OK, I don't think it is, but I obviously won't research who the author of this book is (I highly doubt she/he is a CT academic, as those are pretty rare anyway

OK, I don't think it is, but I obviously won't research who the author of this book is (I highly doubt she/he is a CT academic, as those are pretty rare anyway outside of Germany), so I guess the conclusion is that when you take a sightly complex theory outside of academia, it becomes a huge mess because people are too dumb to read by themselves (That makes CT a bit like particle physics, which, yeah, fair, you might be right). So I checked, Cultural Marxism is the modern version of Cultural Bolchevism (those idiots couldn't even really create a new name, not really surprising tbh). It's allegedly supported by those pesky 'communist jews' and you might want to read around that and learn about who you learned that word combination from, before any further reading (I'll still advise you to read Baudrillard, but I fear it might only be interesting to standard conservatives). I'm sadly not interested in reading Evola, but I know a bit about Gentile through a postfascist friend, and unless you read as much as he does, I want to advise you on that: neo-fascism/neocon is mostly whiny paranoia. One reason I did like the intersectionnal movement is its whininess, but god at least they don't whine as much as neofascists. Their 'thinkers' don't have any new idea since the late 60s, through Evola (and since the 30s if you want ideas that aren't just dumb), and their big 'new' idea from Renaud Camus was born in 1906, and is basically protofascism, before it integrated Nietzsch's philosophy and collectivism through the military. The Cultural Marxism seems to be the exact parallel to Cultural Bolchevism in Germany, so I guess they did read a little? Gosh I can't believe I didn't made the link the first time :/. But yeah, you should check that.