Cultural Marxism expresses itself as dividing society into two camps: the oppressing class, and the oppressed class. The oppressing class, according to cultural Marxists, consists always of Western, white, rich or privileged, heterosexual, able-bodied men. Being Christian will not help you. If you recognize yourself as fitting the above description, forget about ever being considered a victim of one or the other social ill. You are most likely considered a sexist, homophobe, racist and privileged person, at the very least at a subconscious level.
Depending on which is deemed the specific oppressed people in any debate, almost any member of the oppressed class can turn into an oppressor. What is important to understand in this seemingly complicated narrative, is that in any dichotomy, one is deemed an “oppressor”, and the other “an oppressed”. Men oppress women; whites oppress racial minorities; heterosexuals oppress homosexuals; the rich oppress the poor; Christians oppress people with non-Christian beliefs; the able-bodied oppress the physically disabled; people from the West oppress people not from the West.
There is a hierarchy of being more or less oppressed here as well. For instance, while homosexuals are deemed an oppressed class versus heterosexuals, they are deemed the oppressor if they are in conflict with racial minorities even if the racial minority in question is homophobic. This easily explains, for instance, why “feminists” (cultural Marxists specializing in the gender branch) will betray the cause of violated women, if they have been violated by non-white men. This is why gay rights activists (cultural Marxists specializing in the gay rights branch) will betray gay people, if the latter are in conflict with homophobic minorities. This is why environmentalists (cultural Marxists specializing in the environmental branch) really don’t give a crap about the environment, if the polluter is an oppressed class.
With the above in mind, it is really a waste of time to try to wrap your brain around any inconsistencies in the progressive argument. There is no logic there to be found, because their aims are superior to any lofty notions about reason and intellectual honesty. And their aims are the subversion of anything Western: western cultural superiority; western economic superiority; the superiority of Western morality; western legal superiority. Because cultural Marxists believe that these came into existence as a result of western aggression and oppression, they believe they are fruits of a poisonous tree. No fruit thereof is acceptable, no matter how decent it may be or look. The only acceptable social state, is one that has come about naturally as a result of implied equality. Basically, what the cultural Marxist asks is: “If Western civilization had not forced itself upon the world in the way that it has, and all civilizations would have been equal, how would the world have evolved? Most certainly not as it has now. Therefore, everything that has resulted from the domination of Western civilization must be fought tooth and nail, subverted, and destroyed.
Once the details and mechanics of this mindset become more obvious, any news you may read concerning matters of ‘’social justice’’, progressive ideals or of political correctness fall into their logical place. This is not to say that all progressives are radical; the more moderate progressive is likely to see gradual change through the political system as the best way. The more radical the progressive is, the more of an activist he/she is, the more he/she will denigrate core liberties and rights that do not benefit the progressive cause, the more their rhetoric will show that force against those who oppose them is not something they should reject.
Don’t expect well-reasoned arguments to counter their opponents with. Don’t expect facts and statistics to be taken seriously. Don’t expect any consistency over time in what they say. Don’t expect courtesy or civility. Expect the opposite because what matters is what they feel. Fact and logic are a cul-de-sac for progressives. They don’t want facts or logic; they want change. They want results.
And the longer it takes for them to get that change, or those results, the more openly hostile they will become, the more blatant in their disrespect for ordinary liberties and rights, and the more open for change through the iron fist of the state. At some point, the façade of democracy as a means for progressive change will fall and the true face of despotism and totalitarianism will show itself.
With all of the above in mind, I want to take a periodical look at articles where clear cultural Marxism is exhibited.
Remember that free speech is a result from events occurring in Western civilization (in this case the American revolution). Note how the author of the piece is an “anti-racist” (a cultural Marxist talking about race issues) and how he thinks freedom of speech rights should not apply to those he considers ‘racists’ or ‘white supremacist’, but obviously should apply to people of his own kind. Nowhere after all, does it dawn on him that abolishing freedom of speech could be detrimental for him as well as his opponents. This is because with cultural Marxists you should not expect any logical or moral consistency. It is the expression of ‘feelings’ that matters, not intellectual consistency or valid arguments. Author feels that speech should not allowed when coming from his ideological opponents, but that his own speech should be. It should also be obvious from the level of cultural Marxism present in his rhetoric, that what go for racists and white supremacists would be a very malleable definition. A witch-hunt would be all but guaranteed. Author also thinks that those who support freedom of speech rights are obsessed with them, yet does not see his own pathological obsession with race issues and racism to such a point that he thinks a basic right such as freedom of speech should be limited because of it.
The oppressing class: “whites” and the freedom of speech they hold dear.
The oppressed class: ethnic minorities, oppressed by whites and by the freedom of speech of whites, exclusively.
The object of cultural Marxist subversion: constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression.
“Cologne Women Apologize For “Xenophobia” by Giving Migrants Roses Following Mass Molestation”
After a wave of mass sexual assault and/or rape by mostly muslim refugees on women in Cologne, Germany, you would ordinarily expect feminists most of all to cry outrage at such behavior. Sadly, you would not understand that feminists are in actuality not interested in women’s rights, safety or their general interests at all. They are female cultural Marxists who merely specialize in the branch of gender conflict. Their job is only to represent the interests of women, if the supposed “oppressor” happens to be of a typically Western origin. That is to say: a white, heterosexual, and possibly rich or privileged background. The goal, after all, is not to protect women or serve their interests, but to subvert principles, ideas and beliefs that are inherent to western civilization, such as notions of equality before the law. The law, after all, is a result of a long process of Western dominance, if not directly linked to it. And so in any conflict between western man and western woman, the woman ought to get preferential treatment. In this case, however, the situation is turned on its head, and the non-western male ought to get preferential treatment over the western woman, because this would be in the best long-term interest of cultural Marxism to undermine western civilization. Feminism within the west is meant to undermine the family, concepts of marriage (single mothers are the bomb), to include women into the tax herd as much as possible, and to render children parentless for most of their childhood and delivered into the hands of state workers. Affirmative action, not equal rights are promoted, and any woman that is independent and makes decisions that benefit men in any way (such as adult performers or voluntary housewives) are criticized by feminists. The Independent decision making of women is not the goal. Surrendering of women to cultural Marxist ideology, consciously or subconsciously, is the goal. In a clash between Western and non-western, the feminist cultural Marxist transforms into an ‘anti-racist’ cultural Marxist, because in that case being an anti-racist serves the undermining of western civilization best. In a clash between men and women in non-western civilizations? Try to find a feminist that gives a damn. They hold protests for equal pay in the west, as in the Middle East women are stoned to death.
The oppressing class: western whites (including white women) and equal treatment before the law.
The oppressed class: non-white, non-Western males and their cultural habits, and their right to be anywhere they choose (although the reverse would not be supported).
The object of cultural Marxist subversion: objective moral and legal standards for people from different countries and cultures. What is morally wrong for Western men must not be applied to non-western men. This is being judgmental and a form of cultural imperialism.
“In Sweden, Swedes need a license to drive. Migrants do not.”
If you’re a migrant, you can get away with driving without a license in Sweden, specifically because of your status as a migrant. In this case, a negative must be proven by the prosecutor, namely that the migrant in question does NOT have a license, rather than the migrant proving that he does have one. A native Swede, of course, has no such legal privilege. This cultural and ethnic double standard is standard practice for any cultural Marxist, in this case a Swedish judge, who by definition discards notions of equality before the law. A judge making a mockery of the native law he swore to uphold? No surprise when the judge in question is a cultural Marxist. For cultural Marxists, laws need to fit the ideology, not the other way around.
The oppressing class: native Swedes (or Western Europeans in general) and a law applied equally to people from different countries.
The oppressed class: the migrant and his privilege to have his own moral and legal status apart from that of Swedish natives, because of his ‘’victim status’’ in reference to difficulties with the government of his home country.
The object of cultural Marxist subversion: treating people the same (real equality) regardless of ethnicity, culture, religion, or nationality. Notions of moral equality for people in both “oppressor class” and “oppressed class”.