The Inherent Bigotry of Cultural Marxism

Throwing the baseless accusation of bigotry hurled everywhere by the Regressive Left back in their faces is, thankfully, becoming more commonplace.  It’s important to be able to back this up with a robust argument.  Cultural Marxism isn’t just casual “reverse prejudice”.  It actually asserts a deeply and fundamentally bigoted view of humanity.  We need to remember that the Left has eroded the very words like racism and sexism into meaning basically belief that any differences exist among races and sexes.  Today, it’s racist to believe that blacks tend to talk louder than whites.  Before the insanity took over, that might have been considered ignorant or offensive, but not racist, and this is because actual racism doesn’t overtly exist, except exactly where we’re all told it couldn’t possibly exist: in the minds of the social justice warriors “fighting racism” and the mainstream media that coddles them.  Racism means a view of humanity that assigns inherent evil or some other kind of sub-humanity to a race, which implies that a just social system assigns different rights to them.  Nazis didn’t just think Jews were obnoxious.  They saw them as conniving money-hungry shysters incapable of behaving in a morally acceptable way around non-Jews, and they cannot be treated legally equivalent to non-Jews.  The KKK thinks blacks are barbaric monsters who can never be properly civilized and integrated into Western civilization.  Most importantly, they don’t see this as a contingent fact about the Jews or blacks who exist in the world today.  They see it is inherent in those races, i.e. contained in the same genes that make them Jewish or black to begin with, which means that it is a general rule that does, and will forever, apply to all members of the races, and that nothing can ever be done to change this.  This is why racism is so closely associated with genocide.  A racist has two options: permanent segregation, or eradication.

The culture is now pushing back on Leftists who have diluted racism into first simply being ignorant or believing in silly baseless stereotypes about races, and then to their contemporary idea of “unconscious bias” which can include simply asking someone where they are from, or telling a black person that he is articulate, which apparently implies that it is unusual for blacks to be articulate (which, true or not, is just a statement of fact).  This is how far we have come, thanks to people like Martin Luther King, Jr.  Genuine racism has been essentially defeated in the U.S., such that anyone who starts espousing the kind of racism described above (the kind espoused by actual Nazis and klansmen) are universally reviled and banished to the dark corners of the internet.  What we are doing is pointing out that Leftists are failing their own moral test.  They believe in, and espouse, plenty of crude and offensive stereotypes of races and sexes themselves, and in response to being constantly called out for this hypocrisy, they have attempted to insulate themselves with pseudo-academic bullshit like “critical race theory”, which redefined racism again to explicitly exclude their own forms of it.  This is all fine and good.  It calls the SJWs out for their hypocrisy.

But there is a more important point to raise.  The worldview of the Left is actually built upon the real, old-fashioned kind of racism, but it is buried beneath so many layers of pseudo-intellectualism it is actually pretty hard to see.  We need to bring it out to the surface.  To do this, I will use examples.

The first example is feminism, which claims the fact women are “underrepresented” in fields like tech is proof that women are socially oppressed.  The objection to this, held by non-cultural Marxists like me, is that the reason tech does not have many women is because there are biological differences between men and women, one of which being that women on average don’t like solving math or other right-brain problems as much as men do.  We all know there are physical differences between men and women.  Women are on average shorter than men.  I am simply saying these differences extend into personality, behavior and interests as well, and male dominance in tech is just a manifestation of this.  Furthermore, the cultural norms that arise, where it is seen as abnormal for a women to get into a field like tech, thereby creating some level of social pressure to not get into tech, is just an outgrowth of these biological differences, just as all culture is generally an outgrowth of biology.

Leftists respond that this is sexist.  They say I am sexist for believing that men and women are inherently different.  They say this is what sexism is.  They got confused about what bigotry means, eliminating the crucial part where inherent evil or subhuman-ness is assigned to a group, to simply assigning any inherent differences to a group.  Now, they don’t deny the obvious, that physical differences like average height are real.  The “rule” of the Leftist worldview is that such differences can only be “skin deep”.  They can only show up as differences in physical appearance.  As soon as you claim differences among groups like races or sex extend into personality or behavior, you have become a bigot.  Everyone must be equal!  Even though people are obviously, on a physical level, distinct in many ways, “who they are” (meaning their personality, behavior, interests, skills, and so on) must be completely indistinguishable.  On the inside, every person must be an exact carbon copy of every other person.  To deny this is to be a bigot, according to the Left.  As I always say, the root cause of Leftist insanity is misconstruing equality before the law as equality in all nonphysical traits period, which should show up in society as exact, perfect homogeneity in all allocations of people.  Every individual building must be occupied by groups in the same ratio as their large-scale demographic ratios.  To the Left, justice is the complete destruction of human individuality, particularly when it ties back to biology.

Okay, let’s run with that for now.  Leftists say they are rising above this bigoted view by asserting that any differences in averages that appear in society is a result of “social norms” that aren’t justified.  The reason, they say, women don’t get into tech is because society tells them not to, and brainwashes them with things like what I said above about biological differences.  We just need to undo this baseless cultural bias, and then the differences will disappear.  It goes the other way too.  Boys are brainwashed by society to “be a man”, to act tough, aggressive, and “stereotypically masculine”, which includes suppressing your emotions, never crying, and so on.  Again I would say this arose from the inherent biology of men, but Leftists would say I am being sexist by claiming men and women are inherently different.

The key point to understand is that we all agree these cultural norms exist.  I say they are normal and expected because they arise from biology.  Leftists say they are baseless and unjustifiable.  Okay, but now Leftists have a conundrum.  My worldview explains the data.  But how does this Leftist worldview explain the data?  After all, if everyone were truly carbon copies of each other before society corrupted them, how did these cultural norms that men and women are inherently different arise in the first place?  Sure, they may be unjustifiable, but where did this injustice come from?  Feminists do not hesitate to explain this: the origin of telling women they shouldn’t go into tech comes from an “old boys’ club” of insecure men afraid that women will push them out of tech, aiming to preserve the male dominance in order to enjoy the position of relative power it affords them to do so.  Evidently, then, the cultural norm arises out of inherent tendencies of males to be insecure and domineering.

See, Leftists believe in biology too, even though it often seems like they don’t.  So again, we have a hypocrisy.  Leftists say I am sexist for claiming men and women are biologically different in ways that impact personality and behavior.  Then they turn around and argue, even if they don’t realize it, that men inherently have personalities that tend more toward insecurity, feeling threatened by females and a selfish, morally bankrupt desire to oppress and brainwash them as a result of this insecurity.  Furthermore, and this is where it really gets ironic, it assigns an inherent superiority to men in that they, not women, managed to achieve this position of power.  After all, why did men take over, dominate and use brainwashing to protect a field like tech, instead of women doing that?  The answer must be, in some way or another, that men are inherently more insecure and threatened than women, they tend to be more interested in conquering and dominating something, and indeed they have the ability to actually, successfully do this to women.  This means that feminism assigns inherent gullibility to women; that apparently this system of brainwashing managed to work on women for centuries until a few of them finally figured out what was going on back in the ‘60s.

You can’t keep blaming things on culture forever.  If you say, “men are just more insecure because society brainwashed them”, well where did this brainwashing come from?  Who were the brainwashers, why did they brainwash, and why did it work?  If you say, “the people who brainwashed men into being insecure were brainwashed by culture”, now we’re getting stuck in an infinite loop.  At the end of this, at some point, it comes back to peoples’ inherent tendencies.  In order for any of this to make sense, for any of it to have arisen at all, it must have arisen out of something inherent in people.  And if different groups of people ended up, consistently no less, in different roles in this social dynamic, this implies that those groups are inherently different.  From a starting point of all humans being carbon copies of each other, way back in prehistory before any culture existed at all, you can’t get to this current situation of a “patriarchy” upheld by male insecurity to browbeat women into submission.

