Alasdair Elder - The Red Trojan Horse: A Concise Analysis of Cultural Marxism

The Red Trojan Horse

A Concise Analysis of Cultural Marxism

By

Alasdair Elder

In November of 1989, I sat with my father, watching the evening news. The gripping event transpiring before us was the fall of the Berlin Wall. I recall my father attempting to explain the significance of this event to me. He told me that the people of East Germany had been living under a very cruel government and that the reason they were so happy was that they were now free.

While my seven-year-old brain was insufficiently developed to grasp the complexities of international politics, or the rivalry between democracy and Communism, or indeed the socio-economic comparisons of the free market with a state-regulated planned economy, I did appreciate one thing; that this was an event of great significance, so much so that the memory of that evening remains clear to me even now.

Evidently, I was not the only one; on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, an American political scientist by the name of Francis Fukuyama, in an essay entitled The End of History , attached even greater significance to this event; in this essay, Fukuyama declared that the collapse of the Soviet system signalled the universal acceptance of liberal democracy as the dominant global system of government. In light of modern-day events, Fukuyamas starry-eyed optimism now seems tragically premature.

While the capitalist West may have triumphed in the economic war with the Soviet Union, another invisible war was and is still raging. It is The Culture War. It has been fought since the 1960s, and since that time, it is the traditionalist and conservative elements of Western society who have repeatedly been on the back foot. This war has been Communisms last sting in the tail; a venomous parting gift, as it were.

Central to this book are two concepts; freedom and truth. These two concepts are intimately intertwined. Consider freedom first; a more precise term for freedom would be self-governance. Self-governance is the right to make ones way in the world, without fear of interference or oppression by others. This does not mean anarchy since in a state of total anarchy it is those strong enough to enforce their will by brute force who are usually the winners. This only lends itself to oppression.

Self-governance, therefore, depends on having a responsible and moral citizenry, of which every member is willing to take a share of personal responsibility for maintaining the structure of the self-governing society. How do they accomplish this? There are many levels to the answer, but at the core is the other concept; truth. Tyranny relies on deceit to maintain itself; a dictator will always tell his people that he has their best interests at heart. This is why George Orwell described telling the truth as an act of revolution. When people cannot speak the truth, freedom is lost because the lies of tyrants cannot be exposed. This is why tyrants always seek to curb freedom of speech. Freedom is a moral principle.

Morality is based on freedom and freedom is based on truth. Truth, therefore, supersedes everything and is the very apex of morality, and the highest immorality of all is to prevent people from speaking the truth. Anyone who attempts to curtail freedom of speech is committing an immoral act. Everything on which civilization has been built comes from freedom; it is the cornerstone of humanity.

Freedom of speech is being curtailed, however. In politics, in entertainment, and most shockingly of all in educational institutions. That is why this book exists; it is an attempt to expose the lies that have permeated Western Culture and sapped its moral vitality. Writing this book was, therefore, a moral duty. The purpose of this book is to examine how and why this attack on freedom was orchestrated, and provide the reader with a means to identify and fight back against this highest form of immorality.

Alasdair Elder

Cambridge, England

31 July 2017

In the summer of 2016, a spat erupted between the British Government and Air China Media Group, the publishers of an Air China inflight magazine, Wings of China . The argument involved not only London MPs but also the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. A letter of protest was even sent to the Chinese ambassador in London.

The dispute arose around an article in Wings of China , which advised passengers on Air China flights to be on their guard when in areas of the city where the majority population were Black or Pakistani. The magazine was subsequently withdrawn from circulation and an official apology was issued by Air China Media Group. What surprised many in Britain, arguably more than the publication itself, was the defiant reaction from both the Chinese media and public.

The Global Times , a state-owned Chinese newspaper ran an editorial, in which it accused the British Parliament of an overly aggressive exaggeration, and of abusing the situation to push an agenda of political correctness. Chinese social media was no less vociferous in its condemnation of the government in London. Sina Weibo, a Chinese equivalent of Twitter, was flooded with comments demanding to know why Air China Media Group was being expected to apologize, and challenging people to walk through those areas of London late at night.

To anyone even remotely familiar with the demographics and culture of the Far East, however, this defiant Chinese reaction would have seemed far less surprising; Asia, unlike Europe and North America, has not seen fit to embrace multiculturalism, or vibrant diversity as it is sometimes called. Take Hong Kong as an example.

Hong Kong is a city founded by a foreign power, namely Great Britain. It is a global trading hub with a GDP far above the worldwide average. According to the supposed wisdom of the West, multiculturalism is a necessity for such a thing to be achieved. On the surface, the Hong Kong Government would seem to agree; according to its leadership, Hong Kong is an open, tolerant and pluralistic community, a city rich in culture and tradition. The Hong Kong Government has even adopted the moniker of Asia's world city for its thriving metropolis. These words and titles belie the truth. Hong Kong does not have a multicultural policy to encourage its citizens to welcome or embrace other races and cultures and does not allocate any resources or support for ethnic minorities to take root and thrive in Hong Kong society.

A glance at Hong Kongs demographics further confirms this perspective; according to the 2011 census data, the population of Hong Kong is composed of 93.1% ethnic Chinese, 1.9% Indonesian, 1.9% Filipino, and 3% other. This hardly qualifies Hong Kong as a melting pot of cultural and ethnic diversity. In this regard, however, Hong Kong is by no means unique. One finds a similar story in every wealthy and prosperous city in the Far East, from Tokyo to Pusan , to Shanghai.

Like Hong Kong, these cities are global trade hubs. They are centres of commerce, innovation, and wealth creation. And yet, not one of them follows the wisdom of the West. Fervent ideological multiculturalism is a purely Western phenomenon. Why should this be the case? Where did the view come from that it was a good idea to force large numbers of people, often with conflicting or even entirely contradictory cultural norms and standards, to live cheek-by-jowl with each other?

When the editorial in The Global Times accused the British government of aggressively promoting political correctness, it raised another pertinent question; what exactly is political correctness? It is one of those terms that almost everyone is familiar with, and yet few people understand it.

Where did political correctness come from, and by the standards of which political ideology is something deemed to be correct or incorrect? The answer is Cultural Marxism. So, what is Cultural Marxism?