The recent royal wedding raised eyebrows, a non-white person marrying into a long-running Anglo royal bloodline has always been unthinkable, in this day and age of mass-manipulation, this is no longer so.
Monarchy. What people think: “Royal weddings, crowns, treating royalty as celebrities.”
What it really is: A system of statecraft based on philosophical principles in which men are ordained by God and exercise fatherly rule over their people. Reflecting the eternal order.
Royal weddings historically had political significance, a monarch would marry off their offspring to other royalty in exchange for a mutual diplomatic boost. The marriage between Harry Windsor and Meghan Markle is political too, just not in the way you’d expect — it’s a marriage with postmodernism, associating a historic icon of Britishness with the characteristics of multiculturalism. Or, it could all be a “coincidence” that a long line of European royal blood now has chosen to go non-Anglo (I don’t think so).
No doubt the royals, who hold no real power now — and are in the pockets of the major banking families, have been coerced to bring a minority ethnicity person into the family as a powerful postmodernist “progressive” symbol to further undermine Western identity and promote “multiculturalism” — in reality this is not at all about “multiculturalism”, it’s about monoculturalism, except the new presiding culture (within a few decades) will not be Western, it will be a third world culture of willing, dysgenic serfs who will vote away everything this country ever was — to achieve this; nationalistic, savvy indigenous ethnic groups must get the boot.
It was a massive advertisement for cultural Marxism & miscegenation.
The royal wedding acted as a worldwide advertisement (a few billion may have tuned in to watch it) for the Rothschild/banker-backed Kalergi plan and the “Pan-European” movement; the message being that Europe is no longer ‘European’ in the classical, traditional, multinational sense; it is to be redefined by conquest or consent, to take on the identity of a “federation of nations” under the control of the unelected, globalist lapdog politicians based in Brussels. To become truly transnational, Europe’s collective ethnicity must become mixed breed, the product of thorough and widespread miscegenation. This will create a multiracial, dysgenic population, with no clear sense of tradition or identity, and therefore can be easily controlled by the ruling elite.
Outlined in the Kalergi plan.
“The man of the future will be of mixed race. The races and classes of today will gradually disappear due to the elimination of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-negroid race of the future, similar in appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the current diversity of peoples and the diversity of individuals. Instead of destroying European Judaism, Europe, against her will, refined and educated this people, driving them to their future status as a leading nation through this artificial evolutionary process. It’s not surprising that the people that escaped from the Ghetto-Prison, became the spiritual nobility of Europe. Thus, the compassionate care given by Europe created a new breed of aristocrats. This happened when the European feudal aristocracy crashed because of the emancipation of the Jews [due to the actions taken by the French Revolution]”
What’s more, the Islamic, third world culture that will be brought in with mass-migration will be one poorly accustomed to the liberties, secularism & empiricism of the West — this will, undoubtedly, negatively influence the political decisions of such groups, much to the ruling elite’s advantage.
Overall, mass immigration is a phenomenon the causes of which are cleverly concealed by the political elites, powerful multicultural propaganda pushed though corporate PR machines such as this latest big royal wedding making all the headlines is employed to falsely portray mass immigration & miscegenation as an inevitable and positive thing.
A major symbol of national cohesion has been subverted.
Perhaps one of the great cultural symbols of Britishness, the Commonwealth and Western values — the royal family — has capitulated. It’s so painfully obviously an attempt to get lukewarm patriots to turn against cultural and ethnic homogeneity and embrace minority groups, groups that have no interest in Western values, most of these groups being low IQ economic migrants seeking to benefit from state welfare, no loyalty to the wider community or national identity — these people will be easily divided as the state feeds them the victim narrative; crushing what little integration that could have taken place into the dust.
The message delivered through the mixed-race ‘cosmopolitan’, and ‘modern’ royal wedding is that Britain is no longer British in the sense that isn’t sympathetic to globalism; the traditional, sensible Britain of old.
Now the doors are wide open, the new Britain will be one devoid of identity, the borders will dissolve as the population, irreverent and lacking identity votes for their enslavement.
Meghan is a useful symbol of multiculturalism, feminism, and the overarching postmodernist agenda. That’s all this is about. Harry was introduced to Meghan and was likely instructed to marry her as part of a globalist social engineering plan; the rest, as they say, is “history”.
Now, the 2015 JCPOA between Iran, the US, China, Russia, Germany, France and Britain, a deal that agreed on limiting Iranian nuclear activity in return for the lifting of crippling international economic sanctions looks as if it may be coming to an end as Trump warns the US will abandon the deal on 12 May if his concerns are not addressed.
It’s too soon to say whether this will constitute an excuse to invade Iran and spark a hot conflict — but it will likely mean resumed economic sanctions on Iran for not playing ball with U.S. & Israeli foreign policy.
If we just look to how Iraq under Saddam Hussein received arms and support from Washington to attack and invade Iran. This de facto agreement, encouraged the Iraqi leader to assume that collaboration between nationalist Iraq and imperial Washington reflected a shared common agenda. Subsequently Baghdad believed that they had tacit US support in a territorial dispute with Kuwait. When Saddam invaded, the US bombed, devastated, invaded, occupied and partitioned Iraq.
The attempt by Iraq to collaborate with Washington in the 1980’s against its nationalist neighbor Iran, led to the invasion, the destruction of the country, the killing of thousands of secular leaders including Saddam Hussein as well as the entire secular and scientific intelligentsia, and the transformation of Iraq into a toothless vassal state of the empire.
With the elections of Donald Trump, the US rejected the agreement (‘it’s the worst deal ever’) and in compliance with the Israeli Prime Minister B. Netanyahu’s military agenda, demanded the total restoration of sanctions, the dismantling of Iran’s entire military defenses and its submission to the US, Israeli and Saudi Arabian dictates in the Middle East.
In other words, President Trump discarded the agreement in opposition to all the major countries in Europe and Asia, in favor of Israel’s demands to isolate, disarm and attack Iran and impose a puppet regime in Tehran.
“The strategic goal is disarmament in order to facilitate military and political intervention leading up to and beyond defeat, occupation, regime change; the impositions of a‘client regime’ to facilitate the pillage of economic resources and the securing of military bases, international alignment with the US empire and a military springboard for further conquests against neighbors and independent adversaries.” — Prof. James Petras
These recent allegations from Israel backed by the U.S., in light of recent Iranian military posturing following the April 7th Syria strikes seems more suited to a “back off” gesture from the Western alliance, in essence, saying “we can and will hold your feet to the fire” (by reimposing crippling sanctions) over these allegations. If they have any further, graver, implications in targeting Iran — these will unfold with time.
As the Cultural Marxists push their neoliberalcritical theory, postmodern, and post-structural demographic mixing policies and nu-progressive doctrine, the resulting balkanization (division) of the electorate in Western nations and arbitrary dissolution of traditional structures by these methods must be discussed — funded social activism and the dissemination of certain biases is at the forefront of keeping neoliberalism, group dissension, and toxic progressivism prominent in society, as a result keeping the social structures of what would be an organised populace thereafter permanently divided.
Weaponized Cultural Marxism deliberately appeals to and has successfully made a tool out of the rebellious nature of youth, and has made it “cool” and “progressive” to destroy the so-called “anachronistic” structures in society — in reality, these are structures in the way of further centralization of power under an unaccountable elite cabal.
It boils down to suppressing the individual and turning everything towards the collective of the elite’s agenda — to divide and conquer, introduce postmodernism, pathologize and victimize everything to paralyze independent free thought and discourse, to destroy the family and replace parental figures with the state role model, to eliminate religious and national Western value systems, to intersperse dissension and division among the populace by highlighting irrelevant differences between people. Anything that turns a person towards obedience to the state entity.
“All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
— Benito Mussolini, on totalitarianism.
Replace the word “state” with any central collection of substantial power — it doesn’t necessarily have to be in terms of traditional government. This is because governance can take on many forms. For example, today’s collection of power is in the corporate state, the “corporatocracy“.
When every person becomes a microcosm of the state’s image, then the state rules in full-spectrum, absolute totality. The human domain (the body) is the last frontier of attaining true totalitarian power, the capable, free-thinking individual is the enemy of totalitarianism — this is why we see an assault on the individual thinker everywhere. I believe the elites know that they will never truly eradicate individual thought, that’s nearly impossible. So instead they want to replace it with dumbed-down “individual” thought, a form of individuality that appears democratized, but in effect — remains an extension of state power. The wider the awareness gap between the ruler and the ruled, the closer to totalitarianism we will come, a devalued individual is their next big goal. This is why we see them attempt to put incapable individuals in positions of power, to dilute capable individuals’ power.
“The long march through the institutions of power”
The above statement refers to Cultural Marxists slowly taking over key positions in the institutions controlling culture in order to create a new culture; one that aligns with the globalist-Zionist agenda. David Icke coined the term the “totalitarian tiptoe“, a slow and gradual encroachment of an agenda in parts initially too small to recognize — but in the end forming a whole, by which time the public will accept the agenda due to the gradual acclimatization that shifted the Overton window.
