Skip to comments."'Cultural Marxism' at the U.S. Naval Academy,"
Posted on 12/01/2005 7:48:34 PM PST by NixonsAngryGhost
The following is the most concise representation of the "Silent Revolution" ( Cultural Marxism) , and its Genesis , which has gripped America. This Idea driven warfare means to undermine American Society, Western Civilization and Christianity.
The Blueprint to Split Society by Ideas, the Idea Is The Weapon ( ref Henry Ford)
"The whole method of the the Intellectual and Cultural Elites may be described in one word, Disintegration. The undoing of what has been done, the creation of a long and hopeless interim in which attempts at reconstruction shall be baffled, and the gradual wearing down of public opinion and public confidence, until those who stand outside the created chaos shall insert their strong calm hand to seize controlthat is the whole method of procedure." " The idea is the weapon. And to be a weapon it must be an idea at variance with the natural trend of life. It must indeed be a theory opposed to the facts of life. And no theory so opposed can be expected to take root and become the ruling factor, unless it appeals to the mind as reasonable, inspiring and good. The Truth frequently seems unreasonable; the Truth frequently is depressing; the Truth sometimes seems to be evil; but it has this eternal advantage, it is the Truth, and what is built thereon neither brings nor yields to confusion."
"This is a piece of strategy well known to the forces that invisibly control mass-thought. " "But now, to conclude this general view of the method, rather this part of the method, the confusion itself, which all these influences converge to produce, is expected to produce another more deeply helpless state. And that state is, Exhaustion."
What is the Frankfurt School? © by .) (Ret August 1999 Copyright 1 Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson CDR USN
If you have absorbed any of the background material presented in this series of essays on "'Cultural Marxism' at the U.S. Naval Academy," you should be quite concerned that our future naval officers are being subjected to psychic intimidation and indoctrination by behavioral psychologists and clinicians whose methods descend from Wilhelm Wundt . The 'facilitators' and civilian professors in the 'Leadership and Ethics' program at the Academy are Wundtians all. The 'cultural Marxism' that has invaded our military academies and other military institutions is pervasive. As a result, these future naval officers will not have an understanding of the essence of what they are chosen to protect, that is, American civilization  -- the most vital and precious descendent of Western civilization.
One must wonder who 'they' are. Who in America today is at work destroying our traditions, our family bonds, our religious beginnings, our reinforcing institutions, indeed, our entire culture? What is it that is changing our American civilization?
Indeed, a thoughtful person should ask himself or herself whether or not all this 'change' from America's traditional culture is simply a random set of events played out by a random set of players, all independent of each other -- all disconnected from any central premise or guidance. It is entirely possible that chance is at work here and all of these 'threads' of American culture are the random workings of the human intellect (the pursuit of what is possible, vice what is appropriate) in a free, democratic society.
But suppose you were to learn that nearly all of the observations made in this series of essays are completely consistent with a 'design' -- that is a concept, a way of thinking, and a process for bringing it about. And suppose one could identify a small core group of people who designed just such a concept and thought through the process of infusing it into a culture. Wouldn't you be interested in at least learning about such a core group? Wouldn't you want to know who they were, what they thought, and how they conjured up a process for bringing their thoughts into action? For Americans with even a smidgeon of curiosity, the answer should be a resounding yes!
If such a core group could be found, then it would still depend on your personal 'world view' as to its significance. If you believe in the 'blind watchmaker,' that is, all cosmic and social events are random and guided only by the laws of nature, 'evolutionary' in the sense of competing with other random events for survival in a 'stochastic' world, you may choose to believe that such a core group was meaningless -- it may have existed but so what? It may have been only one of an uncountably large number of such 'groups' in the world's history. And you may believe that any particular group's 'window of opportunity' to influence future generations was passed by and did little to influence the course of America's history.
If you believe, instead, that nature has a 'design,' and that all events can be connected and we humans can make sense out of many of them if we will only 'connect all of the dots,' then you may believe that this small core group has great influence, even today, in American Culture. If this is your world view, you may (but not necessarily) even believe in a 'conspiracy. and 'conspirators' which and who aim to alter our culture on a vast scale.
It is clear, however, that irrespective of one's 'world view,' it is informative to at least know of such a core group (if it, indeed, existed), what it believed, what it set out to accomplish, and what methods it followed to take action on its beliefs.
Just such a core group did, indeed, exist. That is, history identifies a small group of German intellectuals who devised concepts, processes, and action plans which conform very closely to what Americans presently observe every day in their culture. Observations, such as those made in this series of essays, can be directly traced to the work of this core group of intellectuals. They were members of the Frankfurt School, formed in Germany in 1923. They were the forebears of what some proclaim as 'cultural Marxism,' a radical social movement that has transformed American culture. It is more commonly known today as 'political correctness.'
'Cultural Marxism' and 'critical theory' are concepts developed by a group of German intellectuals, who, in 1923 in Germany, founded the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University. The Institute, modeled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow, became known as the Frankfurt School . In 1933, when the Nazis came to power in Germany, the members of the Frankfurt School fled to the United States. While here, they migrated to major U.S. universities (Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley). These intellectual Marxists included Herbert Marcuse, who coined the phrase, 'make love, not war,' during the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations.
By promoting the dialectic of 'negative' criticism, that is, pointing out the rational contradictions in a society's belief system, the Frankfurt School 'revolutionaries' dreamed of a utopia where their rules governed . "Their Critical Theory had to contain a strongly imaginative, even utopian strain, which transcends the limits of reality." Its tenets would never be subject to experimental evidence. The pure logic of their thoughts would be incontrovertible. As a precursor to today's 'postmodernism' in the intellectual academic community,  "...it recognized that disinterested scientific research was impossible in a society in which men were themselves not yet autonomous...the researcher was always part of the social object he was attempting to study." This, of course, is the concept which led to the current fetish for the rewriting of history, and the vogue for our universities' law, English literature, and humanities disciplines -- deconstruction.
Critical theory rejected the ideal of Western Civilization in the age of modern science, that is, the verification or falsifying  of theory by experimental evidence. Only the superior mind was able to fashion the 'truths' from observation of the evidence. There would be no need to test these hypotheses against everyday experience.
The Frankfurt school studied the 'authoritarian personality' which became synonymous with the male, the patriarchal head of the American family. A modern utopia would be constructed by these idealistic intellectuals by 'turning Western civilization' upside down. This utopia would be a product of their imagination, a product not susceptible to criticism on the basis of the examination of evidence. This 'revolution' would be accomplished by fomenting a very quiet, subtle and slowly spreading 'cultural Marxism' which would apply to culture the principles of Karl Marx bolstered by the modern psychological tools of Sigmund Freud. Thus, 'cultural Marxism' became a marriage of Marx and Freud aimed at producing a 'quiet' revolution in the United States of America. This 'quiet' revolution has occurred in America over the past 30 years. While America slept!
What is 'cultural Marxism?' Why should it even be considered when the world's vast experiment with the economic theory of Karl Marx has recently gone down to defeat with the disintegration of Soviet communism? Didn't America win the Cold War against the spread of communism? The answer is a resounding 'yes, BUT. We won the 55-year Cold War but, while winning it abroad, we have failed to understand that an intellectual elite has subtly but systematically and surely converted the economic theory of Marx to culture in American society. And they did it while we were busy winning the Cold War abroad. They introduced 'cultural Marxism' into the mainstream of American life over a period of thirty years, while our attention was diverted elsewhere . The vehicle for this introduction was the idealistic Boomer elite, those young middle-class and well-to-do college students who became the vanguard of America's counter-culture revolution of the mid-1960s -- those draft-dodging, pot-smoking, hippies who demonstrated against the Vietnam War and who fomented the destructive (to women) 'women's liberation' movement. These New Totalitarians  are now in power as they have come to middle-age and control every public institution in our nation. But that is getting ahead of the story.
The cauldron for implementing this witches brew were the elites of the Boomer generation. They are the current 'foot soldiers' of the original Frankfurt School gurus. The counter-culture revolution of the 1960s was set in motion and guided intellectually by the 'cultural Marxists' of the Frankfurt School -- Herbert Marcuse, Eric Fromm, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Wilhelm Reich, and others [8,9]., Its influence is now felt in nearly every institution in the United States. The elite Boomers, throwbacks to the dangerous idealist Transcendental generation of the mid-1800s, are the 'agents of change,' who have introduced 'cultural Marxism' into American life.
