Readers might be aware of Cultural Marxism, contained within the academic field of Critical Theory as a collection of heavily euphemised tools that are being used to upend Western Civilisation. Many of these tools, such as ‘white privilege’ and ‘gender fluidity’, have been inserted into the common vernacular.
One of the things people may not realise is that there is in fact method to the madness in how it operates. But trying to articulate what it is or how it works is a little more difficult.
According to Peter Barry’s book Beginning Theory (which I encountered at University), the governing factor of most theories in Critical Theory is anti-essentialism: rejecting that the truth is found in its essence or substance, defined (a) by what it is and (b) by what it is not. Rather, Critical Theory argues that ‘truth’ is a changing dialogue between the observer and observed.
Critical Theory often critiques ‘Eurocentric’ and ‘male-centric’ structures as systems of inherent oppression. Fields such as queer theory, postcolonialism, and feminist criticism, are all covered under the Critical Theory umbrella.
Within many of these fields, Critical Theory actually operates in the exact same way. There are five recurring themes:
Politics is pervasive: all actions and objects have a political element to them that tends to be the defining factor of what they are and require legislating.
Truth is provisional: there is no such thing as absolute truth. It exists only for a time, then is replaced by another ‘truth’.
Language is constitutive: rather than observing the essence or substance of something and using language to best reflect what’s observed, language here instead constructs truth and reality. The ‘truth’ is in the language, not solely determined by the thing’s properties.
Meaning is contingent: this temporary, language-constructed truth is dependent upon other socially constructed variables and categorised by certain kinds of privilege. The metric for judging privilege/oppression/minorities comes from Marxist dialectics: measuring people/groups by material wealth/political and cultural representation currently as well as historically, with historic measurements taking preference (ie: blacks permanently oppressed by whites due to past injustices, regardless of current wealth of the activists).
Human nature is a myth: the traditional categories, which are based on one’s essence/substance or religious teachings, are not governing factors for how humanity might express itself.
If politics is pervasive, then politics is perpetually performed. Temporary ‘truth’ transitions to a new political reality. Language is redefined to authenticate and legislate this performed ‘reality’. Where old realities and their proponents are established, performed reality leaves man deciding what his human nature is, not God or biology.
Here’s an example of it in use: according to the Marxists, traditional marriage is a bourgeois institution, historically oppressing other forms of relationships through privileged bodies with histories rooted in European oppression – such as Churches. Given that a governing factor in romance is love and consent, this should be the defining factor of marriage and not external social structures. This pressure from Marxism to celebrate wider ‘oppressed’ relationships is then applied to civilisation until society’s moral fibre is eroded and collapsed. Once these Marxist philosophies have power through legislation, they waste no time subjugating or oppressing those who disagree.
Roland Barthes writes in his 1977 essay The Death of the Author:
‘In precisely this way literature … by refusing to assign a “secret”, an ultimate meaning, to the text (and to the world as text), liberates what may be called an anti-theological activity, an activity that is truly revolutionary since to refuse to fix meaning is, in the end, to refuse God and his hypostases – reason, science, law.’
It is ‘truly revolutionary’ to refuse to fix meaning – to refuse reason, science and law. Students are being taught to do this.
How is any of this enforced?
Key to enforcing tenets of Critical Theory is ‘social-Darwinism’ – survival of the fittest in the public discourse. The vanguard, having taken the institutions, emerged as the strongest beast while all other dissenting opinions are labelled as being ‘privileged’ or from an ‘oppressor’ that must be stamped out, guilted, and shamed into silence.
An unaccountable vanguard decides what the news stories are and how they’re talked about, who the heroes and villains are, and perpetually keeps the populace either (a) at each other’s throats (b) enfeebled by fear and vice or (c) filled with pride so that they merely comment or laugh at the demise of their civilisation rather than trying to stop it.
Today, history is judged by faulty secondary sources rather than being built upon primary sources. A ‘concept-city’ is placed over the real one. For example, take the claim: America is a racist country. To maintain its existence it must first repress all political ideas that would compromise it, develop its own system of values, remove the tactics of people and traditions that disagree, and fashion an identity for this illusory subject. The concept-city cannot accurately identify where it came from.
What makes the use of these themes Marxist?
The elites and their ‘experts’ – who are more equal than others – decide what is truth and the dimensions of the debate that upholds it. All must fall under their authority.
What they call the ‘privileged oppressors’ are the new bourgeoise and often encompass values already classed as bourgeois, which must be torn down.
Equality of all concepts, according to the elite narratives of the time, must be enforced. This equality, as usual, does not make everyone equally rich, but equally poor.
Our discourse and culture are often toxic and often devoid of primary sources or direct argumentation, with the focus now resting heavily on race as a metric rather than skill or merit.
We are so separated from our ancestors and their morals that people such as Dr Edward Dutton are predicting an IQ crash in the West that will prevent us from building and maintaining civilisation as we know it.
Today, we can’t figure out such essences such as when life begins, whether one is a man or a woman or whether we should follow the money when it comes to big pharma or climate change. Why would a future on our trajectory then be smart or moral enough to protect us from rising authoritarian powers, market crashes or the machinations of The Great Reset?
There is clear method to Cultural Marxism and it’s taught in Universities for those willing to try and grasp it. For those who don’t, merely perpetuating its tenets like useful idiots is fine. Perhaps this article may be useful in identifying how a certain ‘woke’ concept might be operating.
Cultural Marxism is a guilt trip to transition the West toward communism. It presents the darnel as the wheat and convinces you to eat.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.