Understanding the Hierarchy of Groups within the Cultural Marxist Schema


If there is one thing that defines the thought of the cultural Marxist “Social Justice Warrior” (SJW) crowd, it is the division of people in our country into groups based on race, gender, religion (provided the religion in question is not a traditional Western faith) and sexual proclivities. The radical Left just loves doing this, for a number of reasons. Dividing people into groups allows for easier identification of who is a cultural “enemy” and who is an “ally.” It facilitates the ability of the SJWs to play group against group in their struggle to obtain political power. It also permits them to punish groups which exist outside or fall out of the cultural Marxists’ favor. As a result, “diversity” can be encouraged and monoculturalism and traditional gender norms – things necessary to the perpetuation of our culture as a successful enterprise, but which the SJWs hate – can be dismissed.

Yet, the careful observer should note that not all groups within this division of camps are equal – and I don’t just mean that straight, white Christian males are the objects of the cultural Marxist two-minute hate. Even within the constellation of SJW “preferred groups,” there is a very definite hierarchy that seems to shake out. I believe this is important, for reasons I will explore below. But first, I’d like to delve into this SJW pecking order in greater detail. To do so, let’s look at the major “groups” that the cultural Marxists divide our nation into: straight white males, non-feminist white females, Asians, blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals (by which I am collectively referring to gay males and transsexuals), feminist females, and non-black Muslims.

The hierarchy of preference, I believe, travels upward in the order just given. What the relative positions between two groups in the hierarchy means is that the more favored group will be able to assert itself, from a political correctness standpoint, over and against a less favored group and will be able to shield itself from criticism by lower-ranking groups whenever there is a conflict between the goals and desires of the two. For purposes of the analysis to follow, I will define the term “political correctness conflict” (or PCC) as any situation in which the dynamics of the conflict involve adjudication, either legal, corporate, or social, by an authority that can reasonably be expected to resolve the dispute on the basis of ‘social justice’ values derived from group membership, rather than the individual merit of the respective arguments or cases. The authority in such cases may be a liberal judge, a college professor or administrator, a member of a company’s HR team, journalists responsible for reporting the news, or some other PC enforcer.

Straight White Males

This group, comprising the vast majority of the male half of the professional, middle, and working classes, is the “workhorse” of American society. It is also the most overtaxed and underappreciated. This is because straight white males embody everything that the SJWs hate about American society – respect for law and order, traditional ideas about masculinity and femininity, support for the military, bourgeois views about the value of work and the right of the individual to keep the produce of their own labor, and so forth. Rather than explore in depth what most readers will already know, I’ll just simply observe that there is no situation in which a straight white male will ever win in a political correctness conflict with any other group (all are ranked higher), and leave it at that.

Non-Feminist White Females

Though not as despised by SJWs as straight white males, this group nevertheless ranks extremely low in the hierarchy because they are often the wives or girlfriends of straight white males, and often embody the same general set of values and cultural predispositions as their men.

Nevertheless, we can observe that non-feminist white females occupy a slightly higher niche than do straight white males because wherever there is a conflict in a PCC setting, the female will almost always win. This can be seen, for instance, in the overwhelming number of times in which often unfit non-feminist white female mothers will nevertheless win custody of children and will win disputes over alimony and child support in divorce situations – family and divorce courts are notorious for being overrun by cultural Marxists on the bench. Likewise, in domestic dispute situations (even those not involving violence) that see intervention from the state, the straight white male will almost always be the one who has to find another place to stay for the night, even if he was not the aggressor.


Asians are the first genuine minorities on this list, and they find a very low place in the social justice hierarchy. Certainly, in a PCC, Asians will prevail against nearly all whites of either gender. As a “colonized class” in postmodern social justice theory, Asians have suffered at the hands of Europhallocentricity, and therefore deserve recompense from those below them on the ladder.

But, Asians also have a disconcerting tendency to succeed in capitalistic systems, and also annoy those further up the ladder by out-competing other minority groups. As a result, Asians are viewed comparatively poorly by SJWs, and have even found themselves being legally harmed by reverse affirmative action programs in many universities where they are “overrepresented.” Further, even in direct conflicts between Asians and other minorities, such as when Korean storekeepers had to protect their shops with armed force during the Rodney King riots of 1992, the non-Asian minorities will basically get away with doing what they want to Asians, no consequences accruing to their actions.


Many readers, perhaps, are surprised to see blacks ranking so low in this list. After all, we see all kinds of preferential laws, affirmative action, and other benefits that accrue to black Americans with a seeming view towards preferring them above others. But keep in mind that most reading this are likely to be either straight white males or non-feminist white females, and therefore rank below blacks and will lose PCCs against them, and have probably experienced this firsthand.

Yet, when you observe conflicts between blacks and other groups in the hierarchy, blacks almost never win. For over two decades, black Americans have been complaining about gentrification, in which high-income urban white people, stereotypically gays or feminists, buy up low-cost property in economically depressed black neighborhoods and improve the properties. In the process, the property values (and therefore also the taxes and cost of living) go up, which ends up pricing low-income blacks out of their own neighborhoods. Black leaders have complained about this for years – yet, the complaints have never really gotten any traction at all within SJW circles. This is because blacks rank below both gays and feminist females in the hierarchy.

Likewise, take the recent moves towards the amnesty of millions of Hispanic illegal aliens. For the black American community which already suffers from rampant unemployment and wage depression, amnesty will be a crushing blow. Yet, the Left doesn’t seem to really care. That’s because it, in fact, doesn’t. Hispanics rank higher than blacks, so Hispanics get what they want, even at the expense of blacks. This has also been seen over the past couple of decades in which Hispanics have slowly but surely been driving black Americans out of their traditional neighborhoods in many cities, especially Los Angeles and other Southwestern municipalities, complaints about which have also fallen on deaf ears.

Why is this? Probably a lot has to do with the fact that blacks are considered by the Left to be “in the pocket.” Blacks “belong” to the Left – they vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, they turn out in large numbers to support whatever cause du jour the Left trumps up. As a result, they seem to be taken for granted. After all, the thinking goes, where else are they going to turn?


As seen above, Hispanics rank higher on the social justice ladder. In a sense, they have to. As a relatively new group to the hierarchical dynamic, the SJWs are still trying to secure them in their corner, since they could prove a fertile source of new votes and street manpower in years to come. Hence, despite their unfortunate tendencies to follow traditional Western religion and exhibiting macho cultural traits, the SJWs have to give in to Hispanics to get what they want from them in return.

Yet, this only goes so far. When Hispanics are in a PCC conflict with those above them, they will lose. For example, remember the “10 Hour New York City Catcall Video” from a while back? Newly-minted feminist icon Shoshana Roberts was videoed walking around New York City, and received around 100 “catcalls” (stretching the term for many of them), all of them from black and Hispanic males. There were a few sporadic efforts to argue that her video was racist for singling out blacks and Hispanics to look bad on tape. However, these were systematically squashed by the SJWs, for whom the only acceptable narrative was the feminist one of “the problem of street harassment.” Hence, feminist female beats Hispanic in this game of paper-rock-scissors.

Homosexuals and Feminist Females

With these two groups, we reach the mainstay of the SJW movement, the intellectual cadre (if you can abide the devaluation of that term) of cultural Marxism. These two groups receive most of the attention from the world of professional activism and the culturally Marxist specialty news organs like Mother Jones, the almost-defunct New Republic, Huffington Post, Slate, Salon, and the rest of the SJW media apparatus.

Nevertheless, there is some gradation of rank between these two which puts homosexuals firmly, though surprisingly, a rung below feminist females. Though these two groups generally tend to support each others’ policies and cultural goals, there are occasions where PCCs will arise between them. Typically, these revolve around two points of conflict: the radical feminist assertion that gays are “anti-female” and masculinist, and the feminist complaint that transsexuals (by which is meant the male-to-female kind) are usurping the right to call themselves women, a right that they don’t really deserve. In both such cases, the organs of SJW thought will generally side with the feminist females over the homosexuals and transsexuals. However, the fact that the gradation in rank between these two is less stark than with other groups in the hierarchy is shown in that homosexuals will not generally suffer any major repercussions as a result of the accusations. Feminist females win the debates, but don’t necessarily get to punish homosexual males for their perceived transgressions.

Non-Black Muslims

Now we come to the apex of the social justice hierarchy – non-black Muslims. I specify “non-black” because for whatever reason, black Muslims don’t generally get to benefit from the “Muslim” portion of their identity, and get ranked according to the “black” portion instead. This may be because the phenomenon of Muslim blacks is old enough that this subgroup is subsumed with the rest of the black community into the “they need us more than we need them” category. Or it may be that black Muslims, in the sense of Black Muslims (the cult) are threatening enough to urban white social justice warriors that the perceived hierarchy benefits to being Muslim are outweighed by the need for white liberals to keep them in their place, so to speak.

Nevertheless, non-black Muslims, who are typically from the Middle East (unless they are from Somalia, in which case they will be blacks will a special exemption), find themselves currently at the top of the heap. They have the advantages of combining traits of being non-white (and hence, minorities in the SJW morality scheme), of adhering to a non-Western religion, and of being traditionally oppressed by colonialism and American imperialism. As such, they are the perfect storm of social justice themes. Muslims routinely win PCCs with even female feminists and gays.

Don’t think so? Then why is it that feminists will cast pro-lifers, who oppose the brutal dismemberment of babies, as evil and wicked haters who just want to enslave women, yet these same feminists are curiously silent when it comes to women being forced to wear trash bags and girls being forced to receive painful clitoridectomies, all to satisfy Muslim male superstitions. Likewise, SJWs will fall all over themselves fawning on Muslims, even though gays can be stoned to death in Muslim countries, simply for being gay. Actual, literal slavery of millions of blacks by Muslims in Africa is still going on to this day, yet the SJW camp studiously avoids talking about it. Obviously, Muslims are winning these political correctness conflicts.

What about Other Groups?

Naturally, there are many other groups that have not been included in this analysis, because they are relatively small, or because not much is typically heard about them. Native Americans, the disabled, Jews, and so forth. Of course, all will rank higher than straight white males in any PCC situation. My gut feeling is that Native Americans would rank somewhere about where blacks do, again because they’ve been around for a while and thus are in the bag for the SJWs. Those with disabilities typically will rank very low, often because the disabilities are work or military-service related, and thus smell of the bourgeois taint (observe how much sound and fury about the problems with the VA have arisen from conservative circles, and yet how little is actually being done to remedy it). As for Jews, they also tend to rank lower even than blacks, especially given the unpopularity of Israel among cultural Marxists; this is mitigated somewhat by the fact that many Jews still tend to be liberal, and use their influence to advance left-wing causes. However, we should note that the dynamic is still in effect – witness the current purge of a large number of liberal Jews from the New Republic, which was recently purchased by gay Silicon Valley guru Chris Hughes, who wants to move the magazine in a more techno-homosexualist direction.

Strategies for Exploiting this Hierarchy for Our Own Ends

It’s all well and good to know about all of this, but what is the point? What does it really mean for us? I think there a couple of ways those of us on the traditional Right can use these to our advantage.

First, the existence of this hierarchy necessarily implies that there is potential for fractures and fault lines between the various constituencies of the social justice coalition. When there are PCCs between them, one group will be the winner and one will be the loser. A wise political actor will observe these fractures and seek to exploit the ill will generated in the losing group. An even more forward-thinking actor might seek to engineer situations in which conflicts will arise between “members in good standing” in the social justice coalition, and use these to force open fractures that might otherwise not have existed. Nothing works better for our side than to see the other side divided and using its force against itself.

Second, and related to the first, is that we should work to systematically fish away chunks of the lower half of the social justice ladder – the straight white males, the non-feminist white females, the Asians, and the blacks, by using the strategy above to play them against those groups higher up the food chain. Remind them of the disadvantages they suffer, bring back to their minds how they are taken for granted and mistreated by the others.

To an extent, this is already working. Recent polls suggest that nearly three-quarters of the white working class (one of the largest groups out there even despite all the immigration and deindustrialization we have seen) have turned away from the Democrat Party. The traditional Right needs to tap this and firm up our support among this important bloc of voters who are, really, the backbone of this country anyway. Asians can be reminded of how they are being disadvantaged in terms of scholarships and educational opportunities so as to make room for non-Asian minorities. Blacks need to be widely and deeply engaged about the tremendous damage that amnesty and illegal immigration are doing to their communities and lives.

Ultimately, it’s not enough to simply know what the weaknesses of our enemies are. We also have to be willing to actively seek out to exploit those weaknesses and cause as much damage to the cultural Marxist program as we possibly can. favicon

32 thoughts on “Understanding the Hierarchy of Groups within the Cultural Marxist Schema”

  1. All fairly accurate except for the placement of the Muslims on top of the feminists, gays, and transsexuals. They belong near the Hispanics for similar reasons: the cultural Marxists will turn a blind eye on their infractions, and will always side with them when it’s Muslims vs Whites, but they do not truly hold Muslims in high esteems.

    I’d bump the transsexuals onto the top of the pyramid in their place. The larger SJW community always sides with the trannies when it’s trannies vs. radfems, trannies vs. gays, trannies vs. doctors and psychiatrists, or trannies vs. anyone else.

  2. Keep in mind that placement in the hierarchy has nothing to do with esteem (after all, sodomites and feminists hate each other at a personal level!) – as with everything else about the SJWs/cultural Marxists, it has solely do with raw power and the ability to force other groups to toe your line! In that regard, the Muslims do indeed rule the roost (at least for right now).

  3. Transgender people now rank above feminist females and feminist females above gay men in most disputes. Arguments used to sometimes flare between trans women and feminist women. They don’t anymore because it’s now always assumed that the former is in the right. Gay non-feminist men are right in the same position as non-feminist women in the hierarchy.

  4. Transexuals now rank above feminist females and feminist females above gay men in most disputes. Arguments used to sometimes flare between transexuals and feminist women. They don’t anymore because it’s now always assumed that the former is in the right. Gay non-feminist men are right in the same position as non-feminist women in the hierarchy.


    What are our most important issues? Immigration, trade, war. And yes trade matters, because we need businesses tied to the US, linked with the long-term interests of the US. Perhaps a poor economy also works in our interests though, unfortunately; but I’d be hard pressed to push for a worse economy.

    Anyway: Past labour leaders agree with us on immigration, trade, war. They’re supposedly “left-wing” and some are non-white, but they call for less immigration, protecting trade, ending war. I believe this creates a potential fracture point in the Rainbow Coalition. Presently the Rainbow Coalition believes “rich white men” oppose mass immigration. If we reveal just who is behind mass immigration (rich white, often Jewish, CEOs and investors).

    And similarly of course, Pat Buchanan and other true conservatives hold the same positions as the labour leaders.

    And you could branch out to the environment as well. The Sierra Club opposed mass immigration… until it was bought.

    Brave New World blogger once wrote a similar article to yours here. He noted we have varying shades of in-groups and out-groups in the US, and this increases the likelihood a person is loyal or not or otherwise takes certain positions over others. As with most of the great blogs of the past, his was taken down. We tend to fear our comments being saved, returning later to haunt us, when perhaps the greater danger is that they are forgotten.

    In the past I wrote a post (now vanished ofc) at A3P, something like:

    Republicans support free trade, but claim to oppose mass immigration.
    Democrats support mass immigration, but claim to oppose free trade.

    The majority of America opposes both mass immigration and free trade. And these positions are additionally in the American polity’s and people’s best interests.

    Wall Street, big business, tends to support both mass immigration and free trade.

    The Republicans and Democrats shadowbox, Democrats fight for mass immigration, Republicans fight for free trade. And it just so happens that corporations always win. America is divided and conquered.

    My post at A3P wasn’t so simple and focused on two issues. This post here might even be better.

    I’d included more issues like the environment (which we do care about, at least where reasonable), war, and I can’t think of what else. Anyway, my point is these parties divide us, each publicly supporting only part of the corporate agenda. We pretend that sometimes Republicans get what they want, sometimes Dems get what they want. But in reality, the plutocracy wins everytime. This is an exaggeration of course, but there’s some truth to viewing politics this way. In reality it’s interest groups who win everytime, but some interest groups share our interests.

    We just saw how the GOP, the House no less!, caved on funding immigration. What did it win? Incandescent bulbs… I’m sure some business interest is thrilled with this victory. Personally, I use LED, and I’m fine with banning incandescent. Polluting our homeland isn’t somehow a positive, at least not if we actually intend to care for our posterity, which is in truth a right-wing concern. The Right is supposed to care about its own people. Global Warming concerns can be left-wing if calling for global government, but the environment is properly of the true Right. Naysayers are confused.

  6. Yahoo Finance recently defended mass immigration by saying, “It grows the GDP. We’ve doubled the GDP in so many years, and the population has nearly doubled in the same time”. I’m paraphrasing.

    So, basically we have large property owners in the US, investors, and those who work for them, for example CEOs, benefit from mass immigration as it lowers cost of labour, expands the customer base, increases the value of assets.

    What happens if the US collapses? Why the rich flee. I have enough money that I too could flee, but I like it here. And I have a duty to defend my homeland. If I fled to Ireland, I wouldn’t belong there. I’m only a small part Irish – and Ulster at that. I belong in the US South.

    Sam Francis/James Burnham wrote that we live in a managerial society. Managers who have the skills to manage big business and big government drive society. We do need to figure how to play power politics in the hope of at least preserving something, anything at all. If we cannot preserve the material, such as race, at the least perhaps we can preserve the religious. We are not supposed to have everything we care for turn to dust all at once like this. We should be able to resist this invasion of foreigners, or at least slow our destruction.

  7. Forgot the top dogs: male jews and female jews, in that order. Afterall, they invented this BS!

  8. The rock-paper-scissors analogy is an interesting (and
    funny!) one that had occurred to me a few years ago. However, as the analogy
    suggests, I don’t know if it’s possible to rank order the Left’s victim groups
    (you can’t rank order rock-paper-scissors). I think the only way to know who
    trumps who is to look at the outcomes of actual conflicts (which is what you
    did in some cases).

    For example, I don’t know if non-black muslims beat out
    American blacks or not. I think we’d have to see the outcome a situation where
    each was identified as their respective victim group and came into conflict.

    It may be relevant to note that we got a black president
    before we got a white female feminist president.

  9. “It may be relevant to note that we got a black president before we got a white female feminist president.”

    That is a good point. One thing we should bear in mind is that the political landscape is always changing as alliances form, groups switch “sides,” and generally seek for “local optima” on the landscape (Google “landscape theory in political science” for more info).

  10. Yes, elites drive society. Populism just goes where it’s herded. Jews tend to be at the top, partly because they’re more urban, educated, and ethnically oriented.

    It was communists leading the blacks in South Africa and Rhodesia – many of them Jewish. Some say the native blacks didn’t even understand this concept of “democracy” they were calling for.

    In theory we should be able to act as elites if we learn politics, learn from what works, without being corrupted ourselves. I fear elite theory tends to encourage elites who act in the elite’s own interests rather than its charge’s interests. Whites lack the ethnic orientation Jews possess. And we tend to consider ethnic-orientation ideological and even heretical. So, to put it simply: We don’t know what our First Things are. Whites [we] don’t tend to know what we want.

  11. I think the more dysfunctional and/or alien and group is,
    the higher they rank in the PC hierarchy. This is evident because they can’t be
    criticized, at least as a group. Blacks are dysfunctional and Muslims are
    alien, so they both rank very high.

  12. Can’t go too far with it, however. That’s why Black Muslims don’t rank so high. Frankly, I think the pasty white “progressive” sodomites and feminists are intimidated by them, and thus try to minimize them as much as possible. Not having any recourse to firearms and the will/knowledge to use them, as real white men would, the SJWs have to resort to “don’t encourage them” as their only recourse.

  13. It’s simply not true that feminist beats transgender in cultural Marxist status conflicts, in reality feminists who object to the ‘transgenders’ (who are typically straight white men in dresses) are marginalised as ‘radical feminists’ and a cyst is formed around them.

    There are several other objections I could make to the rank hierarchy, but the general concept is sound.

    Jewishness has a somewhat unique position in that it rarely acts as a shield against individual criticism, because Jews when they are targetted are defined as ‘white’ – so eg Donald Sterling could not defend himself as Jewish. Jews-as-Jews can of course not be criticised. To a large extent this is true of all CM groups-as-groups, however it seems more far reaching in this case. A black radical can criticise white women who don’t want to have sex with black men as ‘racist’ and be supported by the cultural Marxist power structure. He cannot criticise any alleged Jewish-as-Jewish behaviour – he will be attacked. Conversely, a black man can use ‘racism’ to deflect criticism of his personal behaviour in cases where a Jewish man would not be able to claim anti-Semitism.

  14. This article is the top hit on google for “cultural marxism hierarchy”. It would be handy in a chart format that could easily be linked to…

  15. This is absolute bullshit. First off, I’m not a ‘leftie’ – as this stupid article would like to label me. And it’s only idiots like the host of this page that seem to love labeling groups, and at the same time insist that it’s those that they are labeling that are doing the labeling. Absolute moronic idiocy.

  16. Ah, but it is *you* that has labeled us as lovers of labeling labelers while simultaneously labeling labels. The labelee has become the labeler.


    Brilliant and to the point. You really hit the nail on the head. I never realized the true hierarchy of the SJWs. I knew that a trans feminist woman had better social standing than me (a white, straight, male – the lowest rank) but I didn’t think any further than that.

    It’s amazing just how far the radical leftists (and I emphasize radical because normal leftists are not like that) will go to destroy the groups they hate with the ultra liberal media providing all the necessary cover fire to highlight stories that push their political agenda while ignoring ones that show whites facing injustice.

    It’s scary indeed. I do hope we as a society band together and defeat the SJW scourge.

  18. Well, instead of hurling pejoratives, you could actually take this hierarchy and apply it to some news stories. Then you can post stories where this was obviously false and bolster your case.

  19. Yeah; you have to understand someone’s politics if you’re going to argue with them. That’s always been the case. I don’t feel the social pressure that you’re complaining about (and I too am a straight white male); so perhaps you’re antagonizing them without knowing that you are.

    ….or maybe you’re antagonizing them on purpose?… which is generally just considered trolling. Also disabilities and jews looked down upon? Nope; Abelism and Anti-semitism are both things the left believe are problems.

  20. “A black radical can criticise white women who don’t want to have sex
    with black men as ‘racist’ and be supported by the cultural Marxist
    power structure”… I don’t think that’s true. I think it would be a matter of the preferences of the woman in question. You should pose this one to some lefties – as I think you need to either confirm or deny your viewpoint.

  21. wouldn’t it depend on who you’re talking to? TransExclusionaryRadicalFeminism comes to mind (they’re the ones who think transwomen are just men trying to steal “wyminhood” from them).

  22. All the comments are about you misranking groups because there is no agreed upon rank. It’s just separate groups want to be at the top.

  23. You got one thing wrong, the Jew are not in the same category as blacks, the sjw movement is actually led and funded by the Jews. They are the ones who invented it. Nice try at trying to hide their involvement though by assuring us the jew is right at the bottom, lol, when really, they are the pyramid cap.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *