An Introduction to Cultural Marxism

For a long time I’ve wanted to write an article about cultural Marxism, but trying to limit the scope of my article or covering all of the different ideas has been very challenging.  I’ve read the Wikipedia entry and it talks about the Frankfurt school, but I’m not convinced that it’s that neat, I actually think it has more to do with human nature than Karl Marx.  This will only be the first of several articles I plan to write about cultural Marxism, but I wanted to get this piece out just as an introduction to the topic or something of a “how to spot a Cultural Marxist” before I start exploring the different aspects of cultural Marxism more deeply.

Socialism, Communism and Marxism

Marxists are a diverse group, many people might say what binds them altogether is their ideas of collectivism.  I disagree, what binds them all together is the reasoning that all human relationships across ethnic, class, cultural, religious, political, sexual and personal levels can be reduced to a dynamic of dominance and submission with an oppressed and an oppressor.  That is to say, where there is a distinction between two groups of people, their relationship will be one of oppressed versus oppressor or, in other words, good and bad people.  In addition to this, the group who is better off, or perceived to be better off (privileged), is automatically the guilty party.  Anyone the cultural Marxists label as ‘privileged’ is the enemy of society, the only safe position is to be or appear to be a helpless victim.

I don’t believe Karl Marx invented Marxism, I think it’s part of our primitive tribalistic egalitarian programming that served our species well in nomadic times.  It kept the most members of the tribe alive through the systemic exploitation of the hardest workers, thus providing a survival advantage to the species overall.  Cultural Marxists are no different to revolutionaries or communists in their desired outcomes for all societies, they differ only in that they wish to push their agenda using non-violent tactics of social shaming and guilt farming.  Since this is driven by a primitive instinct, I doubt most cultural Marxists are conscious of what they do or why they do it, but they are all people filled with good intentions, just lacking the awareness of how their behaviour is actually impacting the world around them and how it is impacting their own ability to have a happy and satisfying life.  An independent, self-made individual cannot be a cultural Marxist because their self-reliance removes any incentive to depend on other people.  The more dependent a person is on other people, emotionally, socially or materially, the more likely they will be a cultural Marxist.

Political Correctness

The best definition of political correctness I’ve heard is, “putting the responsibility of the listener’s reaction on the speaker.”  For example, if you say something to me that upsets me, then it’s your fault that you upset me, so watch your mouth in future in case you hurt my fragile feelings else I will not be responsible for beating you up.  This is the mentality of a tyrant, yet everyday we walk by streets filled with people who think like this.  Cultural Marxists think like this, because they are emotionally dependent on other people.

One will catch cultural Marxists out when it comes to political correctness because they get upset if you express opinions, ideas or facts that they don’t agree with.  For example, it is an established fact in the USA that black people commit far more crimes than white people.  There is no rational reason why stating this fact by itself should upset anyone, but cultural Marxists might react in ways from hushing you to silence, ridiculing you or even making an outright accusation of racism.

Another example would be expressing an opinion such as, “I believe men on average have a higher pain threshold than women,” this is an opinion I have expressed openly and it once met the response of, “don’t ever tell a woman that!”  However, the person I was talking to was a woman, and she personally didn’t mind I had that opinion, she disagreed with it, but she didn’t need to make me agree with her opinion and vice-versa.  We could safely and amicably disagree.  But the fact that she felt she had to warn me, for my own safety, not to express such an opinion points to the power of political correctness and consequently cultural Marxism.  Although a smaller proportion of people are cultural Marxists, they have a disproportionately large influence on the freedom of discourse in our society through the use of intimidating people into silence about expressing their honest opinions publicly.

When was the last time you told someone exactly what’s on your mind before going through an intense bout of thinking to work out if it was safe to say it?  Thank the cultural Marxists policing your every thought.

Negative Nationalism

Negative Nationalism is the belief that your country is corrupt, degenerate and unworthy of ones love and loyalty.  For me personally, this is one of the ugliest and most alarming signs of cultural Marxism.  The contempt of many people, particularly university students, have for their nation is an extremely troubling situation.  Especially since university graduates will fill up the vast majority of positions of authority in our society.  When I talk about nationalism, or the love of ones country, I’m not talking about mindless obedience to the government or a national leader.  Nationalism is the love of ones country, indeed, to love ones country implies a distrust, suspicion even hostility to national governments because it’s impossible to trust politicians with the proper care and concern for the well-being of something you love so dearly.

Nationalism is about saying, I demand better leaders for my country, I demand better reasons for my country to go to war than to support corporate greed or airy-fairy altruistic ideas of civilising “savage” Peoples.  Nationalism is creating a society where everyone looks out for everyone else because they share a common identity and set of values.  Nationalism is about building a strong community, a united community.  It isn’t about conformity or mindless loyalty.  Indeed, for any leader or government to demand mindless loyalty from the people of the country is a crime against the nation.  A crime we used to call treason.

Negative nationalism is another form of treason.  Once upon a time we would call anyone who said, “I feel ashamed of being Australian!” a traitor, or at least suspect that they willing to commit treason.  What’s revealing in the person who says, “I hate my country,” is that the reasons they give are because of a decision the government have made.  ‘I hate my country because of a government decision’ is the same messed up mentality of confusing nationalism with worshipping the government or the state.  If the government made decisions they agreed with, would they love their country then?  Would you feel comfortable trusting a fellow citizen whose love for ones country was so tenuous?  You’d think them a tyrant or an opportunist ready to betray their country at the first opportunity for personal profit.

To the cultural Marxist, if the government doesn’t enact their utopian socialist or communist policies, they hate their country.  I can’t think of a more treacherous or contemptible attitude for a fellow citizen to have.  Yet here in the West, we have gotten so used to cultural Marxists openly denigrating the dignity and sanctity of our nations that we don’t even attempt to challenge them on this.  Instead, we retreat into the cold, lonely, frightening and isolated place that is a people without national unity making them feel strong, united, cared for and protected.

Marxist Atheism

In order to understand the difference between personal rational Atheism and Marxist atheism one needs to understand that Marxism is a religion.  Like any religion, Marxism has a complete rule book for life.  It has sacred texts (“Das Kapital” and “The Communist Manifesto”), saints and prophets (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao etc…) and it even copies from other religions like Catholicism.  Here is an example of Marxist history and prophecies, and how they align with Catholic history and prophecies:

Catholicism: We were once one with God in the paradise called the Garden of Eden

Communism: We were once happy and fulfilled living in nomadic societies in a state called primitive communism.

Catholicism: We committed sin and were outcast from paradise.

Communism: We invented individual property (capital) and started to destroy our happiness and world.

Catholicism: We will enter unto a complete stage of sinfulness, where brother will slay brother and mothers will devour their children

Communism: We will enter unto a complete stage of global capitalism, where brother will slay brother and mothers will devour their children.

Catholicism:  Then Jesus will return, brought forth by the weight of the world’s sin collapsing upon itself.

Communism: The global capitalist system will collapse upon the weight of its own corruption.

Catholicism: We will finally re-enter into the kingdom of god and live in paradise until the end of history.

Communism: We will finally create a perfect communist society that will endure until the end of history.

Cultural Marxists, like most Catholics, aren’t too savvy about why they believe the things they do, but like most religious people, they seldom question their own ideas and view adherents to any other religions as their enemies.  Cultural Marxism’s opposition to all other religions is for the same reason Christianity and Islam are opposed to all other religions: they’re rivals for their cultural domination.

If life wasn’t complicated enough already, it is important to keep in mind that not all atheists are cultural Marxists, I myself am vehemently opposed to cultural Marxism and I am an atheist.  Just because someone is an atheist doesn’t mean they’re a cultural Marxist, nor does it mean that believers in a god(s) can’t be cultural Marxists too.  There are no pure cultural Marxists, just as there are no pure Christians.  Cultural Marxism is dissolved into our culture and if it ever precipitates within the solution then we’ll get the gulags and concentration camps necessary to purify the impure cultural Marxists among us.  But we don’t have that level of organisational awareness yet, just lots of well-intentioned individual saboteurs in our societies.  But if the current trend continues in our societies, then this situation is most likely inescapable.

The Herd vs The Individual

Which is more important?  The interests of the many or the interests of the individual?  The obvious answer is the interests of the many.  However, that’s a gross simplification of civilised thinking and one I will bet that you would regret if you attempt to live by it.  Cultural Marxists bring up this point all the time as justification of their social policies, we’ve got to rescue the 99%, the majority think this way so we should just go ahead and do it.  It is really another way of saying, ‘might makes right’; if you have the most numbers, then you’re automatically morally right.  Winning and being morally right, however, have a purely coincidental relationship if they should ever occur at the same time, yet by using the herd versus individual argument cultural Marxists will hide their inner moral vacuum.

Just say you wanted to go and pick some fruit, you go and ask Betty if you could borrow her bag, she says no.  So respecting her decision, you find some scraps of material and with some thread make your own bag.  You then ask Toby if you can borrow his ladder, he says no, so you decide you’ll climb the trees instead even though it is more effort and dangerous for you to do so.  Then you ask Julie if she will help you to pick the fruit and she says no as well.  Finally you ask Gary if he can give you a lift up the hill to the orchard and he says no.  Unperturbed, you trudge up that hill, get scratched climbing the trees to collect the fruit, struggle to carry them back, in your home-made bag, down the hill, but in the end after much hard work you return with a bounty.  You’re just about to sit down and enjoy the fruits of your labour when Betty, Toby, Julie and Gary walk in and demand their share of your fruit.  They talk about the importance of equality and demand the fruit be divided evenly with 20% each.

Is this a fair outcome?  It’s an equal outcome, and in the best interests of the majority.  If we were living on the savanna in pre-history this decision would aid group survival.

This is socialism and it is cultural Marxism.  The belief that lazy and unhelpful people are entitled to the labours of resourceful and hardworking people.  They call it compassion, they call it welfare, they call it affirmative action, they call it thinking of others less fortunate than you.  I call it theft.  Furthermore, I believe if you don’t pay tax, you don’t have a right to vote.  It isn’t fair that people who don’t contribute resources to the state, should have an equal say to those who give to the state.  Cultural Marxists will insist though that everyone has a right to your property or good fortune because it is in the best interests of the majority.

Disclaimer: I know capitalism has its faults, I’m not denying this, I’m merely denying that socialism is a viable solution to these faults.

For any society to survive it is essential that we cultivate an attitude of reciprocation: I help you, you help me.  This is individualism, not to be confused with selfishness (that’s socialism), where an individual’s rights over their bodies, their property and their resources can just be stripped by the majority whenever they want to.  I do care about homeless people, I do care about poverty in Africa, but that’s no excuse to demand I hand over my money for people who will not even show any appreciation much less reciprocation for my sacrifice for them.  Cultural Marxists will say I’m greedy and heartless, I say I have self-respect and if there’s one thing cultural Marxists hate, is people with self-respect; They’re very hard to extort money and resources from.  Cultural Marxists want you to feel demoralised, unworthy and undeserving, or rather, they need you to feel like this otherwise the whole socialist economic system won’t work, because anyone with an atom of self-respect is going to feather their own nest when they can and the Eastern Bloc had corruption like this on an endemic level.

Feminism

Feminism is the belief that women form a class, like slaves or black people form a class, and that according to Marxist theory there is a dialectical and historical relationship of antagonism between men and women of oppressor and repressed exactly like wealthy land-owner and serf.  I’ve already written an in-depth article on this and how I explain that feminism and socialism are essentially the same thing that I will publish soon, so I won’t go into much detail here.  However, I will say, while not every single self-identified feminist (male or female) is a cultural Marxist, you’d be pretty damn safe making a bet on it.

Meaningless Abstract Art

I have no idea how much this is directly caused by cultural Marxism or if Western art has just suffered collateral damage from cultural Marxism.  But much of Western art is overpriced, uninspiring, degenerate and just ugly nowadays and here’s how I think it happens:

An artist decides to create a painting, sculpture, novel or a piece of music.  What can I create, he thinks?

A beautiful image of physical perfection like David or Venus?  No, that’s not politically correct, people might think I don’t like ugly people or I’m some kind of fascist.

An inspiring story about a settler or explorer?  No, that’s not politically correct either because white people are ashamed of their history and culture, or at least they should be.

The story of a white heterosexual man triumphing against the odds? No, that’s not politically correct either because we know white heterosexual men are privileged violent arseholes who create all the world’s problems and it might upset everyone who is not a white heterosexual male.

A story taken from of European cultural history or myth?  No, Europeans have too much privilege, it would upset non-Europeans.

I know, I’ll just draw some meaningless coloured lines that will upset nobody and if anyone criticises it I’ll pull an “Emperor’s new clothes” trick on them to make them look stupid, or I’ll create a story about a foreigner or homosexual person 95% of people in this country aren’t going to relate to themselves in any meaningful way or I can make a piece exposing how corrupt and degenerate human beings, especially white male heterosexual males, are and the audience of white cultural Marxists can sit there flagellating themselves and telling each other how morally superior they are to everyone because they hate themselves.  (Just like Catholics really, did Marx and Engels just plagiarise Catholicism?!)

Art is supposed to be the cultural story of a people, it’s supposed to connect them to each other, their history and identity and inspire them to do great things and to express love for nobility, strength and beauty.  It’s not a political tool for cultural Marxists to depress and demoralise society.  Somebody tell the cultural Marxists this, please.

Racial Infantilism

When cultural Marxists talk about foreign people, it is generally terms of foreigners are helpless victims and white people are greedy oppressors.  This script seems to come straight out of Soviet propaganda pamphlets, and while it’s good to know that cultural Marxists are literate, indeed they do read an awful lot, it is disheartening that they don’t realise how completely racist they are being when they do this.

Cultural Marxists see the world in terms of victims and oppressors.  Victims are blameless and powerless to help themselves because they’re oppressed while oppressors are inexcusably guilty and are the only ones with agency.  They cannot see the shades of grey in any international conflict or discourse.  Instead they sit there trying to figure out which side is the victim and which side is the oppressor.  They are about as insightful about relationships as a spoiled princess.  By casting the non-white group as the victims all the time denies them agency, it denies them their human dignity.   It says that they are powerless over their circumstances and they need to be rescued.  Some of them might like being treated like this, that is being treated like children, (“look, if I just say that’s racist they give me money to shut up!”) most people realised that being treated like a child is humiliating and degrading, but not a cultural Marxist.

I prefer to focus on what people do, not on the colour of their skin, but cultural Marxists appear obsessed with skin colour and assigning innate privileges to different skin colours.  There is no such thing as white privilege, just white people who respect and look after themselves better, on average, than non-whites.  The idea of white privilege handicaps non-whites who into thinking, “it doesn’t matter how hard I try, or if I take responsibility over my life and decisions because I don’t have something that white people supposedly naturally have.”  With that attitude how are non-whites going to get out of poverty?  Can you see how racist that is?  Kindly tell the cultural Marxists to stop talking about other ethnic groups like they’re children and white people like abusive parents.  Much of the human world isn’t about relationships of dominance and submission, it’s instead about mutual respect and co-operation.  Concepts foreign to Marx’s dialectical antagonist approach.

Cultural Colonialism

Cultural Marxists love to talk about diversity.  What they often mean is everyone, every country and every community conforming to cultural Marxist ideologies.  Globalisation is about standardising culture, ethnicity, laws, values and thinking on a global scale.  No one is allowed to have their own ideas, opinions, culture or property.  Political correctness means conformity.  Absolute conformity to the point where having your own opinion is a type of personality disorder.  The idea of a country, group or individual wanting to preserve their cultural, social or history identity or character terrifies them.  No, you need to agree with them, because if you’re not with them, you’re against them.

This isn’t just happening in the West where white people are being deprived of their history and cultural identity by cultural Marxists, but everyone around the world cultural Marxists are promoting policies of assimilating and converting all non-Western countries into cultural Marxist states.  The Chinese have to conform to our social viewpoints, the Indians have to live the way we tell them to, the Africans must adopt our policies, the Arabs must adopt our perspectives on religion.  Every woman on Earth needs to be a feminist whether she wants to be one or not.  Cultural Marxism is a disease, trying to spread to new hosts (other societies) to infect them.  It doesn’t care that the people have their own traditions, values and ways of life, they must conform for their own good because there is no alternative to cultural Marxism.

Conclusion

To conclude, the topic of cultural Marxism is a vast one that affects everyone on this planet in some way.  I have only touched the surface of all of these issues here, but by writing this article as an introductory piece to the series of articles I want to write I’m hoping to bring some perspective to how diverse issues which appear on the surface to be unrelated are in fact intimately linked with the intellectual disease that is cultural Marxism.  I firmly believe that where there is only one voice, there is no freedom and that this extends to cultures and nations.  If there is only one central world government and one culture, there will be no individual freedom and that even if we all feel safe in such a world, it would be the reduction of life from living to merely surviving.  Fortunately, there are lots of solutions and ways we can strengthen ourselves to find both happiness and satisfaction in this adventure called life.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: Beliefs, Morals, Multiculturalism, People, Politics, Law

Author:Jason Sutherland

Resist the temptation to assume that you're always right or wrong. Never succumb to thinking you're so insignificant to trust your own thoughts and feelings. Always be responsible and listen carefully to others before passing judgement. Don't trust governments bearing stolen goods.

Subscribe to Intentious

Be notified by email whenever new pieces are posted by the blogging team tackling controversial current events or issues.

15 Comments on “An Introduction to Cultural Marxism”

  1. Jacquelope
    April 14, 2012 at 2:11 pm #

    “An independent, self-made individual cannot be a cultural Marxist because their self-reliance removes any incentive to depend on other people.”

    “Nationalism is creating a society where everyone looks out for everyone else because they share a common identity and set of values.”

    These two concepts contradict each other as clearly as black and white or midnight and high noon.

    An independent, self-made individual needs no such thing as countries or societies.

    • April 14, 2012 at 7:45 pm #

      Indeed they are, I noticed this too. Although technically they are from two different discussions about two different problems and despite what you think they don’t necessary contradict each other.

      The first point was regarding advice on how to spot a cultural Marxist and indeed it cannot be logical for an independent, self-made individual to be a cultural Marxist, unless they’re dishonourably pretending to be one in order to exploit other people. I’m not keen to go for the argument that they wouldn’t technically be self-made if they exploiting other people because that wasn’t precising what I was trying to say. I fully acknowledge that non-cultural Marxists can still be both annoying and arseholes.

      The second point was regarding how strong feelings of national identity makes people feel trusting, generous and kinder to ones fellow citizen. Now even if one is self-reliant, it doesn’t stop one from being kind, trusting and generous. Rather, it allows one to be genuinely kind, trusting and caring because one isn’t dependent on others for love, acceptance and material support.

      Therefore these two concepts can co-exist because they are talking about different things. But I’ll definitely spend more time on these two topics in the future.

    • Christine Eggers
      April 4, 2013 at 1:01 am #

      It seems the error is in the use of the word “depend” rather than “dependent.” Self-reliance removes any incentive to be DEPENDENT on other people. We depend on others when we expect them to arrive on time for a meeting, we are dependent on them when we expect our own needs to be met by the fruits of someone else’s labors. Webster’s includes the words “control” and “subordinate” in the definitions of dependent and dependence that are not included in the definition of depend.

      The Cultural Marxist says, “no one is successful without any help from others” because they equate obtaining a business loan or having friends recommend your business to others to having the collective meet all your needs. One person choosing to make a loan to another is not equivalent to conscription of resources and redistribution of them. But the message of the cultural marxist is that there is no distinction.

      The illusionist depends on certain expectations of human behavior, that when instructed to pick a number between 1 and 10 most people will pick 7, they then guess the person has picked 7 to the amazement of everyone. The successful business is based on these expectations as well. Wal-Mart depends on the observation that people will sacrifice some quality in a product in order to be able to obtain it for less money. There is an eventual line in the sand beyond which people will reject the loss of quality and be willing to pay more for better quality, this is the phenomenon we are observing now with high end chocolatiers popping up in every community, and the whole local foods movement. The elite small business depends on the observation that people will attempt to distinguish themselves from the crowd through spending more on elite high quality products, like coffee, cheese, chocolate, heirloom tomatoes, etc. The cultural marxist defines the large fortune made through low prices as an evil and the small fortune made through high prices as a virtue. The distinction is exclusively in terms of the size of the fortune and the line is always defined as “more than I have.”

      Each business depends on suppliers and customers in order to be successful. Neither is dependent or subordinate to suppliers or customers because if a supplier is unreliable they are free to find other suppliers, nor are they dependent or subordinate on customers because they can change their products, prices, advertising or location or any other aspect of their business in order to be more attractive to them. People will argue that Wal-Mart exploited their suppliers by insisting on a price line or refusing to carry the product. But their suppliers willingly reduced quality in exchange for the profits, then attempted to claim, “Wal-Mart made me.” The unions willingly refused work below a certain price line exporting the jobs to developing countries. There were enough members who were guaranteed certain pensions or other ongoing benefits that were willing to sacrifice the futures of those coming after them to vote themselves out of jobs rather than reset wages.

      Anyway the Cultural Marxist, as defined in the article, doesn’t distinguish between “depending upon” and “being dependent upon.” It’s a subtle distinction that even the author didn’t notice in the writing.

  2. April 15, 2012 at 10:40 am #

    I enjoyed this and think that you are right about many things. I agree about the general world view of cultural Marxists and the rot that ensues.

    However, when it comes to modern art, Marxists actually dislike modern art, and in the Soviet Union abstract art was considered bourgeious and was censored. Even in this
    country, extreme Marxists tend to like a gross kind of art called “socialist realism”, which like Nazi art, is extraordinarily ugly and shows the “struggles of the PEOPLE against the capitalists”. It is lousy, depressing art. The abstract expressionists, in this country, were supported by people who were interested primarily in aesthetics and in art for art’s sake — often they were wealthy. They were interested in beauty, form, energy and expression – not with political propoganda. Marxism is hostile to those things: beauty and art as expression of beauty, truth or an investigation of reality. Certainly, there is, as you state, a lot of PC art these days, but I don’t consider that generally to be “abstract” art, a lot of it apes socialist realism in its narrative of oppressor and oppressed. In any event, while some artists have found ways to have even abstract art become politicized into a Marxist dialectic, generally abstract and modern art is held in suspicion unless the artist makes an attempt to coat it in cultural Marxism (pc language, cultural diversity, or just theorizing that utilizes lots of deconstruction and slants to cultural Marxism). In any event, it is not as simple as abstract art equals Marxism, as someone who has been criticized by hardcore Marxists for writing “abstract” poetry, I can tell you that many of these people like simple, figurative work that tells the story of oppressor vs oppressed. They dislike anything that the “people” cannot easily appreciate and understand. And, communist regimes are often hostile to artists who do not toe the PC line. Experimental Cuban writer Reinaldo Arenas was put in jail many times and had his experimental and surrealistic prose confiscated by the authorities, Marxism hates art and truth.

    • April 15, 2012 at 1:02 pm #

      Do you know much about art history? I don’t and I found your comment very interesting. Are you interested in writing an article about it, or helping me when I get to writing the article about it?

      • April 15, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

        Jason, I would love to write an article about it! I am a writer and also a poet. I do think this subject has been misunderstood and sometimes neglected. One of my biggest peeves is that many artists consider themselves at least nominal Marxists, yet in any actual Marxist regime, they are often their art is censored (particularly if it is experimental or modern) and they are persecuted. I would love to do an article on this. Only found this blog today, from FB, and am finding many of your articles interesting. I am not sure where to take it from here but I can get in touch with you outside the blog. I have a political blog of my own, Libertywolf, which is accessible from my icon here. I will followup with my email. Thank you!

        • April 19, 2012 at 9:40 pm #

          I can’t find your email address… you can email intentious from the main page and Beato will forward your message onto me. Cheers.

  3. Anonymous
    July 24, 2012 at 11:29 pm #

    Tremendous article. The tyranny of PCness on societies is dire when people all around the globe are increasingly sympathetic with justifying retaliatory violence against mere offense especially in the name of religion. It’s sickening and frightening to see these people aren’t matured mentally enough to use simple logic and rationality for decision making.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Australia An Introduction to Cultural Marxism - April 12, 2012

    […] and while it's a big front, maybe the most important for us men, it is not the only one. Enjoy! An Introduction to Cultural Marxism | Intentious Reply With Quote #adspot { width: 734px; height: 96px; border: none; } […]

  2. Trinity Versus Tyranny—Final Battle Over Fate of Man « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL - April 23, 2012

    […] An Introduction to Cultural Marxism (intentious.com) […]

  3. Treason From Within: From Cicero to Obama – John Malcolm - May 6, 2012

    […] An Introduction to Cultural Marxism (intentious.com) […]

  4. Has the Communist Manifesto replaced the Constitution? – John Malcolm - June 10, 2012

    […] An Introduction to Cultural Marxism (intentious.com) […]

  5. respect for the religious politics of contempt « power of language blog: partnering with reality by JR Fibonacci - June 24, 2012

    […] An Introduction to Cultural Marxism (intentious.com) […]

  6. Why I Am No Longer a Vegetarian | Radio Liberty Earth - May 1, 2013

    […] of what so many people in Australia call the “Catholic Guilt Complex”.  However, as I’ve pointed out before, communism also seems to have a very similar version of this myth and in my opinion we should […]

  7. Why I Am No Longer a Vegetarian | Intentious - May 1, 2013

    […] of what so many people in Australia call the “Catholic Guilt Complex”.  However, as I’ve pointed out before, communism also seems to have a very similar version of this myth and in my opinion we should […]

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: