I don't see anything from critical theory there: the first sentence maybe? As it is an idea's genealogy (is it true BTW? Is the origin of racism the 16th/17th century? But even if it is, this is like 10% of the work, the idea behind the genealogy is finding the origin of idea, it's sisters and cousins.).
This in fact is typically something that is interesting to critisize: where do those ideas come from? Who wrote this? From which country? Who is addressed by it?
And that's what I mean when I say CT is mostly useless (when it's not used on historical disciplines): even with responses to those questions, what can we do about it? It's useless.
I don't know what cultural Marxism is? Are you talking about historical materialism?
This is how it ends up with Critical Race Theory being force fed into people that end up writing these Children's books. This is how it is in practise in the real world.
> I don't know what cultural Marxism is?
Critical Theory IS Cultural Marxism, at least part of it.
The academics in this field are openly and proudly Marxist. It is a Marxist field of study.
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.
This in fact is typically something that is interesting to critisize: where do those ideas come from? Who wrote this? From which country? Who is addressed by it?
And that's what I mean when I say CT is mostly useless (when it's not used on historical disciplines): even with responses to those questions, what can we do about it? It's useless.
I don't know what cultural Marxism is? Are you talking about historical materialism?