Author Archives: Drake

A brief History of Cultural Marxism

Cultural Marxism was a response to the flaws of orthodox marxism.

Marx himself thought of society as being a war between economic classes, and that the working class was the engine that would lead a revolution and overthrow the capitalists.

The problem is, Marx didn’t live long enough to actually organize such a working class revolution. And when his successors tried, they discovered a small problem: namely that the working class doesn’t want revolution, and in fact the working class is the most conservative class in society, even more so than the capitalists (who led the revolution out of feudalism). Economic conflict couldn’t overcome forces like religion and patriotism and tradition.

What to do? The British Fabians, a group of Marxist intellectuals, realized there was one class that was open to the idea of revolution, namely intellectuals like themselves. They looked down on religion and tradition as superstition, and instead of loyalty to their nation they felt loyalty only to “The People”. (Only in the abstract, of course, they didn’t seem to want the company of actual dirty uneducated people.)

Lenin put this into practice. His Bolshevik party was lead by intellectuals like himself and Trotsky. It was not for the working class would not lead the way, instead the Bolsheviks would lead the working class.

Attention must be devoted principally to raising the workers to the level of revolutionaries; it is not at all our task to descend to the level of the “working masses.”
Lenin, What Is To Be Done?

In Italy, Gramsci took Lenin’s idea a step further. He answered the question why the working classes was conservative, it was their attachment to their culture. Intellectuals were one group that could overcome that attachment. But what about groups that weren’t really part of the dominant culture: racial and religious minorities, criminals, feminists unhappy with the role of women, rebellious youth, immigrants, homosexuals, everyone who lived on the fringes. If somehow all them could be united in hatred against the dominant culture, you would have a force that could reshape society. Cultural marxism was born.

The Frankfurt School brought these ideas to America. Every aspect of traditional conservative culture was given uncompromising adversarial critique (critical theory). It was racist sexist anti-semitic homophobic xenophobic sexually repressed etc.

And here we are today. It worked! A coalition of the fringes, united against the historic core: white Christian men. Democrats vs Republicans. Long after the Soviet Union has collapsed, American politics and every college campus in the country is shaped entirely by the ideas of cultural marxism.

The term “cultural marxism” makes sense when seen in this history. The problem is, very few people know this history, and when they see the term they have no idea what it means. It looks like jargon.

One more colorful term is “coalition of the fringes”, coined by Steve Sailer.

And for a pair of even more clear, direct terms, try anti-white bigotry and anti-male bigotry. Because nowadays, that’s what it amounts to.


Media Coverage of Crimes and Anti-white bias

Steve Sailer posts about a new book by Jon Krakauer about a rape at a small college in Montana. He asks the question why the press, including the New York Times, has paid so much attention to this case, but not other rape cases at higher profile schools. He sees that the pattern is that cases in which the accused rapist is white gets coverage, while those in which the accused rapist is black get much less.

The press has a pattern of focusing on white crimes (UVA) while ignoring others, and of always taking the anti-white side in disputes (Duke Lacross, Ferguson.) This has the effect of demonizing white men. It’s not just that it paints a false picture of reality, it’s that it teaches people that it’s good and noble to criticize whites in an unfair manner. We see the results of this everywhere.

We can’t fight against this kind of anti-white bigotry unless we recognize it and name it, over and over again. Until the overarching pattern is documented, clear and undeniable.

Steve has the point that the left’s ideology is fringe vs core. But in practice, “fringe vs core” takes the form of anti-white bigotry. I imagine the typical journalist doesn’t wake up in the morning thinking to group libel whites, it’s more like they want to avoid “punching down” on a “vulnerable powerless minority.” But it is still functionally equivalent to anti-white bigotry, even if it’s not what they are consciously aiming for, even if they don’t realize they’re doing it. And it’s what we need to fight against.

And by doing so we can fight anti-core, anti-majority sentiment at the same time. We say anti-white bigotry is wrong at the same time we say anti-majority sentiment is wrong. Majorities have the right to be proud of their heritage, meaning whites have a right to be proud of their heritage. That majorities have a right to a home and to pass it onto their children, meaning whites have a right to a home and to pass it onto their children. The general principle is enhanced by its prime example, they fit together hand in glove.

Honey Badger Brigade

Recognizing Misandry – The Honey Badger Brigade in Calgary

A few days ago a women’s MRA group named the Honey Badger Brigade was forced to leave a comics convention in Calgary after complaints from feminists. People who supported the HBB called this an example of misogyny. I made a post on Reddit explaining why, despite it involving women, it is actually an example of misandry.

There have been quite a few posters here claiming the Honey Badger Brigade being kicked out of the Calgary expo is an example of misogyny.

I think this is short sighted. You need to go a step further and ask, why were these specific women targeted? It is because they defend men and a gaming culture feminists see as male dominated. It’s because they said:

Once there we will start distributing the totalitarian message that nerd and gamer culture is… perfectly wonderful just as it is and should be left alone to go it’s own way.

This is dangerous to a feminist mindset that depends upon demonizing men and male subcultures, such as gaming or comics or sci-fi, as “toxic” or “exclusionary.” It threatens a worldview that is based upon anti-male bigotry.

You might say: “But these were women being kicked out, so how can it be an example of misandry?”

It because when bigotry becomes totally deranged, it not only attacks its target, but also anyone who defends the target.

Ask yourselves, are the feminists attacking the HBB solely because they’re women, or is it because they’re women who defend men?

And if feminists attack women-who-defend-men, it isn’t because feminists are biased against women, it is because they are biased against men.

Why is this distinction important? It’s because you can’t fight against misandry until you can recognize it and name it. You have to get so good at this you can recognize it even when its victims are… women. (Misandry hurts women too.)

Most of you here want equality. And the dictionary definition of feminism is all about equality. So how has SJW feminism gone so wrong? Perhaps it is because it has become saturated with anti-male bigotry? Do you see them criticizing female dominated industries?

A couple of days ago I posted about the publishing industry, which is 74% female. Do the SJWs criticize it for having too many women? No, they criticize it for having too many men (too many “straight white men” I’m think you’ve heard this before.) Does that suggest a belief in equality? They aren’t motivated by equality. They are motivated by anti-male bigotry.

Allow me to go on a bit about one way of thinking about feminism common in these parts that I think misses the point.

Some like to say “The problem with these feminists isn’t that they hate men, but that they are authoritarian. This is really about authoritarianism vs libertarianism.”

OK, but go one step further. Ask yourself, where does their authoritarianism come from? What basis does it rest on? Most people living in the US or Western Europe don’t want to be authoritarian. I don’t think they want to destroy freedom of expression, that’s why we have laws protecting it. I think this is true of feminists too. So how do they end up embracing authoritarian policies? It’s because in their worldview men are so dangerous in so many ways they have to be controlled by feminists.

Men looking at women is “objectification.” Men having their own subcultures is “exclusionary.” Men arguing against feminist ideas is “mansplaining” or even “harrassment.” If they defend themselves from false rape accusations they are promoting “rape culture.” And this goes on and on until everything men do is interpreted in the most sinister possible way. There’s a word for this kind of thought process, and that word is bigotry.

And after thinking about men like his the feminist says to herself “Everything men do hurts me in some way. How can I possibly protect myself from all this toxic masculinity?”

And that is how authoritarianism is born from anti-male bigotry.

If you still want to say they are authoritarians first, and the bigotry towards men is just the excuse, well either way the two go hand in hand. Authoritarianism needs a scapegoat to exist. Who is feminism’s scapegoat?

A commenter writes: “Why not say it is both misogyny and misandry?”

Ask why were these women targeted: was it because they were women, or was it because of what they were doing on behalf of men?