Cultural Marxism places great emphasis on analyzing, controlling, and changing the popular culture, the popular discourse, the mass media, and the language itself. Seeing culture as often having more or less subconscious influences on people which create and sustain inequalities, Cultural Marxists themselves often try to remove these inequalities by more or less subtle manipulation and censorship of culture. Because of its secret intelligence organizers, social justice opts to frame and create anachronisms out of natural differences between things, calling them figments of “oppression”, as well as push the “virtues” of unthinking pathological altruism through the “high-ground” of self-proclaimed morality.
Escape the artificially engineered social bubble — take a trip to your average South American, Eastern European or Asian country. Few things can red-pill a man faster than being engulfed in a culture outside of the West — where the fundamental culture has not been manipulated.
Marxist Politics is all about power relations rather than rational bilateral discourse, it’s all about couching one’s positions in the language of morality.
While some inequalities are legitimate, others are perceived inequalities, that below the surface are not the alleged “inequalities” we have been led to believe. To distinguish between innocent social activism and the weaponized Cultural Marxist “SJW”, is to see the difference between perceived inequalities and real inequalities — and from where exactly the activism or movement is coming from.
From the grassroots? More likely to be a legitimate issue. From corporate funding? There’s likely an agenda at play. Just follow the money. Unfortunately, many don’t follow the money, and take on-board the toxic values and ideological groundwork from perceived authoritative sources, woe to them.
By creating false dichotomies that otherwise would not exist is to draw a “solution” (reform) to the “problem” (thing) you want to change, whether it’s a real social problem is irrelevant — as a result, you can gain a social outcome that benefits a given agenda. By blaring the single talking point and narrative of social activism you also cover up the real cause and effect in the significance of the nature of race, ethnicity, sexuality, and gender, etc as eminent social factors that often have nuance that your agenda needs to overlook to be successful.
A prime example of a fake social revolution is feminism and women’s suffrage which have their roots in the early 20th century, and later on, the Women’s liberation movement of the 1960s. This social cause was funded by Jewish banker-owned organisations to swing the electorate away from male rationality towards female liberality — and liberality is the best way for the elite class to liquidize and reform undesirable social structures. Why? Because the very definition of being liberal is to be “open to new ideas”, even if these new ideas are terrible and damaging — its the best way to slip your corporate social agenda under the social radar and then implement it — by cloaking it in “benevolent social activism” — nobody notices if it appears to come from the grassroots.
The CIA/Rockefeller Foundation funded the roots of feminism to weaken the basic structure of society for more governmental influence.
By funding women’s suffrage and overturning the tradition of the male-only vote, the male voter was devalued; and by extension, so was general rationality in the democratic process — the designed rise of the emotional, low quality voter has made social engineering and its implications more significant than ever. According to the 2009 “Reflections and Warnings” interview with Aaron Russo, the elites allegedly funded social reform on gender to also take women “out of the home to double the amount of taxpayers and cut wages by doubling the supply of workers”, Russo alleged that it also had the effect of putting kids in state school earlier, meaning exposure to state indoctrination would occur at an earlier stage in life.
“You’ve been lied to about women’s position in society, you are the society, you create and grow the next life, and they tell you ‘oh, that’s a horrible thing’, they say ‘your baby is a parasite’, they don’t ever want you to have a child so you’re empowered through it.”
— Alex Jones
Gloria Steinem, an American feminist, journalist, and social political activist who once stated that “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle”, told of how the CIA was directly involved in the feminist movement during the late 1960s Women’s liberation movement:
The significance of gender in the vote is very clear throughout political preferences (vote choice, and ideology), political participation (voting, campaign activity, and contentious actions), and political engagement (interest, discussion, persuasion, knowledge, and efficacy). According to one study, “women are least engaged with the stages of the political process when new issues are introduced to the agenda.”
Manufacturing consent; the next steps.
They’ve conquered the male-centric vote that held irrationality at bay, and implemented various other Marxist-inspired society-breaking strategies — but the Western Caucasian voter is still too smart and too entrenched in the ideas of Western liberty to fully control, the Western family is a safeguard for Western values — they haven’t been successful in breaking up this safeguard enough.
How would you deal with this? One big strategy is replacement — to bring in low-IQ, culturally decadent migrants who have no experience and no regard for said liberties and will happily vote those liberties away, whether by gullibility or irreverence, in part due to IQ, in part environmental causes. Mass population replacement has a “blank slate” effect on the target population and nation, allowing you to rewrite the rules. Because a state is the sum of its inhabitants — controlling the inhabitants means you control the state, before many assumed controlling the government means you control the state, yes, in the short term, but in the long term, the population is the real source of power. Power comes from below.
