Cultural Marxism is still the enemy of life, liberty and happiness

November 2, 2011
krauserpua

I’ll have a few words to say about the current spat between PUAs and MRAs that’s cluttering up teh interwebs. Till then I’ll leave you to ponder on this news that appeared in the Telegraph. On the off-chance anyone is wondering if I still consider myself an MRA, and if I intend to get married…..

Report: “Divorced fathers are to be denied a legal right to a relationship with their children in a review of family law due to be published tomorrow.”

My prediction (not recommendation) is pushing much further will lead to lots and lots of murders. At the moment allowing “meaningful contact” with the kids stolen from him give the father one last thread to retain involvement in society. Cut that thread and the State creates angry desperados. Angry desperate men who know the names and addresses of the people who destroyed their lives. That’s a ticking time bomb.

It’s all well and good to learn Game so I can date the women I want, but never forget this is an individual response to a society-level problem. I’m not going to throw myself under a bus for the good of society. I’ve already written about that. No matter how good life gets in Game, no matter how much success, and no matter how relaxed and chill I become I never forget the simple fact: Modern western society is collapsing because it is turning all the virtues of it’s men into vices to be punished. 

Fuck the lot of them

Feminists and Cultural Marxists are still my sworn enemy. I simply don’t write about it much anymore.

20 Comments

  1. Amen brother – btw don’t you do approaches anymore? ;-)

    Dats what the studio audience wanna see! [Not much. Maybe a couple each week. It's a temporary thing because I'm dating a girl, got another one coming in a month's time, and then in January going to Mexico. I might write about this soon but basically I'm avoiding slipping into the trap of becoming a pussy hound. K.]

  2. “Angry desperate men who know the names and addresses of the people who destroyed their lives.”

    No kidding, those Judges and lawyers ought to be less sanguine. A woman is a slave to her nature, but the State ought not empower her base instincts that way. Or a man’s primal instincts may come to the fore.

  3. U coming to Mexico? which `parts of Mexico? I live in the capital, newbie gamer, would be cool to at least greet you.

  4. “I’m not going to throw myself under a bus for the good of society”

    Since you’ve unplugged from the matrix and are competently pursuing your own self interest, you are not the type of MRA I was criticizing.

    The spineless pussies slam was directed at those who allow themselves to be financially raped by the divorce system. Their blood makes it run.

    The article was intended to be a slap in the face to the Game-hating MRA’s who’ve been getting a bit uppity about who’s manly and who’s not. In other words, remove the plank from thy own eye, brother.

  5. One thing that bother me in your argumentation is the “cultural Marxism” bit. Why bring Marx into it when right-wing governments throughout Europe have made it abundantly clear they are no better in this respect than left-wing governments? This only confuses the issue. Look at that Marine Le Pen in France. She even counts as far-right. She’s every bit as misandric as any other politician.

    [You misunderstand "left" and "right" because they are a false opposition. The real divide is "liberal" (in the original John Locke sense of protecting individual rights from their violation by the group) and "collectivist". Never forget that the so-called extreme Right called themselves National Socialists. The "left" of socialism and the "right" of fascists are almost indistinguishable - both are collectivist, big government, totalitarian, anti-rationality and believe the individual should sacrifice himself to the group. K.]

    • “Look at that Marine Le Pen in France. [...]. She’s every bit as misandric as any other politician.”

      I am not aware of that. Could you please expand? I’m curious. Her father is not like that at all as far I can observe.

    • “Cultural Marxism” as a concept isn’t accurate. The guilt trip against whites and males, political correctness and so on, have nothing to do with Marx’s ideas, which can basically be summarised as something like – the majority of the world is working class and is being exploited and brutalized by the propertied classes, but it can collectively reorganize the economy on its own terms to end exploitation.

      I’ve never read any article on Cultural Marxism that shows any serious evidence that the Frankfurt School or Gramsci et al are behind political correctness and anti-male anti-white sentiments. If you’ve got anything serious I’d be interested to read the link but I doubt you could. As it stands Cultural Marxism is not a serious concept, more a caricature.

      [I'd suggest Ludwig von Mises "Socialism". Just his introduction alone lays out how Marxism is culturally relativist, anti-rational and plays directly to the greed and envy of society's losers. He also has chapters on justice, epistemology and the family. He doesn't use the actual words "Cultural Marxism" but he nails it just as effectively as he does the economics. Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" is good for laying out a blueprint for how most of the Cultural Marxists don't even realise what they are doing and that evil is an impotent negative force rather than an active enemy with a shape and identity of its own. K.]

      • OK I realise those 2 books are important for you, maybe when I have time I will check them out, but you’re avoiding the question.

        ‘Cultural Marxism’ is a term specifically used (for example here http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/16/the-menace-of-cultural-marxism/ and http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/ ) and it describes a specific theory. That today’s political-correct ideology has its origins in the theories of specific marxist writers (mainly the Frankfurt School) who did it deliberately in order to disrupt bourgeois society. It’s rubbish.

        [No. Are you aware of the idea of a loose conspiracy and useful idiots. I know from personal experience that fringe left-wing political groups in Newcastle did not consider themselves "marxist". They considered themselves "anarchist", or "anti-fascist" or "animal rights". However they all accepted the basic thrust of cultural marxism without having ever studied or identified it. They all acted as streams flowing in the same direction and into the same river, whether they were the Judean People's Front or the People Front of Judea. I think you are too caught up in an academic geneology of ideas - it's missing the point. K.]

      • Then could you give a definition of Cultural Marxism otherwise we’re not talking about the same thing. What is the basic thrust of cultural marxism?

        [tightly defined = to bring about the socialist utopia by cultural change rather than economic insurrection.

        loosely defined = to join the unholy alliance of those who oppose the enlightenment values of individualism, free trade and rationality. In general this means to oppose straight white wealth-creating men, but it can differ dependng on the country K.]

      • [tightly defined = to bring about the socialist utopia by cultural change rather than economic insurrection.

        loosely defined = to join the unholy alliance of those who oppose the enlightenment values of individualism, free trade and rationality. In general this means to oppose straight white wealth-creating men, but it can differ dependng on the country K.]

        I still don’t find the term useful. The definitions above are too general and vague. In reality there is often no common denominator between different groups trying to bring about cultural change e.g. environmentalist groups are very different from groups lobbying for misandrist laws, and both have little to do with communism. To subsume them all under cultural Marxism is a big straw man. “Straight white wealth-creating men” isn’t a useful category since it includes everyone from the super elite members of the establishment to the working class men struggling to support their families. Plus from what I can tell the term “cultural marxism” used in this sense comes from a group of paranoid american ideologues with very sloppy thinking, I don’t see the point to associate with them.

        Also using the term “unholy alliance” sounds more religious than rational.

      • @Don Julian: the internet right now only seems to know the term “cultural Marxism” in relation to Anders Breiwiks. Be aware that it is much older than that and does not even originate from the US. The term itself is difficult to grasp because the concept behind it cannot be painted in a black and white fashion. Do not forget that we are talking about a cultural movement, i.e. a current that is flowing within the wider stream of western civilisation. Parts of the Frankfurt School are part of cultural Marxism, they have commonalities but they are not the same thing. I would recommend this excellent article from a US paleo-conservative (are they those you call a “group of paranoid American ideologues” ?) website to have a better understanding of the term:

        http://www.vdare.com/articles/yes-virginia-there-is-a-cultural-marxism

        As far as I am concerned, the term is highly significant and useful as it brings clarity in a confusing reality. It is not a caricature. Those who dislike the concept usually present the term as such so as to discredit it; they have their own ideological motivation to do so.

        My own short definition of cultural Marxism: “A cultural movement which has sprung out of the Marxist dogma and whose goal is to destroy what it sees as “bourgeois culture” as defined as all cultural aspects that made western civilisation great.” In practical terms: make a description of the West prior to the first world war; cultural Marxism wants to get rid of everything in that description. Example: nuclear family with paternal head? To be destroyed with misandry, anti-authoritarianism and divorce.

      • @Very Anonymous,
        I didn’t mention Breiwiks. Yes I meant some paleoconservatives like Lind. Thanks for the link. I read it and OK at least it’s not complete drivel like this ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2041518/JAMES-DELINGPOLE-How-BBC-fell-Marxist-plot-destroy-civilisation-within.html ) The history of the term was good to know. It’s still not convincing me at all though about the validity of “cultural marxism” as a category, it’s inaccurate, and in fact the article states explicitly how different modern political correctness is from the “cultural marxists”.

        Re your definition, two things,

        1. “the things prior to WW1 that made western civilization great”, if you don’t get specific that is too vague to be meaningful. That’s more than 3000 years and could include everything, scientific advances, the slave trade, enlightenment freethinking, religious obscurantism, the divine right of kings, state monopolies, free trade, paganism, peasant revolts, everything.

        2. more relevant to the content of the blog here, if I understand the general thrust of the argument re “cultural marxism” and its relation to MRA, is that it is somehow to blame for the feminization of men that is commonplace in modern culture (the metrosexual ideal, stigma on masculine values, etc). I would argue that feminization is a result of the bourgeois world view gradually gaining dominance in the 20th century – and that in fact the communist world view (which champions workers’ culture which is generally very masculine, think of anti-colonial movements, riots, Che guevara, the black panthers, the haymarket martyrs) has nothing to do with it. To give another example think how horrified middle class politically correct ideologues would be by the philosophy of the ‘mack’, which is working class in origin. And to give a further example to demonstrate my point, think of Nietzsche (his writings, not how he lived), writing much before both WW1 and “cultural marxism”, and how critical he was of western civilization at the time, which he saw as rotting, decadent and unmanly.

        And I will take this line of thought a step further, do you think that “social engineering” which the “cultural marxists” are blamed for is limited to them? I would argue that the extent that leftist radicals have access to the means of social engineering is miniscule when compared to the enormous power in the hands of “bourgeois culture” i.e. advertising, marketing, Hollywood, the public relations racket and so on. It’s this culture which is spreading eunuch betaizing ideals. Once the bourgeois as a class overthrew the traditional regimes and took power, although also positive in terms of things like atheism, science, individualism, free speech etc, one of its results was also the alienation and inner disintegration of man. Once this ideological dominance extended to the mass media, it became a much more mass phenomenon, and that is what we are experiencing today.

        In fact one of the things that makes paleoconservatives somewhat sympathetic to me is their rejection of this kind of bourgeois culture and their search for meaning in traditional values. But blaming cultural marxism is not an accurate description of reality.

    • I agree, but that’s precisely why political labels are no good. Even “left” and “right” mean different things on both sides of the Atlantic. While I would agree that less government is better, reducing government to 10% its present bulk will be of little help if the remaining 10% concentrates on getting *men* in jail for not paying alimony (or for providing their girl-friend with a joint). Some people would regard the plight of paying fathers as the consequence of the privatization of single-motherhood support. Governments no longer want to pay, so individuals (=men) have to. You can interpret the introduction of no-fault divorces in the same way. Marriage becomes a contract between private individuals, so the State (alas in this case) no longer gets involved to assess who’s guilty. We only see government interference as bad because any new law is now bad news for men. We forget that the old laws that protected us were also the result of government interference.

  6. I am afraid you are entirely correct in your conclusion and prediction. I am 44, the father of a son and divorced. The damage done by feminism is considerable and systematically underestimated (even by the PUA community). As I watched my marriage (and fatherhood) fly to pieces, the female reactions of relatives and friends to that event forced me to the following conclusion: modern women are a problem for which I have no solution at all. I was so gutted by these reactions, I entirely and instinctively avoided women for years – I had no sexual interest at all, absolutely nothing. It’s only when I stumbled upon Roissy’s site that I finally found a “solution” – as limited and flawed as it is – to the problem: the Pick-Up community. The PUA stuff really helps: it is a powerful analytical and practical tool to deal with women, even beyond the pick-up itself. In contrast, all the sites for divorced fathers would merely keep me angry and depressed; those sites exude sheer desperation, they do not offer any solution.

    Unfortunately, the social and political momentum is still clearly in favour of feminism and cultural Marxism. Fortunately though, feminism and cultural Marxism are self destructive: very much like our financial and currency system does right now, they will collapse under their own sheer insanity. In the meantime we can protect ourselves and prepare the future.

    [Thanks pal. I agree. I think young guys who get into Game don't realise what a lifeline it is for a 35+ guy. It's difficult to describe how valuable the hope is, when you suddenly realise your future is not 35+ cuntish single mums but that you can actually date exactly the women you are attracted to. It's like being offered your youth all over again, without giving up the wisdom of maturity. K.]

  7. I’m rolling with you Krauser

    more power !

  8. Imho most of those man are good working man, in jail they will provide stable and cheap working labor that will cause no problems at all, and that is the main problem here, nobody cares about them and trough out the history man was always more disposable than the women.

    I think the only way to change it, it is to stop marrying and to have kids only after really serious consideration. The laws will be changed only when woman realize that they are on a losing proposition as much as man.

  9. Game made me a happier and better person. Game teached me to be bold and take more risks, it thought me the numbers game. That mental framework made me 5 times more sucessfull in getting pussy, making money, getting a healthy body and enjoying life.

    Nike said it right… Just do it! Nobody became exceptional by crying like a little bitch! That goes double for keyboard jockeys!

  10. Hi K. The Roosh article you link to is spectacular plus your original ‘matrix unplugged’ mission statement is still crisp.

    “An individual response to a societal problem”. Articulate.

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.

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

Blog at WordPress.com. | The Tuned Balloon Theme.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 384 other followers

%d bloggers like this: