Why There Is A Culture War

Policy Review ^ | John Fonte

[Enough is ENOUGH]

This article provides a road map to all of the leftist dissent we are witnessing in our country today by the people who hate America and all that it stands for - the progressive caucus, university campuses, leftist Hollywood, the education system, special interest groups and other people who have been duped by their political correctness techniques.

While economic Marxism appears to be dead, the Hegelian variety articulated by Gramsci and others has not only survived the fall of the Berlin Wall, but also gone on to challenge the American republic at the level of its most cherished ideas. For more than two centuries America has been an "exceptional" nation, one whose restless entrepreneurial dynamism has been tempered by patriotism and a strong religious-cultural core. The ultimate triumph of Gramscianism would mean the end of this very "exceptionalism." America would at last become Europeanized: statist, thoroughly secular, post-patriotic, and concerned with group hierarchies and group rights in which the idea of equality before the law as traditionally understood by Americans would finally be abandoned. Beneath the surface of our seemingly placid times, the ideological, political, and historical stakes are enormous.

Article

[RobbyS]

Part of the 'culture' wars consists of religious conservatives grasping at state power to control the lives of others. No thanks. Religious conservatives are reacting to the seizure of power by secularists through the courts. The most obvious example was the abortion cases, especially "Doe", which practically stripped the States of the police power. This is what Santorum was trying to argue and why the homosexual lobby is out to get him.

[Salem]

"We have in our favor truth and true common sense. If they succeed it is only because we allowed the party with the harmful product to sell it to an unsuspecting public."

And that being said, It isn't over.

[supercat]

One of the central tenets of liberalism is that victimhood is a badge of honor.

[FirstTomato]

You are wrong. Just because you individually may not subscribe to Western cultural and religious values by belonging to a particular religion, you probably live within Western cultural and religious norms every day of your life if you consider yourself part of American society.

This society is one which is the culmination of a couple of thousand years of slow evolution of ideology, based on Jewish concepts. If it is destroyed humanity won't see the like of it again in all probability. The fact that you don't like religion or maybe you are of another religion or perhaps you are a libertarian has nothing to do with it. Don't let your individual prejudice against religious conservatives cloud your judgement.

[FirstTomato]

By the way, I see from your homepage that obviously you are one of the left wingers that inhabit this site (there are a few). Either that, or you are one of the anti-religous libertarians that pretend to have a kinship with the conservatives. And I don't buy that bunko at all.

And you obviously are pro-abortion. So why not tell the truth about where you are coming from instead of all the games?

[gcruse]

So why not tell the truth about where you
are coming from instead of all the games?

Hey, it gives us something to talk about.  :)
And where have I lied to you?

Oh, and yes, I am a libertarian.  Not the only
one here, either.

[nosofar]

"The problem with the Gramscian or ideological way of thinking is that it assumes the central reality of human existence is oppression and exploitation. This is simply unreal."


The less moral we become, the truer this becomes.

[narses]

This is one of the hearts of the attacks on and inside the Catholic Church. A MUST READ imho!

[First Amendment]

Part of the 'culture' wars consists of religious conservatives grasping at state power to control the lives of others. No thanks.

I don't agree - the so-called religious conservatives are not trying to change anything; they are trying to conserve the values and morally based legal behavior that was always accepted as the norm since the founding of this country.

Additionally, the basic moral behaviors that the "religious right" are defending are not essentially Christian - they are in agreement with all of the world's major religions (in essence, not necessarily in every particular).

Every civilization has to have laws and mores. We can't live in total isolation and/or anarchy. Religion has always been the basis of such laws. There is no other basic standard that more than a handful of people can agree on.

[ladyinred]

Isn't equal opportunity a better idea?

Only if you believe in the constitution as written by the framers.

[First Amendment]

Today, neighborhoods and work places are more mixed and people are more likely to know homosexuals and fundamentalists, Catholic traditionalists and radical feminists, so passions don't run as high.

Are you kidding? Where do you live? I find that the radical homo-Nazis and their ilk are more psychotic and vengeful than ever. What about all the pro-treason "celebrities" lately? What about the virulent hatred for Bush, especially during the election?

The culture wars probably aren't over and may flare up at some later date, but there's been a truce for some time.

I conpletely disagree with you. I think the lull you may be referring to is because so many people have bent over backwards (or should I say forwards) for the radical leftists, trying to placate and appease them. I think things are going to steam up because a lot of people are starting to wake up to the fact that if we don't become aggressive in our defense of America, it will be gone before we know it.

[dix]

I could not agree more. Something has to be done soon, because we have ruined at least the two last generations.

[Zack Nguyen]

"As laymen and analysts alike have observed over the years, the major foundations — particularly Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and MacArthur — have for decades spent millions of dollars promoting "cutting edge" projects on racial, ethnic, and gender issues. According to author and foundation expert Heather Mac Donald, for example, feminist projects received $36 million from Ford, Rockefeller, Mellon, and other large foundations between 1972 and 1992. Similarly, according to a Capital Research Center report by Peter Warren, a policy analyst at the National Association of Scholars, foundations have crowned diversity the "king" of American campuses. For example, the Ford Foundation launched a Campus Diversity Initiative in 1990 that funded programs in about 250 colleges and universities at a cost of approximately $15 million. The Ford initiative promotes what sounds like a Gramscian’s group-rights dream: as Peter Warren puts it, "the establishment of racial, ethnic, and sex-specific programs and academic departments, group preferences in student admissions, group preferences in staff and faculty hiring, sensitivity training for students and staff, and campus-wide convocations to raise consciousness about the need for such programs."

It is really astonishing how the mega-rich foundations, especially Rockefeller, in this country have attempted to undermine traditional Christian American culture for decades.

For more info on how Rockefeller money helped feul the humanist coup of American Protestanism, click here:

http://www.freebooks.com/sidefrm2.htm

[victim soul]

thanks for this post. Forewarned is forearmed. Let's roll.

[RAT Patrol]

Liberals are like Tonya Harding. Instead of actually competing (debating), they just try to bash their opponents in the knees and knock 'em out of the race (shut them up through name calling and intimidation).

[Capitalism2003]

bump!

[FirstTomato]

bumpity bump

[Dumb_Ox]

From this point, too, followed a corollary for which Gramsci should be known (and which is echoed in the feminist slogan) — that all life is "political."

I believe Tocqueville would agree that all life is political. He depicts Democratic politics transforming every aspect of human life. Where he differs from Gramsci is that Gramsci sees the political as the means of power, while Tocqueville sees it as the means of human flourishing.

The Ford initiative promotes what sounds like a Gramscian’s group-rights dream: as Peter Warren puts it, "the establishment of racial, ethnic, and sex-specific programs and academic departments, group preferences in student admissions, group preferences in staff and faculty hiring, sensitivity training for students and staff, and campus-wide convocations to raise consciousness about the need for such programs."

This is why the conservative adoption of "group representation," where college republicans moan about being a persecuted and underrepresented minority, is especially discouraging. It is very tempting to try and fight Gramsci using his own methods, which is a bit like using the Ring of Power against Sauron.

aspects of the pre-modern (emphasis on religion, objective truth, and transcendence) with the modern (self-government, constitutional liberalism, entrepreneurial enterprise).

Odd how the author sees objective truth as a pre-modern aspect. Is this reflective of the great divide between the ancients and the moderns? One sees truth as something to serve, while the other sees it as something to dominate?