Another way of putting it: if a group of men had done the same thing the HBB did, would they have been expelled too? Of course.

It isn’t about the gender of the HBB, it is about the gender of the people they are defending.

That’s the issue.

Another exchange:

Or…it’s fucking neither, because to use either term is to do the same bullshit as SJW’s do and use the terms inappropriately, thus devaluing their actual, very serious, meaning.

All it is is a mixture of ignorance, outrage culture, and fear. There’s no deep seated hatred on the part of the Calgery Expo for men or women, just them not wanting to risk the wrath of the Social Media Inquisition (which is fucking real, and nowhere as fun or unexpected as the Spanish Inquisition) and reacting without bothering to do any investigation.

It’s shitty as fuck, don’t get me wrong. But to classify this as either is kinda silly.


Discriminating on the basis of ignorance, outrage, and fear is a pretty good definition of bigotry.

“the wrath of the Social Media Inquisition”

Why did the Social Media Inquisition target these women?


I can explain that: Because they’re currently cynically pushing a victimhood narrative to make a profit off of. Ones that break the narrative are the ones that get targeted the most. it has little to do with misogyny/misandry, and everything to do with money. Stop looking at everything through the lens of id politics, and you might notice a pattern involved with them encouraging outrage culture.


“a victimhood narrative”

That’s right. They have a narrative in which weak little feminists are the victims. But within that narrative, who is responsible for victimising them? Does patriarchy ring a bell?

You think they are just pretending to be victims, that they exaggerate threats to their safety in order to advance an agenda. I agree with you. But I think they are pretending to be victims as a way of making men look bad. People see a girl crying about videogame culture and they think, “oh those men must be so awful to hurt this poor little girl.” Those “objectifying” “harassing” “toxic” “rape culture” men.

When Gamergate is covered anywhere in the media, from the New York Times to the Washington Post to the BBC – that’s the narrative people hear. Some of them believe it.

Even if you think money is the SJWs primary motivation (and I disagree), surely you can see that men are being slandered as a kind of collateral damage. And that men might object to being slandered.

You might even say that slandering a group of people for personal profit is a kind of bigotry.


No, because SJWs and feminists themselves are the smokescreen in this. Them and others sell that victimhood narrative to profiteer off of the situation, and the media enables it because it makes them money as well as serve others that pay them to astroturf. Once again, stop focusing on id politics and realize that it’s not something a singular group does, but is a common issue.

This particular narrative in the media is the “War on Women” threat narrative that the left is currently pushing. You see feminism. I see a cash grab.


Well, if SJWs are just selling a narrative to make money, than that’s no problem. After all, JK Rowling made a huge amount of money selling a narrative called Harry Potter. George Martin is making a ton of money selling an narrative called Game of Thrones. Good for them.

So what’s the problem? Maybe it’s that this narrative is based upon slandering a group of people? Maybe profiting off those kinds of narratives is wrong, even if Harry Potter is ok.

The Errors in “Racism = Power + Prejudice” and “Punching down”

Steve Sailer links to a column by Ross Douthat in the New York Times which discusses the concept of “punching down”.

The punching down idea comes from the same mindset that says racism = power + prejudice, and since blacks/Muslims don’t have power, they cannot be racist.

There are three critical mistakes in this line of thinking:

1) First, it is not about how much power a group has, it is about how that group uses its power.

As Douthat mentioned, Charlie Hebdo provides an example. Whites in France have more power than Muslims, but the whites at Charlie Hebdo used that power to create satire, while the Muslims used it to kill.

Interracial crime is another example. Whites as a group have more power than blacks, but when it comes to killing, raping and assaulting, blacks use what power they have to do more of it, and this imposes enormous costs and suffering upon whites who live near blacks. This suffering matters. All this happens despite blacks being “powerless”.

On the opposite hand, you have whites. Cowardly and demoralized, whites in Rotherham were not even willing to defend their adolescent girls from Pakistani gang-rapists due to fear of being called racist.

