The Basics of Cultural Marxism

[Music] hello and welcome to another episode of the new discourses podcast this is James Lindsay and I am doing something for you that you've been asking for for a long time today what I'm doing today is a Basics the basics of cultural Marxism now when we talk about woke Marxism and Marxism more generally um there are a lot of subjects to cover and I mean I think we could probably build entire University style I mean not just courses sequences um curricula around all of the different topics and as a matter of fact what I want

to do today is to kind of break into four pieces a rough introduction to cultural Marxism which is just one phenomenon and um just to disclaim uh cultural Marxism is a fraught term cultural Marxism has been declared by the powers that be a conspiracy theory and in particular an anti-semitic conspiracy theory the claim is that the people who just notice things as they call themselves on the internet today cuz they're in Resurgence happened to notice that the members of the Frankfurt School in particular which is one of the dimensions of the cultural Marxism or Western

Marxism phenomenon uh were all ethnically Jewish although they were not as a matter of fact practicing or observant or certainly Orthodox Jews in any regard as a matter of fact the religion was communism um they would have promoted not quite to a man uh because of uh Walter Benyamin but they would have promoted uh broadly a atheism as a kind of Baseline and then a faith of utopian communism or socialism depending on which ones we're talking about I don't know that Max horkheimer for example was particularly bent on a utopian Vision but Herbert maruza was

most definitely bent on a utopian Vision he said so himself in his own words uh so it's it's difficult to talk about cultural Marxism and this is my little disclaimer at the beginning and then I'll kind of talk more about what I'm doing why I'm doing it and get to the me of this it's difficult to talk about cultural Marxism because it is labeled an anti-semitic conspiracy theory believing that uh people who just noticed things have pointed out that the Frankfurt School was overwhelmingly uh if not entirely ethnically Jewish and that they had a plot

to destroy Western Civilization that is the an the so-called anti-semitic cultural Marxism conspiracy theory here's the thing there are a lot of elements of Truth to that however there are also a lot of incorrect elements like I just said these people what's what's incorrect their religion was not Judaism their religion was communism very clearly and in somewhat different Stripes uh they were marxists which is something that you you can see marxists who pretend to be Christian or who use Christian motifs you can see marxists who pretend to be uh whatever whatever religion they have to

be in order to fit in um so it's not anything to do with the Judaism that's kind of an important incorrect point now what is true is that they were from Jewish families and they did have a plot to destroy Western Civilization but that plot did not grow out of their Judaism that plot grew out of their communism so the conspiracy theory often has to deal with this uncomfortable debunking fact by going backwards a step and saying communism itself is a COR apparently correct expression of the Jewish mentality the Jewish ethnicity which apparently is attached

to that mentality or uh the Jewish faith which is um starkly wrong but that is anyway The Conspiracy Theory so that makes it difficult to talk about cultural Marxism I for instance have a Southern Poverty Law Center profile claiming that I am General hate and an anti-government General and it uh spends a fair amount of time as does my um probably intelligence produced uh Wikipedia entry uh spending a significant amount of time saying that I pedal the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory unless you think I think this is of course amusing I think it's credentialing to

have an splc profile but as it turns out it does cost you in real life you do not get invited to the nicer of the nice things in the world uh because of having an splc profile um which is a problem and they know it and that's why they do this and one of the primary accusations against me is that I traffic in the so-called cultural Marxism conspiracy theory they're so dedicated to people not knowing what cultural Marxism is that they replaced the original entry for cultural Marxism on Wikipedia with one called cultural Marxism conspiracy

theory about four years ago I remember using the the previous entry as a source you can still obtain that by now through a link on the conspiracy theory website uh but if you actually type in cultural Marxism into Wikipedia you get taken to a claim that it's a conspiracy theory first and foremost and I used the original as a source when I was first starting out I mean I don't remember when 2 could have been as early as 16 15 but certainly by 2020 I was looking into that because that's ALS 2019 is when I

got introduced to Herbert maruza and his writing so 2019 is when I started started to look into all of that so certainly by 2020 I would have been looking and they changed possibly at least partly as a result of my work they changed the Wikipedia landing page for cultural Marxism but this is going to be an introduction to the basics of cultural Marxism that means it's going to be an overview and I'm going to kind of elaborate on why I'm doing this I've been asked for years will you make a Basics program will you make

something easy I get asked routinely if I was going to send somebody to a first place to land and if you're listening I want you to pay attention to this and remember it if you were to tell somebody what's the first piece of your work they should engage with what would it be I get asked that all the time well here you go boys and girls the basics of cultural Marxism that's this episode this is meant to be a starting place for people who want to start to understand what has happened in our world over

the last century or so that has set the stage for the woke movement and everything that we're dealing with with the mark attack on society and in fact if they're at the point of wanting to understand the rapidly growing reaction that is stepping into the Trap devised by the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory type people uh then this is the starting place to understand the actual historical reference of cultural Marxism so this is just an overview of kind of the big picture story presented at a fairly basic level this is a starting place for people looking

for one this is not going to be the deep deep dive if I have time and there's interest I might do that um I might turn this into a multi-art I'm thinking five part Series where this is the first of the five in which I explore each of the following four units so I have four units I'm going to cover and I I could I could take each of these following four units and expand each one of them with details and accurate quotations that I read like I do in my workshops for those of you

that have attended my workshops in fact most of the quotes I would use I would pull from from the workshop notes that I made uh and do those as individual podcasts if there's interest so like if we thought of this as a university structure let's consider this to be 101 and those would be like 2011 211 221 231 or whatever in other words this is like the Freshman introduction those would be like the sophomore uh survey courses now the fact is that those would still be survey courses and we could do literally if we really

wanted to we could do an entire semester where this is just the first lecture and or first and second lecture depending because it's going to be long um and then there are several further lectures that go into tremendous amounts of depth about each of these characters each of these books you could do ENT I could do an entire series I have done series on just single essays like repressive tolerance was a four essay series um essay and Liberation was a four essay series we could do a very long or very short depending on what you

wanted to hear out of it uh essay series on Max horkheimer's creation of critical theory um there are lots and lots of things to say the prison notebooks from Antonio grami which are going to come up in this are over 3,000 pages long we could make as much information as we wanted to history and class Consciousness by George lcat is a very difficult to read book that's in the exess of 300 Pages we could make entire courses out of each subject I'm going to touch on within this so I'm just telling you that to to

really give you the the sense that what I'm about to give you because I know how the world Works in particular I know how the internet works is a surface level introduction to the history and basics of cultural Marxism and that I may proceed to do a still shallow but deeper dive into each of four units the four units for this Workshop I guess or this podcast this episode the four units that I'm going to present are first Marxism and its historical context we can't actually talk about the basics of cultural Marxism without understanding something

about Marxism and we can't talk about why cultural Marxism occurred at all without understanding the historical context of the failure of Marxism in its original sense secondly I'm going to talk about a thing that actually carries the label historically cultural Marxism Western Marxism could be a catchall for these uh various views by units 2 three and four uh for this this particular podcast but um cultural Marxism is the right name to describe the thing that was happening roughly in the I guess 1910s and 1920s into the early 1930s maybe through the middle of the 1930s

primarily within Western Marxism third I'm going to cover critical Marxism which is also sometimes referred to or usually referred to as the critical theory and so the critical theory was developed in the Frankfurt School by Max horkheimer in 1937 and it is a diversion it is a different track from the rest of Western Marxism it takes the cultural Marxist kind of underpinning and takes it in what it hoped would be a more productive direction that is in fact even more negative in its General Theology and takes it off in in a direction that to this

day is still a vibrant school of thought although it's less than it once was um and there was a massive and important split within the uh cultural or sorry the critical Marxism vein that leads us into um and this would have been in the 1960s really going into the 1970s uh maybe even by the 1980s that goes into what I'm going to consider the fourth of these units which is woke Marxism or intersectional Marxism which is really cultural maoism or American maoism or intersectional maoism but the importation of maoism and identity politics becomes the defining

characteristic of that and so once again the four units are the historical context in which cultural Marxism arose with a brief introduction to Marxism itself in probably a way you're not used to hearing as unit one unit two will be cultural Marxism itself unit three will be critical Marxism and unit four will be woke Marxism which we could give a variety of names to so let's dive in I'm just going to say that this again one more time this is the overview podcast I'm just going to talk about these things I'm not going to go

into a deep dive I'm not even going to go into a shallow dive it's like if we're at the pool we're putting our feet in looking at the water drinking a margarita and kicking our feet we're not getting in the shallow end we're not splashing around and we're definitely not swimming laps and we're definitely definitely not diving to the bottom that is a completely different project and if this is interesting enough and we find time energy given all the other things we have to do maybe I'll take each of these four units and expand them

and do full length podcasts on each and then you will have a you know level one or level 100 and level 200 introduction in five pieces or maybe it's just going to be the one who knows that you can send to people and say this is where you should start with James's work to understand what he's talking about okay so unit one Marxism and its historic and the historical context in which cultural Marxism are Rose um so Marxism is a religion that's the first sentence that we need to cover uh the sum summation of that

Faith actually and you think I'm making a joke and I'm not making a joke can that the summation of that faith can be summarized in a very famous sentence now that does not come from Karl Marx despite memes on the internet misleading you to believe that it does and that sentence is being able to see what can be unburdened by what has been of course vice president kamla Harris uh at least at the time of the this recording she's vice president vice president kamla Harris uh says that a lot and has says that a lot

for years I again reiterate KL Marx did not to my knowledge anywhere write that he's written so much stuff it's possible it's somewhere depends on the translation from the German but to my knowledge he's never written that explicitly the there are many expressions in uh the Marxist Canon from Marx himself and others that sound an awful lot like that or that Express that sentiment so I believe it is in fact the Beating Heart of the Marxist religion is being able to see what can be unburdened by what has been it's a Romanticism toward an idealized

future so it's the worst of French Romanticism as a philosophical School combined with the worst of German idealism as a philosophical school and you idealize the future into a literal Utopia or a state of of the Garden of Eden on Earth or kingdom of God on Earth called communism which is a stateless classless society in which uh from each according to his ability to each according to his needs as the distribution method uh so you're able to see that as something that can be but you have to be unburdened by the weights of your past

the closest expression while it's in the Marxist Canon frequently the closest expression from Karl marks at least is overwhelmingly uh in the first chapter right at the beginning you can look this up it's for free online uh it's in the 18th Brew of Louie bonapart and I mean that's a lot of words you're probably not familiar with but Brew is spelled b r u m a i r e and I'm probably mispronouncing it and I do not care Louis bonapart was um if I'm not mistake and he was related to Napoleon bonapart and I don't

remember he would have been Napoleon III so he was grandson or something some relation doesn't matter the history is not that important to me at the moment I knew it at one point I stopped looking at it I forgot here we are but in that KL Marx is very clear that he says that the weight he says that he says men make their their own history but they do not make it as they please and I'm kind of paraphrasing from memory because I don't I haven't memorized this particular set of passages and he says that

the uh the weight of the existing world weighs like a nightmare on the minds of the living in other words your historical conditions trap you into a mindset into a way of being right so that's being burdened by what has been literally and that the idea is that he says a few paragraphs down he talks about how all the Revolutionary movements in the past so men make their own history through Revolution and and governance but primarily Revolution uh moving history in in lurches throughout time and he says the Revolutions of the past have looked to

the past but the Revolutions of the 19th century meaning the Socialist and communist revolutions that he was trying to spark actually do not look to the past they don't romanticize the past by the way that what the fascist movements did later in the 1920s 1930s they don't romanticize the past they romanticize the future he says they do not take their inspiration from the past but from a future that can be he doesn't actually say that can be he says from the future and so here you have the ability to Envision something that can be unburdened

by what has been and you can work to make that history come true so the Beating Heart of Marxism I think is almost perfectly expressed in a couple of paragraphs on the first couple of pages of the 18th broer of Louis bonapart by Carl Marx which he wrote in 1852 or 1853 I forget which one okay so that's uh the religion of Marxism and kamla Harris has it dumbed down for us as you might expect that we are able to see what can be unburdened by what has been you find the same sentiment stretching Across

The Communist Manifesto It's a little harder to find uh those of you looking if you want to go look the first paragraph of the Communist Manifesto which we're about to talk about then the last paragraph of the full actual body of the Communist Manifesto which is not the last paragraph of the of the document because there's a bunch of appendices where Marx complains about people he doesn't like so there are three chapters if I remember right that are the bulk or the body of the Communist Manifesto and if you read the first paragraph of chapter

1 and the last paragraph of what I think is chapter 3 the last paragraph of the body of the Communist Manifesto then you will find the same sentiment expressed across the entire Manifesto uh but again not exactly he Marx never said it the way the comma says it don't believe the memes on the internet that's silly so what is this communist religion about well let's talk about the Communist Manifesto how does communism work what is communism in the words of its creators The Communist Manifesto for historical p uh purposes was published in 1848 and we

don't have to remember the dates here but I'm just kind of giving you timeline 18th premier of L Louis bonapart early 1850s Communist Manifesto 1848 and so the very first paragraph of the first chapter there's a preface that's um you know quite famous about there's a spectre haunting Europe or something like Spectre a communism's haunting Europe or something like this we skip that and we go to the first chapter which is bis and proletarians or bisan proletarians where he's defining the terms and his case is that what's going on this is the commun belief system

is that all of history first of all is made by men but is the history of class conflict so in every historical epic there are classes and the classes war with one another they are in intrinsic antagonistic conflict over social standing and access to resources and he says that that can be summarized in a variety it takes a variety of forms that can be summarized in a single word which is three words oppressor versus oppressed and that is the key structure of the Communist manifestor the key key concept oppressor versus oppressed history moves through the

intrinsic conflict of an oppressor class and an oppressed class that are working together whether they know it or not to generate history in a dynamic called oppression now Karl Marx does not fully believe that that's the only state of mankind or the state of of of man's experience in life um he he has his whole concept what he calls the Scientific Socialism visen sha leer socialism as best I can do the German which you can correct me I don't care uh His science of history in other words the movement of History has a beginning State

and an end state that are outside of history history is the history of class conflict and it begins with slavery when one group decides to oppress another in slavery now you have history being made you and not just being made but moving and not just moving but moving by men's hands and not just moving by men's hands but moving by men's hands through the act of creating a dynamic of Oppression and thus class conflict before history there was a state he called primitive communism where you have tribes and tribes are extended families and the extended

family tribes do not have a sense of private property private property is the bug Bearer in this story okay it's what makes men see themselves as estranged from one another and what comes down to what it all comes down to is the idea of the private of private property what makes private property private is what's called in law the fundamental right to exclude in other words notice that by the way their thing that they're that they push in answer to everything is inclusion right the fundamental right to exclude which means if this is my knife

I can prevent you from having it I can exclude you from taking it from owning it from holding it from using it at my discretion I have the fundamental right to exclude your use or holding or taking or ownership of the knife because it's mine and that is the fundamental uh fall of Man actually in the religion of Marxism before that he says in primitive communism there's no such concept everything is owned communally within the entire tribe the problem is that in this kind of state of nature men are in tribes yes they are communes

yes they share which I don't even think is fully accurate by the way he's romanticized the past here but uh they they have no sense of private property they do not have ownerships but the problem is is there there's one here and there's one there and there's one over there and they are estranged from one another and in fact when they meet each other there's often conflict uh over territory or whatever else and so the idea is that sooner or later some of these tribes start to enslave one another and they can do far more

by creating slaves than they could do just as their own communal pod of maybe you know anywhere between a few dozen up to maybe few hundred um that share everything and so before history we live in this kind of primitive tribal but communist state and then way on the other end after history the goal is to return to a stateless classless society that is now global communism which means if you've heard me talk about the logic of the Spiral in the past that you start at communism and you go through a variety of other states

imagine you're walking though in a circle because you're going to come back to communism start with tribal communism ending Global communism so it's like you walk in a circle that ends back in the same place except not it's like climbing a spiral staircase because you end back in communism but elevated to a by one or more levels it could be National communism is one level and Global communism is a second but you've elevated to a higher level it's no longer that you have Tribal communism in small isolated tribes you now have Global communism same concept

higher level understanding that is core to their theory of transformation is that you're always trying to get back to the undifferentiated original at a higher level of comprehension understanding and practice that's fundamental to this religion and its practice but let's go back to the theory of History first you start out with tribes that are aranged from one another and then they figure out that they can enslave when when they meet each other they don't just fight over territory they actually conquer the other tribe take their their territory take their resources and put the defeated tribe

to work for them and gather other defeated peoples and have them make babies and create an army or of of laborers who do slave labor to the benefit of the oppressing group and now you have for Karl Marx the beginning of History because history is defined by the movement of class antagonism before that you don't have classes you just have a bunch of estranged Communists after that you have classes so this this is like we're walking around that spiral staircase and we're no longer at communism we're walking away from communism we're walking around we've introduced

the idea of property maybe it's not wholly private maybe it's um kind of more socialistic in fact maybe the ruling group owns everything and the exploited enslaved groups own nothing but then as you move through history eventually the slaves Revolt the contradictions of the uh of the conditions become too much they Revolt they're able to get a foothold they band together something happens they're able to band together and there's a revolution in economic structure and social structure that creates what he calls a feudal economy a feudal economy comes next this is where rather than having

the pure antagonism of slavery you now have this slightly symbiotic slavery through the Lord with his surf or the Guild Master with his journeyman or something like this so now you have some kind of a of a lord surf or master uh pleb relationship so the idea with the King being a kingdom being the kind of ultimate expression of that so the Lord is in charge of some land in other words he's a landlord and so he is now the oppressor class the king is the ultimate landlord of a nation and so he is the

oppressor class and everybody else are his vassals or his surfs or his subjects or his servants in one way or another and so the Lord's surfs do all of the farm work and they do all of the things and they make sure that the Lord has a nice life and in return the Lord organizes the people that are under him as well as concentrates economic utility to to provide for the common defense primarily and for some social order within that pod that uh lordship or whatever okay so then the feudal economy people start to realize

that this is a raw deal and the landlords in this sense are not completely a fair and that why the hell can't I strike out on my own especially if I have the capacity capacity to defend myself and make for myself and make for my own and I can trade freely with other people and I don't need a set of uh Elites in the in the royalty to determine how all that trade is going to be organized and we shift out from uh the feudal system and into a capitalist system now I'm saying shift but

just like the capture of all the slaves that initiat slavery and the slave revolt that initiates feudalism this is a violent process and in fact the violent process uh uh is is always revolutionary to carlmark so that each of these stages each of these steps around the circle is marked by revolutionary violence in which the lower class bands together violently ruptures with the higher class and then moves along the the spiral so capitalism no longer uses the Lord's surf or in kind of an indentured uh servitude model it now uses wage slavery the capitalists own

all of the means of production particularly the land and particularly the heavy Capital the factories for example they might own the banks uh and they certainly reiterate own the land um and they therefore extract work to build whatever they want out of workers who are paid in money usually an unsatisfactory amount of money for their labor and producing whatever it is that is supposed to be produced by that factory or that land holding or whatever it happens to be so that the capitalist can extract profit off of the backs of the exploited worker and they

call this wage slavery now here's where things go sideways in reality but we're going to continue on Marx's science of History Marx believed that the intrinsic um contradictions of capitalism would eventually cause another rupture and there's a funny way you can look at right now and say that this is what Marx was talking about but there's always the ability to resurrect that this is what Marx was talking about but Marx was not talking about this Marx was specifically talking about the buildup of Monopoly Capital to the point where it is so outrageous and so egregious

that the workers have no choice but to band together and Revolt internationally to overthrow the capitalist structure and seize the means of production through violent revolution and enter into a worker as government owned situation when the government owns everything that's called socialism and uh the workers would then be the legitimate government who would then own everything having expropriated the expropriators as Marx put it in other words his argument was that the capitalist the the big capitalist uh players expropriated people artisans in particular and small farmers from their small uh Enterprises under feudalism and conglomerated things

into massive factories and made them work as wage slaves in bad conditions and then now the workers turn on the capitalists and expropriate them in other words throw them out of power and he says that this is going to be a violent revolution and it's going to however be much faster and in some ways less brutal than the long protracted uh cruelty of the transition from feudalism to capitalism so the reason it's supposed I said it might look like today is because Monopoly capital is supposed to start to look eventually like a large multinational corporations

and then B with with very centralized ownership and and control I should say and B that in fact there's supposed to be a divorce of the commodity that's being produced from the capital entirely in other words the big financial markets go off and are doing their own thing completely divorced from what's actually happening within production and there's a Reon to believe that that's kind of happened but um here's how history went sideways before we come back to socialism and complete the loop uh history went sideways because what happened in truth was and this is a

little dipping into the historical context that we need um what happened in truth was that the workers actually wanted reforms they wanted reasonable working hours reasonably safe working conditions so that they're not risking life and limb reasonably good or decent pay to be able to do this work and they wanted um you know a reasonable working week you know the 40h hour week that we now enjoy versus you know 12-hour days or something like that six or seven days a week and they wanted to have a work life balance in other words they wanted labor

reforms and when they got them what history has proved and what the critical marxists later complained about is that they became conservative they they had stable happy lives that they were proud of and they didn't want a revolution anymore they wanted reforms just like we see today then we would also need reforms to our financial Market to avoid Financial cartels and and and and monopolies and we need ref uh Reformation to our um multinational corporate structure to prevent multinational uh monopolistic conglomerates um in a sense but those things had you could actually create a fair

a more fair economic system that would not look so much like the excesses of um capitalism now why is this Marx being wrong isn't Marx right no Marx is not right because markx called this capitalism and I mean I guess he's right about capitalism but capitalism is not uh a true articulation of a market economy which is actually what he's conflating as capitalism the belief that capital accumulation on its own is always uh a highest good which is a um strawman religion um that that marks is criticizing that produces as you hear Monopoly capitalism we

saw that at the end of the 19th century we see it again now and we see similar problems frankly in both situations that Mark's thought would lead to this rupture what it actually leads to is the demand for reforms now the Communists would come out and say hold on that is actually um just capitalism retrenching itself that's interest convergence it's keeping itself Alive by giving away a little bit of socialism but that's actually not what's going on people just want reforms and what they actually want is a relatively free market they want a market economy

in which they can participate now Marx calls this um he talks about it under his his theory of primitive accumulation and he says under capital accumulation this all goes away so there's Marxist theory to deal with all of this but it doesn't ma it's not right he's not correct in how he's talking about these things and he's been pretty thoroughly debunked about this even though the point that he raises in the short term is actually kind of correct yes there is primitive accumulation where you use your stuff to generate more stuff then there's capital accumulation

where you use capital and get other people to build your stuff for you but that's exactly how we build to the actual good life that's we actually need structures by which we are able to um build an economy that can produce things that genuinely raise the standard of living and this is a point that Marx actually understood himself because he had this entire inter internal battle about crude communism which was the hatred of private property uh and capitalism and then versus his own version of Communism which I call Transcendent communism which uh actually requires a

qualitative change in who you are to treat the entire world like it's your family and hence like the tribal families at the beginning to truly see yourself as a as a socialist as a species being a being that lives for the entire species so that you can live out as he put in the critique of the go to program um you can live out that uh from each according to his ability to each according to his needs which by the way is bad economic theory um so why is Marx wrong about that because what we

want is a market economy we want their AB the ability to be competitive we want corporations that can amass sufficient resources to be able to produce marveles like iPhones and the microphone and to produce them at uh with economies of scale and with technologies that make them affordable and access accessible to people we want that that's a good life that's a high standard of living we want that but we also want these corporations to remain competitive so there's this internal inherent tension I guess the marxists would call it a contradiction but that's a manageable and

necessary tension because what happens is in practice when corporations get big enough in terms of their market share it is no longer beneficial for them to do research and development and expensive things to innovate and move forward it is more expensive or more uh economical I should say less expensive for them per unit to try to box competitors out of the market and so that monopolization threshold is actually the question and below that if you keep if we if we find a way to manage corporations like antitrust laws were pretty successful a 100 years ago

something like that could work again keeping but we have to figure out how to apply them to to multinational conglomerates uh but keeping keeping competition on the table while enabling the production and of scale and thus the enrichment of the people taking the risk in managing these things as a reward for for shouldering that burden um is actually the the tension in which we want to work in order to try to create a productive economy uh that actually can can can benefit the most people uh the most successfully but Marx doesn't believe that markx believes

it will intrinsically always go there's no management system possible Capital will always go to this uh dis embodied form and this completely exploitative process and then the workers will band together and Revolt which it turns out they don't they want reforms and they usually are not very easy to organize as the cultural marxists uh were struggling with um so anyway the point all that said is that this is supposed to revolt into socialism where in Pro in practice what's supposed to happen is that the corporations become extremely large and very few in number they are

in fact already run as totalitarian socialist production models with the CEOs being the little dictators of each Corporation but there's only so many of them in fact there are probably very few at the latest stages of capitalism and what you do or what Mark says happens is through this uh organization and Revolt the workers seize the means of production keep the corporation more or less effectively intact but now it's distributed ownership across the entire uh Workforce which is is actually the entire workers movement so therefore the workers in this Mega Corp and the workers in

that Mega Corp are on the same team and they share ownership between them even in corporations that they don't work for so you end up with this communal ownership like I said or social ownership through the state where the state has erected itself uh in in place of the capitalist production model and Marx's Vision here is that you don't land in crude communism that way which is you can have a commun but it's kind of a mud hut situation where everybody's doing backbreaking work to get minimal reward because they're trying to avoid private property and

there's all these problems that come up and in this way you can take all the benefits that you get from a fully-fledged capitalist economy and you just socialize the the means of production and socialize the the fruits the problem is is of course that it doesn't work um but that's that's the vision and so that socialism because it's now run by awakened people who understand social production as opposed to private property is no longer in the words of Vladimir Lenin who ran uh the Soviet Union first who established and ran the Soviet Union for its

first I guess nine years Vladimir Lenin called this a semi-state uh it's a state in the and that it acts like a state which means that it oppresses its class enemies which would be the bwah people at this point the former upper class producing class it oppresses its class enemies because that's what the state is for in Marxist theory is to oppress your class enemy they they're very explicit about that but it's not because a state is full full-fledged full-blooded state is supposed to exist for the expressed and specific purpose of um of maintaining the

existing class structure but the Socialists have the correct class structure and they have no need to maintain it once the expropriators are truly expropriated in other words once the former ruling class once the capitalists the burgeois are thoroughly destroyed by their dictator government the dictatorship of the proletariat that it's called once it's thoroughly smashed and destroyed at that point there will be no more State because there's no more need for a state because there's no class enemy because everybody's in the same class everybody's socialist and everybody has the same idea about how Society is supposed

to work from each according to his ability to each according to his need and they can maintain their high level of production standards at which point the State as Marx put it Withers away of its own accord and when it Withers away what you're left with is a stateless classless society that operates at the same high level of production as under capitalism but with maximum Leisure Time maximum uh or I guess minimum requirement to work I was going to say maximum freedom from the requirement to work um and like I said no State nothing has

to govern it because everybody's on the same page and the reason it's supposed to work is because like I said before every body's a one big happy family and so like I said that whether you want to take it let's do it properly let's do it with Nations because that's how it's always going to be uh although the goal is global the idea would be that you start in primitive communism and you walk this path this circle in a nation imagine it's like a circular staircase and you go up one floor and at the top

of that floor you're now at a national uh you have communism in a single nation like Soviet Union or like uh the People's Republic of China or North Korea or Cuba and then the idea is that that's supposed to spread to other countries uh one by one you you use the existing Consolidated socialist state to leverage other states into socialism to uh spark revolutions there to take them into socialism and that's like walking them through another round up the stairs until you finally get Global communism so now you have uh you know whether it's one

turn of the screw or two it doesn't matter matter you start in communism you walk through the history of productive forces and you return to Communism at which point history ends and that's an extraordinarily important concept because that is an eschatological concept eschatology is a theory of the end of the world or uh end times in religions and so Marxism is an eschatological faith if you actually want a really good read on this Murray rothbard the famous paleo libertarian Aran wrote a very good long essay 50 some odd pages about how communism is an eschatological

religion and I recommend you go look it up it's not hard to find and read it uh it is sparkling in its Clarity that Marxism is an eschatological Faith communism is its heaven and its mechanism its practice its liturgy as a faith is the conflict theory of historical movement in other words that it is it seeks to obtain ultimate peace through generating and driving conflict between classes communism is its kingdom of God built on Earth it's heaven and again the way that that works is stateless classless from each according to his ability to each according

to his need um and it sees the difficulty in making this is a spiritual problem in people that has to be overcome uh it has this right idea right we're going to distribute stuff but people don't want to do that people aren't motivated to work for other people's benefit and at the especially when the work is bad or grueling not too much anyway they want something of their own and it's not adequate so what they see that is is a spiritual failing in the people that need to be overcome uh so what this should really

be described as though frankly and I think bluntly is that the Communists believe that we were through through the creation of private property there is no God right we ejected ourselves from Eden and our small tribes which we still at a very low level but we could get back into Eden at a very high level on our own terms by building it here for ourselves and in defiance of God we enter back into Eden which is called communism so let's turn our attention to Marx's economic philosophic manuscripts from 1844 um so this is four years

before the Communist Manifesto uh actually one more point about the Communist Manifesto uh the second chapter is actually about how it's all supposed to work and the point that he drills down is what is communism he says it the communism can be understood in a single sentence which isn't technically a sentence the way he wrote it unless my translation's bad and from the German it is abolish private property his it actually says abolition of private property which is not a sentence but abolish private propert property as a command is um and so the goal of

Marxism is to unmake the fall of Man to Return to Eden which is communism and you do that by abolishing the concept of private property I don't have to get into the details of how he's got some cockamamy scheme where you get rid of private property and you replace it by which has the fundamental right to exclude and you replace it with individual property which is the stuff that you're using it's effectively the same as private property except there's no fundamental right to exclude everybody's included all the time you can't exclude people from use of

your private property in this and so if somebody else decides they want to use your stuff you have no grounds upon which to say no CU it's not yours it is ours and always was ours and everybody's supposed to share like a big giant family or a B his actual comparison that he gives in the economic philosophic manuscript is like a marriage the way that a marriage transforms two people into one person communism is supposed to transform the population of the world into one person that uh in in the same way that a marriage is

two uh people made one flesh and that's the idea so in economic philosophic manuscripts that title by the way is three titles that not official titles he did Marx didn't name this this was given three names and so one of them is the economic philosophic manuscripts or EPM as it's often called uh that tells you what it's about and then it's the 1844 manuscripts that tells you when it was published four years before the Communist Manifesto and then it's also called the Paris manuscripts which tells you where it was written which is in Paris but

the point I'm only going to draw one point out of EPM out of the economic philosophic manuscript which is that Marx delineates between crude communism which is low-level and junkie it's a forest commune and everybody lives in a hole country versus what he calls Transcendent communism which clearly makes it a religion and so he specifically says that the goal of Communism is not crude communism it is not merely to hate private property it is not merely to seize the means of production or whatever else it is in fact he says when you do that these

people don't e these are people that do that are so lowlevel they don't even they don't even have anything to share amongst everybody so they don't even know what it means to be a communist and so he shuns uh crude communism but that means you have to take capitalists into the Socialist environment into the Communist environment from there and that he says requires you to transcend private property which is explicitly a religious concept he says that communism is the positive Transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement and thus a return of mankind to his true

social which is to say his true Human Nature so Mankind's true nature is as as being human means being a socialist and communism as a Transcendence of private property in other words leaving the private part behind like I just explained uh is and or turning around that spiral and elevating a level where you had private property and now you can't exclude people from it because it's shared ownership it's Commonwealth property that Transcendence that makes us all treat each other across the entire species as one happy family that shares everything that we have like a family

would that is how he defines communism properly and it is down to a true qualitative change in who you are Karl Marx is very clear that he talks about somebody who's truly awakened to their social nature in other words they've awakened at the nosis of being this is a gnostic Faith I've talked about that in the past I'm not going to belabor it here the nosis of being is that we're socialist our true being that we've been alienated from by the external power is socialist that's a gnostic sentence okay and that's the core sentence of

Marxism and when you awaken to who you really are as a socialist it's like having new organs new eyes new ears new sents new skin new everything new taste and he Compares it to being able to tell the difference between pleasant sounds and beautiful music when your ear is transformed because you learn to understand the higher culture of great music you hear the music differently and you hear everything differently and he says it's like that it's like Awakening to a true social nature and in fact you now have a human eye a human ear which

perceives your true human which is to say social nature and everything so you have a not just a new new set of organs by which you perceive the world you have or in other words a new world view you also have a new perception of the world itself that the the world World itself was meant for and made for humans to be made by humans for to be more fit for human use and when we say humans every time we mean humans as a collective across the universal experience of humanity and so the goal of

