A cultural theoretician is a kind of contemporary anthropologist; it’s a term that I invented to describe a multifaceted body of knowledge pertaining to the constituents of culture. It’s the marketable right-wing version of what students study of the cultural Marxist degrees.
The bodies of knowledge that it covers pertain (but aren’t limited) to economics, linguistics, metaphysics, (non-revised) history, psychology (with a focus on evolutionary psychology), and anthropology.
If you break down the word, it explains itself: Cultural theoretics, cultural theory, the theory of culture, just like you have an economist who studies and develops economical theory, a cultural theoretician is someone who studies and develops theory about culture in and of itself.
The key difference is in the money. Someone like me has actual usable knowledge for which there is market demand. For instance, I’ve made hundreds of thousands of dollars combining cultural theoretics with consumer psychology to consult corporations with how to properly advertise to different cultures overseas.
That’s not something you learn how to do with an African-American studies degree, for instance. And to my knowledge, there is no actual college course for my knowledge of cultural theoretics. My knowledge, my qualification, comes from a combination of a bachelor’s degree in marketing strategy, with over 11 years of traveling the world, having lived in or visited nearly 20 different countries. I have experience speaking and reading 9 different languages, one of them ancient, and I’ve learned how to combine all of that knowledge and experience into something marketable.
And you can see the results of this in the many 5-star reviews of my marketing firm. That’s what gives me my edge in such a competitive industry is the fact that I can consult corporations how to avoid marketing blunders that could cost them millions of dollars in lost revenue by damaged PR.
I’m currently working on an academic paper to introduce the branch of studies to academia. Though, they may not like it, because it goes against the current mainstream favoritism of cultural Marxist nonsense. You can’t study cultural theoretics of my nature unless you’re willing to have the hard conversation about ethnic groups and IQ, for instance, which is a totally taboo subject in academia.
…yet, it’s the very taboo stuff like that makes all the difference in how I’d recommend a corporation to use what vocabulary to which target audience in the international market. Because if they’re trying to market to an ethnic audience that only has an average IQ of 85, you can reasonably assess that their reading speeds and educational levels aren’t going to be so high either.
If the target audience in question doesn’t have a high average IQ, with a slower average reading speed and lower educational level, it would behoove you to use different vocabulary and imagery in your sales writing and advertising to actually drive home sales.
If you treat everyone the same with your advertising you’re going to get nowhere, and lose tons of money in the process while likely irreparably damaging the reputation of your business.
To learn what I have, the average college student has got to have a strong stomach for non-revised history, the willingness to look at evolutionary psychology with intellectual honesty…most of these college kids don’t have what it takes to survive on their own while traveling around the world not as a tourist, but as a genuine vagabond.
These are two totally different kinds of educations: one is grounded; the other isn’t. One meets a genuine, practical market demand; the other doesn’t.
Meanwhile, besides the short term value of being able to land corporate contracts as a cultural theoretician and consumer psychologist, the long-term value is being demonstrated with Vannoken culture. I’ve engineered Vannoken culture as an analogical extension from my understanding of Gall’s law. In a nutshell, Gall’s law basically states that all complex systems break down into a sum of combined simple constituents.
Gall’s law wasn’t originally meant to apply to culture, but if we modify its context to, we can understand that the abstract manifestation that is culture is really just the sum of simpler parts.
You can create language. You can develop a unique painting style. You can engineer a unique architectural style. You can develop your own cooking style. You can innovate your own poetry and other means of artistic expression. And I’m demonstrating this on the Vannoken cultural site.
So, when a person looks several layers deeper than the surface that is culture, into the framework that makes ever-shifting social rules that lead to the output that is its manifestation…you can develop a culture by laying the foundation of its own framework.
Put simpler, one poem doesn’t make a culture. But recording the rules of how to make a specific poem that you can then teach to ten other people who then make their own unique poems following the same framework of rules leads to an element of a culture.
One song doesn’t make a culture, but a transferable style of making songs taught to several people does.
Rinse and repeat for every major facet of culture, from economics to music, to physical inventions, language, etc…and yes, you really can develop a culture from nothing with just a handful of talented people with the aptitude for it.
A cultural theoretician is a person who willfully dives into that, while focusing on developing the knowledge to make it so.