2) Alliances: Political and social power comes from alliances. When looking at how much power a minority group has, you have to ask “who are they allied with?” And when you do that, some weak groups turn out part of powerful coalitions.

Let suppose blacks want affirmative action policies to benefit them. Blacks are only 13% of the population, they couldn’t force such policies through on their own. But when blacks ally with hispanics and white liberals, then you have a coalition that can impose AA policies. And if white conservatives aren’t willing to use their power to defend their interests, the black/liberal coalition will triumph.

Another example, homosexuals don’t have the power on their own to enact gay marriage, they can only do so as part of an alliance with the political left. Then they’re driving a bulldozer.

3) Internal Divisions: A group like “white Americans” could be very powerful if they were united, but what if it is weakened by internal division? You end up with rich vs poor, liberals vs conservatives, and “anti-racists” who despise their fellow whites. Class, ideology, and internalized racism tear apart white solidarity.

Applied to an issue like immigration, and we see whites lack the power to defend their own interests. The rich want cheap labor, liberal politicians want cheap votes, and “anti-racists” feel a burning moral duty to turn whites into a minority everywhere they exist.

Whites don’t feel solidarity with one another and without that whites have no power as a group.

The “anti-racist” idea of racism = power + prejudice, applied to say whites can’t be victims of racism, falls apart. The left is obsessively talks about power, but here they don’t employ even the most basic understanding of how power works. Nothing I wrote above is complicated.

How can an idea born in academia and embraced by so many distinguished intellectuals have such basic errors? It’s not because they’re stupid. It’s because they are not pursuing truth at all; they are caught up in an all consuming anti-white bias. This new definition of racism wasn’t created to deepen our understanding of society, it was created to dehumanize whites and trivialize the loss of our countries, our heritage, and our posterity.

Academic leftism as it exists today isn’t intellectually serious, it just exists to put an intellectual veneer upon anti-white bigotry.

From a review of “Boyhood”

Movie reviewer Steven W. Thrasher writes in The Guardian:

“indeed, when we are left longing so clearly for Mason’s success despite his being a rather mediocre shit – it reinforces a supremacist mindset about the value of darling white boyhood”

Hoping a young person, even a “rather mediocre” young person, will be see some degree of “success” in life is just basic human decency. But for a leftist like this movie reviewer, regarding white men with basic human decency is incredibly dangerous because it raises an issue much more important to them than basic human decency, and that is the all-important specter of white supremacism. For them, white people having normal human feelings for other white people is white supremacism. For them, white people just going about their lives is white supremacism.

This is demented anti-white bigotry.

I think most white racists, even of the stormfront variety, if they were to watch a movie about a young black man growing up they would somewhere in their hearts want to see him attain a decent life, rather than fall into crime, drugs, or such disaster. This is just normal human empathy, and I don’t think they would feel guilty about feeling this way.

But the left has become so thoroughgoing in their anti-white bigotry that they consciously and intentionally try suppress normal feelings of empathy and basic human decency when they are directed towards white men.

By writing about it in such a way this critic gives a warning to others: “you also had better feel guilty about any human decency you might feel towards whites.”

Since the emotions involved are basic human nature, demonizing them turns them into a convenient left wing equivalent to original sin. Only by submitting to a baptism of diversity training and critical race theory can a white be saved from the danger to their soul posed by having these feelings.

Steve writes a lot about how the left won’t let empirical evidence place any limits on their anti-white ideology, but this is an example of how they won’t let human emotion get in their way either. It’s a small and unimportant example compared to Rotherham, but still instructive.

How Anti-White Bigotry Works

One reason anti-white bigots are not held to account is because the way their bigotry works is new and unique, and therefore we haven’t taught ourselves to recognize it as such.

Historically, expressions of bigotry consisted of crude slurs directed against people of other races. Anti-white bigotry doesn’t work at all like this. It works to demonize whites very slowly, piece by piece. Every individual step is deniable, but taken altogether they are not. We don’t have an intellectual framework for understanding it, so we don’t put the pieces together. And, very importantly, it’s usually other whites who are doing the attacking. Anti-white bigotry is what the left would call “internalized racism”.

Liberalism is too sophisticated to just come out and say “whites are devils.” Instead it says lots of other things that indirectly add up to the same result.

There are two ways racism can work. Lets use a chess king on a chessboard as a metaphor. If you wanted to totally denigrate everything the chess piece does, you could point to it and call it the “n-word”. No matter what move the king makes, it’s still carries the n-word around, and is thereby stigmatized. (As Malcolm X said: even when a black man earns a Phd, he’s still just a n-word.) That’s how old fashioned KKK racism works.

But liberal anti-white bigotry works differently. Instead of pointing to the king and calling it nasty word, it exhaustively analyses every individual move the piece could make and declares each move to be sinister and evil. It’s moves up: that’s racist. It moves down: that’s white privilege. It moves left: that’s gentrification. It moves right: that’s white flight. It moves diagonal: that’s a microaggression, or cultural appropriation, or some other nonsense. And so on and so on, putting whites under a microscope, looking at every thought, word and act in the worst possible light, blaming them for every problem, or just making up slander.

This is a lot more work than old fashioned racism, but liberalism has no shortage of intellectuals willing to do that work. And through it all they never come out and say “Whites are devils” but it all adds up to the same thing.

This is the mechanism by which anti-racism turns into anti-white bigotry, even for those liberals who didn’t necessarily set out to be anti-white bigots. I call this piecemeal racism, since it attacks its target one step at a time, rather than all at once as with traditional racism. Methodical racism might be another good term for it.

The beauty of it is that it is indirect and deniable, passive aggressive. Any individual part of the overall pattern can go unnoticed as anti-white bigotry, or if it is noticed it can be denied as being motivated by hatred. It is only when you see the pattern as a whole that it becomes clear that whites are being totally and comprehensively denigrated.

And I think in some cases liberals might not even notice what they’ve become. Its deniability means they can deny it even to themselves. They don’t use blatant slurs, and they try to appear academic. But I think on a psychological level their approach couldn’t help but turn into hatred: when so much time and effort is dedicated to uncompromising adversarial critique of a group of people, how could it not turn into hatred? That’s just how human nature works.

Call Anti-white Bigotry by Its Name

One important step in fighting anti-white bigotry is to label it as such.

It needs to be called “anti-white bigotry” because that term is absolutely clear, self-explanatory, and uncompromising.

Feckless mainstream conservatives have invented numerous terms that avoid stating the blunt truth of what we are dealing with and only obscure the issue:

-”double standards” : these exist yes, but are mere symptoms a single underlying principle: anti-white bigotry.

-”reverse racism”: when people hear the term racism they associate it with anti-black bigotry, the “reverse” part is too indirect, and the left has taken to defining racism as “power plus prejudice” which can be refuted, but is a waste of time.

-”who whom”: Apologies to Steve, but this is too obscure. Lenin’s dictum does sum up the mindset of identity politics in an abstract sense, but it doesn’t clearly state exactly what we are dealing with, which is anti-white bigotry.

-”political correctness”: this is too vague and can refer to all kinds of leftist thought control, from feminism to anti-racism. I think it also trivializes, since people tend to associate it with petty things like calling short people vertically challenged. It’s become a joke, and anti-white bigotry isn’t a joke.

-”Cultural Marxism”: no one who hears this term for the first time can have any idea of what it means. If explaining your vocabulary requires a history lesson about the evolution of Marxist theory from the Marx to Lenin to Gramsci to the Frankfurt School, then it’s useless for activism. And it sounds like pretentious jargon.

-”Anarcho-tyranny”: again no one who hears this for the first time can know what it means. It sounds like jargon. And like double standards, it is just a symptom of a deeper cause.

Call it “anti-white bigotry”.

The Moral Poverty of Non-discrimination

I’ve been thinking for a while that anti-discrimination laws enshrine profit seeking as the only legitimate motive for decision making.

Take laws against housing discrimination. It’s illegal for a white homeowner to refuse to sell to the highest bidder if that bidder is a minority. He can’t accept a lower bid from a white buyer if he thinks that would be the best thing for the neighborhood, or out of respect for its history, or out of a sense of solidarity to someone who shares his ethnic or religious background. We aren’t allowed to concern ourselves about community well-being, tradition, or solidarity, only about getting the highest price.

For employment, the only defense against disparate impact lawsuits is to show “business necessity”, which ends up meaning whatever will maximize profits. A business owner can’t pay fathers supporting families more than others because he believe in the importance of traditional family arrangements. Or he could, but only if he could show that such an arrangement would fulfill a business necessity, i.e. that it maximizes profits. He couldn’t do it if his reason is only that it fits with his moral values.

In short:

disparate impact that maximizes profits = legal
disparate impact to promote moral values = illegal

So laws that are designed to promote equality end up elevating profit maximization to be the only legitimate concern. Anti-discrimination laws teach people that money is the only thing that should matter.

Anti-discrimination laws end up discriminating against moral values in favor of greed.

Conversion Therapy

I’ve always thought that a better way to sell conversion therapy is that instead of turning a homosexual into pure straight, that they would just try to attain bisexuality. This wouldn’t require sexual attraction to be unlearned, which seems a hard goal to attain, but merely to expand sexual attraction to the opposite sex.

To use a metaphor, you can’t unlearn a language you know, but you can learn a new language.

From a Christian point of view, you just want people to be able to function in a happy opposite sex marriage, and this only requires bisexuality, not a total absence of same sex desire. From a leftist point of view, expanding sexual options is easier to defend than suppressing sexual desire.

Is it possible to expand sexual attraction in this way? Here’s one obvious example:

Men learn to find older women attractive as they themselves get older. Very few teenage boys find 45 year old women attractive, but many 45 year old men learn to adapt themselves. Social pressure plays a big role in this – older men are expected and pressured into finding older women attractive and are also very strongly discouraged from acting on their attraction to much younger women.

I think this a process of expanding sexual attraction – men never stop finding 18 year old girls attractive, but they learn to find older women attractive too (to some degree), like learning a new language.

So this seems a clear cut case of social expectations manipulating sexual attraction, and doing so in a socially constructive way.

And it’s one feminists will have hard time arguing against. They are already committed to the idea that beauty is socially constructed, and they hate it when older men pursue younger women.

To a lesser extant race is another example, I think many men have had the experience of learning to appreciate the beauty of women of various races. You’ll hear men describe how they had never noticed, say, Asian women, until one beautiful Asian girl came along and from then on they kept noticing others. This is a learning process, once you learn it you don’t usually unlearn it. Race isn’t as big a difference as sex, but it’s something.

Bisexuals and Homophobia

That homosexual behavior spreads disease at vastly higher rates than heterosexual behavior is still the best secular argument in favor of stigmatizing it, just as we stigmatize smoking and drug use.

We often hear about how homosexuals can’t choose their sexual identity. But there is a class of people who can choose: bisexuals. And homophobia provides useful guidance and discourages them from dangerous homosexual activity.

Homophobia saves bisexuals’ lives.

In a previous thread it was mentioned that there was no good argument against gay marriage. Well, here it is: legalizing gay marriage destigmatizes homosexual behavior, and this will end up killing bisexual men.

Liberals like to say the most outspoken homophobes have hidden homosexual desires. They joke about this, but what if it’s true? Don’t bisexual men have a very good reason to cultivate their own sense of homophobia, in order to suppress their homosexual desires. Isn’t that a completely rational thing for them to do, to help themselves and their fellow bisexual men from dying of AIDS?