsuit, The Guardian cannot claim that a person with a nationwide selling high street book, would be living in poverty because that make them subject to a lawsuit as well, as they’ve went against common sense to wade in on a serious crime, due to the Contempt of Court laws and Perversion of Justice laws.

Given that they print newspapers and books and even sell books, I’m sure the newspaper would KNOW that she’s not poor. Whether she was born poor was poor in the past, that’s irrelevant, as the double standard STILL exists.

If those radio presenters were female, if Jamie Oliver was female, if Stacey Dooley was black, indian or pakistani, the mainstream media and others in the population who think like them, they would have treated the situation differently.

Example 7: Look-say and academia example

My final example
What they do is downgrade the pass criteria and dumb down lessons, in order to ensure a higher pass rate for minority groups

People want to talk about why according to government statistics, that white people are the least likely to go to university.
I can explain why that is!

Because if a white person goes to a school that has a lot of ethnic minorities, the school will dumb down the teaching and course material of the lessons along with the theory behind the methodical approach, in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator, all because during an in-class exam, white people tend to get the highest grades than every other race within the school.

So by dumbing down the lessons, at the end of the school year when the School League Tables are published in the local newspapers, so the teachers can see how good the grades for the schools are, this’ll what’ll happen

Because they’ve dumbed down the lessons, the pass rate will increase
However the average grade will decrease.
So instead of it being an A or a B, it’s now a C

So they’ve compressed the difference between the high achieving and the low achieving, to disadvantage the moderate and high achieving kids whilst the low achieving kids don’t really derive much benefits.

All they think about is how to boost the pass rate
Boosting it overall and by race
The fact that by dumbing it down, that the average grade fell, that’s irrelevant to them

british phoneme chart for school kids to learn how to correctly pronounce english words

Here’s another example from the 1990s

Here’s the british phoneme chart and it’s actually accurate as I remember it from school and speech therapy as a child. I remember having to memorise that and recall it all on cue. Luckily I could remember it all in perfect order as a child. Some foreign english speakers in some foreign countries use IPA English that has the IPA phonics, which us british people don’t use that. I don’t know what IPA English is.

A phoneme is a combination of 2 phonics, and a phonic is the linguistic sound that a letter make
For example for phonics

  • A —> ah
  • B —> buh
  • C —> keh
  • D —> deh
  • E —> eee
  • F —> feh

All the way from A-Z

The point of the phoneme chart is so children know how to pronounce words which look similar to each other.

freight / fright / thought /
quick / quaint / quote / quintessential / question

To combine both phonics together, it would make a phoneme

For a child to pronoune the words correctly, they’d have to think of the letter pairs in the phonemes instead of sounding out each letter individually

Especially for words like

kal- ei -doscope

The ei part is pronounced in a certain way

Here’s the problem of how they dumbed down the lessons (while counter-intuitively making it harder) when I was a child in the 1990s

What they would do is give children aged 4-6 years old, sentences that were spelt WRONG to then have the children figure out how to pronounce them correctly, by INFERRING such information, not from the individual letters itself or the correct phonemes but instead by calculating how the letter on the left, interacted with the wrong on the right.

So instead of a sentence like

Once upon a time there lived a

To instead give children sentences like this

Wunce appon er tyme thar lyvd any

The reason why they did that, was beforehand they found that even though girls had better language skills than boys, the exception was that boys were better at spelling words, which could potentially give them an extra advantage when learning how to read.

So what they did, is make the lessons for kids aged 4-6 to become even HARDER, so they could disadvantage boys and advantage girls, as girls were better at the harder lessons, than boys were.

Even though the lessons were nonsensical in their approach and that by doing this, it STUNTED BOTH men and women’s language skills by 5-7 years.

They wouldn’t teach kids phonics at school, and this wasn’t an isolated incident, it was NATIONWIDE, every school. When did that get abolished? It took until 2005. That ridiculous scheme, it was called look-say.

They didn’t care that look-say was stunting both boys and girls language skills by 5-7 years which also affected them in their adult life.
All they cared about, is that it disadvantaged boys and advantaged girls, to give girls higher english grades than boys.

academia image 1
academia image 2
academia image 3

Further Reading

There is no point in debating people who lack objective morality

That’s my opinion on it.

  • woman = good
  • man = bad
  • homosexual = good
  • heterosexual = bad
  • coloured person = good
  • white person = bad
  • muslim = good
  • christian or atheist = bad

There is no point in debating these types of people firstly because they lack objective morality.
Their morality continually changes on a whim, flip flopping, based on which demographic the aggressor and the victim is in the situation, along with which demographic is the majority demographic or minority demographic in the situation

Secondly there’s no point because will fudge the statistics to justify the decision to implement whatever they feel. If they can use a skewed sample size, selective quoting, fuzzy descriptors or badly weighted comparatives, in order to fake the outcome they want, from fudged statistics, then they can and will.


There is none. Or maybe I’ll add it in later.

By the way

There are 26 letters in the alphabet and 35 phonics, that make up the sounds within every word.

This is what foreign english learners use (ESL) (english as a second language) for IPA English.

ipa english 1
ipa english 2

Related Posts