Marxism is in this Transcendent sense is to transcend the fall of Man as priv the introduction of private property and the fundamental right to exclude others from private property in other words to make slaves as they would phrase it in Marxism whatever kind you want to call it whether it's actual slaves whether it's um bonded servants or whether it's wage slaves as they phrase this the goal is to transcend all of the basis of that which is private property in order to return to our true human nature as socialists to realize who we really were

all along until private property came like an evil spirit and deluded us as like sin into a fallen competitive State trapped in the walls of History we don't get to get we're not in the Primitive Eden and we can't get to the Future Eden or to heaven we can't escape the material bondage of Our Lives until we all wake up and realize that we were actually socialists to begin with and have been estranged by that by the sirens call or the um the the demiurgic uh lure of private property and the ab ability to exclude

other people and thus by the way the ability to see one another as individuals individualism is at the bottom of Marx's problem with capitalism individualism is at the bottom of his problem with private property ownership the fundamental right to exclude means if this is mine and that is yours then there's a difference between you and me we are not part of the same program we each have our own interests we each have our own lives and we are living for ourselves and not for one another which of course grifters would exploit which is why we

can't live that way in part okay so the goal of Marxism then is to un as a religion is to undo the fall the fall is the introduction of the fundamental right to exclude or other words private property and the ability to see ourselves as individuals separate from one another and thus if we do that we are allowed to Return to Eden on our own terms and open Defiance of God which they conveniently deny in order to be able to do that so that's Marxism so what's the historical context I already gave you some hint

about this but the the the short version is it didn't work anywhere from 1848 when Marx published um Communist Manifesto through 1867 when he published the first volume of capital through frankly 1917 when Lenin led the Revolution in Russia uh communism didn't take off anywhere Marx had a an an Evangelistic model for communism his model was go among the workers and what were you supposed to do when you went among the workers agitate you were supposed to convince the workers of their class Consciousness you were supposed to agitate them to believe that they were being

exploited and that if they were to band together as a single unit they could overthrow their bosses and take control and share ownership of everything um you know no way that some weird communist grifter is going to rise to the top of that pile and actually take control no way that would happen duh but uh that was the idea go among the workers and agitate them about their conditions so he go in around in SED discontent why would he do that by the way well a because it works it's divide and conquer but B most

importantly if you want a revolution you better get some angry revolutionaries destabilized revolutionaries but uh B he would do that not just because it's a conflict driven theory of History like we already said of class antagonism but uh because the model is actually based on suffering that what brings you to your social Consciousness is actually suffering and the reason Marx is so antagonistic to religions that aren't communism which is why he starts with the criticism of religion and he starts with atheism and he starts with religion is the opiate of the masses which he wrote

in 1843 uh even earlier than the the EPM because of that religion hides your soal your your suffering from you it makes your suffering bearable it allows you to forbear a difficult world even though it's difficult in other words if we look at it from the perspective of Genesis we've been cast out of the garden and in out of bliss and we have to suffer in the world and religion is what fills in so that we don't mind our suffering and don't overthrow the Masters who are making us suffer now Marx rejects the existence of

God as a materialist so we're not trying to overthrow God although he actually explicitly said that's exactly what he's trying to do uh TBH to be completely honest uh that's exactly what he's trying to do the goal now is to overthrow it's now a social program the the gods are the upper ruling classes of society and you're going to overthrow them to take over but you awaken to your consciousness of who you really are which is a socialist through suffering the exploitation of not living under socialism so the upper class cannot possibly gain the awareness

without Maybe lots of listening sessions as they call them today they cannot possibly gain the awareness of why there needs to be this fundamental Revolt now look at your Dei training by the way you now you understand what Dei training is in the Communist sense it is the goal is to agitate among the workers and then among the people who are in the upper class whether it's white people for race Marxism whether it's straight people for queer Marxism whatever you want it is to awaken in them a consciousness of their oppressor status why because when

the the only way you can awaken to an anti-racist Consciousness we truly anti-racist or queer Consciousness we're all truly queer but we've been alienated by a sense of normaly we've been alienated by racism from our anti-racist nature we've been alienated from socialism by our uh private property owning uh circumstances the only way you can get people to understand that is through inducing suffering as a result of that Dynamic and so he he needs suffering so why would you go among the workers and agitate them because maybe their lives are hard but they need to suffer

because of their lives being hard there is no forbearance there is no this is the way it is there is no let's like try to work for some reforms there is we need to understand our suffering and revolt against that which is causing it and the model for the Revolt is literally that uh if we again we look at Genesis it is to be a revolt against the god that threw us out of the garden uh and so when I say it's Return to Eden in man's own terms on uh on man's own terms in

defi open Defiance of God that's what I mean but since they're gnostics in this case social gnostics what they believe is that the god from Genesis is an illegitimate deity he is actually a prison Warden keeping man locked in and so what you're supposed to do is rise up like Satan or Lucifer and strike down this false god and establish yourself as who you really are which is your own God ruling over your own kingdom but that kingdom is worldly and therefore it's a collectivist kingdom of all people so anyway the point is Marx's model

didn't his evangelism model didn't work for this religion it did not spurn uh or spur I should say I've gotten in the habit of sitting around people who use that word wrongly too often it did not spur a movement of workers that could organize or especially self-organize and take over not you know even a region much less a nation much less the world uh workers of the World Unite wasn't going to get anywhere as it turned out and especially at the beginning of the 20th century as you started to have massive conflict in Europe breaking

out not that they're never not that that ever went away but as the SEC or the sorry the first world war the Great War loomed you had a major problem you had people diving into National identities whether they were workers or not and they were much more concerned about being German or Italian or Russian or British or American than they were about being workers uh or socialists they were much more concerned with other identities uh that were much more close to home and meaningful and so um two solutions to this problem arose through the time

of the Great War World War I one was Vladimir Lennon's solution in so-called Eastern Marxism which was the Vanguard model which is a Shepherd model Lenin believed that only the best theoreticians can actually lead the pears are too stupid to do it for themselves so only the best theoreticians can Shepherd people through they become a Vanguard of the Revolution and they're going to become a Vanguard government that will Shepherd people into communism they will force the people to go in and through what Marx called the inversion of prais or socialization people would be socialized by

that dictatorship under their power the Vanguard party becomes the Bolsheviks in Russia the vangor party becomes the Communist Party the ruling party and will then Force socialization into socialism for the entire population uh this Vanguard shepherding model is being recreated in the west now under the brand name of stakeholder capitalism which has created a ESG environmental social governance scoring uh Soviet actually a Soviet mechanism Soviet means ruling counsil or governing Council refer to the workers councils now we have expert councils but it's the same thing so Lenin's Vanguard model ironically one of the banks is

called Vanguard as a matter of fact that's running this scam uh is called stakeholder capitalism or stakeholder Soviet and I've talked about that in a different podcast but the idea is that some enlightened experts are going to have to Usher all the idiots through it because they won't self-organize and they don't understand it well enough and it's going to be the top theoreticians who understand the big picture of what we're doing and why in other words what the Communists want better than anybody else who's going to run it and that actually worked at taking over

the feudal society and I stress that feudal society not cap capitalist Society of uh zaris Russia and so Lenin was successful in implementing effectively a um gigantic world power crude communist state but he was even in his attempts to industrialize uh Stalin's further attempts to industrialize he was never able to as he would refer to it unleash the productive forces adequately to create a first world nation in fact they were considered second world Nations uh in the first second third world uh model of of classifying Nations and so Lenin's Vanguard model was one solution to

the fact that the workers wouldn't organize but in the west that didn't happen and part of it is because they didn't have the capacity to roll capitalists over the way that they were able to roll feudalists over Lenin was able through brutal methods that we are all aware of and mil military power that we can we can speculate upon but he was also able to go around and get huge peasant and worker support by promising bread and land you don't have bread you don't have land I can make sure you have both of course those

were lies everybody starved and everybody lost all their land of the state um and it turns out that that state ownership and common ownership are not the same thing and it was a catastrophe but you couldn't pull that on capitalist countries that Britain wasn't getting fooled into bread and land most people had bread and land we like we don't need you H certainly America wasn't going to fall for that Germany wasn't going to fall for that uh they had to end up being forced the Eastern block got forced into communism by Soviet power after the

Soviet Union was established uh through Lenin's ironically named anti-imperialism campaign that was meant to spread the Soviet Union to the entire Globe now the Western model therefore had to be different and that's where cultural Marxism comes in I know that I took a lot longer to introduce this I don't even want to look and see how much longer I intended like 25 minutes oh my God an hour uh welcome to James Lindsay um here we are so this is where the Western cultural model comes in and this is how we down the line we don't

get to stakeholder capitalism we get to woke okay but you'll notice that here we have stakeholder capitalism using woke so the Western model and the Eastern model have come back together the S and ESG the social and ESG environmental social governance the G is sovietism the E is obviously the climate change environmental stuff in Net Zero in absolute zero and DG growth but the S is social justice or woke and so cultural Marxism is going to get plugged back into this roughly a century later but what's happening here during the World War I period and

I'm saying period because I don't mean during strictly during the War I mean you know roughly the decade in which that war occurred um early 1910s to the mid middle 1920s let's go with that right that's where culture Cal Marxism really takes off this is narrowly speaking cultural Marxism is to be defined as Western Marxist thought from the 1910s to the 1930s that's the narrow definition this is the seeds of woke Okay and like I said we started with a historical note and a disclaimer but this is a real historical thing that really occurred however

much they want to try to cover it up by alleging it's an anti-semitic conspiracy theory the narrow understanding of cultural Marxism bearing the name cultural Marxism was Western Marxism as it was practiced overwhelmingly in Europe from the 1910s through the 1930s we can expand that to add in the critical Marxism of the Frankfurt School which is actually heavily derived directly from this same movement which extended roughly we'll say from the 1930s to the 1970s and we can go even more broadly to include woke Marxism which is still going on to present so there's a very

good reason why we can use the term cultural Marxism to describe everything from the beginnings of Western Marxism although that's the better term Western Marxism in the 1910s all the way through to the present day but narrowly speaking we're focusing on what was going on from the 1910s to the 1930s and I'm going to have to do an appendix on this to talk about briefly talk about the Fabian socialists which were happening in Britain starting in the 1880s uh so a little earlier it's another socialist movement it is explicitly not non-revolutionary so it is not

Marxist but we can't understand really how the cultural Marxist phenomenon has played out without understanding Fabian socialism which is named for the Fabian Society or the Fabian socialist society um which like I said was uh inaugurated in Britain in in London actually I think in 1884 um so anyway the target of cultural Marxism is the cultur producing institutions so the idea was that well we can't get the or workers to organize in these Western countries Italy Germany France Britain I guess the United States they won't organize they won't unify they're very interested in their National

identities every time we try we end up in fascism fascism keeps springing up when we take these socialist ideas and mix them with nationalist identity and actually anger and fear about Marxist provocation and we end up with fascism every time what the heck or we just end up with more capitalism or just end up with uh more um what am I looking for uh other identities rather than uh communist worker solidarity like nationalist identities or even regional identities or something like that and in particularly among these and I want to just say by the way

fascism in some sense is like what happens when you inject the Socialist mindset in this German idealist framework and in fact French romantic framework into kind of a hyper crony capitalist situation where the state and the corporations at least economically speaking get married to one another it has other aspects outside of the economic sphere that I'm not really going to go into uh in fact anti-marxism is one of them rampant nationalism is one of them usually it's ethn nationalism uh but there are other characteristics but economically speaking it is where you basically the state enables

the rise of an oligarchy of monopolies or an oligopoly is the fancy word for that and they are de facto State entities although they are owned by private interests who are allowed to become very rich off of them and you say well that sounds like China yes China has a new system called one country two systems I talked about it in a recent podcast called 21st century communism or communism 3.0 one or the other both actually uh communism 3.0 I think is the long one where I talk about the dunga ping model which has taken

the basic spirit Spirit of Communism as a theoretical political Theory and then it has incorporated the fascist model of corporate and state Union as a practical business model and that Fusion becomes uh the model for the future for 21st century communism or communism 3.0 what we're dealing with ESG reproduces that model in the west but we're getting outside of what we're here to talk about we're here to talk about Antonio gry right now an Italian Marxist who is extraordinarily frustrated extraordinarily frustrated that the workers parties of Italy would not band together in the 1910s and

when World War I broke out in 1914 that they threw caution to the wind and they became Italian more than anything and Italian fascism under Bonito musolini started to arise in fact in 1926 the Italian fascists threw Antonio grami into prison where he wrote to the vast majority of not that he wasn't prolific before but when he went to prison he was sent on the words of the fascist to stop his brain working for 20 years and he spent 11 years in prison dying in 1937 uh during which time he wrote over by hand in

secret hidden over 3,000 pages of communist history that was immediately smuggled to Moscow somehow when he died uh in 1937 in that prison but anyway Antonio gry has kind of a handful of ideas that kind of Define what cultural Marxism is about he's usually considered the father of cultural Marxism I did a podcast about him a long time ago it was very popular I think it's one of the most popular ones I ever did it was early in my days so I apologize for any uh early thought we'll call it inaccuracy I guess um but

the the biggest idea that that grami has is this concept of cultural hegemony his analysis is that Western culture is very good at producing in effect a force field a force field of cultural norms and values that works like it's just how it is like be normal that's how the queer theorist would see it so the queer queering means defying cultural hegemony as a as a matter of fact diversity means diverse to cultural hity so outside of cultural hity that's why you can be a Marxist or you could be like Angry indigenous Native American who's

claiming their original uh beliefs or you could be a Muslim or whatever you want that's going after that's why the left is in love with all of these things because they're all diverse to Western civilizational culture uh so cultural hegemony is uh the problem and grami says that cultural hegemony is preventing people it's it's producing a culture of capitalism that's preventing people from being willing to go socialist they're not willing to risk it all in a revolution they're not willing to dedicate themselves to this revolutionary idea he didn't he I mean he knew Lenin he

wrote with Lenin uh corresponded with Lenin uh but he didn't um he didn't agree with lenon about everything in particular he also warned lenon about Stalin and did not like Stalin one bit but at any rate uh grami said that cultural hegemony is in a capitalist country is what actually has to be I would say overcome but the right word is underc to to turn a phrase because the idea he came up with is actually cultural infiltration you go to the cult where is where does culture come from that's his question he says well institutions

produce and promote culture and he named five of them the five culture producing and promoting institutions were family religion education media and law with a special emphasis on education education was more important than the others in his his opinion family was the hardest um media and law are actually Downstream and religion in some sense is actually even Downstream from education so family becomes this kind of weird one that's difficult uh that you have to kind of get at from a different angle and then the others can be captured through education so education gets a very

special prominence uh but the idea was that what you're going to do is enter into these culture producing institutions and establish what he called a counter hegemony in other words you're going to bring Marxist understanding into these culture producing institutions so that they like a virus right so you go into the cell the cell is no longer producing new say liver cells it's now producing virus parts that are going to go out and the cell dies and those virus Parts go out assemble into viruses and infect more cells that was his idea it's literally the

model of a virus whereas you know Lenin had just taken over by force um in literally a military coup and so uh this idea of counter hegemony was that you would it later became called the Long March through the institutions uh is that you would go into the institutions and create a new cultural set of values in the culture producing institutions and let it emanate out to soften up the existing culture to a socialist turn and then a socialist revolution could follow that was his model and like I said the goal was to infiltrate the

institutions of family Rel religion education media and law and transform them from within to soften up for socialism his uh one of his more famous remarks that's frequently misquoted on the internet it adds a part gramshi didn't say the short part is true the rest is not grami there's a very famous uh meme that's gone around attributing this whole thing to grami I don't remember how it goes because it's not true but the true part says that socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity so I want to draw your attention to the fact

that he said it's a religion and B that it must overwhelm which would be in my use undermine or uh underc religion okay sorry yeah religion Christianity specifically as a western as a bullwark of Western values and a basis a foundation of Western values and the way that he saw that this was going to happen it's a very important concept for for our experience cultural Marxism is the seeds of woke that we're dealing with today is through what are called organic intellectuals so the idea was that where Lenin was using these highly trained theoreticians ideally

University trained theoreticians grami was like no they're not the idea ideal uh ideal Educators they're not the ideal intellectuals what we need is workers we need workers who have ding-ding suffered we need the people not that studied this stuff in the Ivory Tower we need people who have suffered in their H lived experience and so the concept of lived experience as a superior form of understanding and knowledge ultimately derives not in exact verbiage but in concept from grami and is Need for organic intellectuals so organic intellectuals were workers who were exposed to Marxist interpretations of

the concepts or of their experiences I should say to generate what we would Now call lived experience of their suffering in other words a Marxist phenomenology of of their circumstances as workers as exploited workers who would then become intellectuals and Educators to uh create this counter hegemony by going in among the culture producing institutions so they would organically be insinuated into the different institutions they were trying to infect but they would carry with them the fact that their their knowledge was Street knowledge mixed with book interpretation it wasn't book knowledge it was Street knowledge colored

through Marxist theory and for those of you who've paid attention to me for a long time and you know all about my PO Freddy stuff where he's talking about the process of conscientization and that everything has to be in a generative theme so on has to be relevant to the learner uh it has to connect to his real life concrete experience that's him channeling Gram's organic intellectual concept but now everybody under Fredy becomes an organic intellectual we'll come back to Pao Freddy later the second major uh cultural Marxist and I'm going to talk less about

cultural Marxism than you think given that this is the basics of cultural Marxism is a guy a Hungarian Marxist by the name of jurge lukach now jurge is uh spelled in a way you probably aren't familiar with if you are not used to Hungarian spelling which I'm certainly not but it is if you're looking him up g y RG y g y is pronounced a bit like a j and Hungarian apparently and if I'm wrong I don't care then lukach is spelled l kacs so you can look him up if you want to look him

up he's very famous for a book he published in 1923 probably his magnumopus but he wrote a lot and that book was called history and class Consciousness he had two major ideas worth touching upon in that book uh one is the concept of social reification which he develops primarily in the fourth chapter of the book and the the general idea of social reification is that that which we are socialized into is real uh we can make things real or things are made real in uh our lives through social processes and that in fact can be

used to create an illusion or it can be used to drive people toward the truth so if marxists try to socialize people into something they are socially reifying Marxist theory and if the capitalists are controlling things they are socially reifying capitalist ideas and making people believe that they're just fundamental aspects of reality so if you think think that competition is a natural mode of production uh uh and Improvement and Innovation and that scarcity leads to the need for Innovation and thus Innovation and that a profit motive enables people to benefit from taking the risk of

stepping out of what is into something that might actually be Innovative then you have had those ideas rified or made real you believe those are features of economic reality when in fact they are merely social con structs so the social construct on the critical theory side which is not the postmodern side comes down in this regard from George lukach he also has a concept uh that I think is much more important to pay attention to which is the educability of Consciousness in other words you learn class Consciousness in stages and those stages uh are kind

of in essence and I I do this better and worse sometimes so I don't know what's about to come out of my mouth first you have to indicate to people that they are part of a class they have to understand that they are workers or that they are uh people of color or whatever it happens to be that they have a class identity that's the first step so you're going to instead of just trying to go among the workers and agitate them and then tell them Marxist theory like Marx suggested now we're going to educate

them step by step into class hey look you're in a class in other words you have a group identity is step one and then secondly that class is oppressed you are under oppression you are are getting a bad Shake in life so now that's the agitation part remember uh I guess I didn't say it here but I have in the Lenin podcasts Lenin believed in what was he called agitation and propaganda agit prop and taking the agitation and propaganda or agit prop into every class in society and he differed from Marx by saying that Marx

only took it to the workers and know you have to take it to everybody and that's why Dei doesn't just train the underclasses so to speak it trains everybody and induces lots of upper class guilt through agitation and propaganda well here the the idea was that you were going to go in and teach these people that they are suffering as a result of being in an oppressed class hey look class is this sorry Society is stratified into classes there is an upper class of bet your betters and then there's you and they're cheating you they're

exploiting you that's where the agitation part comes in so we're not all the way to the agitation propaganda in all levels of society but we're going to teach people class Consciousness here is what George lukach is saying so you teach them that they're part of a class in other words they have a group identity and that's the most meaningful part about them and that group is in fact oppressed and that oppression is part of a dynamic is the third step and that Dynamic is dynamic of Oppression you cannot have oppression without an oppressor and you

cannot have an oppression without an oppressed so the two classes become oppressor and oppressed just like the first page of the Communist Manifesto and that's an intrinsic dynamic in fact it is a class antagonism that drives the movement of History hence this book being called history and class Consciousness and so you're going to awaken this sense in them and then you have to convince them that solidarity H is is necessary because in fact because of this dynamic because it's a dynamic they are players in the game the game the rules are not all made by

the ruling class as a matter a fact they are players in the game there's a Dy the history is moving through a dynamic of Oppression this is how you get to class Consciousness what it means to be who you are in your group class identity that there's a dynamic of History that's moving every and you whether you want it to be or not whether you like it or not are a participant in that but if you're a participant that means you're on the game board that means you can change something but because you're oppressed in

an in in a weakened position versus a ruling class the only thing that you can do in order to fight the rulers is to band together uh it's sort of like the logic of unions you have to Syndicate you have to band together in order to incorporate people power versus managerial power but in this case it's underclass versus overclass have to B the underclass has to band together to overthrow the relatively small number of exploiters at the top and then only then do you actually have successfully educated somebody into class Consciousness or they actually have

class Consciousness so you're part of a class that class is oppressed oppression is a part of a dynamic that means it's a part of the movement of history and you're a player on the board and you have an obligation to band together in solidarity to overthrow it and then you've awoken class Consciousness and the challenge in the end of chapter 3 where George lukach talks about this the challenge is that once you awaken that class Consciousness it doesn't tend to go away so the last battle to be fought think about how spiritual this sounds is

for the proletariat to destroy itself as a class is to overcome itself and to seize the means of production and stop thinking of itself as a class in the same moment that it does and that that rarely happens thus causing some of the uh dramatic um abuses that were already by 1923 being witnessed in Soviet regimes in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union so this is where all of a sudden this idea that we're going to awaken people into a Consciousness deliberately and in steps in other words how are these organic intellectuals taking the

institution of education and then infiltrating into the other institutions going to produce that counter hegemony not by going among the workers but by a structured educational program of teaching people to think in terms of corporate identity in an oppressor oppressed dynamic in other words Marxist religion and then to get them to believe that they are historical change makers in that Dynamic by their very nature or by the very nature in fact of the dynamic itself they are part of the production of history and thus they have to do this and so the educability of class

Consciousness and a model for graduating it in stages and putting it into say schools or into workplace training is outlined For the First Time by George lukach in 1923 and so he's really in a very operant sense the um the father of cultural Marxism in practice whereas Antonio gry is more kind of the father of cultural Marxism in theory uh and if you want to read the prison notebooks I encourage you I have an I don't even have the full version I have an Abridged version the full version was translated at Notre Dame in 1970

by a man with a funny last name Joseph Budaj jedge he has a famous son named secretary Peter Buddha jedge um who is the Secretary of Transportation now in case you wonder about Marxist infiltration into our into our uh government um red diaper baby Pete budded is 100% GE uh Joseph Bud's son who translated Antonio grami into English for the first time in Notre Dame in 1970 just fun fact uh grami if you want to read the prison notebooks I have an a bridge version it's like 700 pages and it's so tedious and rambling I

can't even imagine what the 3,000 page version is like now let me take a quick digression from that's that's cultural Marxism let me take a quick digression to a parallel model which I mentioned the Fabian Society in England so the Fabian Society is most famously known not as the Fabian Society although that's a very famous name it is more famously known by a name that is not often attached directly to the Fabian Society which is inok in Gs o and if you are literary enough you will recognize that that's the totalitarian government in 1984 by

George Orwell because George Orwell was pestered all the time by the fabians to join and he hated them and he wouldn't and so since the Fabian Society was invented in 1884 or founded in 1884 he decided to Imagine A Century of Fabian growth in power until they had the power of Stalin and wrote a book about that a warning book about that called 1984 uh isn't that interesting and called the bad guy organization inok which is an abbreviation uh spelled interestingly for English socialism inok the Fabian Society is the Arbiter of English socialism and so

you've heard of this concept it is the idea of 1984 uh is if they get power you can witness that in real time in its development because the Fabian Society uh has famous members like Kier starmer who is the current prime minister of the United Kingdom and who has taken this country in a blatantly communist Direction immediately so what you need to understand about Fabian Society is that they are communists but they are not marxists that's why they're kind of an aside here they're not Marxist because they are not revolutionary Communists they do not believe

that there should be an explicit outward violent revolution they believe that you should achieve your power through institutional infiltration over time and gradual changes in other words the boil the Frog model you turn up the temperature a little bit you turn up the temperature a little bit you turn up frog never knows it's boiling you go a little bit too far back off let everything calm down go a little bit too far back off heat up the world and remold it to the heart's desire that's actually their model it's actually on their famous stained glass

window they produced where they have heated the world to hot in a forge and they're beating it on an anvil with hammers to reshape it as they would um their Crest is I'm not kidding their coat of arms is a wolf in sheep's clothing which is above the Anvil into Earth on the window um they explicitly see themselves as wolves in sheep's clothing who will infiltrate institutions and their favorite game is to create a mock democracy Now Lenin who they did not really agree with on the revolution part but agreed with on virtually everything else

Lenin famously said that the best way to control the opposition is to be the opposition ourselves in other words that you'd have a controlled opposition through infiltration of the opposing factions and you make your own fake opposition right and so then it looks like you could very easily generate a sham democracy where there's a sham let's say red team and blue team that fight all the time but somehow they all agree on the policies that increase socialist tyranny sounds like your world that's the Fabian model right there the Fabian model uh of cult of in

institutional infiltration is to infiltrate both sides create a sham democracy and RAM their policy up the middle they fight where it doesn't matter and they agree where it advances Fabian interests doesn't that sound like rhinos indeed the Rhinos were probably heavily inspired by fabians and Fabian thought um the fabians also were responsible for creating the infiltration of uh Protestant religion Bap Baptist faith in particular in the United States called The Social Gospel uh that was generated by Walter renb in Hell's Kitchen New York City uh in 1905 I think plus or minus 2 years and

um Walter rashin um had spent the previous year and a half living with Sydney and beatric Webb of the Fabian Society Foundation uh foundational members uh in the uh preceding year or so to writing the Social Gospel which you can go read the social gospel and you'll see that it's like a very early Protestant spin on what later became uh Liberation theology in the Catholic church as a uh likely KGB infiltration into that organization in South America so the fabians believed in infiltration they believed in infiltrating both sides creating a false uh dialectical fight between

the two sides that allows their agenda to go up the middle they established or helped establish I should say the labor party in UK uh and allegedly the liberal party in Canada they are definitely behind they established themselves the London School of Economics um which uh has among its graduates George Soros uh just to kind of paint a picture for you here of how influential they've been the aaban society has been incredibly influential it also sprang out of a weird religious cult called something like the fellowship for New Life um in the 1880s which was

an explicitly like hippie socialist theosophical occult group that had um remaking Humanity at a spiritual level to be a social whole as part of its goals um so anyway the Fabian syst soy is is not that far off from from its roots in that regard but anyway it's a parallel thing and I bring it up under cultural Marxism because it also had the ambition although it wasn't looking for a socialist Revolution at any point it wanted wants to do institutional soft coups think of it like um uh a cobra being Marxism and it's going to

strike you with its fangs and poison you and you die and then it it it can eat you and take take over versus uh the Fabian Society is operates more like a boa constrictor it's wrap slowly around you and squeeze the life out of you when you are now it's too late to do anything and then you're dead and it can eat you uh same general idea but there's no violent revolution their goal is to get members into governments in all factions members into media in all factions and so on and so forth so they

are like unto the um to the cultural marxists but operating with a slightly different Theory Now we move on to unit three critical Marxism Or the critical theory as you're more likely to have heard it called and obviously critical race theory if you just don't specify race you end up with critical theory so it's uh it's amazing how hard it was to convince people of that 5 years ago that in fact was a heavy point of denial but critical Marxism is a Divergence from cultural Marxism so a little historical context uh it it really critical

marxis is the concept that comes out of the Frankfurt School uh which was originally called The Institute for Marxism at uh Gerta University in Frankfurt Germany uh it realized that that name Institute for Marxism was a little bit too on the nose and rapidly changed its name in the early 1920s to The Institute for social research at Gerta University in Frankfurt Germany and so that's why it's called the Frankfurt School is because it was at a university in Frankfurt um and it was a school of Marxism hiding itself as a school of social research uh

the historical context was that cultural Marxism generally had some right ideas these guys that founded it including Carl grinberg um Alex Veil if I got that right I might have Felix V I always get this mixed up Felix V I think uh Walter benine and a handful of others they were deliberately and directly working with uh grami and with lukach and sometimes with lenon and formulating ideas in the 1910s and even going into the 1920s although Lenin was a little disposed in Russia after 1917 and can only correspond I Believe by letter uh and their

their uh goal was to incorporate into this cultural Marxist movement in the west the sociology and psychology Fields particularly the sociology of Max vber uh that's web R if you're not speaking German and the psychology of Sigman Freud who is of course very famous the target of the critical Marxist school is culture itself meaning the culture of capitalism it's no longer going after the culture producing institutions specifically it's going after the culture of capitalism although it did become very interested in something called the culture industry later in fact the idea was that capitalism through entities

like Marketing in particular uh actually has an industry of producing culture packaging up and commodifying culture and then selling it to people so when you're interested in having the real thing Coca-Cola which is a brand you have been packaged up a commodity that's not just a soft drink and a unique bottle that was designed but an entire brand image and a lifestyle that's sold with it through the marketing and so a culture around people who drink Coca-Cola has been produced manufactured commodified and sold to you and you bought into it and in fact the culture

of capitalism that is being promoted by the culture industry you could extend that to All Brands and the F the the the phenomenon of brands in and of itself uh the culture of capitalism is designed to flatten you out as human beings it is to make you believe that the good life is going to work getting a getting a good job going to work every every day earning a reasonable living wage something that you can have a modest maybe lower or upper lower class or lower middle class or even middle class particularly middle class lifestyle

maybe even upper middle class lifestyle you can possibly get into that and you can buy yourself nice stuff and Define yourself in terms of the cultural icons that have been packaged and sold to you so that you're a part of that system so maybe your dream becomes that you want to own a Corvette so you buy into the Chevrolet branding the image of Corvette and you get into Corvette culture and you buy you work hard go to work every day rather than going and being a protester you go to work every day you suck it

up you work for the man you make your money you earn enough you finally buy your Corvette you think you're happy because you got what you want you wash it on Saturdays you Cruise town with it gas is cheap everybody's happy you're having a great time and you my dear fool according to the critical marxists have been tricked you have been seduced by a culture of capitalism that has you working as an unpaid employee for Chevrolet driving around with their brand icon blah blah blah blah blah you get the idea so their goal was to

Target the culture of capitalism and the culture industry but remember how marxists work marxists seize the means of production Carl Marx wanted to seize the factories and the farms and that's what Lenin literally did and that's what Ma literally did using Marx Marxism leninism in the 20th century the critical or sorry the cultural Marxist wanted to to seize the means of cultural production through the culture producing institutions so they wanted to seize family education religion media and law and use those to produce new sets of socialist cultures well the critical marxists take a new turn

into this they come up with the idea that there's a culture producing industry so they're going to capture the culture producing industry now if you have ever heard uh my friend Jennifer SE who runs X X XY Athletics which is a Cool brand if you're paying attention to the to the gender ideology issue that you can check out uh Jenifer was a big corporate brand manager she understands branding she understands the power of branding and she is very clear when she gives her public talks that the left has completely understood and controls the idea of

branding and they sell a leftist lifestyle through corporate branding and that works really well in the ESG model which requires them to Market in particular ways like rainbow FL flags all over your your Corvette or whatever right and we all make fun of that because it's rainbow flags for every car manufacturer in the world except for their Middle East divisions whenever they put them on social media during Pride right so she understands the power of branding and says that they understood the power of branding and that's them seizing the means of the culture producing Industries

they also become very interested in seizing the means of production of Television movie radio news media and so on magazines print media comic books are you starting to catch on if they can figure out how culture is packaged up and sold and can seize the means of culture production then they can produce a new culture that was the primary goal underlying the Frankfurt School in practice while in theory it was to take the ideas of the cultural Marxist turn in Western Marxism and to combine it with uh the sociology of Max vber for example and

the psychology of Sigman Freud for example although Eric frm was a member of the was a psychologist who was a member of the Frankfurt School they were very interested in you know the ideas of Adler they were interested in the ideas of uh Skinner with operant conditioning they were they were willing to appropriate whatever they had to appropriate um Theodore adorno a member of the the Frankfurt School was the author of The authoritarian personality where he identified right- winess and authoritarianism as uh correlated traits and in fact part of what defines being authoritarian is being

right-wing and vice versa uh which is a massive psychological piece of propaganda uh but that's also part of of the culture industry right because culture is also Downstream from education so if they could could seize the educational models and the material that gets taught in schools and they're also seizing that now I say all that and they were not horribly successful they were actually very unsuccessful because what they did in practice frankly was all the time and they didn't really produce a whole lot of value they did get especially by the 1960s a fairly massive

following in particular Herbert maruza who we're going to spend a bit of time with in a second but let me start by just mentioning that the institute for social research for the Frankfurt School of critical Marxism as we're going to call it was founded by Carl grinberg in Frankfurt Germany in 1923 I'm not going to pay any attention to Carl grenberg or his ideas at all right now I'm going to mention briefly just because of its um slight UNC comt ability but importance to mention that one of the early members who is probably most uh

influential very early on was volter Benjamin which you would spell as an English-speaking person Walter Benjamin but it's not pronounced that way and uh Benjamin was in fact not as interested in mixing in just sociology and psychology but also uh his strange take on Jewish mysticism into Marxist theory so that uh I I stress the word mysticism here and not the word Jewish which is not going to go well with the gripers or whoever else in the woke right don't like that but the fact is that that's what it was it's these cockamamy and crackpot

views on cabala and so on that were popular among mystical circles and esoteric circles that he was trying to mix in in symbolic form into Marxist theory should also add that the Frankfurt School was actually trying to reincorporate more heel back into Marxist theory the and part of their belief was that they had gone that that Marx had gone too far away and his his anger and critiques of Hegel he'd gone too far away from Hegel and they try to pull it back to a little bit more of that idealism which is very important because

my belief is that woke actually is a sublation of materialist Marxism and idealist uh hegelian or it's it's like a idealist materialist mixed form of Marxism uh but I digress the first character I want to talk about with critical theory or critical Marxism is the developer of critical theory in a long essay about 80 pages and I'm not sure if it says anything at all of worth any at all to be honest with you I just reread it a little while ago a couple months ago and I'm like what the hell is this about um

it's called traditional and critical theory the the author of that was Max horkheimer and he wrote that in uh 1937 and if I'm not mistaken he was the acting director of the Frankfurt School at the time now there's been an upheaval here that's very important historically to to to mention which is in 1933 The Institute for social research as the anti an Semitic conspiracy theory about cultural Marxism alleges uh these guys were all of Jewish ethnicity Hitler didn't care about whether you were a practicing Jew he cared about your ethnicity because he was seeing it

as a race and so these dudes were not safe in Frankfurt following uh 1933 when Hitler took the chancellory and so um they fled and they first went to Geneva and then with the help of the Frankfurt School and Rockefeller money came to the United States uh and in particular they hold up in Elite universities first at Columbia University which welcomed them warmly and then later uh they spread out to places like brandise and Harvard and uh not as much Harvard brandise was was big for marusa uh the UCLA UCSD um arguably some influence at

Berkeley and Davis uh but certainly UCSD UCLA uh Colombia and Colombia being first and then um brandise University took these guys on So Max horkheimer by 1937 is in the United States now he later went back to Germany after the after World War II ended but Herbert maruza did not Herbert maruza stayed in the United States and the rest of the members I'm not really going to talk I'm not going to get into adorno and his hatred of jazzz and every other thing um so at any rate we have horkheimer develops the critical theory the

idea he said of the development of the critical theory is is the most important thing to realize about it this is why all they did was and they wer minimally effective because the definition of critical theory is always I mean not exactly here's what he said and I'm not quoting exactly this is a not quote exactly podcast what he said was that what he realized as a couple of things first for his development of the critical theory first he realized Marx was wrong markx believed that capitalism would em miserate the worker but in fact it

does not em miserate the worker it allows the worker to build better life that is a direct quote from an interview he gave in 1969 that I happen to have memorized uh he then went on to say in devising in in staring at this problem and devising the critical theory what he realized was that it's not possible to Envision an ideal Society on the terms of our present existing Society you can't even talk about what the Marxist uh socialist State should look like is what he's saying we don't have it's not even that we don't

have a vocabulary it's fundamentally impossible to talk about it in the existing terms it's beyond vocabulary there's no symbols there's no art there's nothing you could do to convey the ideal liberated world he says however what we can do is complain about those aspects or criticize those aspects of the existing society that we wish to change and that's the crucial thing so it literally is the invocation of Marx's belief that what it boils the method boils down to the ruthless criticism of all that exists which marks derived by by the way from uh Gera same

Gera University you'd pronounce it if you are uh not into the German goth g o e t h e uh G University sorry Gara wrote the play faou and in F uh the character F makes a deal with the Devil the devil's voice is named mephistophiles and he appears and mephistophiles at one point in the play says that all that exists deserves to perish and Marx would run around quoting that and and the ruthless criticism of all that exists because all that exists deserves to perish so that was literally a satanic idea and Marx knew

it and he Incorporated it at the center of his theology that we call Marxism or communism today Max horkheimer channels that same Vibe and says well it's simply impossible to Envision a better world to talk about a better world to draw a better world to describe a better world to imagine even a better world but we can ruthlessly criticize all that exists in the existing world that we wish to change now of course I've riffed with his language he said it is possible to criticize that in the existing world that we wish to change or

something very close to that so the critical theory is a theory of constant critique of everything that marxists disagree with and want to change which is by the way everything at a very minimum everything that's not giving them 120% of their way all the time so that that's where critical theory comes from that's the point of critical theory and it is meant to be a complete second dimension of thought that you have to wake up to that you have to understand and is not a traditional theory traditional theories are designed to understand and describe the

world around you critical theories are designed to comprehend to change the world around you they are a theory of change uh critical theory is a theory of change as a matter of fact and it's changed through criticism in theological terms this is an epiha I think I say that right uh apophatic maybe theology it is a negative theology you're going to bring about in at least for marusa when we get to him you're going to bring about the Utopia by carving away every bit of the existing Society that's problematic and when you get away with

get all the problematics everything people don't like away when you get rid of all of the things Marxist might critique which PS was everything that exists remember when you've critiqued everything that exists satisfactorily what is left will blossom into the ideal Society AKA socialism actually existing liberated socialism not the that they had because the mar the critical theorists understood this not the that they had running in Soviet Union they were very fond of what Ma was running in China maybe partly in ignorance and maybe partly not so that was Max T crier and his contribution

is the development of the critical theory in 1937 and the goal was to criticize everything that exists he wrote another book famously I'm not going to talk about it in length uh in the mid-40s 44 and 47 two editions came out he wrote that with Theodor adorno and that book was called the dialectic of Enlightenment and basically his contention is that reason becomes unreason over time it becomes its opposite and so that uh a new rationality has to be born out of the dialectical conflict of rationality and irrationality that science and rationality become their own

mythy IES I think they have recognized this since and weaponized it uh against us um as a matter of fact but at any rate the dialectic of Enlightenment uh was that the enlightenment will be the enlightenment's own undoing and of course I mentioned that briefly only to point out that the woke right have adopted this thesis although in a different way a traditionalist pointed Direction although honestly while horkheimer and adorno wanted a socialist Utopia or socialist Vision a negative Utopia is what what referred to said it's not possible to cast an image of the Utopia

in the positive so we can assume he had a negative utopian Vision um that while they were looking forward like that that these woke right guys are doing the same thing they're looking forward although they're just channeling their Vision through a romanticization of the past if you read dialectic of Enlightenment it's hard to read because it's all about uh it's all written in terms of the Greek mythology um it's all written in terms of these kind of symbolic GRE Greek mythological characters and that brings us actually straight to Herbert marusa so Herbert marcusa um in

the 1950s so just after that wrote a book called AOS and Civilization now Herbert Marcus is by far the most um influential of the uh critical theorists or of the uh critical marxists or of the Frankfurt School guys I mean some people might give Jurgen hoppos some high influence he came after marusa but habas is doing something mostly irrelevant not toally irrelevant but mostly irrelevant because Marcus's track becomes uh dominant in practice and dominant in the universities and so critical theory becomes much less interesting as a pure academic Pursuit after maruza so in the 19

so maruza before I get into his details maru's big Vision was to he he reinvoke utopianism he very openly spoke of the Utopia uh the utopian possibility which is he said was been regarded as an impossibility now uh but in fact it is possible so he's actually invoking a utopian liberated State a socialism that is liberated from all of the problems of capitalism but is in fact also liberated from the Bure bureaucratic uh states that you see and the abuses that you see in Soviet Union and so his vision actually is very important because it

becomes the impetus to fuse somehow the spirit of socialism and the practice of capitalism which again if you remember what I said a little bit ago or if if you listen to my communism 3.0 podcast that's exactly what they did in China and that in in starting in the 1970s and ' 80s late '70s and 80s and that's exactly the model for the world under ESG today in the west but this utopian Vision that he had uh is a big deal because now we're back to this idea of entering Eden and in his book in

1955 Eros and civilization uh he actually says that the way back into the Garden of Eden is to take a second bite from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil uh and what he's actually referring to is that the purpose or the need to escape the capitalist repression is to free the libidos so I say that in the plural not the libido which we could say I think is grammatically correct but the libidos plural what are the libidos that I'm talking about well one of the libidos that you're going to

have to free is the sexual libido and so the whole sexual revolution in the 60s could honestly be tied I mean it's heavily rooted in feminism let's not be mistaken with which Herbert marusa worked by the way but is heavily theoretically pred by this 1955 book AOS and civilization you hear that in the title AOS right Aeros like erotic like the god Eros right and the whole thing is about how everything comes down to Aeros versus thos so in other words the erotic versus death right and so he says that the capitalist Society actually forces

us to um squash our libido and transform that productive energy or sexual libido and transform that productive energy into productive work like through the Protestant work ethic so you're supposed to suppress your sexuality and express your sexual energy by being productive in the world and he says well that's no way to live we're going to liberate sexuality from that but the other libidos are are just to do whatever you want it's kind of like a libido a desire a drive uh a will to work less be lazy be frivolous have fun to party but also

to dominate a libido dominandi uh that the left should have the power to be able to dominate uh and in fact I don't know that he says that explicitly but it's very clear that that's what followed from his philosophy and I've often said and Aeros and civilization is perhaps not the best of the books to indicate this in most ways but I've often said that Aeros and civil or sorry that Herbert marcusa is the the the creator of the world that we live in today or I say we live in Herbert marus world and we'll

talk about um repressive tolerance his essay from 65 here in a few minutes uh an essay on Liberation in onedimensional man and their relevance and also the counterrevolution Revolt those are the books I'm going to talk about in addition to Aeros and civilization and it's extremely important to realize that we live inside Herbert Marcus's logic because he was the most influential leftist in the 1960s in the west it's probable that car sorry that that that maong was more influential in the war in the world as a leftist or Stalin I guess Stalin died in 53

so he couldn't have been in the 60s um I don't know the Cru Jeffers followers were that influential Soviet Union was still a big deal in the 60s but Mau was clearly more influential as a leftist but in the west Herbert maruza is without equal um hundreds of thousands of of books sold in in in in the 60s um huge huge uh audiences when you would speak uh able to penetrate into um speaking to you know racial minority groups that basically should not normally have allowed a crusty old white German dude to speak to them

uh incredible rock star popularity hard to overstate considered the father of the new left and that new left is very important because that's why Jurgen habos is not that important to the story and what came out of maruza is because the new Left sort of takes over the picture as we go toward woke and away from strict critical theory but we're getting ahead of ourselves so in ' 64 he writes his most important book which sold 300,000 copies allegedly in the first year it's titled onedimensional man remember earlier when I said that the logic of

the culture of capitalism and the and the the culture industry flatten you out and I talked about Corvettes that's a big part of what this book is about there are a few things this book really talks about and that's one of them is that you become one-dimensional your entire life is actually defined in terms of your ability to participate in the capitalist machine machine and so you lose your ability to see outside of the capitalist logic entirely the capitalist we'll call it rationality because he uses that word in a different way a lot and we're

going to talk about that so that is the why the book is titled onedimensional man people are flattened down capitalists in in an advanced capitalist economy that's succeeding are flattened down and one of the things he complains about is in fact that just like Max horkheimer said also in the' 60s is that you know it's not true Advanced capitalism once you got worker reforms uh did not in fact IM miserate the worker it allowed him to build a good life he he says in fact that it's actually delivers the goods is actually a phrase that

he uses it delivers the goods and he says as a result um the working class becomes conservative the working class becomes stabilized those are words that he uses for counterrevolutionary and that's a problem but he talks more about that in essay and Liberation so we'll come back to that he also talks about how the fact he's like trying to figure out why did the Soviet Union go go sideways and he says in fact that there's a technological rationality and it turns out this is really important this is really really really important and in kind of

kind of present Clear and Present ways so there's a technological rationality to the technology itself so what KL Marx actually says in capital at one point is that the actual goal of Communism is to seize the means of production of capitalism at its Zenith at its Pinnacle so you're going to take over all the big capitalist factories all the heavy Capital all the Machinery all the things that produce a good life and then run it in a socialist manner that's the vision right well he says no that didn't work he claims that that's what the

the Soviets did it's not what the Soviets did by the way what the Soviets did was took over a peasant country and tried to rapidly copy Western technology to build steel mills and and aircraft and military weapons and and so on and Industrial Farms but he says that there's a technological rationality to the to the to the technology itself of capitalism and that that technological rationality continues with as you transition from capitalism into socialism thus condemning the socialism to import all of the negative externalities of capitalism uh whether that's environmental degradation whether that's uh exploitation

and abuse through Factory labor and so on and he says what's actually needed to complete the revolution properly is a new technological rationality or a totally new technology that's designed around the purposes of socialism and so I want to point out that that's where we are let me give you some examples so uh social media is obviously an example and the as Robert Malone calls it what does he call it surveillance capitalist model social media is only off the ground financially because they spy on us and they sell the data that they acquire there's like

basically no way that they could have made money with this when it was first getting started especially there was no way I mean maybe elon's going to crack the code I don't know but before that there was no way when Facebook busted out on the scene there was no way that they were going to be able to make a ton of money off of that but the intelligence communities knew that they could use it as as a spy tool and then uh as long as as as long as Zuckerberg was willing to sell the data

uh we were they were in business and they that gave a profitable model to Facebook and it gave the um intelligence networks exactly what they wanted but it also gave marketers Market is what they want and so on so all the people that buy data and go off and sell Futures uh including futures of you individual personal futures um being able to bet on you are all able to profit off of that so that's a new technological rationality that's actually geared toward socialism but nothing compared to what you see well let me just mention there's

a lot geared toward uh socialist models in Ed technology which is a lot driven by AI but nothing in this nothing nothing Compares not even close to the idea to the Technologies behind a social credit system and a central bank digital currency so those are new technologies that carry a rationality of socialism particularly social credit uh at some point I know I read part of it before at some point I might actually explore the document from the Chinese Communist Party about um the development of the social credit system and what its purpose was but they

are explicit that it is for the it is necessary for the building of socialism so it is a technological rationality used to condition people into and constrain people into a socialistic model and to op optimize optimalized that model around the people so we're talking about that I'm looking at this at present while I'm recording this this will be dated at some point I'm looking at the uh strike of the uh at the ports the long shoreman or whatever it is Strike that's going on and it's a big problem and one of the proferred solutions by

the uh left government and by the woke right including for example uh the neoreactionary character or dark Enlightenment character Curtis yarvin is that we should just develop the AI ports fire everybody give them a severance package and develop the AI ports like they have in China they have basically few to zero people working at them and it's all done by Ai and all done by Machine zero people employed and then we would have this new high-tech super Port system which isn't that convenient right just like they have in China well guess where that technology is

coming from ladies and gentlemen did you guess China you did you guess China that's right so guess what that's going to be spy technology that's going to be the Chinese having control over our um over our uh our ports and so that's another scary example here's another scary example all this green energy that we all know doesn't work instead of you know gas and and coal and nuclear uh which can be quite decoupled from carbon emissions instead of those we're having windmills like come on and um solar panels and all this other crap and we

all know it doesn't work and we all know that it's a disaster at this point well not everybody but people are catching on that it's not working right it's it's kind of a disaster even major like left leaning Publications are starting to publish that like maybe this is actually going to destroy our economy maybe Net Zero is it means economic disaster right well what is that that's a technology that basically requires a socialistic government in order to be able to work it it's not work but I have to get further into uh onedimensional man to

make sense of why that is a different kind of Technology with a different technological rationality but let me make it very clear in a very visceral way 16-year-olds when I was a teenager looked forward to being able to buy a car and go fill it up with like 75 cents a gallon gas and be able to go be free and independent individuals exploring the world and that's not possible with all of this uh scarcity energy scarcity how expensive everything is and with freaking electric cars and greater energy scarcity as a result of um this so-called

green energy push and mix it with electric cards it's a disaster you don't have any of that so that independent Spirit now we're like maybe we need trains maybe we need mass transit that's a socialist solution ladies and gentlemen so it's a technological rationality towards socialism but more importantly uh one of the things that Mark cruza talks about in onedimensional man are the failures of socialism and capitalism both and his very short version of his argument is primarily about capitalism in this book in essay and Liberation and he talks more about the failures of socialism

so we'll come back to that the failure of capitalism isn't that it's unable to produce in fact it's very good at producing it gives people a good life the problem is that it produces too much and what over production does is it produces what he says are false needs so you lose track of your true needs right do you really need this other Gadget do you really need this other little trinket do you really need this other little um you know creature Comfort or whatever it is no you don't but you think you need it

because you have false needs inculcated into you by both the culture industry selling you the idea that you need this stuff to have a better life and also because you become dependent on having access to all of this stuff quick reliable delivery 3 Day 2 Day One day delivery for example sometimes same day delivery we're getting kind of accustomed to that well that's a false need uh according to um Herbert maruza that's you don't need that to live you don't go and get it yourself or maybe you just don't need it right now or maybe

you don't need it at all and like his his whole argument is that capitalism generates false needs that become mistaken for True needs then it generates more false needs that become mistaken for True needs then it generates more false needs that become mistaken for True needs and so so that the whole thing is eventually going to tip over it's going to be unsustainable so all this sustainability Tech that we look at is socialist Technical rationality and he's actually talking about the need for technology and a technological rationality that leads toward sustainability and the identification of

true needs from false needs and then he explicitly puts a period on it by saying this totally means a reduction in the average standard of living we are supposed to live happily with less so I remind you that UNESCO has published I did a whole podcast series about the the strange death of the University if you recall and UNESCO began that document by talking about Herbert marusa and one-dimensional man so they know this logic and I point out that these are the same people through their sustainable development goals UNESCO the UN and UNESCO is United

Nations their sustainable development goals are the degrowth sustainability model that effectively maruza was calling for and they're trying to figure out how to put a bridal on capitalism in order to prevent capitalism from being unsustainable and that requires this new technological rationality that's his argument so in that regard we live in the logic of one-dimensional man the other piece of onedimensional man is well I told you you're onedimensional so you need a second dimension to your thought in order to be able to navigate the world correctly and he guesses as to what the second dimension

of thought is ding ding ding you're right critical theory critical theory is the way that you have to think about things so that you can learn to see how everything's problematic in other words you can wake up to something we might call a critical Consciousness as opposed to just a class Consciousness in a very similar way to what George lukach outlined about class Consciousness we won't elaborate so the next major work I want to talk about from maruza is called essay on Liberation the essay on Liberation was published in 196 9 so in a minute

when we go to repressive tolerance I'm going to go backwards in time to catch that but I want to talk about this because he actually talks about that same problem I said the the failures of socialism and capitalism are touched upon those are developed in essay and Liberation just to point out by the way the first chapter of essan Liberation is called a biological foundation for socialism and the object of that is to um Force the false needs out of people and to create a situation in which they need socialism to survive at the level

of their vital needs so they are biologically and psychologically transformed into socialists by necessity by leaning on them and creating a World experience that requires them to have uh socialism so you might think of things like I just mentioned a social credit system you might think of universal basic income uh and a social credit system tied to that or a data extraction method tied to that in order for you to be able to get the uh needs that your needs met to be able to earn a living you have to play ball uh and that

is going to in the second chapter that creates a biological foundation for socialism at the level of your vital needs and that is going to he says in the second chapter generate a new sensibility of life and I've identifi the new sensibility he's calling for as sustainability and inclusion he talks a lot about in that essay the uh un injustices around race sexuality uh sex with feminism and so on and but primarily race and racialism this being 1969 so it would have been on the tip of everybody's tongue let's be historically Fair here but also

the sustainability idea because he talks about so inclusion equals solidarity across all axises of op of Oppression so you see the seeds of intersectionality but sustainability comes from the failures of socialism and capitalism his view is and he's articulate about this that socialism has the right idea but cannot produce capitalism does produce but it produces wrongly it produces unsustainably it produces too much it produces in a way that's not inclusive it is exclusive to certain marginalized groups ghetto populations as he refers to them are unable to access the full fruits of the capitalist program so

um capitalism in order to to to be fixed and it should be fixed H it has the advantage that it's productive and socialism in the world as it exists is not so it's doing something right it's solved the question of productive forces but the problem with it is is that it produces wrongly and of course that it maintains private property and the way that it produces wrongly is that it produces unsustainably in the long run and it produces uh exclusively or without a full um actual equality Equity model as the as the Soviets would have

called it um so capitalism has to be bridled by sustainability and inclusion and socialism on the other hand has to figure out how to be productive it has to figure out how to unleash the productive forces in an accurate way and so this actually calls for a need for a dialectic between socialism and capitalism to see them as two roads rather than seeing them like marks Did in sequence of you know feudalism to capitalism to socialism to Communism as part of that six-stage progression of history and the science of History let's see it now as

feudalism to industrialization on the communism okay or socialism whatever you want to call it so you have this stage of industrialization and industrialization can take a socialist or capitalist track and that those two need to be dialectically synthesized so to speak they need to be mixed together in some effective way to spit out the road to Communism and that is what we see implemented a decade later in China by the end of the 1970s a decade later that's the model that gets built by dung shell ping working with David Rockefeller working with Henry Kissinger Rockefeller

and Kissinger would have been clearly aware of Herbert maru's ideas uh and that every reason to believe that they were solving the problem of production for China so that the West could allegedly profit off of that by opening up a fascist Market inside of a communist political structure and that's exactly what you would expect to see if you were to somehow have a socialist stage before the ideal IED communist stage uh in a model where you are now synthesizing socialism and capitalism as Pathways to industrialization one that can produce and one that is ideologically directionally

correct and so that's exactly what uh essay and Liberation is about biological foundation for socialism leading into a new sensibility of sustainability and inclusion the way that that works in practice is that through solidarity ESG uh social justice Environmental against climate change sustainable development goals and so on in the west you are going to degrow you're going to take capitalism back from the brink it's gone too far we're going to put a bridal on it and pull it back you're going to make sure that wealth is redistributed we're going to make sure that we have

everything going on with the social justice aspect and the climate change aspects and so on and we're going to pull it all the way back maybe we'll break it with a Public Health crisis first maybe we'll break it with everybody's out of work for a couple years and we're going to force them to get shots and all this crazy stuff to introduce new techn technological rationalities onto them and then we're going to kind of restart it in a new way you know we're going to build back better the whole program maruza didn't write about that

by the way just to be clear but you can see how that actually got implemented and so you're going to have this ESG model that's shrinking back the west and making it sustainable and inclusive and meanwhile you're going to have the unleashing of the productive forces in the Socialist Powerhouse of the world which is China by combining a fascist or literally national socialist economic model under the basic Spirit of Communism which is what dunsha Ping Theory literally is based on basic Spirit of Communism but people are allowed to operate for profit large businesses so so

long as the government owns the heavy capital and the land upon which they operate and the raw materials which is communism mixed with fascism we've called it communo fascism in the past we've called it uh lots of things communism 3.0 or 21st century communism or corporate communism are all or corporatist communism are all good words for it so that's the basic idea of San Liberation with one key piece left out so far which is where he talks about how advanced capitalism stabilizes the working class so what is his solution he says it makes them counterrevolutionary

conservative they're stabilized well stable people don't Revolt stability repels revolutions you need unstable people to revolt that's why you have to go psychologically break them into the biological foundation for socialism so what does he say you need if the working class is stabilized and not going to be the basis of Revolution simple easy if the working class isn't going to do it you need a new working class that's exactly what he says in fact those are his exact words there's a need for a new working class and uh the new working class he identifies is

located in the ghetto populations who are not fully benefiting from the fruits of a insufficiently inclusive capitalist system the ghetto populations are what he names them so that particularly refers to racial minorities but he also named sexual minorities and Outsiders and feminists and he says that the student body the student intelligencia are actually the organic intellectuals of this Pro program and they're to work together with the radicals that are also in organic or sorry that are also organic intellectuals so that the the the job of the student students the radicalizes is to bring leftist Theory

to the organic intellectuals inside the radical movements like the Black Panthers and uh feminism and so on and to make sure that their Theory aligns with liberationist socialist Theory okay so that is the big project there uh so we're going to get a new working class now not only does that set the stage for our intersectionality race Marxism queer Marxism feminist Marxism and so on that we've dealt with since the 1960s in the United States it also removes any loyalty that marxists had to workers and once you remove loyalty to workers you've now opened the

door to utilizing a power structure that marxists have locked themselves outselves out of through all of history up to this point corporate power and like I said like I just explained that's where you get the bio sorry that's where you get the dung ISM the ES G ESG environmental social governance and the sustainable development goals are Western dung ISM dung is by the way is how you kind of pronounce it it's D N if you want to look him up dung sha ping d n g x i a o p i NG dung shaing okay

so I've spelled it for you you can look him up so dung sha ping theory is the name or dung ISM or as we call it in Western World the Western dungus model is ESG and the sustainable development goals but with no loyalty remaining to workers because you have a new working class and those idiots are going to be shepherded through because they're not going to organized and they're actually counterrevolutionary now you can create a managerial Vanguard you can create an expert class Vanguard that's going to use corporate power use fascist power to drive us

through to create the biological foundation for socialism and the new sensibility throughout the population that would allow you to install the new technological rationality that will socialize people into the new socialist model of Liberation and give you the opportunity for your utopian Revolution that he sees just over the horizon thank you that's the model that's how it happened that's how it changed that's where Marxism un went underwent The crucial change of the 20th century uh and if you didn't know that you can't possibly understand what's going on now and you're you're lost when you're like

James it's not Marxism or whoever else it's not Marxism it uses corporations you don't know what the going on basically and it happened in 1969 so it's time to catch the up not to be rude but seriously it's it's it's time to get with the program you're not helping with you're trying to be smarter and saying it's not Marxism you're missing the literal entire picture and then like I said a decade later this got taken by the US state department and David Rockefeller to China and implemented as a test model in China in the People's

Republic of China through dun sha ping who saw the Strategic Advantage it would give him and that's how you get to the communism 3.0 go listen to that podcast okay we got two two Marcus's left to go to finish this uh unit repressive tolerance comes out in 1965 as a chapter in the book critique of pure tolerance Herbert maruzza writes and repressive tolerance effectively that there are three types of Tolerance that you can talk about in a society so what he's looking at let's let's back up before we talk about this what he's looking at

is classically liberal Societies in general but it could be any kind of society because it could be a fascist Society too okay so he's looking at or a traditional Society or a feudal society we're going to say classical liberal for the moment he's looking at the situation and he's looking at the concept of Tolerance what will a society tolerate look the fly in the soup of a classical liberal the hard the hard problem of Classical liberalism that's what we should really call it maybe I'll do a podcast about this someday the hard problem of Classical

liberalism which by the way it doesn't mean unsolvable or not woke right doomsday losers who've given up on the Constitution and Liberty because they don't know how to solve this we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas we're not whiners the hard problem of classical American liberalism is the Paradox of Tolerance John Stewart Mill was unable to resolve it he tried in his book on Liberty now he wasn't an American he was British but he was unable able to resolve it in on Liberty and punt it and said basically that in like the page

two so it's not like it's um not like it's uh you know buried in there and not that important that at some point you just have to use authority to kick people's asses if they aren't going to to to do the right thing Carl popper did a little bit better with it I'm not going to do the full discussion of everybody but Carl popper outlined a so-called Paradox of Tolerance in 1945 so 100 years after John Stewart Mill he outlines the Paradox of tolerance in a footnote one paragraph uh at in in his book uh

the open society and its enemies and um what he basically says is that there's a paradox to tolerance that if you are too tolerant of the intolerant eventually the tolerant will be destroyed by intolerance so you can't be tolerant of intolerance or eventually you'll be destroyed but if you are intolerant of intolerance you're intolerant so you're not tolerant so that's the Paradox there's no resolution to that and I'm calling the Paradox of Tolerance the hard problem of Classical liberalism if you are going to allow people Freedom if you are going to grant them their Liberty

and secure their Liberties uh and consider that the just use of government then you run into the Paradox of Tolerance which is that you are the hard problem of Classical liberalism which is the that you are going to run into intolerant factions trying to seize power without good ways to box them out of power and using Force becomes intolerant and somehow illegitimate and this is a hard problem to solve but I believe it can can be solved at least in practice it might be a moving solution um popper only gives it a paragraph's treatment and

his treatment is not very adequate as a result in his paragraph essentially says that when you have an intolerant movement that's now organizing and moving beyond the stage of mere words to take up weapons and make direct threats then it's time to exercise intolerance to box them out but people have noted and he was answering you know how did the Nazis happen writing in 1945 people have noted that you can whip up a huge problem that's basically unsolvable without ever getting to the violent rhetoric you don't ever have to get to the violent rhetoric to

get a big enough movement that it can now take control and then become violent after the fact that it's taken control so it's not an adequate solution I think that the key is solving this so here comes Herbert maruza in repressive tolerance in 1965 and he's not going to solve this problem he's going to hijack it and that's very important because we live in the logic of repressive tolerance I read this for the first time in 2019 my life was changed immediately I realized this is the world we live in and this is the monster

we're fighting and that's how I realized the problem we called woke which I thought was mostly postmodern was in fact Marxist and I had to get to the bottom of it so this is an extremely important essay and it's pure totalitarianism and what he's actually doing is staring down the Paradox of Tolerance and hijacking it for leftist ends so what he argues is that there are three possible Sol three possible organizational on the broad Strokes ways of thinking about tolerance he calls one Democratic tolerance he doesn't actually Define it but you get the idea that

it's generally what people will tolerate it's like a it's like a floating um window of Tolerance and then in addition to democratic tolerance there's this thing called repressive tolerance that gives the essay it's title and repressive tolerance is what repressive societies do they draw strict lines and say you can't be this way you can't be that way that's abnormal that's perverted that's weird that's inappropriate that's you know outside of the bounds of politeness or whatever so if you're up on your rouso this is starting to sound very rouso rebel against the social contract kind of

stuff everywhere uh man is Born Free and everywhere he's in Chains and the chains are actually the social uh expectations put on you well here it is uh repressive tolerance is not going to tolerate too much of being weirdos it's 1965 so if you want blue hair you're a weirdo that's not okay somebody's going to beat you up if you're going to be homosexual somebody might beat you up if you're going to be uh racial minority and agitating for rights somebody might beat you up you know that kind of thing that's a repressive Society repressive

Toler uh a repressive form of Tolerance they only tolerate that which they actually tolerate and everything else is going to be repressed and he says that that he most of the essay is about how rotten that is but his actual argument is that in practice and of course this is how marxists would do it because they mix things that aren't the same and treat them like they are the same in order to advance their opinion he says that in order to um to to understand what's going on is that in a Democratic Society that's actually

how it already Works Democratic tolerance what people will generally generally tolerate with you know uh without having just a wide open field of anything goes what people will generally tolerant is is automatically a repressive tolerance they repress anything they won't they won't accept right so he's taking the idea of like State repression by force to cultural repression by uh force and by in fact you know other cultural uh shunning and and shame and all of this stuff mix them together so he says repressive tolerance is obviously write out that's basically in fact he says it's

straight up fascism he he doesn't mince words on that it's fascism uh maybe not explicitly but on a way so he says you have basically then repressive tolerance in every society unless it adopts what he calls liberating tolerance which is a totally new way to look at tolerance and what it's the opposite of repressive tolerance you could Define repressive tolerance although he doesn't as um a very limited range of tolerance in fact by Nature that which tolerates the status quo and nothing outside of it liberating tolerance is meant to liberate you from the status quo

so liberating tolerance in his own words is defined as extending tolerance to movements from the left and withdrawing tolerance from movements from the right now because we've been doing podcasts on Lenin you recognize immediately that that's the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat under Lenin and under Marx and under mauo and the Democratic centralism that Lenin and mous set up it's the same program but now it's not done by the state it's allowed by the the state maybe it's even favored by the state but it's actually enabled at the cultural level if it's leftist

it has to be tolerated because it's in the name of Liberation and if it's against leftism in other words rtist it has to be stopped and that's not even a good definition for rightism he goes on to say in this essay in fact that the thought must never enter the mind of the potential reactionary therefore it requires not just censorship but also something he calls pre-censorship I think that that therefore explains all of this uh social media suppression and censorship but also um the way the algorithms will prevent you or lead you to see certain

information uh and what they call the attempts to suppress disinformation misinformation and Mal information uh the thought must never enter the reactionary mind so misinformation has to be dealt with and that logic is clear and present here and the technological rationality in order to control it is actually implemented upon us already and we feel it so that's the world that we actually live in he actually Advocates that says violence is always unethical but when has the changing of history or the movement of History ever been concerned with ethics in other words he justifies violence to

movements from the left and withdraws it movements from the right we've talked in other podcasts about how that was in maong in the cultural revolution that the uh Red Guard were given a direct order from the cultural revolution group and ma uh that nobody was allowed to um stop them or arrest them even the police if the red guards were beating a police officer to death they were not to be stopped and we had this two-tier policing well we see that now especially with um illegal immigrants and sometimes legal immigrants who have become uh problems

in Western countries uh I hear a lot from Britain about that right now a lot from Europe but we also see it here in the United States where people are getting off with very very leftists and uh illegal immigrants people that are basically favorable to democratic interests are getting off on crime uh and allowed to get away with it this is reproducing the the conditions of the cultural revolution and the logic of it comes in the west comes from repressive tolerance from Herbert maruza so it turns out in' 68 and 69 as a matter of

historical reference there was an attempted cultural revolution in the United States and it failed out through the West too May 1968 there was giant riots in Paris um and it failed and so in 19 72 Harbert maruso was pissed off and he wrote a book called counterrevolution and Revolt and in that book I'm not going to go into the details of it uh I'm only going to mention that he explicitly calls for what Rudy Doki called the Long March through the institutions by name invoking deki and naming the Long March to the institutions and he

says what that is is basically going back to grami like I said the seeds of all of this are there uh that what he says is going to happen is that everybody needs to go into the various professions and bring their ideology with them the idea is now we're going to take the effect the culture produce remember there the target of critical Marxism is the culture industry itself now he's saying that didn't work we have to also do the cultural infiltration model of cultural Marxism and he says in particular that the infiltration has to take

place he mentions computer programmers and he says you go in and you do the job you're a computer programmer but while you're there you're a Marxist so you're always spreading Marxist ideology so you're not like a radical wash out who's protesting on the street and refusing to go to work now you're going in and getting a job and being an agitator just like Lenin's idea of bringing agitation into all classes and the agit prop well now this is what you're going to do but you're also going to do your job you're going to put on

your suit you're going to dress like a republican so you can speak like a like a Anarchist as the saying sometimes goes but he says most importantly this has to happen by going into all levels of Education and so that's uh where you see the Long March of through the institutions no longer being in the streets but rather going into K through2 education colleges of education and universities overwhelmingly which obviously we all are familiar with at this point and I don't need to elaborate on and that was critical Marxism unit 3 I don't want to

drag this out forever but we do have to talk about woke Marxism or 2 and a half hours I thought I could do this in two boo so woke Marxism is the Marxism of today this has grown out of the critical Marxist turn in the 60s particularly the Marcus's turn as it infused through students maruza to students students to radical activists in groups like the Black Panthers feminists and so on and there's so there's been this revolving door in the whole buildup of woke Marxism back and forth between the activist world and between the academic

world and it's very important did it come from Academia yes did it come from activists yes were they in a revolving door yes were most of the activist phds well maybe not most of them but an awful lot of them most of them were educated or Highly Educated going back and forth and kind of a revolving door between Academia and academics that's why we called them scholar activists or activist Scholars I don't remember which way we phrased it um but both are right um back in cynical theories when I wrote that with Helen so the

target of woke Marxism is different woke means you woke up to something I'm having this argument right now trying to define the woke right woke means you woke woke up to something you woke up to a new consciousness of the world and that Consciousness is predicated on the idea that the the world is structured by systems of power that exclude people like you group identity the world is constructed by systems of Power by a ruling class to exclude people like you that's what you woke up to that's why woke right works by the way the

woke right realized the world has been constructed by systems of power to exclude people like them Christians white male so on and they've leaned into that identity victimhood even more than they've leaned into understanding the say the the theory of agitation that's driving them in the dialectical process that's pushing them to adopt that perspective but the goal of woke Marxism the target I should say is to transform individual Consciousness it's not just to awaken class Consciousness or even a critical Consciousness it's now every individual is going to have their class their Consciousness woke up to

understand that they are part of some Ser set of groups or some group if you're in a set of groups you're in a group too you're in some group that the system has been rigged to to to be unfair to or that is the group that is unfairly benefiting from that Arrangement so everybody's going to be seen in terms of group identity but you are going to have a personal Awakening now it's not just taking on class Consciousness and solidarity you're going to have a personal Awakening in other words you're going to be born again

or as Paulo Fredy put it born again on the side of the oppressed dead you die to your old identity and are reborn on the side of the oppressed and this actually derives particularly from maong and uh his push through uh cultural transformation through the late 1950s and then through the cultural revolution in the 1960s and 1970s it was heavily derived from ma who was looking for a ideological remolding a thought reform a brain brainwashing a personal transformation remember when I said earlier with the transcendental or Transcendent Marxism of KL Marx and economic philosophic manuscript

that there had to be a qualitative change of who you are well that's actually what the biological foundation for socialism and new sensibility of Herbert marusa was is that you had to be a qualitative change of who you were that's why the Socialist societies failed to transform with their captured technological rationality is they didn't have a qualitative change according to Herbert maruza woke marks is designed to create that qualitative change in the individual it is a born again Revival religion of Marxism it's born again marxists that's what woke Marxism is its primary feature that we

would recognize as intersectionality which derives directly from Herbert maruza through people like Angela Davis Angela Davis was a radical black activist who is his PhD student she said she was radicalized twice once under Mar and once in Palestine so there's that connection for you and um she inspired a a range of black feminist activist including the members of the kah river Collective who penned the first idea that race sex class sexuality and so on they were they were black feminist lesbians socialist marxists or something uh who they they said that race sex class all of

these things are interwoven interl they did not use the word intersectional that term comes from Kimberly kensaw and Patricia Hill Collins Kimberly kensaw named it in 1989 I believe um her famous more more famous paper 1991 so that gives you some timeline the KEH River Collective was in the mid1 1970s I think they made their Manifesto in 77 I'm I did a podcast about it where all the details are right I'm just doing this from memory um so 77 to ' 89 it kind of fed in academic and activist circles krenshaw codifies it in '89

strength is it in 91 Patricia Hill Collins's first book which is called black feminist thought that touches on this issue is a 90 and then she had another book I think 93 that was called intersectionality and again this is on the edges of my recollection so fact check me I might be wrong I apologize but what they developed was an American maoism they imported mau's identity politics using American Civil Rights identity categories that's literally what they built maruza ghetto populations became the basis for a maist identity politics now I've talked about the maist identity politics

before I'll very Briefly summarize this is too long already and I've got a lot to cover still as it turns out um to get through woke so here's the basics M's identity politics Mal separated the population into two groups the enemies of the people were coded black the people were coded red for communism so the people were the good ones and they were uh they were listed as um the laborers who carry hammers The Peasants who carry sickles and then revolutionaries of various sorts revolutionary leaders revolutionary uh soldiers so people in the people's Liberation Army

revolutionary Martyrs people who died for the cause revolutionary leaders were sometimes called kadras uh however you want so you had these two token categories plus a bunch of revolutionaries and so you couldn't join the token categories very easily but you could become a revolutionary then on the other hand the black categories were listed as enemies of the people and they were Rich Farmers which meant really still being super poor landlords we still hate landlords because you have to overcome all feudalism that was a big deal in Mouse China uh and then um counterrevolutionaries bad elements

as they were called and right-wingers so you can hear how that structure was all laid out you have then these kind of scapegoats the landlords and the rich farmers who really didn't do anything wrong except happen to own certain things and they get bullied and mistreated and then you have the enemies of the state that are actually uh your um counterrevolutionaries whatever the hell a bad element is I think we call them conspiracy theorists and so on today and then um right- wiers in general and the goal was to Hound the um the the rich

to to Hound the people in general uh in the name of of counterrevolutionary activity in order to scare them to want to pledge to socialism and the way that you'd get them to pledge to socialism was they couldn't become one of the token classes they had to become a revolutionary so you were building your revolutionary Army in that way by basically abusing the population in the name of counterrevolutionary elements which were relatively small to push the masses of the people to join the revolution to become revolutionary kadras or at least party members or at least

on the road to socialism and to engage in form ideological remolding especially if you're an intellectual you had to transform your thinking to be in line with the maist uh what they called maong thought which was um later sometimes described as Marxism leninism with Chinese characteristics so American maoism is mau's identity politics with American Civil Rights identity category so instead of um having the tokens be laborers and peasants your tokens now become people of color particularly black or indigenous uh sexual minorities gender minorities women sometimes when they're not uh oppressors because of trans and so

on and then your uh revolutionary classes become allies activists various types of radicals antifa anarchists trans queer identities meanwhile on the other hand you have um the people that get targeted unfairly that are like Rich farmers and landlords uh the scapegoat classes and those are like white people straight people men and so on and then you have the people who actually fight against woke those are the counterrevolutionaries and right-wingers and deplorables and conspiracy theorists and so on and you see the exact mapping under intersectionality of this onto new identity categories that aren't constructed out of

basic communist Theory applied to peasants but are constructed instead out of American Civil Rights identity categories now none of this really gets off the ground um critical theory was really stuck without two influences one of which is post-modernism this is not a podcast in which I'm going to elaborate on postmodernism I never actually end up going into detail about postmodernism and the other is critical pedagogy or education Theory and really critical pedagogy is where woke was born because it mixed all this crap together the activists were doing intersectionality but frankly and honestly education theories where

the ideas really took their shape because the whole point was to figure out how to create individual Consciousness Awakening through educational processes in schools and workplace trainings how about that um so let me talk briefly about postmodernism postmodernism is in a sense a Marxist theory this is maybe a high level way to put it it's it's a belief that um how do I put this uh symbols knowledge itself uh is all an instrument of power and in fact um I was going to say it's a Marxist theory of meaning making that's maybe too abstract certain

people are allowed to put meaning into symbols what does this book mean what does calculus mean what does the stop sign really mean what does uh the written word mean what does this word like the n-word really represent what does this represent what does that represent what does this symbol what does that symbol what is this movie what is this culture as a symbolic object what does it all mean well certain people have the power to set that and those people are the powerful people and then other people are excluded from that power and are

forced to play in that playground um that is set up that way and so that creates an oppressor versus oppressed Dynamic but the deal is with postmodernism is everybody sort of immersed into the power structure and so nobody in particular has has any knowledge of who is oppressed and op an oppressor so everybody's kind of both and it's sort of this mix mixed up confusing Terrain in which actually reality just gets lost in a sea of images and in a sea of symbols and a sea of um you know your meaning making is no better

than my meaning making and that which has been historically marginalized is often favored what this actually builds out and we'll talk more about this in a minute is as it fuses with critical theory thinking which was running alongside of it and many of the same people had picked up elements of both is it starts to adopt this idea that that which they don't want you to do is probably better is probably more true that which they don't want you to think is probably more more accurate more true um anything that they say you should think

is probably a unjust application of power and a lie uh so that which has been historically marginalized is where you eventually get is probably more true we call that or it was called I shouldn't say it is called critical constructivism which is an awful lot of damn words so the key part of this and I'm not people that listen to this are going to be pissed off at how bad my summary of postmodernism is here I I made zero notes for this so we're just winging um critical constructivism has two pieces critical which is critical

theory and constructivism which is something to do with social constructs constructionism constru or constructivism sorry uh social construct construct constructivism so the idea of that is that the features of society are social artifacts they're socially con constructed they are not real and we are socialized into believing that they are real ding lat's social reification becomes very real we are uh are that which we believe is true is actually only truthy as Steven colar had it it's truthy has truthiness it's not actually true it's just that we generally agree to rep to to to observe it

as true or to consider it as true that is has a fancy term under the postmodern philosopher Jean franois leotard or liotard uh he calls that the legitimation by paraly paraly is a false parallel logic parallel logic paraly and legitimation by paraly refers to legitimizing something through a fake parallel logic and that fake parallel logic is essentially consensus that's what we agree is is true is what we pretend is true so everything is truthy nothing is true therefore there's your truth and there's my truth and if we have to favor one truth over the other

that which has historically marginalized was probably done so for nefarious Reasons by power so it's more likely to be true than not true and that's how we do it that's the social constructivist part of this and then critical theory tells you that this is how we're going to look at it so we're going to look for the existing unjust power structures and ruthlessly criticize them not just as features of reality that deserve to be destroyed because all uh that exists deserves to perish but also as social constructions that are arbitrary and sub to change so

that's a very important uh aspect of this but we're not going to digress into postmodernism any further I could talk about Fuko and his idea of power knowledge and biopolitics and it's all very important for what we're living through right now in fact the covid policy was all exactly what Fuko was warning about with biopolitics where science steps in and tells you how uh the world really the science I should say steps and it tells you how the world really works but it's only doing so in order to entrench its own power and Advantage we

just lived through that but it's not cultural Marxism it's too far a field plus they weaponized it against us so fuko's critiques are actually kind of mean almost exactly accurate to the covid policies and I can't really complain even though I hate Fuko in his leftist ways um we need to talk to talk about the development of woke far more about critical pedagogy I just want to make the final point about postmodernism though that uh critical constructivism as the real grown-up name for woke what you've woken up to is a as it's described by its

creator a critical constructivist worldview other words the world is constructed by systems of power there is no shared reality between us each of us has a reality that's colored by our relationship or position with regard to power that's the postmodern part and that the correct way to deal with that is through critical theory type critique and that is what woke really means and if we're going to accept that that's what woke means we have to recognize for example when Jordan Peterson used to call woke what we call woke now he called it postmodern Neo Marxism

he was uh actually exactly correct critical theory or critical Marxism is also known as neomarxism and if you were to add a post-modern element to that you would end up with a postmodern neomarxism and that would be the correct term for it and so um I encourage people to to think about that that it is critical critical theory done with a postmodern fast and loose about the truth because there is no truth there is only subjective truth that is located uh and established falsely by power that wishes to benefit from claims about truth which is

a completely subjectivist realm uh Which is far beyond the purely relative and self-serving realm of Marxism uh it's much more negative and pessimistic than Marxism sometimes postmodernism is referred to as a postm Marxist theory that is actually even so negative that it abandoned Marxism I think it's more accurate to say that it is because it does criticize Marxism as having failed in hopelessness but I think it's more accurate to say that it is a Marxist oppressor versus oppressed theory of meaning making and uh the assignment of meaning to symbols uh in all abstract symbols it's

also a purely negative uh theology or completely negative dialectic and it is Char supercharged in particular through fuko's love of N N's belief was actually that you become the Superman the Uber Munch by breaking away from any uh restraint from morals and so Fuko believed that morals are an arbitrary social construct and if we could free ourselves from those and be liberated from them we're not just going to free the libido baby we're going to free everybody from everything uh and you can just imagine that world okay so critical pedagogies where woke was actually born

and we did need to touch on that because eventually uh post modernism gets mixed into education I'll touch on that but critical pedagogy actually derives from the education for Liberation as it was called of the Brazilian Marxist Paulo Fred I have done a bajillion podcasts on Paulo Fredy so I encourage you if you're interested I read one of his entire books as a podcast series to go look him up that is p a l Paulo Fredy is f re i e encourage you to look him up Paul Freddy was a Liberation Theologian and a postcolonialist

so he lived in Brazil reife Brazil specifically and in the 192s or 30s I forget his family was badly dispossessed by um the colonization of Brazil uh they were eating out of out of dumpsters and out of a landfill and the stories are horrific and I mean he had a he had a tough time it's not good and this ends up kind of radicalizing him and postc Colonial way he starts to pick up some Marxist theory from one of his uh spiritual mentors Dom Elder CRA who was a um was a communist Bishop originally a

actually Catholic integralist who was fast-tracked to Bishop status then became a communist in Rife Brazil he became known as the bishop of the slums or of the favas um or the priest of the slums and so he started to learn some communism there but he was primarily postcolonialist but he developed a method of Education his goal was to teach these poor peasants who he saw being crushed by the imposition of colonialist capitalism uh he wanted to teach them to read and he came up with a method that is very unique to the Portuguese language it

might work in Spanish because it's so syllable-based even though all he did was rant about syllables but the primary thing that he did was he pushed this concept educationally called generative themes and generative themes are emotionally engaging topics so that how do you get the peasants to want to learn this is where you talk about getting the kids engaged in our education today how do you get them to want to learn and you use you talk to them to find out what engages them you get you extract from them what engages them and then you

generate what he called generative themes from that which will generate political conversations so you maybe they live in a slum so they're interested in the slum so you teach them the word fava then you break it down into its syllables and you talk about related syllables and you teach them to read sounds one at a time okay fine that's his reading method but what you actually do is along the way is to get them engaged you get them talking about the slum and then eventually you show them a picture of the slum and you have

them talk about their life and you tell them why their life is that way in other words that's where the Marxist uh indoctrination or brainwashing comes in and Fredy said in his book uh pedagogy of the oppressed which is his magnum opus from 1970 he says in it that he derives this method of Education from that which was working under maong in the cultural revolution of China so that's the exact same ideological remolding and to cut out all the BS about how it works because no one cares about how it works for the rise of

woke what Fredy said was that you you hit people with these generative themes to get them emotionally engag then you describe the real concrete reasons in other words a Marxist interpretation for their emotional uh circumstance that they're looking at and over the course of a number of these things you conscientise them conscien saow or something like that in Portuguese so you awaken them you radicalize them by feeding them directly to their personal context individual personal context to awaken in them a Marxist understanding in a postcolonial understanding in a woke under literally this is where woke

starts right there a woke understanding a Marxist understanding of their individual circumstances whether the oppression is race whether it's environment whether it's um uh class whether it's Colonial status it doesn't matter whether it's literacy status that was a big one for him it doesn't matter you radicalize them around this and make them believe that they're you actually take them literally through George Luka's stages of uh stages of of learning class consciousness of radicalization to radicalize them into what Freddy called a critical Consciousness which extends Way Beyond class Consciousness into understanding that revolution has to come

about to overthrow these conditions but then it must also be Perpetual there is no end to Revolution you constantly revolt and Revolt the ruthless criticism of all that exists and he said that this all requires a personal transformation that he literally describes as a personal Easter he says that there must be a death and Rebirth of the individual on the side of the oppressed you must die to your old self to be reborn on the side of the oppressed and his disciple uh Henry jro who's a Canadian American or American Canadian I forget which way

that works he was in in Boston or the Massachusetts Rhode Island area he was in Rhode Island as a teacher when he stumbled on Paulo Fredy and radicalized himself he was already a leftist teacher his conservative High School wasn't letting him do leftist teaching methods Democratic classroom was something he was interested in that's where the students are in charge by the way and you you should be familiar with that at this point and he finally gets in trouble for it reads Paula FR has a religious conversion and he describes Paula Fred's method as Prof prophetic

uh that's the word he uses and he says that it is prophetic in the sense that it calls us to build the kingdom of God here on Earth in solidarity with the oppressed very close to a direct quote in the forward to the book the politics of Education which Henry jro wrote Paula Freddy wrote the politics of Education Henry jro wrote the forward to be clear and I've read that a bunch of times so I don't have to elaborate but just to give you a very clear indication that this is a religion woke is a

personal death and rebirth a personal experienced Easter according to Paulo Fredy and that is literally to build the kingdom of God here on Earth by Awakening Consciousness through this radicalization process that Paulo Freddy referred to as education for Liberation um what Henry Drew did was he took Paulo Freddy's work and not only did he Mainline that into American colleges and Canadian colleges of Education largely by getting professors tenured in those he called that his most important practice uh but he also Incorporated his existing knowledge of what he referred to as the European theorists that's a

vague term like Herbert Marcus's ghetto populations but the European theorists primarily for jeru include Herbert maruza in the postmodernist Jack Dera he does do some with Fuko and the other postmodernists he does a little bit with the other uh critical theorists but his primary CR his primary because Freddy already had Marx lenen and and now written through his stuff his primary European theorists are maruza and Jack Dara we're not going to talk about the Jack Dara and his post structuralism here which is a wing of postmodernism um we'll leave it be but that's where the

postmodern infusion kind of it's one of the places that this happens I mean to get into the full details of this is like two more full this could be like 10 podcasts um we we jro is responsible for mixing uh Paulo Freddy's education for Liberation with the European theorists and what came out along with the Democratic classroom approach which extended Freddy's ideas and added his own what comes out is called critical pedagogy critical pedagogy is the model of Education your kids go to schools that are ruled by critical pedagogy which is why I say we

live in Herbert Marcus's world and we your kids go to uh Paulo fared schools um critical pedagogy is called by that name still to this day but uh we more frequently hear about it as culturally relevant teaching which was in 1995 developed directly as a translation by Gloria Ladson Billings uh from critical pedagogy into the domains like critical race Theory specifically in 1995 she wrote two papers about culturally relevant teaching and one paper called toward a critical race theory of Education those were her three major papers in 1995 that's a busy year for an academic

and um um you can see what what the point is but she's very clear that culturally relevant pedagogy is the extension of critical pedagogy uh into the domain of critical race Theory and so we frequently will hear at culturally relevant teaching culturally relevant education culturally responsive education culturally sensitive education culturally uh what is it cultural cultural competence these are all terms that you'll hear um culturally relevant pedagogy these are all just critical pedagogy using the American maist intersectional uh identity categories um and that is how what our education is based on and it comes directly

from Paulo Fredy through Henry jro through Gloria Ladson Billings down to the day uh to the present day one other education theorist and this is crucial to mention because what I just talked about is Joe kincho Joe kincho worked under both he died in 2008 or n he worked under both Henry jro and Paulo Fredy and he was I believe if I'm not mistaken at McGill University in Canada but I sometimes mess that up I might have it wrong but he is the creator of what was called the critical constructivism that I mentioned earlier or

critical constructivist epistemology he wrote a book that's very hard to get a hold of um our friend Logan Lancing managed to get one and has lent it to me uh basically maybe forever I don't know I need to give it back to him at some point but I'm not done with it uh titled critical constructivism where he lays this out he says explicitly that it's a worldview it's explicitly that real reality is constructed by power there's your constructivist part that needs critical theory thus we can reconstruct reality according to the our desires uh this isn't

a podcast to go into the full expanse of critical constructivism but uh it's very important and it is the formal name for woke it is that you are believing that reality is constructed by systems of power that you are thrust into so they construct you to he explicitly calls it a worldview which means a religion and that you can can use critical theory to reconstruct reality differently if you want and so woke actually woke Marxism actually developed primarily uh at least in academic circles in two places one is in critical pedagogy and then another which

I'm not going to spend very much time on is in feminism feminism is in fact the significant vehicle behind a lot of this I'm not going to go into the uh development of queer Theory directly out of feminism which makes feminists very mad hags mad hags very mad it's their natural habitat is being mad so we'll let that be for the moment but what feminism did was feminism was desperate to destroy the gender binary and it appropriated any damn thing it could do it could to do it uh there's a whole Marxist feminist school there

are deep ties to Marxism and feminism there's a lot of revolutionary feminism in that regard uh that all developed very heavily in the universities so when we say the infiltrate education at all levels we can talk about AF African-American studies programs we can talk about educ schools of Education feminists in English departments did more of this than anybody actually education and English departments feminists did this more than anybody they brought more what we now recognize as woke into the university system into law than any other group Bar None So they are over while woke theory

was forged in education woke was built on the back of feminism that's why it's so damn effeminate that's why young women are so susceptible to it while young men are much less young men only got into woke because they wanted to be able to date young women who got sucked into it and now they've wised up and realized that's that's a doomsday trap for the rest of their lives so they're they're not doing that anymore the reason young women are so susceptible to woke is because woke is Marxism cultural Marxism that passed through the lens

of feminism and was forged for application through the lens of critical education Theory that's why that's why young women it is a feminist reinterpretation of identity Marxism or identity maoism and so the feminists for example uh worked directly with just some I'm just going to give you a bullet point summary here they worked directly with the Frankfurt School members for example Herbert maruza as I mentioned if the feminists were one of the outsider groups or ghetto groups he mentioned um the black feminists were Direct inheritors of Herbert Marcus's theories and philosophy uh while many other

branches of feminism did not actually inherit that in fact were smashed by the black feminists who invented intersectionality to smash other feminists specifically and to conquer them uh and consolidate Power by accusing them of being racist uh for doing their feminism the way that they had been um feminists in their desperation to destroy the gender binary imported French postmodernism from France into the United States Canada and the United Kingdom in Australia the first women studies Department was in Australia as a matter of fact but they imported postmodern Theory uh because Fuko to a degree and

dereda to a far greater degree allow them to deconstruct gender Fuko allowed them to De queer theory is more relevant there because Fuko allowed them to deconstruct sexuality and to link it to sex and gender which they did but the goal was to deconstruct gender roles or sex roles so overwhelmingly and to decouple sex and gender uh that they imported the postmodern deconstruction methods to do so particularly at The English Department at Yale so the French don't like postmodernism they don't look at it they never really got into it they always thought it was a

bit Goofy and intellectually showy the only people who ever gave a rat's ass about postmodernism were two groups of people and not the education theorists all that much one American or Western I guess I should say American somewhat Canadian somewhat Australian somewhat British but American in particular feminists and postcolonial theorists like Edward SED and gatri spivac and H Baba which were deeply post-modernist and their interpretations of colonial Theory colonialism and so on uh they Incorporated the postcolonial radicalism of France Fannon and turned it into a postmodern goblook that is virtually unreadable um and got its

foothold in the American University Systems which Downstream from that is every bit of this Palestine Pro Palestine anti-israel hate that we have going on right now and those have always run in parallels that's why you have the queer theorist and feminist Judith Butler uh to this day rambling about the need to be Pro Palestine okay so the feminists imported most of the postmodernism they were rampant in their critiques although they didn't adopt nearly as much critical theories some of them especially the black feminist picked up most of Herbert Marcus's methods crushed the other feminists there's

like 30 branches of feminism and they don't agree with each other and the one that one out is intersectional feminism period the end and that is the mixture of a little bit enough of the just enough of this postmodern Theory to be able to do whatever they want and deconstruct whatever they want and take apart whatever they want and have their own truths uh combined with an awful lot of marcusian critical theory especially in the race domain and that got infused very rapidly into the educational system so that the book the critical turn in education

by Isaac goddman published to tell the story of how our education system got captured by critical pedagogy has this subtitle it says from Marxist critique which is the first couple chapters explaining that that didn't work it couldn't get into American Education from Marxist critique to post structuralist feminism to critical theories of race and so you can see the progression into education and the last half of the book is talking about how basically the post postmodern feminists the post structuralist feminists stepped in and bulldozed their way into education infused it with lots of postmodern Theory into

the education theory that was already tipping into the critical domain and then critical race Theory came in and kind of made it all intersectional in the end uh in the early 2000s so feminism and uh critical pedagogy were the forges of woke and it really most of the the heavy lifting took place in education and in education Theory our poor children so the flavors that came out of this I'm not going to go into detail about these critical race theory is race Marxism it reestablishes the oppressor oppressed by race the idea is that the the

white people are like the Bourgeois and they have a private property of whiteness and it's going to be abolished uh into enlightened state of anti-racism instead of socialism uh people of color and especially black and Indigenous are the now immigrant are the um illegal immigrant specifically are the uh proletariat that need to have an awakened racial Consciousness you can see the whole picture queer theory is sexual Marxism the dividing line is now actually not sexuality that's a that's a ruse uh the or even so-called gender identity which is fake but also AR ruse the dividing

line is uh normaly are you considered normal is your presentation considered legitimate or not and we could go on and on and on uh critical pedagogy is educational Marxism postmodernism is um meaning making Marxism ability disability studies is ability status Marxism fat studies is fat status Marxism with their whole fat genocide and body positivity climate change narrative is mostly in environmental Marxism where human beings r large are the especially westerners and and American are the oppressor into the Earth and the global South and the developing nations um in the third world are the oppressed all

this is cobbled together in intersectionality by the way the same model was used the the oppressor versus oppressed the unvaccinated were oppressing the vaccinated by making sure that they lived in more disease and would have to get more shots you get the whole picture so this is actually intersectionality intersectionality is the culmination of our discussion on critical or sorry cultural Marxism through the entirety of its history just to kind of mop up where did we come from we talked about what Marxism was then in the early 19 1900s 1910s through 1930s we had cultural Marxism

then through the middle part of the 20th century a critical Marxism or critical theory phase neo-marxist phase and then from the 1970s forward at least here in the west cultural Marxism took on the form of intersectionality which is what we deal with now which mixes CRT queer Theory climate change ability disability studies fat studies women studies gender studies your mom studies whatever studies all together under uh single oppressive they call it them Patricia Hill Collins called it the Matrix of domination which sounds like something you have to pay for at some kind of weird club

or something so anyway that uh is cultural Marxism in the west that's a basic overview tells you the kind of the whole story long a bit rambling uh but the point of all this has been to open the gates of Western Civilization to Marx's Theory because they were not going to be able to get a Russian style Revolution they knew they wouldn't even with the Soviet Union at the height of its power they knew they were never going to be able to force it so that's why cruff said that they were going to take America

without firing a shot and they had to break Western Nations to be able to do that and cultural Marxism has been working its way for over a hundred years to be the tool to do that and here we are at the point where it nearly succeeded the point has become in the meantime because of the collapse of Soviet Union uh and the collapse actually of old school communist China to this new new dung shell ping model to enable what I'm calling communism 3.0 or 20th century communism or corporate communism or corporatist communism which is the

China model which they tested there uh one country two systems you have a basic Spirit of communist political Theory mixed with a national socialist fascist business practice uh very key and that's being imported through the sustainable development goals by the United Nations here in the West in conjunction by the way with the CCP they're working with them and it's being uh enforced through ESG investment rules and corporate rules environmental social and governance rules the s in social justice is in fact most of the cultural Marxism of today or the S nesg I should say is

social justice and that's your western dengism or dongis model Western dengism to match Eastern dengism and we're all supposed to have parallel models the West doing it through ESG and sustainable development which by the way is going to be replaced by resilient development goals the sdgs will be replaced by the rdgs in the future we'll talk about that some point um that should see us through the 2050 of tyranny and meanwhile China is meant to continue to rise using this dung shaing model and if you want to know what the West is supposed to look

like as this develops under this cultural Marxism fully ripened approach into communism 3.0 or 21st century communism imagine a western model it runs like China and basically looks like South Africa with nicer buildings because that's more or less what we're headed for so that's my basic introduction to Western I'm sorry yeah well Western Marxism honestly or cultural Marxism overall it's fully an hour longer than I intended so my night's ruined um I hope it's been edifying for you I've been asked so many times to make where do I start well it's 3 hours long but

here's a place to start you can tell your friends you can show your friends they can break it up in chunks there were four discret units and like I said if it's sufficiently popular I can deep dive on each of these and then we can deep dive on each part of each of these as well we could have so much basic material thank you for listening uh I'll do another hopefully not nearly so long one again soon [Music] [Applause] [Music]