From Dream to Nightmare: Cultural Marxism and the Fall of the West

When discussing complex issues such as Feminism, gender issues, societal collapse etc. it sometimes helps to step back and take a good look at the greater picture.  So. What do you see when observing your country? Do things appear pretty much effed up on all levels? What if I told you feminism – for all its poisonous venom – is but one festering boil of many…that have befouled and infected the West’s rotting body politic? And what if I told you all these issues were interconnected?

Feminism, the collapse of family and marriage, intersex alienation etc. is terribly troubling stuff. Yet in a sense it is only a symptom of something much larger. It is merely one manifestation of the West’s clandestine cultural marxist take over. Eh? Yes indeed. You are right now living in a marxist country. That’s right. Marxist. As in communist. Only it isn’t called that way. It’s still called the US. Or the UK. Or Sweden, France, Germany, whatever. The fact of the matter remains: your country was invaded not by an army but by an idea, a group of people. These people (academics) systematically spread propaganda which in turn – at a vulnerable moment – deeply affected (infected) students’ opinions and from thereon spread to the general population completely coopting your culture and thus changing the nature of your country.

So…what is cultural marxism? In a nutshell: marxism 2.0. First wave marxism (later 19. century) focused on the analysis of economics. It posited the theory of class struggle, the dualism of exploiter and exploited class. According to Marx it was an inevitable outcome that sooner or later the proletariat would rise and “break the shackles of oppression” ushering in the great socialist revolution etc. It was predicted this would occur during the next great conflict. Only when World War 1 started, British workers fought for Britain, French workers for France and German workers for Germany. Evidently, the marxist’ prognosis had proven to be flawed. So. After a lengthy period of reevaluation several marxist thinkers (i.e. Antonio Gramsci, Gyorgy Lucacs etc.) came to the conclusion that it had been these nations’ cultural identity which had prevented the socialist revolution.

*Because* of national solidarity (the big family), cultural values and a sense of familial duty (protection of the small family) men had fought in the trenches and laid down their lifes. Having realized this, Gramsci postulated that individual nation’s cultural values, societal mores and traditions would have to be deconstructed…as a prerequisite of socialist take over. And this is what cultural marxists by and large attempted from thereonwards. A first experiment was implemented by Georgy Lukacs in the chaos of post World War 1 Hungary. Not yet perfect in implementation it nonetheless serves as a chilling anecdote, especially when observed from our contemporary perspective:

In 1919, Georgy Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary.  He immediately set plans in motion to de-Christianize Hungary.  Reasoning that if Christian sexual ethics could be undermined among children, then both the hated patriarchal family and the Church would be dealt a crippling blow. Lukacs launched a radical sex education program in the schools.  Sex lectures were organized and literature handed out which graphically instructed youth in free love (promiscuity) and sexual intercourse while simultaneously encouraging them to deride and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority.”

This attempt was short lived and failed ere long (due to catastrophic societal consequences and subsequent reactionary rollback). The time was simply not yet ripe. Thus, the cultural marxists regrouped and consolidated their movement by infiltrating German academia via the University of Frankfurt. There, they founded the Frankfurt School of Social Sciences, or simply: the Frankfurt School. As can be imagined, success remained elusive…for the time being. By and large their ideology didn’t really gain traction. Not even in the troubled interwar German Weimar Republic, which was constantly whacked by political strife, radicalism etc. Certainly not in the US that remained strongly religious, patriarchal and traditional.

However, this all changed in 1933. Hitler assumed power in Germany and the cultural marxists fled. Where did they flee to? Well, heh, to the US of course! They simply relocated and started infiltrating the US academia and infecting American intellectuals with their “progressive” ideas. And, seemingly, it all made sense. Especially after 1941. Because if the US was fighting that greatest of all Satans, Adolf Hitler, then surely Hitler’s enemies were good people, right? Right. Suuure thing, pal. Well, Germany was crushed, the war was won and everything was fine and dandy. Afterwards, having accepted these cult-marxists and implicitly having fought for their ideas it became difficult to argue against them, to seriously oppose them. This is how *they* were able to market themselves as “progressive”. Conversely, gender roles, traditionalism, conservatism etc. started to be seen as problematic, as outdated, as “wrong”.

Nonetheless, superficially the US and its vassals in Europe were able to briefly recreate the old order (in the 1950s). But even then it was nothing but a weak facsimile of the past. A shortlived interlude from the encroaching torrent of post-modernism. Already cracks were forming. Cracks on several levels. For one, women had seemingly proven they could do all the things men could, by working in the factories during WWII. Their return to classical roles did not brook well with their perceptions. Another problem was what I call historical contamination or more simply phrased: guilt. After millions had died, after all the carnage and madness of two world wars, there was a cynical feeling of cultural nihilism and depression. After Auschwitz how could a German still be proud of his country, his culture? And how could a British or French guy be proud of his? After all hadn’t he enslaved half the world, conquering and exploiting untold other peoples? For now at least this was not a crisis, only a fissure. Why? Because the generation of WWII had been *socialized before* WWII. So the generation of the 40s and 50s was operating under the paradigms and values of the 20s and 30s.

But the writing was already pretty clearly on the wall. In 1955 Herbert Marcuse (another cultural marxist) wrote “Eros and civilization; a philosophical inquiry into Freud“. In it, he proclaimed all ills of society were due to repression. And if only all repression and restraints were fully removed society would organize itself for the common good. He advocated a general unleashing of Eros. Sexual liberation, experimentation and all that. He also wrote about the difference of “classic tolerance” (tolerance of both right and leftist thought) which he labelled “repressive tolerance” and compared it to “liberating tolerance” (tolerance of leftist thought, intolerance of the right) which he recommended as “progress”. He claimed following his advice would usher in a new dawn, an era of harmony and utopia. Shangri La. Other influential figures were Max Horkheimer, Erich Fromm, Theodor W. Adorno, Walter Benjamin and others. All of these shmucks were cultural marxists. They wrote books, essentially all the material the boomers would use for “their” revolution. The cultural marxist Frankfurt School thus primed and programmed the boomers. Like a remote-controlled cultural timebomb…ready to blow.

This was possible because of aforementioned guilt neurosis. The boomer generation grew up at a lowpoint of western civilization. Out of their perspective, it seemed, traditions were evil. Evil because of the holocaust. Evil because of Imperialism etc. So because the cultural marxists were publishing “progressive” stuff that sounded good and was confirming beliefs they already (subconsciously) held, they lapped it all up eagerly. In this highly volatile setting all they needed was some simple trigger, an ocasion of sorts. And the Vietnam War dropped by just at the nick of time. Perfect timing. The dominos fell, fighting errupted in Indochina and the S*it hit the fan.

The boomers – already suspicious due to their educational priming – now had all the “evidence” they needed to demonstrate the essentially barbaric nature of the old, patriarchal order and the requirement of something new, radical and “wonderful”. Sexual revolution. Hippies. Peace, love and understanding. Heh. They were pawns, primed and controlled by external forces. Did they know it? Probably not. If they had known they still wouldn’t have cared. They had their “mission”. In any case, these boomers – for the most part students and academics – did their thing. The great march through the institutions of the West: they systematically took over politics, media, education, culture etc. They changed the paradigms, the values, the consciousness, the face of the West. And they molded a new West (which I call “the Hegemony of Plastic“) along cultural marxist values:

  • feminism as an instrument to estrange the sexes and destroy family
  • largescale immigration to dilute and change the culture of the US (and other western countries) and create new victim groups
  • multiculturalism as a form of subconscious selfdenigration & selfhatred
  • political correctness as a totalitarian instrument to enforce above values and clamp down on dissent

And they were highly successful. We’re still experiencing the consequences even today. We’re in our present quandary because of them and their brainhogwashed delusions. It’s a form of madness on a societywide level. A form of self-loathing, self-hatred. Psychosis. The works. So to recap: The West in general *lost* WWII…and the US lost its “mind” during the Vietnam War. Ever since it (and in consequence the West in general) has become ever less democratic and evermore marxist and suicidal. As of 2012 we are up S*it Creek without a paddle, not far away from a totalitarian 1984 kind of dystopia. Orwellian. Either we break out of this paradigm or we are doomed. And we can only break out and fix our issues if we first understand them.

Communication Breakdown: Man, Woman, Facebook / Facepalm & Fail


As if on cue, to make the fundamental differences between male and female communication even more abundantly clear, I just now stumbled on this truly fantastic piece of intergender communication breakdown. Absolutely mindboggling. Unbelievable. It makes me laugh hysterically and at the same time cringe and gibber in exasperated flabbergastration. It is just plain out weird to the max:

Furor Feministae – Female Discourse Culture & How to Survive It

Heh. In recent past the tranquility of this here obscure sphere of the Inter-Webz has been disturbed by numerous imbroglios. Online differences of opinion, concomitant ruckus, faeces flinging monkey antics and the dissonant, emotio-menstrual outpourings of the shrill, shrewish shreek brigade. So. What is new you might ask? Nothing, really. The world is a lobotomized kindergarten of sorts and most of us are little more than crayon eating, barely conscious bipeds shuffling around arbitrarily. So in answer: all crazed on the western front, just as always.

But what I do find interesting is a discourse pattern that has become evermore obvious in recent months: *he* says something less than flattering yet explains the reasons for said calmly, logically, rationally.  *She* interprets *his* statement out of *her own* warped and biased perception, made all the worse due to her emotional reality. *She* gets upset. *Her* emotions take over. In response *she* warps the issues, reframes, goes personal, flings faeces ad hominems, plays the victim. In consequence the original debate is derailed and the discourse degenerates into vicious name calling, freak outs, flaming, trolling and all the other good stuff. This is if it’s taking place on a male moderated blog.

What happens on a female blog is arguably a lot worse. You could call it vicious, authoritarian…even crypto-fascistic. The buildup is usually the same (as per this article’s prior paragraph). But once serious dissent is experienced, all too often female egos seem to shatter, the stress becomes too much for the “dearies” and in consequence they do what they always do when cornered: suppress the debate. How do they do this? Simples. By banning all dissenters, censoring / deleting all dissenting comments. Problem solved. And afterwards they can just carry on with their lovely, superficial flufftalk wuvving each other, cuddling and basking in the warm, comforting security and radiance of harmony. Never mind the futility of such “debates”. That’s an evil thought. Just something those bad, baaad penis wielders say. What are you, anyways, a woman hater?

Recent examples abound. One of the most prominent examples was the S*it Storm unleashed after Dalrock analyzed Susan Walsh’s misguided and polemic sentiment that “…frivolous divorces were overstated in the Manosphere echo chamber.” He went on to write an excellent followup of her hyperbolic and emotional response to his op. Witness also the massive, thermonuclear freakout of some rather hypocritical and shallow christian wiminz after their postings (on a public forum) were scrutinized in detail. The best example, imo, is what happened to Rollo Tomasi on HUS. He is well known for his excellent and calmly detached analyses of female nature and the dynamics of intersex relations. His writings even prompted the article in question (on HUS). Yet when he tried to rationally explain his position via comments he was soon suppressed by Susan Walsh who was foaming out of the mouth. His comments were censored and he evicted. He subsequently wrote an article about this episode on his own blog. Finally, just like Doug1 and Rmaxd, I myself have also been recently banned at HUS for disagreeing with the Fuhrer and Reichskanzler beloved leader Susan Walsh too markedly. Heh.

So what’s going on here? I’d say: an old, ooold truth. Women may be good at manipulation and pulling strings but they are – for the most part – rather bad at debate. This is partly because of biology (i.e. the female brain is more affected by emotions than the male brain and less able to separate emotional and rational discourse) but mostly because they are, quite literally, the weaker sex. They are only seldomly able to deal effectively with flak. As soon as things get less than pleasant (as they often do in a heated debate) and people (men) start to speak their minds in a blunt, unpolished, unperfumed fashion, women get upset. There is of course the rare exception. *Some* women *do* manage to keep calm and carry on. Just like *some* men behave just like your average woman (we call them ‘manginas’). But that is beside the point. Most women *don’t* manage. And when their emotions assume command you can rest assured that their irrational reaction will do the original discourse – whatever it was – griveous harm. They will try to derail and once they start playing the victim (as they always do) you can also be sure that some ‘White Knight’ / mangina will come rushing to their aid. This compulsion to rescue a “damsel in distress” might just be the worst instinct we men have at present.

M’kaaaay…what can be done?

1.) Know your foe. Education is your friend. Using logic and rational, argument-based appeals with women is pointless, counterproductive & doomed to failure. So don’t use logic. Logic is misogynist. Try to instill helpful emotions onto the woman. Know that women are like oversized emotional overhead projectors. Describing emotions leads the woman to *experience* these emotions (thank you Ross Jeffries). Use their emotional menstruation to your advantage rather than banging your head against the brick wall of their ‘blind spot’ blinders.

2.) Conserve your energy. Know which battles to fight, when to stand firm, when to evade, retreat and flee…to live another day, to fight another battle. We live in problematic times. I’ve christened this present era…the ‘Age of Rage’. I find this tag rather fitting. And things will just get worse from now on. Intersex alienation *will* get more severe. Count on it. So, imo, I would try to avoid discussions with women most of the time. Try to turn things around playfully, your sanity will thank you. Fight only in the rarest of circumstances and only when it is direly neccessary. When you fight apply overwhelming force to a clearly outlined area to maximize effect. Know that discussion, debate, arguments, logic…all of that…will be increasingly outlawed. These are male concepts. In our world male = bad. They will go, count on it. The plastic-fake, hypocritical, self-deluding “discourse” culture of Susan Walsh is the West’s zeitgeist. Her reality is the only reality that counts in our sick, demented societies.

3.) GYOW / try to create male only spheres. A no brainer. Obviously, men will remain men whatever comes. Discuss things with them. Broaden your horizon and learn from men. This is as it always has been and always will be. Men are the drivers of society, the creators of civilization, the builders of wealth, the protagonists of progress, the innovators of industry. As long as we as men can talk amongst ourselves in our own groups we will advance. We will learn new things. Ultimately, we will find a solution to this nightmarish cesspit the West has degenerated into. Remember, however, to keep women out. They have their own spheres, ever more of them. They cannot and will not comprehend the male experience. For obvious reasons (explained above) they will change the paradigms of our discourse as soon as they participate. As such they are a corrupting force.

Above all, remember that women are not men. Some men may eventually mature. Most women never will.

No Money No Honey – Cambodian Men Going Their Own Way

Heh. After a lengthy phase of anatomic ambivalence and intestinal introspection I am once again back on the road. It’s been a scary experience in Cambodia but on the bright side it did give me an opportunity to rub noses with a lot of the common men there. What was revealed to me I found nothing short of fascinating.

The thing is, Cambodian men have a veritable pussy paradise compared to what most blokes in the West have to grapple with. Cambodia is still a deeply traditional country with patriarchal structures and all those evil, eeeevil things restrainining women’s hypergamy liberty. So you would assume men would go for it and by and large jump to the chance of getting with these sweet and affectionate damsels? Interestingly enough, this is not at all the case.

Don’t get me wrong. Just like all men everywhere in the world (except for perhaps the pathological manginae who just want to cuddle), Cambodian men, too, strongly crave the good old ‘In’n’Out’. It’s the circumstances of said that deter them, however. Cambodia is a monogamous society and this monogamy is still rather robustly enforced. Maybe less so in the capital, Pnom Penh, but certainly in the countryside where things remain strongly traditional and time seems to be stuck firmly in the 19th century (I even saw horse/donkey/buffalodrawn carts there, seriously).

So just as women’s hypergamy is reigned in, so is men’s polygamy. At the same time Cambodia is a miserably poor country. And not just in a global but also in a regional context. Even Vietnam – itself a country of rather modest means – compares very favorably to Kampuchea where some men earn as little as 45$ per month, slaving working 7 days a week. This then, in a nutshell, is the roach in their pudding: if they want sex they are supposed to marry. But if they marry they have to support their wives and children on ofttimes catastrophically low incomes. It’s a recipe for misery and failure. And, unsurprisingly, it is thus not something they seem to be relishing.

I talked to several guys who all told me straight out, they’d much rather just go to a prostitute for a shortterm “sex fix” than have to deal with a wife, family and all the concomitant bother. These were good guys, not cads. Honest to Earth salts, the beta backbone of society. And if even these guys – who have truly pleasurable women (oftentimes still virgins, at least in the countryside) to pick from – don’t really want to go for it I conclude the future of marriage in the West with all the  toxic, merry brew of harridans, shrews, harpies and succubae…is altogether hopeless.

I thus posit men don’t naturally want to marry. It is quite difficult to harness them to the yoke of wife and family support. Historically, kickstarting the monogamy-marriage dynamic was only possible in those societies where sufficient incentives (for men!) were present and the surrounding circumstances benign. Once a monogamous tradition had been established, I suspect, it was able to sustain itself through societal pressures and man’s tendency towards conservatism.

Wherever and whenever a society removes all these incentives for men and replaces them with deterents (feminism, divorce rape, false rape allegations etc.) or falls below a minimum threshhold of economic stability (45$/month in Cambodia) thus placing an undue economic burden on men seeking to provide for their families…monogamy and marriage will tend to fail. And men will start going their own way, putting their own interests first. In short they’ll say: “forget this yoke, you can pull your cart on your own, thank you. I be gone. You’ll find me poolside.”

As the saying goes:

“No money no honey. No honey no baby. No baby no problem.”

Survived Cambodia

Dear readers,

I have unfortunately been immobilized these last weeks due to some rather wicked fever I got whacked with in Cambodia. Having been cuped up in a hospital in Pnom Penh in a state of lethargic funk / zombie mode my blog attendance correspondingly suffered.

The good news is, however, that I’ve made a complete recovery and am now once again in more civilized lands (i.e. Vietnam). I will be writing an article about my experiences with Cambodian men during my tenure there tonight and hope to get back to full steam within the day.

All the best to you brothers,