500 Words on British Cultural Marxism

Christopher Hitchens is dead

When it comes to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, both militant atheists themselves, I truly had no idea that there are people today who take militant atheist philosophers seriously as adults. In 2020? I mean, sophomore year of college, sure. I also had no idea some people thought Christopher Hitchens (when he was breathing) was more than a witty dinner guest. I’ve always thought atheism to be a lark. As a philosophy militant atheism is literally a bus ticket to nowhere.

In order to be a militant atheist you must first have to believe that there is a God. Therefore, every militant atheist is a thief who steals from a religion in order to give his wacky ideology meaning. The whole premise is just stupid. How does one ever reconcile honest intellectual thought? But I guess that is the point. One does not. Because the ideology is nothing more than a stay-rich investment scheme.

Today’s Marxist ideology (or British cultural Marxism) caused the brutal murders of over 100 million people in the 20th century. It’s a sick pathology and should not be treated as some sort of fashionable school of thought. That is precisely how Nazism in Germany got started. Even so, few would deny Marx a place, alongside other Victorian figures such as Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud, as one of the genuinely titanic intellectual influences on the modern world.

British cultural Marxism was born in the late 1950s by being liberated from both Stalinism and regiment when the cultural-political movements manufactured by the British left —international Bolshevism, Socialist Zionism and the British “civilizing mission”— were revealed as little more than fronts for naked imperialism, not to mention desperate ventures of powers on the run. In 1956, the Russians destroyed socialist resistance and turned Budapest into an armed camp and the British, French and Israelis immobilized the Suez Canal.

As I wrote previously, “sure, we can talk about the British Crown, the City of London and Wall Street, but what does that mean in the most practical of terms to everyday people?” It means British Cultural Marxism. Earlier, in April, I described it as “red brown.” It is British cultural Marxism.

Throughout his life, Karl Marx never had a steady income or a permanent job and was therefore dependent upon the support of relatives and friends, such as Friedrich Engels. Under strong advice from that English processor of slave-produced cotton, Engels, Karl found fame during the 1840s. Marx was no profound world-class thinker, but a racist, nationalistic socialist warmonger who hated Jews, Slavs and sought to create a powerful German empire. Marx was described a vocal warmonger, agitating “more violently than anyone for a war which would further the creation of the German Empire.” In 1848, both guys campaigned for the unification of Germany.

The history of British cultural Marxism is the history of war profiteering. We can still call it “Marxism,” although it is in reality just grifting. Militant atheism is a racket. If you militantly do not believe in God, then you will fall for absolutely anything.

Pump up the jam

Here’s the American part. The history of British cultural Marxism both in theory and application is best demonstrated by the Neoconservative movement in the United States. It is as though they are one and the same. There can be no other explaination for the radical shifts in their politics that only unbridled arrogance would explain.‬ Simply look at the trajectory of the spewings of their darling Christopher Hitchens and his shift from left to right, although it was more the lurch of an alcoholic grifter —delirium tremens.

In America, we ought to internalize that Karl Marx was an intellectual fraud, but at the same time had enormous influence in the Anglo-Saxon world. The defining case study of how so-called intellectual thought is closely tied to politics and corruption.

Karl Marx’s terror ideology murdered hundreds of millions. Enough with the unicorns and rainbows from charlatans calling themselves economists.