THE concluding paragraph in Cultures of Post-war British Fascism (2015), by John E. Richardson of Loughborough University, in a piece titled “Cultural Marxism and the British National Party: Towards a Transnational Discourse,” is a sinister reminder of the crass naivity and inverted fascism of those who control political and historical discourse within modern academia.

Personally, I do not even accept that ´Cultural Marxism´ exists, because whilst the Frankfurt School has clearly played a major role in the perceived subversion of traditional values and institutions, it has actively de-railed and co-opted Marxism to the extent that such concepts have been totally nullified and, thus, enabled the globalist establishment to facilitate its on-going policy of political, social and financial control.

The rise of political correctness and psychological obfuscation, therefore, is not designed to advance a Marxist agenda at all, but to restructure society in accordance with long-term economic objectives surrounding mass immigration into Europe, account for more women entering the workplace and fulfil a desire to brainwash future generations of young children and make them increasingly dependent on both the nation-state and the notion of the so-called global community. Compare these thoughts, if you will, to those of Richardson himself:

“When viewed in toto, Cultural Marxism is little more than a need to acknowledge that we live in multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural societies; that all people should enjoy civil liberties within society, regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or political viewpoint; and that, as such, we all need to try to avoid being racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise discriminatory, and correct ourselves when we slip up. It is, essentially, an acknowledgement of our shared humanity. It is this egalitarian principle that political reactionaries of all shades cannot abide, and it is the fight for principles of equality – of access, opportunity and outcome in all spheres of life – that they continue to oppose.” (p.223)

Notwithstanding the fact that pluralistic societies are, by their very nature, extremely hostile and aggressive to those of us who continue to harbour dissenting opinions, only a fool would look upon the horrific consequences of Frankfurt School indoctrination as a fulfilment of anti-capitalist objectives. The reality, of course, is that everything which has taken place since the 1920s, when this insidious think-tank was first established, has been designed to suit a decidedly financial agenda.