Today’s “migration crisis” in Europe is redefining that “power from below”, denigrating the capable individual by bringing in people of an average IQ below 90. According to studies, sub-90 IQ populations cannot sustain high-functioning civilization — or even a basic level of civilization, the permanent genetic factors are well documented; meaning that any assimilation to Western ideals will be very limited, this is all planned.
Finnish political scientist Tatu Vanhanen supports this. His comprehensive study of 172 nations in the world demonstrates that the higher the average intelligence in a given society, the higher its degree of democracy and civilization.
The circular reasoning that saturates modern Cultural Marxism.
This comes under the guise of a new Western “enlightenment”, the bandwagon idea of “out with the old in with the new” pervades society, its almost as if they would rather we don’t stop and question why this is happening — and where exactly this new line of thinking will lead us as a civilization.
The opted assumption is that it’s a “given thing”, that the score is settled, that new criticisms are “wild conspiracies” or “anti-scientific”, or anti-whatever.
Perhaps most dangerous of all, the neoliberal Marxist line of the “oppressor” and “oppressed” is applied in so many areas of human society that it’s become hard to keep track — spawning so many unnecessary tribal conflicts between people.
This class agitation is especially important for globalist vested interests — by characterizing the non-globalist upper class as bourgeoisie and pushing socialist policies to crush the middle class, they are slashing capital and property that doesn’t serve their agenda, keeping the lion’s share within their control, their proxies, and forming an underclass at a rapid rate.
It seems as if, despite all the ranting of “oppression”, it is only the international financiers that are not oppressing anybody — funny how that panned-out, Jewish exceptionalism is everywhere — and proves who is really in control, for example ISIS never attacks Israel, no massive social justice attacks on Israel’s racism, and there is no uproar about the high Jewish representation in top positions compared to all other groups.
It seems conspiracy theories are allowed, but only if they have a liberal angle — anything that points out the tremendous influence of the international Jewish financiers, people who have held these financial roles for centuries — well, that’s tin foil hat stuff.
The neoliberal narrative is perpetuated everywhere. The number of the establishment’s “progressive” authors presenting circular reasoning is astonishing. For example, this article by the Huffington Post starts with a precedent without justifying it, this kind of “social justice” content is often seen across the mainstream media landscape.
The mechanisms of manufacturing dissent & the “icebreaker” of Cultural Marxism in the 1960s: the roots of Western cultural decline.
So where did this neoliberal explosion come from? — it all started in the USA with the Rockefeller-backed neoliberal movement in the 1960s from the front-organisation known as The Funders Network on Trade and Globalization (FTNG) — the social movement was intended as a mass-push for liberalism to loosen up the socially and politically conservative traditions that obstructed the further acquisition of power by encouraging the young to challenge social norms. The movement was a social gadfly on established social order; and was from the start a meticulously controlled cultural sabotage.
The areas targeted by the fake neoliberal “revolution”, that masquerades as classical liberalism are areas crucial to the fabric of human interrelations — and sources of tremendous leverage if manipulated correctly by a willing puppeteer. It would be accurate to call them the key pressure-points of society, these methods were likely formulated in the banker-owned think-tanks.
The Frankfurt School.
The School believed there were two types of revolution: (a) political and (b) cultural. Cultural revolution demolishes from within. “Modern forms of subjection are marked by mildness”. They saw it as a long-term project and kept their sights clearly focused on the family, education, media, sex and popular culture — the targets of achieving post-structuralism.
The School developed critical theory in order to analyze and explain how culture creates inequalities. It has been extremely influential and today has branches in numerous fields such as critical race theory, critical whiteness studies, critical gender studies, critical criminology, critical legal studies, etc — here are the main areas that Cultural Marxism influences:
Family (nuclear family/non-nuclear family)
Religion (Christianity/atheism and religious minorities)
Basically, the task of the Frankfurt School was to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. They called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life to destabilize society and destroy what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order.
“First, that the influence of home is obstructive.
Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten.
Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective.
Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark grey . When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”
— Bertrand Russel, British Philosopher
They hoped their policies would spread like a virus — “continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means”, as one of their members noted. To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution.
Comintern propaganda chief, Willi Münzenberg, summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation, stating that ‘we will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.’
The School recommended (among other things):
1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion.
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children.
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority.
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking.
7. Emptying of churches.
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime.
9. Creating dependency on the state or state benefits.
10. Control and dumbing down of media.
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family.
One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pansexualism’ – the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:
Attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
Abolish differences in the education of boys and girls.
Abolish all forms of male dominance – hence the presence of women in the armed forces.
Declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’.
The 1960s social revolution is a perfect example of how, seemingly out of nowhere, all these major human sociological factors were instantly and aggressively challenged and undermined, it happened in a choppy way because it was designed.
“This task is rendered easier of the opponent has himself been infected with the idea of freedom, so-called liberalism, and, for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power.” — The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (1903)
For example, in 1969, Blue Movie, directed by Andy Warhol, was the first adult erotic film depicting explicit sex to receive wide theatrical release in the United States. New cultural forms and a dynamic subculture which celebrated experimentation, modern incarnations of Bohemianism, and the rise of the hippie and other alternative lifestyles emerged. Lyndon B. Johnson was the first acting president to endorse birth control, a hugely important factor in the change of American sexual attitudes in the 1960s.
Areas of society clamoring for change included the Civil Rights movement, (see SCLC and SNCC) the ‘New Left‘, and women, with various women’s rights organizations appearing in the latter years of the decade in particular.
In the 1963 book The Feminine Mystique, Friedan tackles the issue of the domestic role of women in contemporary America, and the feeling of dissatisfaction with it. Friedan believed that women should not conform to this popularized view of the feminine, (The Housewife) and that they should participate in, if not enjoy the act of sex. It’s evident how this evolved into the toxic form of man-hating feminism we see today.
The rise of popular recreational drugs during the period such as crack cocaine and LSD, was largely introduced by CIA-backed cartels — this brought in a new dependency for a population that was once conservative and cautious.
David McGowan, author on the subject, proposed that the social revolution was a controlled, concerted effort to mitigate the backlash of the anti-war movement and carefully guide the angst of a gullible youth.
“…These are belief systems that are used to manipulate the minds of impressionable followers. In the case of Satanism, it is, to me, a way to covertly sell a fascist mindset, which is the direction the country, and the rest of the world, is moving. Those embracing the teachings think they are rebelling against the system, but they are in reality reinforcing it. Just as the hippies did. And just as so-called Patriots and Anarchists are. I don’t believe there has been a legitimate resistance movement in this country for a very long time.”
“To the extent that it has a central thesis, I would say that it is that the music and counterculture scene that sprung to life in the 1960s was not the organic, grassroots resistance movement that it is generally perceived to be, but rather a movement that was essentially manufactured and steered. And a corollary to that would be that for a scene that was supposed to be all about peace, love and understanding, there was a very dark, violent underbelly that this book attempts to expose.”
Since 2001, a major proponent of social engineering operating under the slogan “Another World is Possible”, is the Jewish banker-funded World Social Forum (WSF) that is responsible for much of the major social activism — and is a major front of the mass social engineering that we see worldwide.
The WSF (among several sources of funding is supported by a consortium of corporate foundations under the advisory umbrella of Engaged Donors for Global Equity (EDGE) – their goal is to create “forms of international solidarity among progressive movements”.
The neoliberal anti-globalization movements in the WSF are supposedly opposed to Wall Street and the Texas oil giants controlled by Rockefeller, et al. Yet the foundations and charities of Ford, Rockefeller et al will generously fund progressive anti-capitalist networks as well as environmentalists (opposed to Wall Street and Big Oil), etc. with a view to ultimately overseeing and shaping their various activities. In other words, they hope to control and mitigate their opposition — as well as create and fund real opposition for their opponents.
The corporations are funding dissent with a view to controlling dissent and also directing it. The corporations are cherry-picking often well-intentioned people that have misguided worldviews and using them as pawns to further their social engineering agendas.
“The hidden agenda was to weaken and divide the protest movement and orient the anti-globalization movement into areas that would not directly threaten the interests of the business establishment.”
The Rockefeller and Ford Foundations have big stakes in the WSF, most of the participants are completely unaware that the WSF is funded by corporate foundations including Ford, Rockefeller, Tides, et al. Much of this funding is channeled to the WSF organizers under the helm of the WSF International Council.
At the 2016 WSF event in Montreal on Syria refers to a country “in ruins as a result of a multifaceted war between the dictatorship of Bashar al Assad and a host of opposition organizations,” echoing almost verbatim the narrative of the mainstream media. The central role of US-NATO in destroying Syria as a sovereign country is not mentioned.
With regard to the Montreal WSF, the Consortium of Donors (EDGE) intent is:
“…to develop an intersectional space for funders and various movement partners – organizers thought leaders and practitioners – to build alignment by cultivating a shared understanding of the visions, values, principles and pathways of a “just transition.” (See http://edgefunders.org/wsf-activities/)
“Just Transition” implies that social activism has to conform to a “shared vision” with the corporate foundations, i.e. nothing which in a meaningful way might upset the elite structures of global capitalism.
At the 2013 WSF event in Tunis, the final declaration paid lip service to to the US sponsored “Syrian opposition”. Similarly the Al Qaeda affiliated Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) which allegedly led the “Arab Spring” against the government of Muammar Gaddafi was tacitly upheld as a revolutionary force. Several workshops on Libya applauded Western military intervention. A session entitled “Libya’s transition to democracy” focused on “whether Libya was better off without Muammar Gaddafi.”
The WSF is a funnel trap for real activists that fall under umbrella organisations that claim to be fighting crony capitalism, but have been paid-off — or misdirected.
The mechanisms of “manufacturing dissent” require a manipulative environment, a process of arm-twisting and subtle co-optation of a small number of key individuals within “progressive organizations”, including anti-war coalitions, environmentalists and the anti-globalization movement. Many leaders of these organizations have in a sense betrayed their grassroots — taking up the standard of controlled-opposition corporate neoliberalism.
Cultural Marxism pathologizes established structures that the Elites want to dismantle and replace.
Writing in 1992 in Fidelio Magazine, The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness Michael Minnicino observed how the heirs of Marcuse and Adorno now completely dominate the universities, ‘teaching their own students to replace reason with ‘Politically Correct’ ritual exercises that attempt to redefine “equality” between certain supposedly “unequal” things, and therefore intends to redefine the polar opposites that justify these calls for such equality.
There are very few theoretical books on arts, letters, or language which do not openly acknowledge their debt to the Frankfurt School. The witch-hunt on today’s campuses is merely the implementation of Marcuse’s concept of ‘repressive toleration’, ‘tolerance for movements from the left, but intolerance for movements from the right’, enforced by the students of the Frankfurt School’.
Freudianpsychoanalysis was an important influence on critical theory in Cultural Marxism. One example is the influential book The Authoritarian Personality where psychoanalytic ideas are used to pathologize Western love and pride of Christianity, the family, gender roles, and the nation.
The tendency to pathologize opponents as being irrationally sick has continued with, for example, labels such as homophobia and Islamophobia. This is the crux of the Cultural Marxist rationale.
Modern examples of this have set a new precedent, and, with little emphasis on evidence, have called for the “solution” to “society’s problems” to be rolled-out before anyone has reached an agreement and what exactly the problems were to begin with. The social engineers rely on hysteria to make their social engineering successful, rolling out an event and quickly offering a solution without time to think, ratcheting the window of acceptance bit by bit. This works, because if people actuallyobjectively and rationallyquestioned these new social narratives appearing out of nowhere — nobody would be taking them on board.
There can be no conversation between the organizer and his opponents. The latter must be depicted as being evil. This preserves the former and suppresses the latter.
The use of buzzwords and put-downs in social justice groups suggests that their central ideas will likely buckle under rational scrutiny. The very fact that there is unsolicited animosity implies obscurantism of an idea that cannot hold its own in a rational debate.
Strong ideas and their advocates do not require name-calling and derision to deal with their opposition, because their idea is strong enough that smoke and mirrors are not required. If you were confident or knowledgeable enough in your argument you would not resort to ad hominen or any other avoidance tactics — yet that is exactly what we see on the liberal side of many arguments.
Using “subjectivity” and political correctness as a tool to shutdown discourse.
The various ideologies originating in the Frankfurt school can (like Marxism and psychoanalysis) be considered pseudosciences with theories that cannot be falsified. Often not replying to the factual arguments of critics, the critics are instead often analyzed with the theories and declared to be sick or having hidden motives (ad hominem). They are often similar to sects with adored and charismatic leaders and cleansing of heretics in the own group with less than orthodox views.
“Nihilism is the philosophical viewpoint that suggests the denial or lack of belief towards the reputedly meaningful aspects of life.”
While social reform is often a positive process based on sound discourse between parties to come to an agreed conclusion, the Cultural Marxist type of reform is weaponized through and through — intended to undermine truly meaningful and substantial structures of human life and society, and not be open to bilateral discussion about such reforms.
Because if everything hinges on subjective personal opinion, then nothing can be objectively held or reasonably conceded, this acts a flotation device to keep the Marxist narrative alive — because without relativity, post-structural arguments would be dead and buried the moment they surfaced under the scrutiny of rationality.
“It’s the individual’s choice to do what they want…”
There’s no denying that individual choice is imperative, but that dodges the essence of the argument — what should an individual do to compromise for the collective? Does it align with emotional self-comfort, rational principles, their ego? From what within or without has persuaded that individual’s choice? How justifiable is it relative to empirically documented science? What is generally held as meaningful by the wider society your ability to make that free choice depends on?
I encourage questioning established norms, but not in the context of the dogmatist revolutionary who does so as a virtue-signalling statement. Unfortunately, many “progressives” fall into the latter definition — thinking in terms of proletariat and bourgeoisie, the oppressed and the oppressor — the victim mentality. Their naivety exploited, they ascribe ‘evil-doer’ and ‘victim’ to the wrong groups, in the process becoming ‘useful idiots’. The people most receptive to these ideas include rejected, insecure, often low income and low status individuals who jump at the opportunity to blame men, the rich and successful, etc, for their problems. The ugly feminist is not a coincidence.
It’s convenient that the Cultural Marxist ideology is a catch-all for the lowest denomination — the intellectually lazy with all their negative qualities are validated and protected by the Marxist social agenda, and they love that, because a healthy society has rejected them, to be told they are valid is a rallying call.
The post-structuralist’s refusal or outright inability to argue on a rational level makes their arguments and mindset very resilient to external probing. The establishment know this, and supports this — the engineered safe-zone, “don’t offend anyone” culture serves to protect this faulty reasoning — notice how protected groups / minorities are nearly always retainers of something beneficial to the post-structuralists — and toxic to wider society, preserving and using toxic personality traits mixed with an ideological proponent is deadly, the elites provide the bullets, and broken, small-minded people fire them. By taking in social outcasts and capitalizing on estranged people, the establishment can corrupt and disenfranchise core society.
Political correctness, as an extension of the “safe zone”, is another factor of ideological protectionism, shut away from the light of open, rational discourse. The PC culture dictates that all views on equality that disagree with the Cultural Marxist view are to be avoided, censored, and punished.
It’s like a life support for a near-dead corpse. The appeal to emotions, the ego, superiority-inferiority complexes, and the socialist Utopian ideas where “all people are equal” are the modes that inhibit rational discourse on real social issues, they are validated for thinking they are right, they are called “perfect” for their imperfections. It’s a catch for the emotionally weak person with poor self-restraint, someone who wants to blame the world for their problems — we’re hardwired to respond to emotion, not reason — some more than others, funded movements target those most susceptible to this emotional exploitation; many women (due to emotional processing), generally low-IQ people, minority groups, and so on. Wherever society can be categorized and divorced from the central social body — the manipulators strike.
The “social change” is exclusively coming from the corporate establishment.
Follow the trail, it will lead back to an establishment-owned entity every time. Now that we are some forty years into their social engineering programme, individuals have taken on the idea of their own volition, but in the beginning — it came from the establishment.
If this is truly was a new “renaissance” of social justice, it’s not one that is occurring at a grassroots level, the new ideas come from above, the established order, and very few realize that or question the motive for powerful people to push this narrative.
A real renaissance usually comes from below and changes above, and by extension, the whole.
Instead, the modern Marxist “renaissance” was and is totally planned, the social prime movers plant the seed of a false idea — and then watch the effects come into play. Because so much of modern human society is centralized under a few corporations, including most politicians and “influential” people, a mass repetition of these false talking points can be deployed quite easily, an organic, decentralized society is long behind us — human communication, something essential for liberties to be upheld, is now in the hands of a few very powerful people who control the major means of discourse; internet forums, newspapers, media, and so on.
The ruling group doesn’t change, yet everything below changes. This “social change” is change to target groups only.
It is the ruling order changing the ruled, it’s partisan in that the elite don’t change their position as a small circle of dictatorial, patriarchal white males (the very thing their so-called renaissance of social justice criticizes). This suggests that they want to target certain groups with social engineering and spur agitation among people.
Instead of changing entire structure of society — unilaterally, they only change the people’s accepted standards and social structures (common sense structures built upon over millennia) to fit their agenda of control — this can’t be a real renaissance because it doesn’t affect the whole, only the part.
Look to Saudi Arabia where women’s rights are nonexistent, the Jewish elites and their lackeys still do business with the Saudis, yet push the feminist agenda on a domestic level, they advocate mass Islamic immigration knowing that mass-introducing anti-feminist groups will work against progressive ideology, yet the migrant plans go ahead.
The hypocrisy is blatant, and shows they have no interest or faith in the values and principles of their own social justice ideology.
If we look to Israel’s refusal to take in Syrian refugees and expulsion of African migrants, these are other examples of the Jewish establishment’s complete personal disinterest in the very social justice they choose to impose on others — because its a tool to control people, nobody invests money in something because of ethics or “social justice”, the people who have power have seized it and while they call themselves philanthropists — they are really a ruthless corporate cabal, investing in liberal ideas is to ease up the structures and populations that get in the way of their agenda.
Look at how racism rights applies to every race except whites, how “social justice” is entirely conditional, and such cognitive dissonance is not acknowledged by its neoliberal proponents.
Let’s look at the double-think further, there is no social justice stance on Ashkenazi Jews dominating high positions in society, more so than white males. There is not stance on women dominating hairdressing over men. The common sense is right in front of us, so why can’t people join the dots and see that different people have different temperaments? Because the lines between the dots has been deliberately blurred since the false 1960s cultural revolution set the false liberalism in motion.
This could be referred to as a top-down, premeditated “renaissance”, a massive act of social engineering that, only now with the decline of the mainstream voice, is beginning to be somewhat questioned.
Older social movements were much more likely to be genuine, the decentralized state of discourse in societies of the past meant a rallying for social change was less likely to be falsified.
Today, in the Information Age, with the rise of the crisis actor, mainstream media, think-tanks, and many avenues for social manipulation mean that objective, critical thought on an individual basis couldn’t be more crucial for everyone to exercise.
With the proliferation of information and the modes of spread, genuine change is certainly more empowered, but equally are the powers of social engineering.
Polarizing the electorate to justify social justice.
By pushing false narratives of oppression, that the whites are keeping the blacks in poverty (disproved), that men are keeping women in lower paid jobs by the “patriarchy” (again, disproved), and that white people are oppressive and all minorities are exempt from scrutiny — the electorate becomes atomized, one group feels estranged from the next, all vote for the social and political answers to these “problems” put before them.
The false problem has been created, the establishment politician is the solution, appealing to each group and claiming they will fight for “justice” for each given group.
It carves up the electorate and makes each categorical group much easier to sway.
If, on the other hand, all groups were concerned with objective pragmatic social and political solutions, it would be impossible to carve up the electorate through the forces of an appeal to tribalism, because objective thought moves past a divided electorate.
Generally, there will always be niche voter preferences from group to group in society, this can become a flaw of democracy, just as much as it represents the individual; the possibility that people vote drastically different from group to group — lacking the collective national vision as seen in ideas such as Benjamin Disraeli’s One-nation conservatism.
“Jewish organizations view white nationalism as their greatest potential threat and they have tended to support pro-black integration (i.e., assimilationist, individualist) policies for blacks in America, presumably because such policies dilute white power and lessen the possibility of a cohesive, nationalist anti-Jewish white majority.”
— Harold Cruse, a black intellectual.
Until then, the norm was largely conservative values, funded “social revolutions”, known as cultural dialectics, and as aforementioned, are employed ways to artificially shift the Overton window to the position that benefits the elites — money from certain influential figures that lurk behind the scenes has pulled the strings of the social landscape, the power of this new, and aggressively imposed Marxist narrative is even undermining established science.
Jordan B. Peterson made a comment on how the long-held conclusions of common sense have been vilified:
“I have made a strong case, which I think is fully documented by the scientific literature that there are intrinsic differences between men and women […] this is the thing that staggered me, that no serious scientists have debated that, for like four decades. That argument was done by the time I went to graduate school, everyone knew that human beings were not a blank slate, that biological forces parameterized the way that we thought and felt and acted and valued. Everyone knew that. The fact that this has become somehow debatable again, especially as this is being done by legislative fiat, they’re forcing it.”
— Jordan B. Peterson on David Fuller’s “A Glitch in the Matrix” (2018)
As aforementioned, the insider whistle-blower Aaron Russo tells of how the Rockefellers funded Women’s liberation movement, a precursor to the feminism that has upended social integrity today, here’s the video:
What one votes for will differ a bit from another given group, but generally Western nations share the core principles of liberty, nationalism, and constitutionality — and people will tend to vote against their own interests to preserve this. For example, nearly half of “Leave” voters in the recent UK EU referendum voted on the principle “that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK.” The focus is nationalist, rather than globalist.
Third world migrants vote differently. People born overseas will likely vote differently, if their background is not rooted in the nation then the likelihood of them voting against the national interests and core identity are higher.
Democracy works best in essential uniformity, with people voting on principle rather than self-interest. Outside of an enlightened democracy, a democracy becomes fragmentary and too multi-polar.