To claim that a “patriarchy” exists is to claim that men inherently tend to form patriarchies, and women (and perhaps any “male feminists”) tend to not prevent it.  This is where we see the true deep-seated sexism of Cultural Marxism.  In order to reach this conclusion, we must assign inherent power-mongering, conspiring, and insecurity to men.  And unlike the modern definition of bigotry, this isn’t just a silly or offensive stereotype.  It is labeling men as scoundrels; the kind of scoundrels who would actually create such a nefarious system.  It also labels women as helpless weak idiots who can’t defend themselves against this kind of system, especially when modern feminism appeals to men to stop the patriarchy.  We see this sexism manifesting itself in the modern trend in Western society to put boys through “education” programs that attempt to train the manhood out of them.  This is just a phase of hopefulness bigots go through before they take their principles to the logical conclusion.  They think even though every boy is born with the original sin of masculinity, hopefully this can be trained out of them by a matriarchal army of overbearing mothers, female teachers and other school authorities who furiously attack the phrase that embodies what they wish to destroy: “boys will be boys”.  Eventually two things will happen: they will abandon the program and the sexist beliefs that underpin it, or realize that if it is inherent in men, it cannot be trained out, and the only answer is to rid the world of men.

This all begins with the original assertion that any and all cultural norms that assign differences beyond just physical to men and women must be baseless brainwashing.  There is no way to reach this conclusion without tracing it back to biological innateness that is not only despicable, but generally applicable to men and women.

Obviously evil things exist.  Slavery has existed, fascism has existed, Nazism has existed, and so on.  How does this mesh with my assertion about it tying back to innate tendencies of evil?  The answer is that these things are perpetrated by individuals, or concrete groups of individuals.  Nazis were a specific group of humans.  Even if we include the entire German army, it was still a specific group.  This was not a power structure of a certain race or other class of people, it was a power structure of a specific set of people.  I can say those specific people were inherently evil, without committing myself to the assertion that an entire class of people are evil.  But if I speak of a power structure of a class of people like men, i.e. a “patriarchy”, then I do commit myself to saying men in general are evil.  If “the patriarchy” is a power structure of a specific group of men, then it’s no longer “the patriarchy”, it’s just a patriarchy, and that’s fundamentally different.  This is where the social justice warriors always fail to reason and end up deeply offending people with their nonsense.  Instead of saying our legal system is assigning privileges to a discrete set of individuals who all happen to be white males, which means all the white males not in that set are not afforded these privileges, they instead speak of “white privilege” and “patriarchy”, which is just another word for “male privilege”.  Suddenly, the white man who was born in a trailer park to an abusive dysfunctional family who never fed him so he spent his childhood digging through other peoples’ trash for food needs to “check his privilege”.  For people who are so easily offended, it’s ironic for social justice warriors to regurgitate something so offensive (and to be clear, it’s offensive because it’s totally inaccurate, misrepresentative, baselessly accusatory and presumptuously ignorant).

The same thing happens when we speak of a power structure of a race of people.  Nazism is about a power structure of “the Jews”.  They didn’t assert that a specific group of Jews had created a nefarious power structure and they needed to be stopped.  The Nazis asserted the existence of a power structure of Jews in general, as a class, and saw their ideology to its logical conclusion by digging through family trees to determine peoples’ genetics and rounding up anyone who had the “inherently evil” genes to be sent to death camps.  Horrible as this was, it is the obvious logical conclusion from the premise.  We can call Nazism, in modern SJW terms, a theory of “Jewish privilege”.  The notion of “white privilege” is the same concept applied to white people; that there is a nefarious power structure of whites, maintained by whites, that is oppressing everyone else.  Just as the Nazis realized the only “final solution” is the “end of Jewry”, so too have the modern SJWs started to realize the analogous final solution to the problem of white privilege.  The fact that whites (not specific whites, but “whites” as a general category) created and maintain such a system to begin with implies that whites are inherently predatory, supremacist, and evil.

It is actually unfortunate that the Left’s abuse of the terms racist and sexist have left them all but meaningless, with most people (rightfully) rolling their eyes upon hearing them.  Who knows, this may have been deliberate (though I doubt the perpetrators of this nonsense could have this level of foresight), because now so many people will roll their eyes when we explain that the Cultural Marxists are genuine bigots, who have assigned inherent evil to general categories of humans that cannot be removed or changed.  Nevertheless, we must do everything we can to delegitimize this movement that will lead to nowhere but a repetition of the worst parts of history.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *