Cultural Marxism: This is essentially the battle plan of the regressives.
When people "wake up," or are questioning the differences between what they see, and what they have been taught, they frequently ask, "How did this happen?"
People see others being rewarded for failure, or penalized for success. Politicians lie, and lie egregiously. People that tell the truth are vilified. Professors and public school teachers consistently and persistently teach against our nation and heritage, and penalize those who do not "go along." Too many of our citizens believe that it is appropriate to confiscate the wealth of another to subsidize their own failed lifestyles. Our president apologizes for our nation's defending freedom, and others blame us for terrorist attacks that take the lives of thousands of innocent people. Our children are not educated-they are indoctrinated. Our children are over sexualized, by their schools, by their peers, and by the entertainment industry. They know little of our nation and government, but they know how to put a condom on a banana. The list could go on and on. One thing is clear, our nation has changed, and it continues on a frightening course.
To describe what has happened to our nation, and more importantly, our culture, we have to look at the architects of that change. The fact is that our culture has been targeted for decades, and most Americans are completely unaware of the nature of this attack. It has been incremental, and has impacted all of our institutions. To examine all of this, I will be quoting "The Culture-wise Family: Upholding Christian Values in a Mass Media World."
First, we have to look at the term "Cultural Marxism."
Before World War I, Marxist theory said that if Europe ever erupted in war, the working classes in every European country would rise in revolt, overthrow their governments and create a new Communist Europe. But when war broke out in the summer of 1914, that didn't happen. Instead, the workers in every European country lined up by the millions to fight their country's enemies. Finally, in 1917, a Communist revolution did occur, in Russia. But attempts to spread that revolution to other countries failed because the workers did not support it.
After World War I ended in 1918, Marxist theorists had to ask themselves the question: What went wrong? As good Marxists, they could not admit Marxist theory had been incorrect. Instead, two leading Marxist intellectuals, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary (Lukacs was considered the most brilliant Marxist thinker since Marx himself) independently came up with the same answer. They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interests, that a Communist revolution was impossible in the West, until both could be destroyed. That objective, established as cultural Marxism's goal right at the beginning, has never changed.
Now, the meaning of the term "Western Culture" is not made explicit here. To elaborate, here is a definition:
Western culture is a body of knowledge derived from reason.
This foundation of reason has made possible a vast accumulation of understanding related to reality or nature, including human nature.
This understanding is represented in several core ideals and values, which include individualism, happiness, rights, capitalism, science and technology.
Western culture can also be referred to as advanced culture; this is because its ideas and values promote the development and sustainment of advanced civilization.
So, when offered Communism, the workers rejected it. Western Culture interfered. The ideas of individuality, self reliance, success, work, owning property, the ability to rise above one's origins, all give hope to the people, especially when the people can act upon and achieve these hopes. The ability to earn, and keep what you earn; all lead to resistance to Communism. After all, why would you give up the ability to earn and be successful to join a de-humanizing collective?
Christianity has another powerful role on resistance to Marxism. Marxism is "Godless," by it's own description, however, I have often postulated that this is an incorrect. I believe that in a Marxist state, God is replaced by the state as the giver of life and all things material. Religion, and its reliance on a higher power creates a situation in which loyalty to the state is secondary to the loyalty to God. This is intolerable to the Marxist.
Gramsci famously laid out a strategy for destroying Christianity and Western culture, one that has proven all too successful. Instead of calling for a Communist revolution up front, as in Russia, he said Marxists in the West should take political power last, after a "long march through the institutions" – the schools, the media, even the churches, every institution that could influence the culture. That "long march through the institutions" is what America has experienced, especially since the 1960s. Fortunately, Mussolini recognized the danger Gramsci posed and jailed him. His influence remained small until the 1960s, when his works, especially the "Prison Notebooks," were rediscovered.
Georg Lukacs proved more influential. In 1918, he became deputy commissar for culture in the short-lived Bela Kun Bolshevik regime in Hungary. There, asking, "Who will save us from Western civilization?" he instituted what he called "cultural terrorism." One of its main components was introducing sex education into Hungarian schools. Lukacs realized that if he could destroy the country's traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying its traditional culture and Christian faith.
Please realize that Mussolini was not a good guy. The fascists, particularly Hitler, viewed Marxism as a related, but inferior system to fascism. Mussolini was simply imprisoning another political opponent, one from a related, but competing ideology.
I think it's easy to see that the long march through the institutions has been largely completed, and the steps to taking political power are well underway. They have education, law, media, and many other related fields. Considering that they want to do away with alternative media, ban home schooling, and use law to accomplish both, the intent becomes clear.
Also, what conclusions can we make regarding the sexual revolution? Is it about "liberating people," or was it just about getting people away from religion? After all, most religions teach sexual restraint. This is taught in the home and at church. However, if the media, and later the schools, teach the opposite, and literally encourage sexual experimentation, a disconnect with the religious instruction and belief is created. This worked incredibly well in Communist states.
Here's another quote that shows that perhaps I'm on the right track…
P. Blanchard, in 'The Humanist" 1983, continues: "I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor. Our schools may not teach Johnny how to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends toward the elimination of religious superstition. The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history."
As time wore on, these men formed what was to be called the Institute for Marxism. Realizing that people would be alarmed by that name, they instead called it the "Institute for Social Research." Colloquially, it was referred to as the "Frankfort School." I guess that this is the first example of "CALLING IT SOMETHING ELSE?"
With the help of this new blood, Horkheimer made three major advances in the development of cultural Marxism. First, he broke with Marx's view that culture was merely part of society's "superstructure," which was determined by economic factors. He said that on the contrary, culture was an independent and very important factor in shaping a society.
Second, again contrary to Marx, he announced that in the future, the working class would not be the agent of revolution. He left open the question of who would play that role – a question Marcuse answered in the 1950s.
Today, when Hollywood's cultural Marxists want to "normalize" something like homosexuality (thus "liberating" us from "repression"), they put on television show after television show where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual. That is how psychological conditioning works; people absorb the lessons the cultural Marxists want them to learn without even knowing they are being taught.
Brainwashing, pure and simple. Denigrate the culture, and make this denigration appear everywhere. Schools, media, even some churches, all promote Cultural Marxism. The sad thing is-they don't even know they're doing it! Of course, we know, because they said what they were going to do, and it's being done!
To serve its purpose of "negating" Western culture, the Frankfurt School developed a powerful tool it called "Critical Theory." What was the theory? The theory was to criticize. By subjecting every traditional institution, starting with family, to endless, unremitting criticism (the Frankfurt School was careful never to define what it was for, only what it was against), it hoped to bring them down. Critical Theory is the basis for the "studies" departments that now inhabit American colleges and universities. Not surprisingly, those departments are the home turf of academic political correctness.
Studies in prejudice
The Frankfurt School sought to define traditional attitudes on every issue as "prejudice" in a series of academic studies that culminated in Adorno's immensely influential book, "The Authoritarian Personality," published in 1950. They invented a bogus "F-scale" that purported to tie traditional beliefs on sexual morals, relations between men and women and questions touching on the family to support for fascism. Today, the favorite term the politically correct use for anyone who disagrees with them is "fascist."
This is one of the big lies of the left. Anyone who believes in freedom is a "fascist." Anyone who believes in doing what the Marxists or Fascists actually did, are progressives! This doesn't actually present a way of thinking and doing that might be better, it's about silencing and discrediting dissent. If you can discredit a person, than you discredit their ideas. The progressives have to avoid discussing ideas, especially when the ideas are superior to what they are trying to do.
The Frankfurt School again departed from orthodox Marxism, which argued that all of history was determined by who owned the means of production. Instead, they said history was determined by which groups, defined as men, women, races, religions, etc., had power or "dominance" over other groups. Certain groups, especially white males, were labeled "oppressors," while other groups were defined as "victims." Victims were automatically good, oppressors bad, just by what group they came from, regardless of individual behavior.
I remember having a discussion with a group of people that claimed that I have had some level of success in my life due to "white privilege." Now, this claim intends to do a few things:
- It attempts to negate the influence the actual effort and work. This is a part of Western Culture. I actually made a great effort to get educated, and then I worked hard at my career. However, this is contrary to Marxism, so it must be discredited by claiming that anything I have came about because of my race. Frankly, I don't particularly like my efforts being discredited.
- The ability to succeed gives hope to others. To keep their victim classes on the "plantation," the progressives must convince the "victims" that they are kept at a low level due to others having this "privilege." Victim classes can only be kept victims if they are thoroughly convinced that they cannot succeed. What better way to do that than to convince them that successful people are only successful because of "special advantages?" They also claim that any minorities that achieve success have "sold out." Remember Clarence Thomas's confirmation?
- Many people are prompted to feel guilt when they are brought to the understanding of their "privilege." Don't laugh! I've literally heard people say this! After all, if you are feeling guilty about having things because the culture is so totally in your favor, you might not feel very bad about giving up some things to make it all right, like, for example, your freedom?
In the end, I didn't cave in to the Marxism, so I was accused of being a racist. In typical progressive fashion, I had to be discredited. Facts were irrelevant, and what I said had to be discounted. The smear is the last defense of the progressives.
Though Marxists, the members of the Frankfurt School also drew from Nietzsche (someone else they admired for his defiance of traditional morals was the Marquis de Sade). They incorporated into their cultural Marxism what Nietzsche called the "transvaluation of all values." What that means, in plain English, is that all the old sins become virtues, and all the old virtues become sins. Homosexuality is a fine and good thing, but anyone who thinks men and women should have different social roles is an evil "fascist." That is what political correctness now teaches children in public schools all across America. (The Frankfurt School wrote about American public education. It said it did not matter if school children learned any skills or any facts. All that mattered was that they graduate from the schools with the right "attitudes" on certain questions.)
Well, it had to bring us to education eventually. This is what we have been talking about for years now. Scores are down, graduation rates are down, and illiteracy is up. But this is acceptable, as most of the children reject God, and embrace Marxist teachings!
Marcuse also widened the Frankfurt School's intellectual work. In the early 1930s, Horkheimer had left open the question of who would replace the working class as the agent of Marxist revolution. In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question, saying it would be a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women and homosexuals – the core of the student rebellion of the 1960s, and the sacred "victims groups" of political correctness today. Marcuse further took one of political correctness's favorite words, "tolerance," and gave it a new meaning. He defined "liberating tolerance" as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the left, and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the right. When you hear the cultural Marxists today call for "tolerance," they mean Marcuse's "liberating tolerance" (just as when they call for "diversity," they mean uniformity of belief in their ideology).
The student rebellion of the 1960s, driven largely by opposition to the draft for the Vietnam War, gave Marcuse a historic opportunity. As perhaps its most famous "guru," he injected the Frankfurt School's cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation. Of course, they did not understand what it really was. As was true from the Institute's beginning, Marcuse and the few other people "in the know" did not advertise that political correctness and multi-culturalism were a form of Marxism. But the effect was devastating: a whole generation of Americans, especially the university-educated elite, absorbed cultural Marxism as their own, accepting a poisonous ideology that sought to destroy America's traditional culture and Christian faith. That generation, which runs every elite institution in America, now wages a ceaseless war on all traditional beliefs and institutions. Th ey have largely won that war. Most of America's traditional culture lies in ruins.
So, when we are referred to as racists for questioning Obama's policies, we know why. When there is no outrage when Van Jones is an avowed Communist, we see through the ignorance. When an untold number of protesters swarm Washington DC, and the MSM minimizes it, we see the cause. When our children are indoctrinated, we see the purpose.
They infiltrated the institutions, just as they said they would. They have since trained/indoctrinated generations of people. Think for a moment… why are so many in the MSM are ignoring Obama's lies, his czars, and the ACORN story? They were indoctrinated! They went to the universities! The Cultural Marxists occupied them first! Why are so many public school teachers towing the line? Same thing! They went to the universities! The list is virtually endless. They have turned education into a leftist indoctrination machine, allowing them to then infiltrate every other institution in our nation.
This ties together with other topics that we have discussed. For example, the Alinsky Method seems to be nothing more than a playbook for Critical Theory and tolerant repression. It is a method to achieve the end. The media's ignorance and lies serve as well. All of the indoctrinated institutions seem to act in the same way to work towards the goals, and circles the wagons for defense.
Where does this leave us? We are in a precarious situation. Our institutions are in the possession of people that would fundamentally change our republic. The vast majority of them have no clue that they are working towards Marxist goals. That is the evil brilliance of cultural Marxism. The minions work towards the end goal, one of which they unaware. But, we are aware, and that is a start.
For more, here is a video from the author of the book I quoted for much of this post.