William S. Lind relates  that 'cultural Marxism' is an ideology with deep roots. It did not begin with the counter-culture revolution in the mid-1960s. Its roots go back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci . These roots, over time, spread to the writings of Herbert Marcuse.
Herbert Marcuse was one of the most prominent Frankfurt School promoters of Critical Theory's social revolution among college and university students in the 1960s. It is instructive to review what he has written on the subject:
"One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including the morality of existing society ... there is one thing we can say with complete assurance. The traditional idea of revolution and the traditional strategy of revolution have ended. These ideas are old-fashioned ... what we must undertake is a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system."
This sentiment was first expressed by the early 20th century Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci.
Gramsci, a young communist who died in one of Mussolini's prisons in 1937 at the age of 46, conjured up the notion of a 'quiet' revolution that could be diffused throughout a culture -- over a period of time -- to destroy it from within. He was the first to suggest that the application of psychology to break the traditions, beliefs, morals, and will of a people could be accomplished quietly and without the possibility of resistance. He deduced that "The civilized world had been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2,000 years..." and a culture based on this religion could only be captured from within.
Gramsci insisted that alliances with non-Communist leftist groups would be essential to Communist victory. In our time, these would include radical feminist groups, extremist environmental organizations, so-called civil rights movements, anti-police associations, internationalist-minded groups, liberal church denominations, and others. Working together, these groups could create a united front working for the destructive transformation of the old Judeo-Christian culture of the West. By winning 'cultural hegemony,' Gramsci pointed out that they could control the deepest wellsprings of human thought -- through the medium of mass psychology. Indeed, men could be made to 'love their servitude.' In terms of the gospel of the Frankfurt School, resistance to 'cultural Marxism' could be completely negated by placing the resister in a psychic 'iron cage.' The tools of mass psychology could be applied to produce this result.
The essential nature of Antonio Gramsci's revolutionary strategy is reflected in a 1990s book  by the American Boomer author, Charles A. Reich, 'The Greening of America.' "There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual and the culture, and it will change the political structure as its final act. It will not require violence to succeed, and it cannot be successfully resisted by violence. This is the revolution of the New Generation." Of course this New Generation would be Reich's elite Boomer generation. And the mantra for these New Age 'foot soldiers' of the Frankfurt School prophets, would be 'have the courage to change .'
The Frankfurt School theorized that the 'authoritarian personality' is a product of the patriarchal family. This idea is in turn directly connected to Frederich Engels' 'The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State,' which promotes matriarchy. Furthermore, it was Karl Marx who wrote about the radical notion of a 'community of women' in the Communist manifesto. And it was Karl Marx who wrote disparagingly about the idea that the family was the basic unit of society in 'The German Ideology' of 1845.
'The Authoritarian personality,' studied by the Frankfurt School in the 1940s and 1950s in America, prepared the way for the subsequent warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Herbert Marcuse and his band of social revolutionaries under the guise of 'women's liberation' and the New Left movement in the 1960s. The evidence that psychological techniques for changing personality is intended to mean emasculation of the American male is provided by Abraham Maslow, founder of Third Force Humanist Psychology and a promoter of the psychotherapeutic classroom, who wrote that, '...the next step in personal evolution is a transcendence of both masculinity and femininity to general humanness.' The Marxist revolutionaries knew exactly what they wanted to do and how to do it. They have succeeded in accomplishing much of their agenda.
But how can we claim the 'causes' of the breakdown of our schools, our universities, indeed, the very fiber of our culture were a product of a tiny group of intellectuals who immigrated from Germany in 1933? Given all of the special-interest groups involved in these activities, how can we trace these 'causes' to the Frankfurt school? Look at some of the evidence.
As an example, postmodern reconstruction of the history of Western Civilization (now prevalent in our universities) has its roots in the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School. This rewriting of history by the postmodern scholars in America has only recently come under attack. Keith Windschuttle, in his book, 'Killing of History,' has severely criticized the rush to 'relativism' by historiographers. What is truly astonishing, however, is that 'relativism' has largely supplanted the pursuit of truth as a goal in historical study . George G. Iggers' recently published book, 'Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge,' reminds us of the now famous line by Hayden White, a postmodernist, "Historical narratives...are verbal fictions, the contents of which are more invented than found." He quotes other postmodernists, mostly non- historians, who  "...reinforce the proposition that truth and reality are primarily authoritarian weapons of our times." We now recognize the source of this postmodern assault -- the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School who became experts in criticizing the 'authoritarian personality' in American culture.
Herbert London refutes White's proposition by observing, "...if history is largely invention, who can say with authority that the American Revolution came before the French Revolution?" He observes that evidence has taken a back seat to inventiveness. He thus cuts right to the chase -- the inventions of postmodernism, which are cutting successive generations of Americans off from their culture and their history, evolved directly from the 'cultural Marxist' scholars of the Frankfurt School.
How did this situation come about in America's universities? Gertrude Himmelfarb has observed  that it slipped past those traditional academics almost unobserved until it was too late. It occurred so 'quietly' that when they 'looked up,' postmodernism was upon them with a vengeance. "They were surrounded by a tidal wave of faddish multicultural subjects such as radical feminism, deconstructed relativism as history and other courses" which undermine the perpetuation of Western Civilization. Indeed, this tidal wave slipped by just as Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School had envisioned -- a 'quiet' revolution. A revolution that could not be resisted by force.
It is of interest to note that the 'sensitivity training' techniques used in our public schools over the past 30 years and which are now employed by the U.S. military to educate the troops about 'sexual harassment' were developed during World War II and thereafter by Kurt Lewin  and his proteges. One of them, Abraham Maslow, was a member of the Frankfurt school and the author  of 'The Art of Facilitation' which is a manual used during such 'sensitivity' training. Thereby teachers were indoctrinated not to teach but to 'facilitate.' This manual describes the techniques developed by Kurt Lewin and others to change a person's world view via participation in small-group encounter sessions. Teachers were to become amateur group therapists. The classroom became the center of self-examination, therapeutic circles where children (and later on, military  personnel) talked about their own subjective feelings. This technique was designed to convince children they were the sole authority in their own lives.
It is important to realize that this movement, 'cultural Marxism,' exists, understand where it came from, and what its objectives were -- the complete destruction of Western Civilization in America. That is, these 'cultural Marxists' aimed to destroy, slowly but surely from the bottom up, the entire fabric of American Civilization.
By the end of World War II, almost all the original Frankfurt School members had become American citizens. This meant the beginning of a new English-speaking audience for the school. Now the focus was on American forms of authoritarianism. With this shift in subject matter came a subtle change in the center of the Institute's work. In America, authoritarianism appeared in different forms than its European counterpart. Instead of terror or coercion, more gentle forms of enforced conformism had been developed. According to Martin Jay,  "Perhaps the most effective of these were to be found in the cultural field. American mass culture thus became one of the central concerns of the Frankfurt School in the 1940s."
Since the 1940s, subtle changes appeared in the Frankfurt School's descriptions of their work. For example, the opposite of the 'authoritarian personality' was no longer the 'revolutionary,' as it had been in previous studies aimed at Europeans. In America, it was now the 'democratic' who opposed the 'authoritarian personality.' Thus, their language matched more closely the liberal  "...New Deal rather than Marxist or radical.." language. Education for tolerance, rather than praxis for revolutionary change, was the ostensible goal of their research. They were cleverly merging their language with the mainstream of liberal left thought in America while maintaining their 'cultural Marxist' objectives. Toleration had never been an end in itself for the Frankfurt School, and yet the non-authoritarian (utopian) personality, insofar as it was defined, was posited as a person with a non-dogmatic tolerance for diversity . This thought is dominant in today's power elite of the Boomer generation, the New Totalitarians.
One of the basic tenets of Critical Theory was the necessity to break down the contemporary family. The Institute scholars preached that  "...Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change." The 'generation gap' of the 1960s and the 'gender gap' of the 1990s are two aspects of the attempt by the elite Boomers (taking a page out of 'cultural Marxism') to transform American culture into their 'Marxist' utopia.
The transformation of American culture envisioned by the 'cultural Marxists' is based on matriarchal theory. That is, they propose transforming American culture into a female-dominated one. This is a direct throwback to Wilhelm Reich, a Frankfurt School member who considered matriarchal theory in psychoanalytic terms. In 1933, he wrote in The Mass Psychology of Fascism that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of 'natural society.'
Eric Fromm, another charter member of the Institute, was also one of the most active advocates of matriarchal theory. Fromm was especially taken with the idea that all love and altruistic feelings were ultimately derived from the maternal love necessitated by the extended period of human pregnancy and postnatal care. "Love was thus not dependent on sexuality, as Freud had supposed. In fact, sex was more often tied to hatred and destruction. Masculinity and femininity  were not reflections of 'essential' sexual differences, as the romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined." This dogma was the precedent for today's radical feminist pronouncements appearing in nearly every major newspaper and TV program, including the television newscasts. For these current day radicals, male and female roles result from cultural indoctrination in America -- an indoctrination carried out by the male patriarchy to the detriment of women. Nature plays no role in this matter.
But in terms of destruction and disintegration, Critical Theory absorbed by the 'change agents' and other social revolutionaries has led them to declare their intent to restructure America. As they proclaim, this means their activities have been directed toward the disintegration of the traditional white male power structure. As anyone with eyes to view present-day television and motion pictures can confirm, this has been largely achieved. In other words, Critical Theory, as applied mass psychology, brought forth a 'quiet' psychic revolution which facilitated an actual physical revolution that has become visible everywhere in the United States of America . It was the destructive criticism of the primary elements of American culture that inspired the 1960s counter-culture revolution. As the name implies, this false 'spiritual awakening' by the idealist Boomers in their coming-of-age years was an effort to transform the prevailing culture into an inverted or opposite kind of culture that is a necessary prelude to social revolution. Now that these elite Boomers are in positions of power in the United States, they are completing their work of destroying every institution that has been built up over 200 years of American history. Their aim is to destroy any vestige of the Anglo-American path  taken by Western Civilization in forming the unique American culture.
Most Americans do not yet realize that they are being led by social revolutionaries who think in terms of the destruction of the existing social order in order to create a new social order in the world. These revolutionaries are the New Age elite Boomers, the New Totalitarians . They now control every public institution in the United States of America. Their 'quiet' revolution, beginning with the counter-culture revolution of their youth, is nearly complete. It was based on the intellectual foundation of the 'cultural Marxists' of the Frankfurt School. Its completion depends on keeping the American male in his psychic 'iron cage.'
The confluence of radical feminism and 'cultural Marxism' within the span of a single generation, that of the elite Boomers (possibly the most dangerous  generation in America's history), has imposed this yoke on the American male. It remains to be seen whether or not he will continue his 'voluntary submission' to a future of slavery in a new American matriarchy, the precursor to a state of complete anarchy.
If we allow this subversion of American values and interests to continue, we will (in future generations) lose all that our ancestors suffered and died for. We are forewarned. A reading of history -- it is all in mainstream historical accounts -- tells us that we are about to lose the most precious thing we have -- our individual freedoms.
Bump to read later.
ping for later reading
It is interesting how we fought the cold war abroad and let it run all over the mainland of America.
BTTT for later
America, child of Westernism, is greater than its constitution. That document merely states that Man's rights come from God, not from men. Belief in oath, or in this very first document, is a means to pacify those hard and intelligent men who might actually recognize the greater ideals that created our constitution in the first place.
That's no accident. It was indeed the wrath of Cultural Marxism (force-fed by doctors, lawyers, media, academia, and government officials) that has emasculated our military officers into controlled, rewards-driven operators.
Absolutely. I am beginning to think that the USA and USSR simply traded their two systems!
Bump for later.
Kinda explains why no matter how clearly and concisely the positions and "thoughts" of certain groups of people are shown to be categorically and irretrievably wrong, they will just push on shamelessly from some other angle. I have a theory that these people are devoid of logic because they are opposed to God. "In the beginning, there was The Word (logos)..." The etymological root of our word logic. They deny God (The Word) and, in return, they are denied the use of logic. They don't miss it, though, because they never had it. I'd almost feel sorry for them, except that it's actually sadder for us to have to live with them in our midst. Because they're incredibly stupid, noisy PAINS IN THE ASS.
Well, no, not true. Deconstructionism as originally presented is dead. But it has flowed over into various kinds of cultural criticism, New Historicism and the like. And it's quite true that it has affiliations with cultural Marxism.
Another name for deconstruction is the hermeneutics of suspicion.
BUMP for a later read ... :)
Or are we to presume that only those who believe in God have rights?
I will disagree, though I see your point.
"Rights" aren't given or taken, they just "are". Now in order to preserve or obtain or obey the "natural law" and it's responsibilities you will need to "fight" for them. Because others ,due to envy, greed, or other social pathologies will want to take what is not theirs in property, money or labor .... by removing it from your possesion against your will or desire.
In other words bad people want to steal what they don't want to work for...... most politicians, lawyers, environmentalists and other assorted "liberals" fall into this category.
As far as "God" getting into the picture...... well, everything we have, will have and hope to have is given to us by him. That is, the only things worth having, hoping to have, or will have is through him.
If you're up for a suggestion, I'd recomend CS Lewis's "Mere Christianity" and "Screwtape Letters".... he kind of sums it all up in a tidy little package from a former atheist's and university scholar's point of view.
Correct you are in describing what I can only call 'classic Marxist doctrine'.
As someone who was born and educated in my formative years in a communist country, I can expound on this a bit from the perspective of being in a place where the Marxist doctrine was out in the open.
As a child, you are taught the usual lies about religion and the "bourgeoisie", taught a stunted and often rewritten version of history, and, above it all, is this thread (which neatly ties the old world real communists with their current American fellow-travelers:
An almost religious faith in the inerrancy of their doctrine (but based on what used to be called "scientific socialism" and frankly, lifting a page right out of Charles Darwin) - to wit, that Marxism was the natural and last evolution of human society, and its spread and success was a SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY.
This is the kind of mindset (whether openly held as in former communist countries) or simply unconsciously absorbed as a life philosophy due to the educational and cultural (hidden) Marxist brainwashing of several generations of American youth) that is the very definition of fanaticism.
If you have a mathematical certainty about your own superiority and your duty as an agent of change to bring it about, then of course you will never sleep, never rest, and foment your revolution tirelessly with every waking breath in your body.
This way of thinking took over the Democrat party in the 1970s and flowered under the first cultural Marxist to hold the office of President of the United States - Bill Clinton (who is married to a REAL Marxist).
Hence all rules and propriety went out the window, and the Democrats agenda essentially became running a constant campaign using the tools of the big lie, smear, slander and ceaseless character assassination.
The foolish 'bourgeoisie" of 'traditional' Republicans found this to be annoying but suffer from a complete lack of ability to see what is the 'infernal mechanism' behind this culture change in our politics, much less the ability to devise an effective counter-strategy or the will to implement it.
Hence the Marxists always appear to be on the offensive in every arena (Academe, media, culture, politics) while traditionalists wind up fighting a rear guard action at best, and trying to appease the insatiable monster at worst.
Either way - the traditionalists lose.
Communism, of course, was completely unnatural and practicably untennable due to being an ideology running completely counter to human nature. It collapsed of its own weight, helped in no small measure by those in the West who saw the danger for what it was, held the line, and fought a clandestine (and sometimes overt) war to contain communism until it disintegrated.
Lest you think that I offer this historical perspective as a branch of hope, however, I must now introduce some bitter sobriety; yes, Leninist communism collapsed all right - but only after utterly and completely destroying the economy, culture, and 4 generations of the nations that fell under its grip.
Human nature and the laws of nature (and of nature's God) likewise dictate that the American experiment with cultural Marxism is doomed to wind up on the ash heap of history.
Unfortunately, the history of the 100-year war against communism suggests that this ultimate defeat of the monster will come at a frightful price - the preceding disintegration of American and Western culture and it way of life.
And already, in the wings, lurk other systems (Islamicism, coming out of a dark mideaval past, and a kind of leftist fascism that is increasingly emanating out of China), that are skirting our borders, like wolves looking for an opportunity to supplant and devour Lady Liberty and replace her with another totalitarian (though not quite so thumb-suckingly utopian) ideology.
"Gramsci, a young communist,... conjured up the notion of a 'quiet' revolution that could be diffused throughout a culture -- over a period of time -- to destroy it from within. He was the first to suggest that the application of psychology to break the traditions, beliefs, morals, and will of a people could be accomplished quietly and without the possibility of resistance."
I had a communist political science teacher back in 1990. His feeling back then, when everyone was saying that communism was dead, was that people had it all wrong; that the international communist movement was far from finished and that it would evolve and become stronger in the coming years now that the Western democracies had lost their fear of it.
As they say, "When you open the window, you let in the flies, too."
for later reading
The rights you describe are the rights pertaining to particular cases. Think more abstractly.
The universal rights of individuals are indeed granted by God. For example, the right to opportunity, the right to choose good over evil.
The major flaws of the cultural Marxist revolution will be the cause of its failure. Here are some I can think of:
1)A disregard for Nature and for absolute reality. These things cannot be imagined away.
2)The mindset of the contemporary liberal contains paradoxes, two that I can think of for the moment, that twist the doctrinal fabric in such a way that it will ultimately collapse. The indoctrinated masses are taught to view themselves as tolerant and selfless as they gratify highly intolerant and narcissistic impulses, and they are taught to think of themselves as brilliant though by definition they are fools.
I dont find in your post any concrete facts from which to conclude that one can predict the downfall of Western civilization. We can still win. Overwhelmingly.
The useful idiots are dropping off slowly but surely. And to the wolves, I say bring it on.
It had occurred to me several years ago that Ross Perot and Jimmy Carter were Naval Academy grads and I wondered how they could have the Anti-American attitudes they did with that background. Perhaps now I know.
Forgive me if I periodically sound pessimistic.
It is disheartening to try fighting a foreign war while being stabbed in the back (I speak from personal experience).
I'm getting to the age where some men just don't give a hoot anymore and just go about their personal business. I'm certainly not spent, but its a struggle sometimes...
And I will third it.
The Greening Of America was written in the 1970s not the 90s, and Charles A. Reich was born in 1928 and so was not a boomer unless by "Boomer author" the writer means he was a favorite of boomers.
Well they sure ruined the American theatre.
Islamism and Communism cannot coexist as each are exclusionary. What is your thought on how that problem will be solved? I don't know that China has reached a final form yet.
Survival of the fittest. War of civilizations. With nukes. God help us.
Fascism is actually a very effective form of government in my opinion, so long as the economy is kept humming without excessive interference. China will dominate Asia by the end of this century. That much is as plain as day. Its neighbors better hope that China democratizes a bit more before then....
Wes Clark is another. Today, I see two ways for a man to corrupt himself: one is to be so trained by malicious institutional programs, the other is poor judgement. As it happens, the undermining of our patriarchal fabric by our enemies (internal enemies, mostly) represents the former method in itself, and is specifically tailored to promote the latter. Carter and Clark may be pseudo-communists, but they made that choice under the seductive power of the carefully crafted morals within our new debauched culture -- the fulcrum of which are "good intentions".
One cannot discount cluelessness as a factor, too... the "idiot" portion of those considered useful.
"Your attitude illustrates well the fact that America still has a vast reserve of manliness, duty and honor to draw upon."
And for that, we use the new tools of networking. Some call it 'new media', but the point is to pool those "vast reserves of manliness" you describe, exponentially compared to any historical convention.
One must also take comfort in the reality that self-serving punks and apathetic slackers have always plagued us, only the names were once rogues and scallywags. Given the restoration of shame and pride as meaningful values, this very group of outcasts may transform into virtuous human beings.
And if they won't, well they never mattered anyway...
"I'm getting to the age where some men just don't give a hoot anymore and just go about their personal business. I'm certainly not spent, but its a struggle sometimes..."
Relax. I am sure you have earned your time to be lazy!
Exactly.. We LOST the cold war.. and worse sedition and treason are de-facto legal.. the bar is too high to indite for them, let alone convict, is unattainable..
I always look back to the 1950s, to my grandparents and their generation, and just wonder what the heck went wrong with our country. I listen to their values, their loyalties, their beliefs, and their understanding of what we should be aobut, and I find myself drawn more and more to that path. Not that my parents didn't follow that path (thankfully), but there is a certainty in the voices of my grandparents that has all but been forbidden in our universities.
I should know: they got me. I knew what I needed to do to get As, and being praised for turning out multiculutural gibberish, well, it affects the way you think. It's imprinting a way of thinking. I don't want to write my own essay on this, but I just remember how the whole college system was set up to undermine the foundations of Western faith, patriotism, and our way of life.
Thanks for posting this, as it's going to give me a bit to think about. Again, I look to the 1950s and just stand aghast at what has happened. Not as much in my native south as it has elsewhere (see Montreal), but all the same, it's there.
If the Communist take over this country the Islamist will learn that PC, tolerance and diversity were just ruses. For them it will be mass executions and slave labor camps, right along with some of us.
The core conspiracy was originally founded in 1923 by a Soros- like multimillionaire who funded a group of Jewish Communist intellectuals by creating the School for Social Research. Cultural Marxism metastasized to Spain, Great Britain, and the United States as these Jews were disbursed in a kind of Communist diaspora. Able, even gifted, these intellectuals insinuated themselves into America's important institutions including academia, journalism, and the OSS where they gained astonishing influence as they waged their war on the institutions of America. The original charter of the Frankfurt School was to undermine those institutions which in their view had succeeded in preventing the expected communist revolution from spreading to Germany from Russia. These institutions included, first, the family, which constitutes the nuclear building block of society. If one can destroy the family one has nearly succeeded in undermining the whole of traditional society. Hence the scorn heaped on the "leave it to beaver" family of the 1950s. Such a structure is anathema to the left.
The next institution which they seek to destroy is the church, both Catholic and evangelical, for this is the institution which consecrates the family and justifies it. Hence the relentless war waged by Hollywood against figures of these churches like preachers and priests.
Their eschatology is as breathtaking as the scope of the conspiracy, that is, they have sent out to change the way man sees his world. This is the "deconstructive" aspect of the conspiracy. It undertakes, first, to tear down and tear apart every value and every tradition upon which we rely. As both a tool and an end goal Freudianism has been wielded like a battle ax to bludgeon the modern psyche. It's evil twin, relativism, makes the seduction of the modern mind complete. With one foot in Freudianism and the other stuck in the relativism, modern man, without faith in God, is sinking in quicksand and is virtually defenseless to every new siren.
When one reads Atkinson's series of essays on this subject is clear that he believes that this state of affairs is the product of nothing less than a conspiracy. It is this part of his thesis which I find fascinating. Is there such a conspiracy? How big is it? Who are the generals and who are the foot soldiers, who share the conspiracy and who are merely willing dupes, the useful idiots of the Frankfurt School?
I am quite aware that when one utters the "C" Word one practically begs at best to be blackguarded as a McCarthyite, or, at worst, crowned with a tinfoil hat. Nevertheless, I believe as a conservative that it is imperative that we understand the nature of the opposition. Are we fighting a virus whose DNA lurks somewhere deep in the spinal column, or are all the battles in the cultural war unrelated "whack a mole" eruptions which can be resisted ad hoc?
Whether conspiracy or not, it is clear that every tactic in the cultural war waged by the left at least coincidentally advances the strategy of Marxism and that point should be made plain to every American citizen who exercises his franchise.
We can still win.That's what I was thinking when I read this piece. Pessimism on our side is worse than Marxism on theirs. We can still win, and we all believe that or we wouldn't be here in this forum keeping an eye on events and considering our options.
Thank you for your well-thought out observations.
Bump to read later
With Communism it is the Party, using the state as enforcer, and the belief, or at least the pretend-belief, in the perfectibility of man.
With Islam it is Allah through Mohammad, the anti-Christ. It is their way or the highway (of death or servitude).
With Judaism it is God. Judaism and Islam have a lot in common with the key divergence being the nature and goals of their prophets.
Christianity is the continuation of Judaism with a new mandate which gives man a personal conduit to God through Jesus. Christianity is also distinct in that it puts emphasis on the individual rather than a group. That is one reason it is so compatible with our form of government.
Both Communism and Islamism are anti-Christ, anti-Jew, and anti-individual freedom. That is why they work so well together in subduing others. Unfortunately for them, in the end, neither will be tolerant of the other.
All of this is the classic battle between good and evil. One need only to look at which sides rely on deceit and force and who depends of love and sharing to know which side to be on for long term happiness and success.
As has always been the case, it is evils role to disguise itself as good and confuse its victims. We are only discussing methods here.