Chapter 6: The Woke Mind Virus is Ruining Britain

How the Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory Underpins Modern British Conservatism

The terms ‘multiculturalism,’ ‘politically correct,’ and ‘woke’ have become the rhetorical cudgels of our age, wielded with fervour by right-wing commentators. These words, along with the insidious ‘Cultural Marxism,’ are flung around interchangeably to evoke a creeping menace against what they deem as sacred traditional values. It's a linguistic sleight of hand, designed to stoke fear and resentment towards an imagined liberal conspiracy.

‘Cultural Marxism,’ in particular, has morphed into a potent symbol of existential dread for its critics. It’s the bogeyman under the bed, a nebulous threat that has taken the place of the previously more banal ‘political correctness.’ The shift is telling: what was once a mild admonition to mind one's words has been recast as a dark and looming peril, dripping with sinister overtones.

Notable figures in the political sphere have sounded the panic alarm on ‘Cultural Marxism’. Suella Braverman, the former Brexit minister and Home Secretary, has publicly decried "Cultural Marxism" as a scourge that Conservatives must combat. She claimed that that she was “very worried about this ongoing creep of Cultural Marxism which has come from Jeremy Corbyn" and that, "As Conservatives, we are engaged in a battle against Cultural Marxism." Despite the term’s troubling anti-Semitic roots, which anti-racism charities have highlighted, Braverman has stood firm on her statements. Notably, she has never been sanctioned by her party for her antisemitism. This stance reflects a worrying acceptance, if not outright endorsement, of such rhetoric within mainstream political factions.

In a similar vein, Miriam Cates, another Tory MP, voiced her fears about "Cultural Marxism" during a National Conservatism conference in Westminster. She claimed it was "harming children's souls," linking it to rising rates of self-harm and suicide among young people. Cates' comments were deeply alarmist, asserting that, “When culture, schools and universities openly teach that our country is racist, our heroes are villains, humanity is killing the Earth, you are what you desire, diversity is theology, boundaries are tyranny and self-restraint is oppression, is it any wonder that mental health conditions, self-harm and suicide, and epidemic levels of anxiety and confusion characterise the emerging generation?”

But what is ‘Cultural Marxism?’ According to the conspiracy theory, early Marxist theorists, disillusioned by the failure of economic Marxism to spark a proletarian revolution, pivoted towards a cultural strategy. The conspiracy theorists labelled this approach as “Fourth Generation Warfare”. Their theory posits that traditional state-on-state conflicts are giving way to decentralised, ideological battles where non-state actors, including cultural and societal groups, wage war through subversion and psychological operations.

Adherents of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory believe that Cultural Marxists planned to infiltrate academia, the media and other cultural institutions to gradually reshape Western societal values. These supposed Marxist plotters are said to have believed that Communism could only take root in the West once Christianity and other foundational Western values had been eroded.

The Frankfurt School is erroneously credited as the epicentre of this supposed strategy. The real Frankfurt School was a collective of intellectuals primarily associated with the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt, established in the early 20th century. These scholars, many of whom were of Jewish descent, developed critical theories to analyse the cultural, economic, and social forces at play within capitalist societies. While their work was heavily influenced by Marxist thought, they were not ideologically monolithic; they often incorporated a diverse range of theories and critiques beyond strict Marxism.

The Jewish heritage of several key figures is pertinent. During the rise of the Nazi regime, which viewed their critical ideas as threatening, many members of the Frankfurt School fled to the United States to escape persecution. However, the fact that many members were both Jewish and Marxist made the group a favourite target for far-right conspiracy theories. While distinct, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory was compatible with more traditional conspiracy theories about secret Jewish plots to control the world. As a result, it found a well-primed audience among white nationalist, paleo-conservative and Neo-Nazi groups.

In this chapter, we seek to understand the ascent of the Cultural Marxism Conspiracy theory from far-right obscurity to a recognised narrative in mainstream British politics. This chapter will dissect the conspiracy's origins, its growth in the United States, its mainstream infiltration in the UK, and its present-day ramifications. By investigating the pervasive reach of beliefs in conspiracies like Cultural Marxism, we aim to illuminate the risks such ideologies pose to the UK’s societal fabric and how they contributed to the breaking of Britain. Our hope is equip readers with a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon of Cultural Marxism: its beginnings, its present influence, and its potential consequences.

What are Conspiracy Theories?

In the ecosystem of explanatory frameworks, conspiracy theories carve out a particularly perverse niche. These narratives don't attribute significant events to the obvious causes or mere accidents but rather to the shadowy manipulations of hidden alliances. Once embedded in someone's belief system, these theories insidiously absorb all new information in ways that fortify the original narrative. The absence of evidence is twisted into proof of the puppet-masters' omnipotent ability to cover up their nefarious actions. Operating outside the realm of verifiable evidence, they stand in stark opposition to official accounts, spinning tales of clandestine forces pulling the strings.

Take the Bavarian Illuminati, a group birthed in the Enlightenment era to champion rational thought and challenge conservative religious and governmental structures. It didn’t take long for this society to become the centerpiece of wild theories painting them as a sinister cabal bent on global domination. Over centuries, this portrayal has morphed grotesquely, with modern versions casting them as the architects of a New World Order—a narrative that preys on deep-seated anxieties about unseen, global puppet masters.

Similarly, the Jesuits, renowned for their intellectual rigor and missionary zeal since the 16th century, have also been ensnared by conspiracy theories. Despite their focus on education and religious missions, they’ve been depicted as covert Satanic operatives scheming to subvert and control societies. This baseless vilification led to real-world repercussions, including their expulsion from nations and temporary dissolution, illustrating how influential groups can be unjustly demonised based on little more than paranoid suspicion.

Then, there’s the enduring malignancy of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. From medieval blood libel accusations to modern myths of economic manipulation, these insidious narratives have relentlessly targeted Jewish communities. The notorious ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ epitomises this, a fabricated document alleging a Jewish plot for global supremacy. Despite being debunked, its far-reaching and devastating impact is undeniable, particularly as it fuelled Nazi propaganda during the Holocaust.

These examples share a few disturbing traits. They dramatically distort the intentions and actions of real groups, crafting a narrative steeped in fear and control. Their adaptability and persistence are staggering; they evolve with the times, maintaining influence even when exposed as fraudulent. And they incite widespread moral panic, shifting public opinion and causing significant societal and political upheaval.

Conspiracy theories, then, are more than idle speculations. They reflect deep-seated psychological and societal fears, their power to shape perceptions, steer public discourse, and provoke real-world consequences highlighting their profound impact on human belief systems and the societal dangers of misinformation.

Why do Conspiracy Theories Exist?

Conspiracy theories often gain traction by highlighting what adherents claim to be recurrent patterns. For instance, the prominence of individual Jewish financiers and media moguls is used to support claims of Jewish dominance in media and global finance. Similarly, conspiracy theorists might point to the number of politicians who are alumni of Jesuit institutions as evidence of a Jesuit strategy to place allies in powerful roles. In the same vein, the presence of a single affluent family across various sectors like business, politics, and the arts might be interpreted as indicative of their ties to the Illuminati, asserting the existence of this secret organization.

From an evolutionary biology standpoint, our brains are wired to discern patterns and ascribe motives, skills crucial for our ancestors' survival. This ability to anticipate potential dangers from predators or rival groups was enhanced by detecting agency. However, this innate pattern recognition can lead to false positives, perceiving patterns where none exist or inferring exaggerated causation. Such misfires are fertile ground for the birth and proliferation of conspiracy theories.

This tendency to detect agency is a byproduct of evolutionary selection. Biologist Richard Dawkins' concept of the ‘blind watchmaker’ serves as a potent metaphor. It illustrates how natural selection, devoid of any conscious guidance, shapes complex life forms. In this analogy, the intricacies of living organisms are compared to a watch, while the blind watchmaker represents the process of natural selection—an impartial mechanism that favours certain genetic traits over others, absent any foresight or intentional design.

Selectionism extends beyond biology to the evolution of behaviors through successful social interactions. Consider the chameleon effect — the unconscious imitation of another person's gestures, expressions, and speech. This mimicry, likely a learned response rather than a firm biological adaptation, becomes ingrained in our social fabric because it often garners positive feedback and strengthens relationships. Such behaviors are not deliberately chosen but emerge from a history of subtle social reinforcements. When mirroring others leads to better communication and acceptance, these behaviours are likely to continue, becoming automatic.

Economically, the market can also be likened to a blind watchmaker. It 'crafts' optimal solutions for supply and demand through competition and the survival of the most effective business strategies, products, or services. Like natural selection, this process lacks foresight; successful businesses and economic models emerge because they adapt well to their environment, not due to premeditated planning.

While the blind watchmaker metaphor — whether applied to evolution, behaviour, or economics — describes the natural emergence of complex patterns without intentional design, conspiracy theories often imply the opposite. They presuppose deliberate orchestration and control, attributing complex social or natural phenomena to covert architects where none exist. This misattribution of intention can lead people to endorse conspiracy theories as explanations for complex phenomena that are, in reality, more accurately explained by selection processes.

Real Conspiracies and Their Influence on Public Perception

The tendrils of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory are deeply rooted in the fertile soil of historical conspiracies. These conspiracies served a dual purpose: they offered a simplistic explanation for the bewildering complexities of societal change and provided a convenient scapegoat for a plethora of societal ills. However, the tendency of the public to subscribe to conspiracy theories is not unfounded, as history is replete with instances of clandestine activities that have influenced public opinion and altered political trajectories. One such instance is the Business Plot of 1933, where influential businessmen, including Gerald MacGuire and Robert Sterling Clark, were implicated in a scheme to overthrow President Franklin D. Roosevelt in favour of a fascist regime. Ties to prominent financial interests such as J.P. Morgan & Co., the Du Pont family, and Prescott Bush, forebear to future presidents, were confirmed by the McCormack-Dickstein Committee, although no legal actions ensued.

This incident is not isolated. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study deliberately left African-American men untreated to observe the progression of the disease; the CIA's Project MKUltra engaged in non-consensual mind control experiments; and the FBI's COINTELPRO targeted domestic political groups. These verified conspiracies, orchestrated by powerful entities, highlight the unethical extremes to which governments and corporations have gone, often compromising public welfare in the process.

Such historical realities rationalize the belief in conspiracy theories, especially among those in victimized groups. The Business Plot, for instance, substantiates fears of high-level subversive activity and lends credibility to the notion of powerful figures orchestrating societal events.

In the United Kingdom, the Zinoviev Letter incident of 1924 further exemplifies governmental manipulation of public opinion. This forged document, which influenced the general election outcome, has been linked to elements within the British establishment or intelligence services. Similarly, the saga of the Cambridge Five, including high-ranking intelligence operatives like Kim Philby and Donald Maclean, who leaked sensitive information to the Soviet Union, underscores the reality of espionage within the highest echelons of government. Similarly, the Portland Spy Ring and MI5's surveillance of trade unions and left-wing organizations during the Cold War are additional examples of covert operations by clandestine groups.

The Troubles in Northern Ireland add a particularly grim and harrowing chapter to British history, characterized not only by surveillance but also by active government collusion in acts of terror. Colin Wallace, an army information officer, exposed the use of psychological operations aimed at manipulating public opinion, including the dissemination of disinformation. More alarmingly, he alleged direct collusion between British security forces and loyalist paramilitary groups in activities that went far beyond mere intelligence gathering. These claims were supported by other testimonies, revealing a disturbing pattern of intelligence sharing, protection of informants, and even direct collusion in murder, painting a picture of state complicity in acts of extreme violence.

Wallace's personal story adds a troubling dimension to this narrative. He was convicted of manslaughter in 1980 and served six years in prison for the death of Jonathan Lewis. This conviction was later overturned, shedding light on the manipulation and contamination of key forensic evidence, which even involved information from an anonymous American security source. The suppression of evidence and witness testimonies in his case spotlighted the lengths to which the state would go to preserve its narrative and protect its interests, demonstrating a deep-seated corruption within the justice system.

The Stevens Inquiry, initiated in 1989 and concluding with a report in 2003, corroborated Wallace's allegations of collusion. Sir John Stevens' investigation unequivocally confirmed that collusion between security forces and paramilitary groups had led to deaths. The inquiry highlighted a "wilful and abject failure" in command and control within the security apparatus, laying bare the systemic issues that enabled collusion.

The de Silva Review in 2012, investigating the murder of solicitor Pat Finucane, further exposed the state's complicity. It revealed actions taken by the government in facilitating Finucane's murder and the subsequent cover-up to protect an intelligence asset, adding another layer to the already complex and disturbing picture of state involvement in violence and deception.

The wrongful convictions of the Guildford Four, Birmingham Six, and Maguire Seven are stark reminders of the miscarriages of justice that occurred during The Troubles. These cases, characterized by coerced confessions, discredited forensic evidence, and a state's pattern of framing individuals, epitomize a justice system compromised by the state's desperation to appear in control. These instances reflect a period marked not only by intense conflict but also by deep-seated paranoia and a willingness to bypass legal and ethical standards.

Collectively, these cases and incidents during The Troubles reveal a disturbing aspect of British government operations. They go beyond the realm of intelligence gathering, implicating the state in direct acts of violence and in the orchestration of a climate of fear and mistrust. This chapter in British history underscores the dark potential of state power when accountability is lacking, and serves as a poignant reminder of the need for vigilance and transparency in governance.

In light of these documented American and British conspiracies, it becomes clear why conspiracy theories often resonate deeply with certain segments of the population, particularly those who have been historically victimized or oppressed. The allure of such theories can be especially poignant for minority groups who have experienced covert oppression and betrayal by the very institutions meant to protect them. Instances like the unethical Tuskegee Syphilis Study or systemic injustices are not just historical footnotes; they represent a pattern of deceit and manipulation that has eroded trust and fostered scepticism towards official narratives.

For these communities, whose experiences are marked by marginalization and mistreatment, the idea of hidden malevolent forces is not a far-fetched leap but a familiar concept. In this context, conspiracy theories can sometimes provide a framework that not only acknowledges but also validates their deep-seated mistrust. They offer a narrative that aligns with their historical experiences of deception and abuse at the hands of powerful entities.

This perspective underscores an important dimension in understanding the appeal of conspiracy theories. It is not merely about an innate psychological tendency to perceive patterns and intent where there may be none; it's also about a rational response to a history of actual conspiracies and covert actions. For those who have been on the receiving end of such actions, the plausibility of conspiracies is not just a theoretical consideration but a reality of life. Their belief in these theories can sometimes stem from a logical place, shaped by their lived experiences and the historical record of institutional betrayal and subterfuge.

The Immediate Precursors to Cultural Marxism: Robert Welch and The John Birch Society

As we delve into the immediate precursors of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, it's imperative to cast a spotlight on Robert Welch and The John Birch Society (JBS). Post-World War II America was steeped in anti-communist sentiment, a fertile ground for the germination of conspiracy theories, especially with the onset of the Cold War. Welch, a successful candy manufacturer, channelled his wealth and anti-communist zeal into the foundation of the JBS in 1958, setting the stage for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy.

The JBS, from its inception, dedicated itself to rooting out what it saw as extensive communist infiltration within American society. Welch's controversial claims, including the assertion that President Dwight D. Eisenhower was a communist agent and that water fluoridation was being deliberately used to harm the health of American youngsters, highlighted the society's inclination toward far-reaching conspiracy theories. These allegations were symptomatic of a pervasive fear of subversion, one that would resonate with certain segments of society and influence the political discourse for decades to come.

The society’s membership, peaking between 60,000 to 100,000, was composed mainly of affluent individuals who found value in the society's mission to protect American culture from communist encroachment. The financial backing from members such as Fred Koch, father of the politically influential Koch brothers, afforded the JBS a level of influence disproportionate to its size. This backing is a testament to the historical pattern of wealthy individuals leveraging their resources to shape political narratives.

Utilizing media, particularly sympathetic radio personalities, the JBS effectively spread its anti-communist and conspiratorial worldview. Figures like Clarence Manion utilized their platforms to propagate the society's message, embedding its ideology into the fabric of American political dialogue. The society's multifaceted political strategies included support for political candidates, public demonstrations, and the establishment of front groups, reflective of their commitment to counter what they perceived as communist sympathies within the government.

Internationally, the JBS maintained a deep distrust of global institutions, especially the United Nations, perceiving them as enablers of a socialist world order. This suspicion towards international cooperation became a cornerstone of their ideology and featured prominently in their campaigns and media outreach.

The JBS  faced significant challenges and decline in influence due to associations with anti-Semitism and white supremacism, as uncovered by organisations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The ADL, dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, highlighted instances where influential members of the John Birch Society expressed or supported anti-Semitic and white supremacist views. These revelations severely damaged the Society's reputation, distancing it from mainstream conservatism and leading to a loss of support and credibility. The exposure of these extremist views within the Society's ranks contributed to its marginalization in American political discourse. As mainstream conservative groups and leaders sought to distance themselves from such divisive and bigoted ideologies, the John Birch Society found itself increasingly isolated, marking a significant downturn in its influence and standing within the broader conservative movement in the United States.

In synthesizing the historical precursors to Cultural Marxism, the JBS's role is crucial. Its assertions of communist infiltration, its strategic use of media and political activism, all provide a blueprint for understanding the propagation of similar theories in contemporary discourse. The JBS’s legacy is a testament to the power of conspiracy theories to shape political landscapes, reflecting a persistent undercurrent of American political thought that remains suspicious of perceived threats to its values. It is within this lineage of suspicion and activism that the narrative of Cultural Marxism found fertile ground, allowing it to emerge as a significant force in socio-political debates and ensuring its place in the annals of American conspiracy theory.

Paul Weyrich, William S. Lind, Michael Minnicino, and the Birth of the Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory

Paul Weyrich's significance in the evolution of conservative thought cannot be understated, particularly in the transition from the John Birch Society's era to the modern narrative surrounding the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. His journey from embracing the intense anti-communism and conspiracy-centric worldview of the JBS to founding contemporary think-tanks marks him as an ideological bridge.

In the early 1970’s, Weyrich met beer magnate Joseph Coors, a funder of the John Birch Society and friend of Governor Ronald Reagan. Inspired by Weyrich's vision to build a conservative ecosystem to challenge the liberal establishment, Coors invested $250,000 to found the Heritage Foundation. In 1974, Weyrich founded the Free Congress Foundation, which also significantly influenced national policy and shaped the strategic direction of American conservative thought. These think tanks emerged as centres of conservative intellectualism. Notably, the Heritage Foundation integrated Weyrich’s vision into the policy-making apparatus of the Reagan administration.

The Heritage Foundation primarily focused on policy analysis and research, advocating for free-market principles, a robust national defence, and traditional family values. On the other hand, the Free Congress Foundation ventured into cultural activism, aiming to counter what Weyrich and his associates perceived as a liberal cultural hegemony. They sought to influence public policy and opinion through strategic initiatives, echoing some JBS anti-communist sentiments but without its overt extreme conspiracy theories.

During his time at the Free Congress Foundation, Weyrich, along with William S. Lind, played a direct role in propagating the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. This theory was initially formulated by Michael Minnicino in his 1992 essay, "New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness'." Minnicino blamed the decay of late twentieth-century American culture on the Frankfurt School's philosophical influence, which he believed was an intentional sabotage of Judeo-Christian and Renaissance values. He considered this influence a cultural and aesthetic perversion.

Minnicino's portrayal of the Frankfurt School suggested it undermined Western culture through strategies like promoting alienation and replacing Christianity with socialism through cultural critique. Additionally, he claimed these intellectuals attacked traditional family structures to advance women's rights, sexual liberation, and what he termed 'polymorphous perversity.' He controversially linked these intellectuals to the counterculture of the 1960s and even to the distribution of hallucinogenic drugs to encourage sexual promiscuity.

Building upon Minnicino's essay, Lind provided a historical context for Cultural Marxism. He described it as a branch of Western Marxism, different from Soviet Marxism-Leninism, often disguised as "multiculturalism" or "political correctness." Lind argued that this covert approach made the philosophy more insidious and effective. He highlighted the Frankfurt School's alleged strategy of merging Marx's economic theories with Freud's psychoanalytic approach, using media to condition public acceptance of new cultural ideas. Lind urged conservatives to expose multiculturalism and political correctness as components of Cultural Marxism, which he claimed sought to dismantle Western culture and the Christian religion.

Lind also asserted that Cultural Marxism represented a form of Fourth Generation Warfare. His modern warfare theory deviates from traditional combat strategies by blurring the lines between war and politics, involving decentralized and non-state actors, and emphasizing psychological warfare and public opinion. Lind, along with other military analysts, described this evolution in warfare, underscoring its asymmetrical nature and the importance of unconventional tactics. He argued that the ideological struggle in cultural and social arenas was akin to warfare, aiming to significantly transform societal norms and values. Lind's perspective extended the battlefield of fourth generation warfare beyond physical conflicts to include culture and ideology, viewing efforts to change societal norms as strategic combat manoeuvres. Consequently, Lind and his fellow conservatives also adopted fourth generation warfare tactics to counter what they perceived as Cultural Marxist strategies.

As Weyrich and Lind advanced these claims, they connected them to a broad conservative network and united various factions of the American right. Lind outlined six characteristics of his faction including retaining an Anglo-Saxon culture, upholding Victorian values, acknowledging distinctions among races and classes, and adhering to traditional social and sexual roles. Thus, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory became a unifying ideological rallying cry across religious, white supremacist, neoliberal, nationalist, and mainstream conservative groups.

Lind made it clear that he was willing to include anti-Semites within his coalition. His speech at a Holocaust denial conference organized by known anti-Semite Willis Carto in June 2002 illuminates the deeply ingrained anti-Semitic elements within his theory of Cultural Marxism. His speech’s highlighted the Jewishness of Frankfurt School philosophers such as Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and Herbert Marcuse and claimed that they had  poisoned American culture with ideas promoting homosexuality, sex education, and egalitarianism.

Furthermore, Lind claimed that these philosophers, particularly during their time in Hollywood, used films as social conditioning tools to promote "supposed perversions" like homosexuality, further connecting his theory to common anti-Semitic conspiracies about Jewish control of media and cultural institutions. His nervous demeanor during the speech, likely due to the potential for negative publicity, didn't mask the resonance of his ideas with the audience, which included notorious figures like Swiss Holocaust denier Jürgen Graf, rabid anti-Semite Eustace Mullins, and former SS officer Hans Schmidt.

This speech not only confirms Lind's willingness to associate with and address audiences steeped in anti-Semitic and extremist ideologies, but also highlights how his Cultural Marxism theory serves as a vehicle for these ideas. By explicitly identifying the Jewishness of the Frankfurt School members and casting them as architects of Western civilization's downfall, Lind's theory aligns with and reinforces age-old anti-Semitic narratives. His presence at such an event, and the nature of his discourse, underlines his comfortable alignment with anti-Semitic ideologies, despite any superficial disclaimers to the contrary.

Few figures have had a greater influence on the development of modern American politics than Weyrich, and Lind. Their work forged a narrative that cast the Frankfurt School and its Jewish intellectuals as central villains in the alleged cultural degradation of the West. By intertwining anti-communist rhetoric with age-old anti-Semitic tropes, they created a potent ideological weapon that resonated across various factions of the right, from religious conservatives to white supremacists. This theory, blending historical revisionism with contemporary cultural grievances, provided a unifying mythos that has had enduring influence, reflecting the deep-seated anxieties and reactionary impulses within modern conservatism. Lind’s associations and public endorsements of anti-Semitic rhetoric further illustrate the dangerous intersections between mainstream conservative thought and extremist ideologies. This confluence of ideas and movements highlights the pervasive and persistent nature of such conspiratorial thinking in shaping political discourse and policy in America.

The Evolution of the Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the narrative of Cultural Marxism found champions in several right-wing political figures, notably including Pat Buchanan, a political commentator with a history of advisory roles to three U.S. presidents. Buchanan's campaigns and literary works, especially ‘The Death of the West,’ were instrumental in introducing and popularizing the notion of Cultural Marxism. Echoing Weyrich and Lind, he posited that Marxist influences were undermining traditional American values, intertwining this alleged subversion with broader global and domestic policy debates.

Other conservative intellectuals and commentators, such as Roger Kimball, lent their voices to similar narratives, portraying Cultural Marxism as a pernicious force gradually eroding the foundational values of American society. Their articulations framed the theory not merely as a political critique but as an existential threat to the American way of life.

During the presidency of George W. Bush, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory found an even more fertile ground for expansion. This period marked a significant intensification of the narrative, as conservative think tanks and media personalities began to intertwine it with broader political and social discourses. Influential organizations like the Free Congress Foundation, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Enterprise Institute played a significant role in disseminating and refining the theory. They leveraged funding from affluent donors like the Koch, Mercer, and other billionaire families to provide intellectual backing for these ideas.

The theory's propagation during this era was partly fuelled by the political climate, characterized by post-9/11 security concerns and a strengthened sense of national identity. The narrative of Cultural Marxism was strategically employed to critique various progressive policies and social changes, framing them as fundamentally opposed to American values. In this context, the conspiracy theorists adeptly exploited fears surrounding Islam and immigration from Central and South America, presenting them as integral components of the Cultural Marxism plot.

Barack Obama's election in 2008 marked a watershed moment in the trajectory of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Symbolizing a departure from traditional conservative values for many, Obama's presidency became a focal point for the theory's advocates. The narrative, once relegated to the fringes, began its rapid migration into mainstream conservative discourse.

The emergence of the Tea Party movement as a potent force in American politics was synchronous with these developments. Many in this movement echoed the sentiments of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, interpreting Obama's policies, particularly those aimed at social reform and racial justice, as indicative of a Marxist agenda permeating the highest echelons of government. The "birther" movement, which baselessly challenged Obama's American citizenship, further fuelled the conspiracy by portraying his presidency as illegitimate and a victory for cultural Marxism.

Key right-wing media personalities such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck became vocal proponents of the theory, leveraging their platforms to depict Obama's policies and governance as aligned with cultural Marxist principles. Their commentary struck a chord with a significant segment of the American populace, who felt increasingly alienated amidst rapid social changes.

This era also marked the rise of the alt-right, a loosely defined amalgamation of individuals and organizations espousing neo-Nazi and far-right ideologies. The expansion of the Cultural Marxism narrative within the digital space was particularly pronounced during this time. Alt-right and neo-Nazi websites and social media channels, like Richard Spencer's Altright.com and Andrew Anglin’s The Daily Stormer, emerged as fervent hubs for the propagation of the theory.

Several conservative organizations, targeting academic institutions, described universities as bastions of Cultural Marxist totalitarianism. A notable example is Turning Point USA (TPUSA), founded in 2012 with funding from Foster Friess, a conservative donor linked to the radical right Koch Brothers. TPUSA's mission, centered on promoting principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government, particularly among students, positioned them as a counterforce to perceived cultural Marxism influence in educational settings.

One of TPUSA's significant initiatives, the Professor Watchlist website, launched in 2016, sought to document and expose college professors allegedly discriminating against conservative students, promoting anti-American values, and advancing leftist propaganda in the classroom. However, this list faced criticism for its inaccuracies and for targeting professors based on unverified reports or minor incidents. Critics likened the Professor Watchlist to McCarthy-era tactics, condemning it as an affront to academic freedom and as a form of surveillance-style propaganda. This initiative aligned with TPUSA's broader agenda to combat what they viewed as cultural Marxism's infiltration into educational institutions.

Digital platforms were pivotal in connecting Cultural Marxism to various social movements and political changes. Feminism, LGBTQ rights, immigration policies, and multiculturalism were all recast as elements of a broader cultural Marxist agenda aimed at undermining traditional Western values. The widespread digital proliferation of these ideas contributed significantly to their normalization within certain segments of the American populace.

Andrew Breitbart played a pivotal role in promoting the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory online. Born in 1969 to a Jewish adoptive family, political views shifted from left-leaning to conservative following the 1991 confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, which he perceived as unjust attacks by liberals. This shift was further influenced by his exposure to the works of critical theorists and radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, which sparked his interest in political and philosophical ideas​.

Steve Bannon's ascendancy to the leadership of Breitbart News in 2012 marked a critical juncture in the platform's evolution, signalling a strategic shift further towards alt-right perspectives and narratives such as the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Under Bannon's stewardship, Breitbart emerged as a vanguard of these ideologies, framing progressive policies and societal changes as existential threats to traditional values.  Bannon would later become Donald Trump’s chief strategist.

The election of Donald Trump in 2016 marked a zenith in the discussion and mainstream acceptance of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Trump's ascension was perceived by many within the alt-right and conservative circles as a counteraction against a political and social landscape they believed to be dominated by cultural Marxism. During this period, the narrative shifted from the peripheries of political discourse to a more central role in mainstream conservative ideology.

Incorporation of New Social Movements and Concepts

As the theory evolved, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory began to envelop and reinterpret various social movements and educational concepts. Critical Race Theory (CRT), originally an academic framework addressing systemic racism's impact on societal and legal structures, was recast as a pivotal element of the alleged cultural Marxist agenda. Despite its academic origins and limited application in K-12 education, critics of CRT erroneously claimed it was being widely taught in U.S. schools, sparking intense debates and leading to numerous legislative proposals aimed at restricting its use. This misrepresentation positioned CRT as a divisive and indoctrinating force, central to the broader narrative of Cultural Marxism.

The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, advocating for racial equality and justice in the aftermath of high-profile incidents of police brutality, was similarly portrayed by proponents of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as part of a larger Marxist scheme. The involvement of some Marxists in BLM was construed as evidence that Marxists were exploiting civil-rights issues to sow discord. Discussions on white privilege, which refer to inherent societal advantages for white individuals, were also twisted to align with the theory, depicted as divisive tactics aimed at undermining societal cohesion.

The term 'woke,' initially signifying awareness of social injustices, particularly around race and gender, underwent a significant transformation in this context. It came to be pejoratively associated with an excessive emphasis on political correctness and social justice, framed as another facet of the Cultural Marxism agenda. The appropriation and distortion of these concepts and movements underscored the conspiracy theory’s adaptability, allowing it to stay relevant and resonate with contemporary socio-political issues.

This expansion of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory into various aspects of social and political life sparked a series of moral panics. The alarm over CRT in education, characterized by fears of indoctrination and societal division, is a prime example. Similarly, reactions to the Black Lives Matter movement and discussions on white privilege often bordered on hysteria, with claims that these initiatives were fostering discord and resentment under the guise of promoting equality.

The phenomenon of 'cancel culture' became another prominent aspect of these moral panics. 'Cancel culture,' or the practice of publicly ostracizing individuals or organizations for perceived moral transgressions, was criticized as a manifestation of extreme 'wokeness' and Cultural Marxism. It was portrayed as a tool for enforcing a narrow set of social norms and political correctness, ostensibly at the expense of free speech and diversity of thought.

During Donald Trump's presidency, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory found reflection in several policies and public statements. The Trump administration's actions, such as attempts to ban training on CRT and White Privilege in federal agencies, echoed the rhetoric of the conspiracy theory. These policies were indicative of the theory's penetration into the highest levels of government, demonstrating its shift from a marginal narrative to one with tangible policy implications.

In recent years, the rise and prominence of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory have undeniably increased via high-profile influencers like Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan. Peterson, a clinical psychologist and academic, has been a vocal critic of what he perceives as Cultural Marxism, frequently discussing its impacts on academia, social policy, and cultural norms in his lectures, books, and online content. Meanwhile, Joe Rogan, through his widely popular podcast "The Joe Rogan Experience," has provided a platform for a variety of guests, some of whom have propagated aspects of the Cultural Marxism narrative. These discussions, broadcasted to Rogan's extensive audience, have further embedded the theory into mainstream discourse. The involvement of such influential figures exemplifies the shift of Cultural Marxism from a marginal conspiracy theory to a topic of broader public debate and concern in the United States.

One of the most recent striking manifestations of its influence is exemplified by Republican presidential-hopeful Ted Cruz's book, 'Unwoke: How to Defeat Cultural Marxism in America.' Senator Cruz's book stands as a testament to how deeply this theory has penetrated mainstream conservative thought. It paints a picture of an America where the forces of Cultural Marxism have infiltrated nearly every facet of society, from education to technology, entertainment, and beyond. It suggests that the very foundations of American institutions are under siege from a perceived Marxist ideology, and that the only way to combat it is through exposing this supposed conspiracy and using fourth generation warfare tactics.

The narrative of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, with its myriad adaptations and incorporations, reflects a profound shift in the American political and social landscape. It reveals how a fringe conspiracy theory can gain momentum, morphing into a mainstream ideology that influences policy, shapes public opinion, and alters the course of national discourse. As it continues to evolve, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory remains a potent example of the power of narrative in shaping political realities, demonstrating both the adaptability and persistence of such ideologies in the modern era.

Cultural Marxism in the UK: The Anti-Woke Network

The American white nationalist and neo-Nazi movements swiftly latched onto the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, weaving it into their narratives of globalisation, immigration, multiculturalism, and clandestine cabals. These purported orchestrators, they claim, are hell-bent on dismantling Christianity and Western culture. Unsurprisingly, their British counterparts, particularly the BNP, were quick to adopt and adapt this incendiary rhetoric.

The BNP has skillfully repurposed the Cultural Marxism trope to fit their own agenda, portraying it as a stealthy strategy intricately linked to EU membership, ostensibly designed to erode British national identity. They fervently vow to "repeal and abolish" what they dub as sinister “leftist social engineering projects” at the heart of what they deem the disastrous multicultural experiment threatening Britain’s very survival. Their narrative decries the EU as an entity depriving Britons of their "inherited right" to self-determination through their "traditional and democratically elected Parliament." Instead, they paint a picture of an "unelected Commission" crafting laws in secret, with ambitions that include obliterating Britain as a distinct nation.

To bolster their apocalyptic vision, the BNP conjures a demographic upheaval orchestrated to strip the indigenous people of their culture, heritage, history, and traditions. They frequently issue dire warnings of an impending Islamic takeover, suggesting that multicultural policies are merely a prelude to Sharia law usurping British legal traditions. Immigrants, in their view, are opportunistic parasites exploiting the welfare system and hastening societal decay, thus rationalising their stringent anti-immigration stance as a defense of British heritage and economic stability.

The party’s rhetoric delineates a stark dichotomy between "us" (the native British population) and "them" (immigrants and multiculturalism advocates), casting the latter as a formidable threat to national cohesion and security. By invoking the spectre of Cultural Marxism, they seek to legitimise their racist, xenophobic, and nationalist policies, framing them as an urgent response to an existential cultural crisis. This narrative serves not only to stoke fear and division but also to mask the underlying bigotry with a veneer of patriotic duty and cultural preservation.

Nigel Farage’s political vehicles, UKIP, the Brexit Party, and the Reform Party, have propagated a similar narrative, albeit with a veneer of respectability and a tepid attempt to differentiate between 'good' immigrants and 'bad' ones. In the wake of a terror attack in France in 2015, Farage posed a rhetorical challenge: “How about ending this silly idea that segregation and identity politics are sustainable? They’re not. The multiculturalism project has failed.” He lambasted the pillars of multiculturalism—mass migration, ghettoisation, and the making of excuses for troubling events—as fundamentally flawed from the outset. Farage positioned himself as the critic of a philosophy that he declared had failed not just Britain and France, but every nation that had embraced it.

Farage’s critique extended to what he dubbed the "political correctness experiment," which he argued had spectacularly backfired on the West. Yet, unlike the BNP, Farage cloaked his discourse in a thin layer of tolerance, offering token defences of British Muslims and other minorities. He spoke of the “need to stand by British Muslims” who are “outraged and horrified by the civil war raging inside Islam right now.” This semblance of solidarity, however, was quickly undercut by his admission of concern over polling responses among young British Muslims on issues like Sharia law and Quranic punishments for apostasy. “But maybe, just maybe,” he speculated, “we’re seeing these kinds of responses because we as a society and a civilisation have been so afraid of standing up for what we believe in, and expect people living here to believe in.”

Farage’s rhetoric, then, walked a tightrope between critique and condemnation, seeking to appear reasoned while fundamentally echoing the alarmist and divisive sentiments of more overtly xenophobic movements. His narrative, while often less sensationalistic than that of the BNP, nonetheless fed into the broader discourse of cultural threat and societal decline, wrapping prejudice in the guise of principled concern and national self-preservation.

In more recent times, Nigel Farage has found himself emboldened to invoke the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory more explicitly. In 2020, he faced a barrage of criticism for linking Black Lives Matter to this very conspiracy. Farage pontificated, “The organisation Black Lives Matter is an openly Marxist organisation that wants to bring about the end of Capitalism, the end of the nation-state as it currently exists.” He went further, declaring, “This is not about racial equality in our country; this is, in fact, Cultural Marxism. It is an attempt to destroy everything this country has ever stood for. And there’s been precious little resistance.”

In the same breath, Farage accused companies pulling TV adverts from right-wing shows of capitulating to “Soros-funded organisations.” This invocation of George Soros, a Jewish billionaire philanthropist and perennial target of antisemitic conspiracy theories, was a blatant dog whistle. Farage has not shied away from these veiled references elsewhere, employing the term “globalist” to suggest a shadowy elite manipulating public life. He claimed that “unelected globalists” were shaping people’s lives based on “secret recommendations from the big banks” and asserted that these “globalists” were funding Black Lives Matter. Through these coded messages, Farage taps into deep-seated prejudices, fuelling conspiracy theories while maintaining a veneer of plausible deniability and folksy respectability.

Farage’s recent willingness to draw from the well of Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory underscores how over time, there has been a growing acceptance of more overtly conspiratorial and divisive rhetoric. By tapping into deep-seated fears and prejudices, he continues to stoke the flames of cultural and racial animosity, all while wrapping his vitriol in the guise of defending national values and identity.

Building upon the groundwork laid by the BNP and Nigel Farage, an intricate and coordinated network has furthered the spread of anti-Cultural Marxism and anti-woke narratives across the UK. This network isn't merely a collection of dissenting voices but a well-structured ensemble comprising think tanks, media outlets, campaign groups, and influential figures.

A key player in this narrative's proliferation is Spiked magazine, tracing its ideological journey from Trotskyite origins to a far-right stance. Initially part of the Revolutionary Communist Tendency, which later evolved into the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), Spiked emerged from these political shifts. Influential personalities like Frank Furedi, Claire Fox, Mick Hume, Munira Mirza, and Brendan O’Neill were pivotal in this ideological transformation.

Following the closure of ‘Living Marxism’ in 2000 due to a libel case, these individuals established Spiked. The magazine's content took a significant turn away from its Marxist roots, instead defending hard-right ideologies and critiquing progressive movements. Spiked championed causes such as hard Brexit, fracking, and increased coal production, mirroring a broader scepticism of climate change.

Spiked's operational aspects, particularly its funding, are noteworthy. From 2016 to 2018, Spiked US Inc received $300,000 from the Charles Koch Foundation, known for supporting conservative causes. This funding raises important questions about the potential influence of financial backers on Spiked's editorial stance. The magazine's reticence in disclosing this financial support adds complexity to its public image.

The spread of the Cultural Marxism theory in the UK has been significantly supported by figures associated with Spiked. Frank Furedi’s shift from Marxism to libertarianism reflects Spiked's overall trajectory, concentrating on themes like the erosion of personal responsibility and the emergence of a victimhood culture. Claire Fox, once a member of the RCP, is recognized for her anti-woke and anti-multiculturalism positions, exemplified in her role as a Brexit Party MEP. Mick Hume, serving as Spiked's editor-at-large, is a staunch advocate for free speech, particularly from right-wing viewpoints. His articles in publications like the Daily Mail often counter leftist ideologies and environmental activism. Brendan O’Neill, the current editor of Spiked, regularly critiques ‘wokery’ and leftist politics through his contributions to right-wing media. The transition of Munira Mirza from a role at Spiked to becoming a policy advisor for Boris Johnson underscores the network's reach into the political arena.

Beyond these prominent names, individuals such as Toby Young, Nigel Biggar, Douglas Murray, Matthew Goodwin, Eric Kaufmann, Alastair Donald, and Ella Whelan have played significant roles in advancing the anti-woke discourse. Their involvement in astroturf organizations like the Free Speech Union, coupled with their media presence, has shaped both public and academic debates.

The influence of Spiked within the British media landscape is profound and far-reaching. Their writers are frequent contributors to major newspapers, exemplified by Mick Hume's thirteen articles for the Daily Mail within a single year. This is, perhaps, unsuprising given that Paul Dacre, the former long-term editor of the Daily Mail was also a proponent of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Appearances on BBC programs like Question Time and GB News further underscore their influential role in shaping political and social discourse.

Mainstream newspapers such as The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Times, and The Sun amplify the reach of these authors, illustrating the network's deep penetration into mainstream media. This influence is not confined to the print media alone but extends to broadcast outlets like GB News, which further disseminate anti-woke narratives.

At the heart of propagating anti-woke narratives are think tanks such as Policy Exchange, the New Culture Forum, the Legatum Institute, and Civitas. These organizations intellectualize and disseminate narratives that defend free speech and challenge left-wing hegemony. The collaboration between these think tanks and media outlets like Spiked and GB News demonstrates a concerted effort to shape public discourse around decisively anti-woke themes.

Case Studies: Drag Queen Story Time and the Drag Panic

In the early months of 2023, the serene London suburb of Forest Hill became the epicentre of a fierce ideological clash surrounding the Honour Oak pub, renowned for its inclusive atmosphere. The pub’s decision to host a 'Drag Story Hour' featuring ‘That Girl,’ a drag performer reading to children, aimed to promote literacy, inclusivity, and diversity. However, this well-intentioned event soon became a lightning rod for controversy.

Turning Point UK (TPUK), a British lobby group staunchly opposed to Cultural Marxism, quickly condemned the event as a significant "safeguarding" issue, igniting a considerable backlash. The local community, including teacher unions and LGBTQ+ advocates, staunchly defended the pub, proudly displaying banners emblazoned with messages of anti-fascism and unity. The situation was further complicated by the involvement of far-right groups such as National Action, Blood & Honour, Combat 18, and The League of Young British Patriots, notorious for their extremist nationalist and xenophobic ideologies. Their anti-trans rhetoric stood in stark contrast to the inclusivity championed by the counter-protesters.

Despite the vitriol from far-right protesters, the Honor Oak pub and ‘That Girl’ stood firm, emphasizing the family-friendly nature of the event and its core values of diversity and inclusivity. The pub reassured the community of the event's positive intentions, steadfast in their commitment to promoting a welcoming environment.

This incident at Honor Oak mirrors broader societal debates on LGBTQ+ rights, echoing similar tensions in the United States, where Drag Queen Story Time (DQST) has faced violent opposition from far-right groups. Prominent figures in the anti-Cultural Marxism sphere, including Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro, and Matt Walsh, have linked DQST to LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theories, influencing Republican-led legislative actions in states like Tennessee and Arkansas. The Institute for Strategic Dialogue reported over 100 incidents of anti-drag protests and violence, implicating groups such as Proud Boys and White Lives Matter.

The events at Honor Oak reflect a nationwide pattern of escalating tensions in the UK, with Turning Point UK emerging as a key organiser of protests against DQST events. Notable political figures and media personalities, including Conservative Party MP Marco Longhi, TPUK's president, and GB News' Calvin Robinson and Laurence Fox, have been vocal opponents of DQST.

Emma Nicholson, a Conservative Party peer, lambasted a Tate Britain DQSH event as "propaganda," questioning the appropriateness of the entertainers involved and the suitability of "advocates for queer ideology" as role models for children. Sara Britcliffe, a Conservative MP, deemed a Lancashire literary festival's DQSH event "inappropriate," leading to its cancellation. Unsurprisingly, Miriam Cates expressed concerns about DQSH in schools, accusing the NEU of exposing children to highly sexualized drag queen performances.

The Drag panic and Honor Oak protests starkly illustrate the potency of the anti-Cultural Marxism movement in the UK, adeptly importing American controversies and uniting disparate factions under a common banner. This movement, a coalition of politicians, think tanks, violent far-right groups, media outlets, and public personalities, has skilfully portrayed an innocent children's event as a clandestine ploy to erode British, Christian values and indoctrinate the youth.

What unfolds here is more than just a local controversy; it is a case study in the broader and more insidious impact of anti-Cultural Marxism narratives. These narratives have proven alarmingly effective in shaping public opinion and political discourse, sowing division and fostering an atmosphere of suspicion and fear. By tapping into deep-seated anxieties and latent prejudices, the movement weaponises cultural symbols and societal norms, reframing them as fourth generation battlegrounds for ideological warfare.

In this charged climate, the Honor Oak incident is emblematic of how easily a community-focused event can be contorted into a symbol of existential threat. The narrative crafted by these groups does not merely aim to contest a particular event but to engender a broader cultural and political upheaval, exploiting every opportunity to stoke fear and resentment.

As such, the Drag panic and Honor Oak protests serve as a microcosm of the dangerous efficacy of anti-Cultural Marxism rhetoric. It underscores how these narratives, when left unchecked, can pervade and poison public discourse, redirecting attention from genuine societal issues to fabricated cultural wars. This case is a sobering reminder of the need for vigilance and critical engagement in the face of such divisive ideologies, highlighting the perilous path down which unchecked conspiratorial thinking can lead.

Case Study: Black Lives Matter and Slaver Statues

The Black Lives Matter movement in the UK, galvanized by the global response to George Floyd's death in 2020, cast a glaring spotlight on issues of racial inequality and police brutality. It brought to the fore deep-seated concerns about disproportionate police encounters with Black and ethnic minority individuals, systemic racism, and the UK’s enduring legacy of colonialism. Protesters demanded reforms in policing and education, striving for a more honest acknowledgment of Black history and the lasting impacts of colonialism.

The symbolic toppling of the Edward Colston statue in Bristol became a flashpoint, challenging the UK’s relationship with its colonial past and the legacy of slavery. This act of defiance did not go unanswered. Far-right groups, think tanks, and Tory politicians quickly rallied against what they perceived as the machinations of Cultural Marxists threatening traditional British historical narratives.

Prominent far-right figures and organisations like Tommy Robinson, the National Front, and Britain First mobilised in response. Robinson vociferously opposed the BLM movement, accusing it of seeking to erase and rewrite British history. He incited his followers, saying, “Every single man should be in London next Saturday or forever don’t call yourself a patriot… the British public won’t sit by and watch that s**t.” Britain First, in an email, declared its intention to "protect statues nationwide from left-wing hooliganism over the coming months," while the National Front went so far as to, ridiculously, call for the toppling of Nelson Mandela’s statue.

In the wake of the Colston statue controversy, the ‘Save Our Statues’ campaign emerged, led by right-wing figures such as Robert Poll, Emma Webb, Peter Whittle, and Richard Bingley. his group’s membership profile mirrored that of many ‘anti-woke’ factions. Poll, a former Brexit Party candidate, was a central figure. Webb brought her affiliations with the Common Sense Society, the Free Speech Union, and the Henry Jackson Society into the fold. Whittle, having served as the ex-deputy leader of UKIP and founding the New Culture Forum, added political heft. Bingley, also a former UKIP activist, was known for his frequent appearances on GB News.

Mainstream media outlets like the Spectator and the Telegraph played a significant role in amplifying the voices of the ‘Save Our Statues’ campaign, providing a platform for their views on the Black Lives Matter movement and heritage preservation. This group exemplified how pre-existing networks could swiftly mobilise to form issue-specific lobby groups, finding platforms and sympathy within the conservative media ecosphere. They demonstrated the capacity of these networks to harness media influence, shaping public discourse around cultural and historical narratives. However, they were not the only lobby group formed in the aftermath of the BLM protests.

The National Trust, a conservation organisation, acknowledged the importance of the BLM movement and began investigating the links between their properties and slavery and colonialism. In September 2020, they released a report exploring these connections, part of an initiative to present a more inclusive narrative of British history. The report advocated a 'retain and explain' policy, suggesting that statues and properties be retained but supplemented with plaques and exhibits providing historical context about their ties to slavery and colonialism. This initiative faced significant backlash from the right, leading to the formation of Restore Trust, led by figures like Zewditu Gebreyohanes, associated with right-wing think tanks such as Policy Exchange and the Legatum Institute, and Neil Record of the Institute of Economic Affairs. Though presenting itself as a grassroots movement, Restore Trust’s strategic connections suggested a more coordinated effort.

Restore Trust pushed for the National Trust to focus on conservation and providing an aesthetic experience, advocating an "apolitical" stance. They criticised the National Trust's report for presenting a negatively biased view of Britain, arguing for a responsible use of history that avoids demonising the nation's past. Restore Trust sought to influence the National Trust by targeting its governing council. In the coming years, Restore Trust would repeatedly attempt to gain control of the National Trust’s government, but to no avail. However, its supporters once again demonstrate the strength and tactics of the anti-Cultural Marxism networks in the UK.

In August 2022, Boris Johnson appointed Gebreyohanes as a trustee of the Victoria and Albert Museum, indirectly lending credibility to Restore Trust. By November 2023, despite an expensive advertising campaign and endorsements from figures like Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage, Restore Trust's efforts remained ineffectual, leading to Gebreyohanes's resignation to focus on her work with the Legatum Institute. In her absence, Restore Trust continued to attempt to gain control of the National Trust.

Within the political parties, the Tory Common Sense Group, comprised of around 50 Brexiter MPs, was particularly active in seeking to save Britain’s statues and combatting the evils of BLM. "The Battle for Britain has begun" declared the group’s founder Sir John Haye, before going on to attack BLM as "intolerant woke dogma," driven more by negative emotions than by a pursuit of justice.

The CSG's assertions gained prominence in the post-Brexit political landscape, particularly in the 'Red Wall' constituencies. By creating new adversaries in the form of 'the woke,' the group sought to solidify its base, doubling down on social conservatism. The authors within the CSG expressed a desire to uphold and promote traditional British values and historical perspectives, vehemently dismissing revisionist views. Members of the group signed a letter to The Telegraph in November 2020, criticising the National Trust for being influenced by what they termed "cultural Marxist dogma, colloquially known as the woke agenda." This letter was emblematic of their broader campaign against progressive narratives in cultural and historical institutions.

In June 2021, marking the first anniversary of the toppling of Edward Colston's statue, the Common Sense Group (CSG) released ‘Common Sense: Conservative Thinking for a Post-Liberal Age’. The group, seemingly wary of their past missteps in directly invoking the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, cleverly reframed their rhetoric. Instead of overt references, the document is peppered with synonyms: political correctness, multiculturalism, and wokeism. Yet, the familiar tropes of the conspiracy theory permeate the text.

Marco Longhi and Lord Peter Lilley decried what they saw as an “unholy alliance between a virtue-signalling intelligentsia and short-termist business leaders,” which, they argued, stifled serious debate on immigration policy. They claimed that “British subjects understandably resent that they have to obey the law while laws against illegal immigration are either not enforced or circumvented by lawyers cynically exploiting legal loopholes.”

Gareth Bacon MP described wokeism as an ideology “preoccupied with rewriting the past to alter the present,” asserting that its ultimate goal is “to destroy the accepted sense of Britain.” James Sunderland MP, in collaboration with Daily Express political editor David Maddox, lambasted the BBC’s promotion of wokeism. Their chapter praised Paul Dacre’s 2007 endorsement of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and accused BBC figures of attacking leaders like Boris Johnson and Donald Trump while characterizing the BLM “riots” as “mostly peaceful,” allegedly ignoring the destruction of “cities and businesses.”

The actions and rhetoric of the Common Sense Group, alongside those of Restore Trust, Save Our Statues, and violent far-right groups, represent a robust conservative reaction against progressive narratives within cultural and historical institutions. Their campaigns, deeply rooted in nationalistic and traditionalist ideologies, aim to reshape Britain’s cultural landscape, influencing how history is taught, remembered, and displayed in public spaces.

Case Study: Remembrance Weekend Violence

In November 2023, the United Kingdom's Remembrance Weekend, traditionally a time of solemnity and reflection, was unexpectedly marred by a surge of far-right violence. This event highlighted the significant impact provocative language can have on public behavior and the ignition of conflict. The unrest was preceded by two concurrent events: the Remembrance Day commemorations and the scheduled pro-Palestine ceasefire protests, however far-right violence was fuelled by inflammatory rhetoric of more mainstream right-wing figures.

Prominent figures known for their anti-Cultural Marxism stance were central to this escalation. Nigel Farage openly criticised the government and Metropolitan Police for not prohibiting the pro-Palestine protests, accusing them of being "gutless." He amplified his concerns through social media and his GB News show, portraying the protesters as a threat to the sanctity of national remembrance.

Commentator Douglas Murray claims about a "million man march" by "UK Hamas supporters" on Remembrance Day, alleging intentions to "defame our war-dead and desecrate the Cenotaph," was particularly alarming. He urged the British public to "come out and stop these barbarians" if the march proceeded. A video of his interview with John Anderson was widely shared among far-right groups. This was particularly noteworthy due to Murray’s mainstream media credentials. He has previously written for the Wall Street Journal, the Spectator and The Times and his regular appearances on shows like the BBC’s Newsnight and contributions to Sky News Australia and Fox News further cement his status as an influential mainstream figure.

Home Secretary Suella Braverman's comments were significant, given her high-ranking position and affiliations with groups like the Bruges Group and the Common Sense Group. Her labelling of the pro-Palestine demonstrations as "hate marches" and accusations of police bias against far-right demonstrators cast the protests in a negative light. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s remarks about the potential "desecration" of the Cenotaph further intensified the situation. Braverman's history of provocative statements on immigration and her responses to far-right violence, like the incident at Knowsley, have been criticised for appearing to not adequately address far-right extremism. Days before the march, she authored a controversial article in The Times, accusing the police of favouritism towards pro-Palestinian protesters over nationalists and the far-right.

In contrast, organizers of the pro-Palestine march, including Ben Jamal from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, emphasized the peaceful and legal nature of their demonstration. London Mayor Sadiq Khan and the Metropolitan Police engaged with the organizers to ensure the march did not encroach on Remembrance Day events, particularly avoiding the Cenotaph.

However, far-right groups, seemingly incited by narratives that painted the pro-Palestine march as an affront to British values, engaged in violent clashes, particularly near the Cenotaph. These confrontations led to numerous injuries and arrests. Despite assurances from pro-Palestine march organizers to respect Remembrance Day’s solemnity, far-right actions created chaos and disrupted public order throughout the city.

The Metropolitan Police were confronted with violence, including missile throwing and the use of metal barriers against them. Far-right groups, some inebriated and wearing balaclavas, surrounded the Cenotaph, and footage showed them breaking through police lines. After a two-minute silence, these groups dispersed, engaging in further confrontations, including shouting abuse at pro-Palestine demonstrators and the police. Meanwhile, a peaceful march for a ceasefire in Gaza took place a mile away, drawing hundreds of thousands. However, scattered far-right activists harassed and attacked some pro-Palestine demonstrators. Police arrested 145 individuals for various offenses, predominantly far-right protesters.

In the aftermath, several UK newspapers displayed a tendency towards "bothsidesism" in their coverage of the Far-Right violence on Remembrance Day. The Daily Mail on Sunday focused on Michael Gove being jostled by pro-Palestine supporters, while The Sunday Express and The Sunday Telegraph presented a generalized and equated view of the extremists. Only The Independent's headline directly addressed the predominant role of Far-Right groups in the violence. This media approach often creates a false equivalence that can obscure the specific nature and source of the violence.

Subsequent to these events, there were claims that the violence was fuelled by the rhetoric and incitement of Home Secretary Suella Braverman. The police suggested her comments were a “significant factor” in the sustained attacks by far-right groups. Braverman, in her response, condemned the violence but predominantly focused on the pro-Palestinian marchers, highlighting “sick, inflammatory and, in some cases, clearly criminal chants, placards and paraphernalia” without addressing the far-right involvement.

Suella Braverman was eventually dismissed from her role as Home Secretary, primarily due to her inflammatory article in The Times, which was not sanctioned by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's office. Her prior actions, including suggesting that displaying a Palestinian flag could be criminalized, contributed to her sacking.

Following her dismissal, English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson publicly supported Braverman, claiming she was “fired for telling the TRUTH” Similarly, and former Brexit Minister Jacob Rees-Mogg, now a GB News presenter, asserted that she was “sacked for being right.”

The Remembrance Weekend violence in November 2023 serves as a stark example of the dangerous consequences of inflammatory rhetoric within politically and culturally sensitive contexts. The actions of far-right groups, incited by narratives that portrayed the pro-Palestine march as a threat to British values, led to a significant disruption of what was meant to be a solemn time of commemoration. This event not only highlights the ability of the anti-Cultural Marxism movement to mobilise and unite various right-wing factions under a common, divisive cause but also underscores the role of influential figures and media in shaping and escalating tensions.

The aftermath of the violence, including the media's coverage and the political consequences for figures like Suella Braverman, reflects the deep divisions and ongoing struggles within the UK over its cultural identity and historical narrative. The contrast between the peaceful intentions of the pro-Palestine march organisers and the disruptive actions of the far-right groups vividly illustrates the impact of extremist ideologies in distorting public discourse and inciting real-world conflict.

Common Characteristics of Case Studies

The anti-Cultural Marxism movement in the UK, drawing inspiration from the ideologies of William Lind and Paul Weyrich, has deftly united a spectrum of right-wing factions. The case studies that we previously examined demonstrate how this coalition spans white supremacists, fascists, neoliberal think tank figures, Christian conservatives, and mainstream conservative groups, all rallying under a banner that venerates an Anglo-Saxon cultural heritage and Victorian values.

Lind's vision of preserving a homogenous traditional identity and resisting the tides of multiculturalism resonates deeply within this movement, manifesting in vehement opposition to events like 'Drag Time Story Hour' and the fervent backlash against Black Lives Matter and Pro-Palestine protests.

What we see is a movement that is not just reactive but proactive, adeptly maneuvering within the political landscape to reshape Britain's cultural discourse. It underscores a longing for a mythical, monolithic past, weaponising nostalgia to drive its point home. This isn't merely about resisting change but about rolling back the clock to an imagined era of homogeneity and order, making it a potent force in contemporary British politics.

A critical strategy of this movement, mirroring the tactics of Weyrich and Lind in the US, is the strategic placement of ideologically aligned individuals in key positions of influence. In the case studies, this was most obvious in the case of 'Restore Trust' and its attempts to take control of the National Trust. However, it is evidenced more generally in the appointment of figures associated with the movement, like Tim Montgomorie and Munira Mirza, as special advisors in government and in, ultimately unsuccessful attempts to install Paul Dacre as the head of the broadcasting regulator Ofcom.

The Anti-Cultural Marxism movement has fostered an environment where its members effortlessly transition between roles in right-wing media, opaquely funded think tanks, special advisor positions, appointments to state bodies, and roles within the Conservative Party.

Moreover, the movement's depiction of minorities and progressive movements as subversive elements aligns with Weyrich's reimagining of the communist threat as a cultural invasion. This narrative broadens the movement's appeal in Britain, echoing Weyrich's transformation of American conservative thought and solidifying its influence across various societal sectors.

In conclusion, the UK's anti-Cultural Marxism movement epitomises the successful unification of diverse right-wing factions, strategic placement of influential individuals in positions of power, and effective utilisation of think tanks and media figures for ideological propagation. This alignment with Lind and Weyrich's vision is not a coincidence. It is not merely populist or reactionary. Rather, as evidenced by the discussed case studies, it represents a dangerous attempt to wage fourth generational warfare against an imagined existential threat.

The Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory and Illiberal Democracy

The Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory, despite being baseless and inflammatory, has found traction among far-right extremists, who use it to justify and embolden their violent actions. This theory has been linked to several high-profile terrorist attacks. Incidents like Anders Behring Breivik's attacks in Norway in 2011, the 2019 Christchurch mosque and El Paso shootings, and the 2020 Hanau shootings demonstrate the deadly impact of such extremist ideologies. In the UK, the case of Jack Renshaw, who plotted to assassinate a Member of Parliament and a police officer, further highlights the dangers posed by such theories. These events starkly illustrate the capacity of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory to fuel a violent, extremist worldview.

However, the threat of terrorism is arguably overshadowed by the risk of a gradual erosion of democratic principles, leading to illiberal democracies. Despite the UK's robust democratic institutions, the insidious influence of far-right ideologies could slowly but significantly undermine key democratic values. This threat is not the immediate rise of a fascist regime in the style of the 1930s, but a subtle shift toward an illiberal democracy, where the form of democratic institutions remains but their essence is hollowed out. This erosion, marked by the decline of civil liberties, judicial independence, and suppression of dissent, poses a profound challenge to the tenets of liberal democracy.

Illiberal democracy, increasingly prominent in political discourse, describes a system where, despite the presence of elections, there's a significant decline in the quality of democracy, especially regarding civil liberties, the rule of law, and political pluralism. Hungary under Viktor Orbán exemplifies this. Orbán's government, while holding elections, has systematically eroded civil liberties, dominated the media, and implemented constitutional and legal changes to centralise power within the ruling party. This has involved undermining judicial independence and academic freedom, often justified by nationalist and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

Orbán has shaped Hungary's cultural and ideological landscape through his opposition to what he perceives as the influences of Cultural Marxism, multiculturalism, and 'woke' ideologies. His vocal opposition to multiculturalism and migration, aiming to return Hungary to its historical ethnic makeup, has led to legislation penalizing NGOs working on migration and a so-called 'Stop Soros Bill'. This bill targeted Jewish philanthropist George Soros portraying him as a manipulative force behind societal changes and aligning with the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Orbán's regime actively combats what he terms the 'woke virus', standing against progressive Western ideologies.

The government's control of media and culture, alongside the active stigmatisation and scapegoating of groups like migrants and sexual and gender minorities, mirrors trends in the UK's anti-Cultural Marxism movement. Both Hungary and the UK have seen efforts to reshape cultural narratives and bolster nationalistic ideologies. The relationship between Hungary's Fidesz party and the UK Conservative Party, characterized by ideological compatibility and strategic alliances, reflects this. Orbán's commendation of Boris Johnson, and the Conservative Party's unique backing of Orbán's government in the European Parliament, underscore these ties.

Key figures in the UK Conservative Party, including ERG members Sir Edward Leigh, Christopher Chope, and Ian Liddell-Grainger, have shown ideological parallels with Orbán's governance. Their meeting with Orbán, facilitated by the Danube Institute suggests a shared stance on issues like illegal migration and social liberalism. This relationship has been also reflected in calls from Tim Montgomerie for a ‘special relationship’ with Orban. Montgomerie, a former ‘social justice’ advisor to Tory PM Boris Johnson and veteran of the right-wing media and think-tank circuit, praised Hungary's "early thinking" on the "limits of liberalism," and went on to suggest that people like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump, Victor Orban and Nigel Farage were part of the same movement.

For many on the right of the Conservative Party, including members of the Bruges Group and the Common Sense Group, Orbán’s model of illiberal democracy is seen as a desirable blueprint for Britain. They envision it as a defense against Cultural Marxism, wokeness, and multiculturalism. Its appeal lies in maintaining the facade of democracy while ensuring that political, economic, cultural, educational, policing, judicial, and media systems are structured to secure a predetermined electoral outcome. It represents an approach that sees democracy as desireable, but only if the result is an anti-Cultural Marxism regime.

Conclusion

The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, with its expansive and adaptable narrative, serves not only as a unifying rallying cry for disparate factions on the political right but also as a pernicious vehicle for the proliferation of various other conspiracy theories. It functions as a broad umbrella under which ideologies ranging from neoliberalism to white supremacy coalesce, creating a complex and dangerous tapestry of misinformation and extremism.

It provides a framework within which theories like the Great Replacement Theory, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Eurabia conspiracy theory, the 15-minute cities conspiracy theory, and anti-vaccination conspiracies gain traction. Each of these theories, while distinct in specifics, shares a common thread: the allegation of covert, malevolent forces undermining traditional values and societal structures.

The Great Replacement Theory, for instance, mirrors the themes of Cultural Marxism by suggesting a deliberate effort to replace white populations with immigrants. Similarly, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Eurabia conspiracy theory feed into anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim sentiments, respectively, portraying these groups as part of a larger plot to control or destabilize Western societies. The 15-minute cities conspiracy theory and anti-vaccination conspiracies further extend this narrative, suggesting hidden agendas in urban planning and public health initiatives.

The interconnection of these conspiracy theories under the Cultural Marxism umbrella creates a potent mix of fear, misinformation, and xenophobia. It fosters a narrative of victimhood and siege mentality among its adherents, leading to increased polarisation, paranoia and social discord. This phenomenon hampers constructive dialogue and societal progress and poses a tangible threat to democratic values and institutions.

As demonstrated earlier, the entrenchment and dissemination of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory in Britain have been significantly aided by a network of think tanks and media outlets. Drawing inspiration from the American model established by figures like Lind and Weyrich, these organisations have played a pivotal role in spreading and legitimising the theory and its components within mainstream discourse.

Through a mix of news coverage, opinion pieces, editorials, and talk shows, these media platforms effectively normalise the conspiracy theory. They frame social justice movements and progressive policies as threats to traditional values and national identity, reinforcing the divisive us-versus-them mentality on which the Cultural Marxism narrative thrives.

This orchestrated effort by think tanks and media outlets has had profound consequences. It has not only expanded the reach and acceptance of the conspiracy theory but also contributed to the delegitimisation of social justice movements. By portraying these movements as part of a larger, sinister plot against societal norms, proponents of the theory have managed to sow doubt and suspicion around legitimate efforts to address social inequalities and injustices.

To effectively counter the challenges posed by conspiracy theorists, it's crucial to understand the significant influence of think tanks and media in shaping public discourse. Key steps include promoting media diversity, ensuring transparency in think tank funding and affiliations, and fostering critical media consumption among the public. Additionally, journalists and politicians must cease allowing Cultural Marxist conspiracy theorists to frame debates, use conspiratorial dog-whistles unchallenged and unsanctioned, or present astroturf groups as genuine grassroots movements. These measures are vital in combating the spread of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and preserving the integrity of public discourse.

Confronting and dismantling the narratives propagated by the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory demands a robust commitment to critical thinking, media literacy, and transparent, fact-based discourse. It’s imperative that people are educated about the theory, its murky origins, its vocal proponents, and their insidious dog whistles. Only by shedding light on these elements can we effectively counteract the divisive and pernicious effects of such conspiracy theories and avert the inevitable societal ills they breed. This is not merely an academic exercise but a vital defence against the erosion of rational thought and democratic values.