What Have We Become?

At the completion off WW II American cultural gate-keepers were convinced they had to solve the problem of preventing the possibilities of tyrannies ever rising again in the West. They concluded that the main problem that needed to be tackled was the conviction among the Western peoples that Transcendence, Metaphysics, and the sense of a “Presence of Being” existed since it was those ideas they were convinced that were behind the Hitlerian tyranny. The cultural gatekeepers reasoned that the idea “God willed it” was behind the Wars between 1914-1945.

And so, the Western Cultural gatekeepers entered into a project of stripping Transcendence from the West. Harvard leaders called a conference in 1945 and determined that what needed to be done was a careful balancing of tradition and community (the idea of the volk) with critical questioning and the idea that change was good.

Along the way this inherently unstable tertium quid broke all the restraints of tradition and community in favor of critical questioning complimented with change for the sake of change. Blockbuster books like “The Authoritarian Personality” ripped away any idea that tradition and community could ever compete with the emphasis on critical questioning and the idea that change is good.

This push by the cultural gatekeeper to re-order society, via education, away from the fearful tradition and community that they were convinced were responsible for WW II in the direction of “critical questioning,” and the wholesomeness of change explains the rise of the 1960’s counter culture. It explains the student protests of the 1960’s. It explains, burning bras, and draft cards. It explains “if it feels good, do it,” and “its your thing do what you want to do.” And it explains all the roiling change since the cultural gatekeepers after WW II decided that Transcendence and Metaphysics would no longer be the ground of our social order.

In other words, none of this continued social order rapid change since 1945 has been accidental. The cultural-gatekeepers educated the Boomers, Busters, and Millennials into cultural relativism. (If there is no Transcendence, no Metaphysics, and no remaining “Sense of being” then there remains no norm that norms all norms and cultural relativism has its hand on the rudder.) At the beginning they insisted they were going to balance tradition and community with critical questioning and the idea that change is good but this was an unstable combination that could never be successfully bound together.

The result of the disappearance of Transcendence has been the shift of Truth to meaning, Metaphysical notions of right and wrong to cultural consensus, and the “lightening” and “weightlessness” of modern man. There are no longer truths to die for, no longer a tradition to pass down to our children, no longer a “Faith of our Fathers” which might become the faith of our grandchildren.

In these respects the generations since WW II have all been of the same generation. We’ve all been educated into imbecility, all been taught that the only rampart to stand on is the rampart that says there are no ramparts to stand on, all been taught to despise each previous generation, all been taught, in the words of the Pied Piper of this Revolution,

“Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too ”

And there is only one word that fitly describes all this. A word that brings all of these plans into focus and reveals the puppet masters behind the puppets. That word is “rootlessness.” We have been trained that rootlessness is an absolute positive. Transcendence need not apply. No tradition to be allowed. No generational passing of the torch. No “presence of being.” No volk. No sense of place. No covenant belonging-ness.

Through the generations there have been one people who have excelled at rootlessness and now we Westerners belong to that tribe.”

When Multicultural Means Monocultural

“But what does multi-culturalism mean? Some think it means a ‘multi-racial society.’ I do not agree. What multi-culturalism means in essence is a multi-religious society.”

Stephen Perks
Common Law Wives and Concubines — p. 144

Actually, Mr. Perks is wrong here on several counts.

1.) The “multi” in “multi-culturalism” is a mask. What multi-culturalism aims at is in point of fact a mono-cultural social order. This is so because in saying that all cultures are equal what is really being said is that all cultures are the same. If all cultures are the same then which ever culture that insists that it is to be treated as unique because it is superior to all the other equal cultures must be squashed and eliminated. Multi-culturalism desires a culture where all cultures share the common ground of outlawing cultures that insist that they are superior. In this regard multi-culturalism desires to build a mono-cultural world which excludes cultures that insist that they are superior to the multi-cultural mono-cultural model.

2.) Mr. Perks insists that what multi-culturalism means is a multi-religious society but this statement is a contradiction since a genuine multi-religious society would always produce a multi-cultural society since culture is religion externalized. Any genuine multi-religious society would by necessity be a multi-cultural society.

3.) However, it is NOT true that multi-culturalism means in essence a multi-religious society. In point of fact inasmuch as multi-culturalism pursues a mono-cultural reality (see #1) it also pursues a mono-religious program. Multi-culturalism may allow for a plethora of cults in the social order but insists upon only one religion. All the cults must pinch incense to the genius of the Emperor of Statist Pluralism. Any religion that insists that it is to be superior to the mono-religion that requires all cults to pay homage to Caesar will be a religion that will be persecuted. The last thing that “multi-culturalism” desires is multi-religions.

4.) Now, as to touching the race issue that Mr. Perks raises it needs to be understood that a multi-cultural (monocultural) and multi-religious (monoreligious) social order MUST, by way of necessity, have a multi-racial (monoracial) society. If all cultures and all religions must be in subservience to the Unitarian motif of multi-culturalism then all races likewise must bleed into one. Multiculturalism will ALWAYS pursue a cafe latte colored people, if only because such a people serve as the perfect reflection of the Unitarian vision of all religions and cultures bleeding into one.

Origins and Work of Critical Theory

The origin of critical theory,

In 1843, some five years before the Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote to a friend:

“Here is what we have to accomplish: ruthless criticism of all that exists. Ruthless in two ways: the criticism should neither be afraid of its own conclusions nor of the conflicts with the powers that be.”

In our current climate all this “Transvaluation of all Values” that began with Marx’s ruthless criticism began to accelerate with the work of the Frankfurt School. In 1950 one of their devotees, “Theodore Adorno” wrote the book “The Authoritarian Personality,” which became the book that pushed the Transvaluation of all Values into Western Christian Family life and so deconstructed the idea of the Christian family.

Consistent with Franz Boas anti-Christ anthropology and anti-Christ Freudian psychoanaltical psychology Adorno’s “Authoritarian Personality,” was a tome which under the pretense of social science and research offered “proof” that heretofore normative cultural behavior and attitudes centered on patriarchy were indeed guilty of being abnormal and fascistic in terms of where authority was located in Western civilization. Adorno, as a leading member of the Frankfurt school was in his book practicing what came to be known as “critical theory.” Critical theory was simply destructive criticism of the bulwarks of Western civilization – Christianity, Biblical Capitalism, patriarchal authority, monogamous family structures, hierarchy, Christian morality based on a Transcendent law, tradition, sexual boundaries and restraints, loyalty, love of country, heredity and love of homogeneous social orders.

Adorno’s book painted a picture of the West and Middle America as being inherently Fascistic according to his “F-scale” as well as being given to antisemitism. Adorno’s book was a large piece in the march through Western Christian institutions and it had as its goal the Talmudification of America, with its setting on its head and inverting all that was good so it was considered evil and all that was evil so it was considered good.

One of the major social factors under relentless assault by these destroyers, the critical theory practitioners and the Cultural Marxists is the whole concept of consensus or social norms. Social norms can be best described as the consensus arrived at by the majority of a contained population as those norms and that consensus which reflects Biblical social order. The destroyers intend to abolish all ideas of consensus and all standards of social norms in their effort to bring down Western Civilization.

As it stands now, because of the success of Adorno and the Cultural Marxists anything that people once described as “abnormal” is now celebrated in order to take away attention from its abnormality (perversity) and anything that was once “normal” is viciously attacked as racist or homophobic or out of date. By this tactic, the destroyers have wiped out any idea of consensus or social norms.

The only consensus left is the war of all against all and the only social norm left is that no norm will be allowed to be the norm that norms all norms.

The Otherizing and Shaming of Historic Christianity

The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped. Their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties which grant constitutional power to those who oppress these minorities.”

Herbert Marcuse
Frankfurt School

“Marcuse’s ‘Eros and Civilization’ also marked a point of agreement between critical theory and Boasian anthropology; the idea that majorities have no rights or moral legitimacy, and that the only way to resolve the perceived problem of oppression was for the majority in the society to accept its own reduction to minority status.”

Alasdair Elder
The Red Trojan Horse; A Concise Analysis of Cultural Marxism — pp. 66

This “false consciousness,” which one of the truly great Cultural Marxists railed against was the consciousness which has been shaped and formed by thousands of years of Christianity upon the West. It was this “false consciousness” that Marcuse and his cohorts at the Frankfurt School desired to overthrow and so the oppressed must be protected from this “false consciousness” even if it meant denying the proper protection of law to those who were designed as the “oppressors.” In this quote Marcuse is styling his worldview and beliefs as the true consciousness vis-a-vis the false consciousness that he and his ideological soul mates were waging civilizational war against.

This false consciousness would be overthrown by use of the tool-kit developed by the Cultural Marxists. These tools came to be known as,

1.) Critical theory

In Cultural Marxism via the work of critical theory, every aspect of a person’s identity is to be questioned, be it gender, sexual orientation, family, race, culture, religion, in order to benefit supposedly oppressed groups. By deconstructing heretofore stable and unchanging identity social categories (part of the false consciousness problem) those who were part of moral, ethnic, racial, and religious minority groups could pull down and destroy the whole idea of norms that arise in cultures that are comprised of distinct majorities.

The underlying and enduring aspect of critical theory common to all its multitudinous expressions is the creation and application of interdisciplinary theories growing out of a worldview dedicated to overturning the false consciousness of traditional Christian thought and social order and so serving as an instrument of social transformation. Critical theory comes in all shapes, sizes, and expressions but the one thing it has in common is criticizing any residual influence of Christianity that remains on any and all of our Western institutions and disciplines. It typically expresses itself as the voice of the oppressed and the aggrieved and in doing so seeks to employ “social justice” and “fairness” as the sting within the theory. However, in order to do so Critical theory must invert and redefine almost all realities in order to be able to secure the superior position of the oppressed.

2.) The New Proletariat

The Cultural Marxists empirically observed that Marxism, in its classical expression, failed when it posited that there was automatic friction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Because of this observation, the Cultural Marxists understood that if the West was going to be a cake turned then what was required was the creation of both a new model and a new proletariat that would serve the purpose of providing the necessary friction and manpower in order to achieve Marxist transformation.

The Cultural Marxist finally conceived of both new model and new proletariat when it changed the old class model of have vs. have not to the new model of oppressor vs. oppressed. The oppressed was thus to the agenda of Cultural Marxism what the working class proletariat was to the agenda of Classical Marxism. Just as in Classical Marxism there remained the sense of grievance in this new proletariat but instead of the grievance being based on an economic pivot Cultural Marxism chose the pivot of the unprivileged oppressed outcast as the tool by which to achieve social transformation in a Marxist direction. Having chosen that pivot it then worked to propagandize a large number of groups that they were both oppressed and that their identity as humans should be tied up with their oppression.

Concretely speaking, the new Cultural Marxist proletariat — those who would do the yeoman work of the cultural Marxist march through the Institutions — would be comprised of all who would believe the critical theory propaganda that they were underprivileged and oppressed. Those successfully propagandized and recruited were feminists, ethnic minorities, and the sexually deviant. These were the new proletariat oppressed and they would fight against the new bourgeoisie who were cast as the oppressors. The new bourgeoisie were cast as Christian patriarchy, Heterosexual Married, the white majority (especially white males), people who insist that gender is binary (CIS-gender), and most emphatically Christians who rejected this Cultural Marxist social construct template. Ironically the new social construct that the cultural Marxist created used as one of its chief tools for social transformation the idea that previous normativity itself was merely social construct. In the cultural Marxist world, the oppressors were successful as oppressors because they had managed to force their social constructs on the oppressed. The work of the critical theory was to expose these putative social constructs for what they were.

3.) Shaming

In order of this to happen then, the previous normativity must be shamed and countered by the recruitment and so rise of a new normativity. For example, heterosexual marriage must be challenged by other forms of sexuality as mainstreamed into the social order. For example, since whites are oppressor then new slogans like “diversity is our strength,” as combined with immigration policies which will decrease the overall percentage total of whites must be pursued. For example, if patriarchy is oppressive then matriarchy and anarchy is the solution. For example, if CIS-gender is merely a dominant social construct then transgenderism must be injected into the blood stream of the West. For example if Christianity is oppressive then a two pronged approach must be employed. First, Christianity must be emptied of its previous content and filled with the ideology of Cultural Marxism as its new content and second, those Christians who refuse to be re-programmed must be marginalized and diluted by bringing in teeming numbers of Muslim immigrants.

The ground for all this was set by Theodore Adorno’s book “The Authoritarian Personality,” wherein Adorno patholigizes what had always been considered normative. By the time Adorno is finished patriarchy, patriotism, familialism, and the Christian faith are all given the bum’s rush and characterized as signs of sickness. Of course the consequence of this, if taken seriously, is a social order that is rootless, international, alienated, and godless. These are the very characteristics which are descriptive of the West as a result of the canker that is cultural Marxism.

The ground being set, the Cultural Marxist advance is made by use of the technique of shaming. Shaming occurs when labels are affixed to people for perfectly normal behavior. For example, if one is white and desirous of living in a homogeneous neighborhood or attend a homogeneous church one is shamed with catcalls of “racist,” or “Islamaphobe,” or “homophobe,” or “Un-Christian.” However when large influxes of differing people groups are relocated into Western cities (Lewiston, Maine comes to mind) with the natural result that these groups create their own sub-culture where homogeneity is characteristic this is called the benefit of multiculturalism. Shaming is saved for the majority White Christian. Normativity is reserved for the alien and the stranger.

4.) Political Correctness

A further tool for the advance of Cultural Marxism is the tool of Political correctness. Political correctness has many expressions but we will consider its use as a tool of thought control by way of linguistic manipulation. Political correctness controls thought by creating taboos in speech usage as enforced via social stigmatization. Words that cannot be said become words that will not be thought. This thought control is ubiquitous on American campuses today as riots ensure when certain speech is to be expressed. The recent riots on University campuses against Heather MacDonald, Charles Murray and before them Milo Yiannopoulos provide proof.

This thought control is also achieved by seeking to control the language by scandalizing language that does not serve the purposes of the Cultural Marxists. Examples of this abound. Most recently the phrase “anchor baby” created a firestorm. The Cultural Marxists insisted that this was a pejorative. However, it is only a pejorative if you assume their worldview. By insisting that this phrase dare not be uttered the Cultural Marxists were advancing their agenda and their worldview. Instead they began to insist that the phrased, “citizen children of unauthorized immigrants” be used in its place. But of course, the very issue up for debate is whether such children should be citizens. By using their language they win the debate. Another example is “illegal immigrant.” Despite the fact that those immigrants which are here illegally are indeed, by definition, “illegal immigrants,” the Cultural Marxists demand that these people be referred to as “undocumented workers.” Such language advances their worldview and agenda. Control the language, control the thinking. Control the language and the thinking control the outcome. One more example will suffice. What we today call “affirmative action,” is the triumph of political correctness. “Affirmative action,” is in reality ethnic discrimination against historic Europeans but many can’t see that because of the thought control achieved by our cultural mind masters.

In the end Cultural Marxism as an ideology has as a goal the elimination of all stigmatization except the stigmatization of those who believe that stigmatism has a proper and necessary role in any social order. In the Cultural Marxist world oppressed and oppressor categories will eliminated with the consequence that stigma will be ended. The pedophile and tranny will be just as normal as the heterosexual and the Christian. In reality what will happen is that God’s normal will be stigmatized and maybe even criminalized.


Intersectionality is a framework for conceptualizing a person, group of people, or social problem as affected by the number of putative discriminations and disadvantages they have suffered. It takes into account people’s overlapping identities and experiences in order to understand the complexity of the prejudices they face and then based upon the number of putative prejudices they have faced they are given more or less credibility in terms of their truth status. Truth thus is weighed not by any objective reality (since objective reality doesn’t exist for the Intersectionality club) but rather is weighed by credits earned depending on one’s alleged victimization status.

So, the way I like to put this is Intersectionality is an Epistemology … a way of knowing, and so gives us the rules for Texas hold’em Victimization Poker.

In regular poker, we know that

Royal Flush. The best possible hand in Texas hold’em is the combination of ten, jack, queen, king, ace, all of the same suit.

1. Straight Flush. Five cards of the same suit in sequential order.
2. Four of a kind. …
3. Full house. …
4. Flush. …
5. Straight. …
6. Three of a kind. …
7. Two pair.

In Intersectionality we can know how we know by considering the victimization status of people involved.

1.) A white woman trumps a white man
2.) A non-Caucasian male trumps a white woman
3.) A non Caucasian female trumps a non-Caucasian male
4.) A white sodomite and a non-Caucasian is a draw
5.) A crippled non-Caucasian Lesbian trumps a non-crippled non-Caucasian Straight

And the equivalent of one of a kind in Intersectionality is Heterosexual Christian White Male.

So Intersectionality answers the question of “how do we know what we know,” by considering which party in the contest is more victimized than the other. Once that is determined then knowledge appears since in “Intersectionality poker” the person with the most victimized status points is the person who is correct in whatever they are stating. There is no such thing as truth, there is only how much victimization status the persons in the conversation can tally.

But what does Scripture teach on Intersectionality?

“Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” Leviticus 19:15

The great accusation of those practicing Intersectionality as a way of epistemology is that all we have in way of “truth” is social constructs. The claim is that “truth” is not really “truth” but merely power arrangements that favor the dominant majority in any given culture. As such “truth” is merely a completely manufactured construct that needs to be deconstructed in order for people who are minorities to get justice. This thinking can be applied to everything from Mathematics to Logic, to Race, to ethnicity, to culture, to faiths. All is social construct that tends to favor the majoritarian expression in any given culture per the “thinking” of Intersectionality fanboys and Critical theory aficionados. The victim critics alone have the ability to see this “truth as power play” move and address it properly with the cleansing power of Intersectionality and Critical theory.

The problem here of course is that Intersectionality and Critical theory are easily hoisted upon their own petard with just a moment’s reflection. If all is merely a social construct per these philosophical geniuses then the idea of identifying social constructs is merely a social construct. If there is no objective truth then whatever Intersectionality and Critical theory is giving us can in no way be adjudicated as objective truth. In point of fact Intersectionality and Critical theory are merely a hamfisted attempt at seizing interpretive and so cultural power. Intersectionality and Critical theory are merely instances of “Hath God really said,” dressed up in ugly evening gowns.

At this point the sensitive person screams out, “What about all the injustices that Intersectionality and Critical theory” rightly points out? Well, first we should note as a general principle that the wicked are always going to scream that the righteous are victimizing them. It is one way that the wicked can get a hearing. Second we should note that not all that the wicked scream and complain about is true. There is a great deal of scholcky history, sociology, and cultural analysis going around which has the problem of just not reflecting reality. Legion is the name of white guilt narratives that are given credence which have absolutely zero relation to reality. Third, as has been hinted at we need to realize that there is an agenda here that includes overthrowing what little remains of Christianity and Christendom in the West in favor of recreating Christianity in the image anti-Christ and recreating Christendom in the image of Satan-dom. Fourth, where we find genuine and unique victims they should be offered a sincere apology. I do believe that Christians should be apologized to for all the opprobrium that has been cast upon them by those who are practicing Intersectionality and Critical theory.

There is one more thing that needs to be said about Intersectionality and Critical theory for this essay. We need to keep in mind that the effect of Intersectionality and Critical theory will eventually have upon any given multicultural society is to created the Hobbesian condition of the war of all upon all. Intersectionality and Critical theory creates suspicion, inflames animosities for perceived past grievances, and works to make it impossible to communicate over the simplest of differences so that we arrive at the point that not even men and women can communicate with one another because of the differences brought to the fore by Intersectionality and Critical theory. Intersectionality and Critical theory introduce disharmony of interests and build impenetrable and impregnable walls between individuals and people with the even the slightest of differences. A social-order infection with Intersectionality and Critical theory will eventually be a social-order engaged in Civil War.

The people who are adherents of Intersectionality and Critical theory are people who are the enemy of peace, often ironically enough as they are pursuing “peace.” Inasmuch as Intersectionality and Critical theory are most often used to overthrow Christ and His Kingdom such people are enemies of Christianity.

If Intersectionality and Critical theory win the day everyone loses.