Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
There are a number of reasons for the American Right to look back fondly upon the days of "tailgunner" Joe McCarthy and the House Un-American activities committee. First and foremost, however, is the fact that the much maligned McCarthy-era (as the Leftists have called it) was perhaps the last time in US history that the Grassroots Right and America's ruling elites were on the same side of the political fight. Middle America could look to their representatives in the House and Senate and say to themselves, "they are fighting our fight...we are fighting communism locally in our communities and unions, and they are fighting communism at the national level." When McCarthy was finally censured, that spelled the beginning of the end of cooperation between grassroots politics and their nationally elected representatives. Surely, political figures have capitalised on the spirit of McCarthyism - Nixon tapped into it, as did Reagan, but in a sense their McCarthist tendencies failed to address broader cultural issues - it was strictly about winning the Cold War rather than an interest in routing cultural subversion going on within our own borders. Perhaps there was too much to lose for any successful politician in doing so.
In any case, today we have what may best be called a complete reversal of McCarthyism - our elected officials are often outright supportive (e.g. Clintonites) or at best apathetic ("moderate" Republicans) to the types of subversion that the grassroots Right combats. To see that this is the case, one need only consider which of Marx's progeny are alive and well today.
Now, the triumphalists will bray, "We defeated the Reds! We won the Cold War!" In the narrow sense of defeating Soviet Communism, this is certainly true. However, in combatting Leninism (a Marxist enemy that openly declares itself and its aims), the Right has, perhaps willfully, ignored the Gramscian incarnation of Marxism: cultural Marxism, if you will, one that implants its ideals and values in subtle ways in our culture and creates a moral climate favorable to the flowering of a Leftist movement.
Cultural Marxism appears in a number of forms. By and large, neo-Gramscians have abandoned their call for dictatorships of the proletariat and abolition of private property. Indeed, in many cases, cultural Marxists have found allies in finance and big business (particularly the media) that they cannot afford to alienate. Hence, they abandoned "class warfare" in favor of agendas of racial, "gender" and sexual politics. The feminist movement simply applies to the relationship between the sexes what Marx stated was the exploiter-exploited relationship between social classes. Thus, "oppression" became a new buzzword, applied not to the "proletariat" but to women. The same form of cultural Marxism is at the core of various ethnic movements: the NAACP (and more militant black identity movements, such as the Black Panthers) sets up a mythical sociology where whites are "oppressors" and blacks are "the oppressed." Other examples of racial Marxism are the hispanic identity movement (e.g. La Raza) and various Jewish anti-Christian movements, such as the ADL of B'nai B'rith and the terrorist JDL. Perhaps the most bizarre manifestation of cultural Marxism, however, is the homosexual identity movement, whereby people define their political (and, in a perverse way, spiritual) identity according to their sexual practices.
The common denominator to all of these "cultural Marxist" movements is their animosity to traditional Western culture, towards Christianity, and to the family unit. The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith crusades against Catholic and Protestant groups alike, accusing everyone from Pat Robertson to Joe Sobran of "anti-Semitism" for defending their faiths. Homosexual groups push for "gay marriage" and for homosexual couples adopting children, and successfully lobby school boards to present homosexuality as an acceptable "alternative lifestyle." In their anti-family and "sexual revolution" agendas, the homosexuals find close allies in the feminist movement. In their push for abortion on demand and their ideologised vision of the "new woman" (working, single parent), feminists seek to dissolve the family unit as we know it with a vehemence that Engels or Mao Tse-Tung would envy.
Unfortunately, such activists, once a laughable fringe with adherents in the ivory tower, have become mainstream. Their values are the values our children acquire in school. Public schools (and elite private universities for that matter) teach revisionist Afro-Centric history and feminist ideology. They have sex education classes that preach the virtues of abortion and sodomy. The values of cultural Marxism - feminism, the sexual revolution, and racial egalitarianism, are the values that sitcoms, Hollywood movies, and even Saturday Morning cartoons teach our children. Most importantly, the values of the Cultural Marxists are also the values of our ruling classes. The Clintons are perfect posterchildren for feminism, the sexual revolution, and political correctness.
Cultural Marxism can be seen as the social and ethical foundation for other aspects of the New Left. While Marxism abandoned its Bolshevik trappings and forged alliances with financial elites, it has retained its internationalist doctrine. The New World Order, espoused by the same individuals who preach cultural Marxism in many cases, retains the old Marxist aim about nation-states withering away as political entity. Only under NWO, they wither away and are ruled by a transnational "capitalist" elite rather than a Bolshevik vanguard. Cultural Marxism prepares the way for political internationalism, because it is a nation's culture that gives its people an identity as a political and social unit rather than an arbitrary (as hoped by the internationalists) demarcation of borders. Nationalism rather than "Capitalism" is the true enemy of the Left. The Left can compromise with the capitalists by allowing them to stay rich in a New World Order, but they cannot compromise with Nationalists and Cultural Conservatives. While financial elites will accept internationalisation and the dissolution of economic and political boundaries between nations, this type of subversion will be fought tooth and nail by Nationalists just as Christian and Cultural Conservatives will fight the agenda of Cultural Marxism.
This is precisely where "Conservative" politicians have failed us. The financial elites once fought Communism alongside the grassroots because it was expedient for them to do so. Being wealthy and powerful, corporate and financial elites could enlist allies in Washington to fight the Red Menace as well. When the Left pointed its guns against cultural conservatism and corporate profit alike, the corporate elites and the grassroots could fight side by side. Joe McCarthy represented both the common man and the ruling classes in his efforts to rid the government, the universities, and the entertainment industry of Communist influence. However, when the Left changed its strategy, the alliance between the grassroots and corporate Right fell apart, and never since has another McCarthy emerged.
What happened? The Left essentially declared a truce with corporate America and with finance. It was better to have big money on their side rather than against it, as they learned the hard way during the McCarthy era. Thus, the Left focused its attention not on combatting "capitalism," but on combatting "racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and homophobia," or, to take out the euphemisms, the Left declared a war on Western Culture, Christianity, and the family unit. Since none of the above were marketable commodities, the financial elites (and their allies in the Republican parties) couldn't care less about the Left's machinations. Indeed, as the corporatist's part of the bargain, the Left was accomodated: corporations hired their token minorities obediently, and began running feminist and gay-friendly campaigns. They realised that there was money to be made by selling products and entertainment to cultural Marxists, so why oppose them? Furthermore, the Cultural Marxists and the financial elites agreed on one key point: that political boundaries are an impediment to their aims. Borders are barriers to immigration and trade. To the Left, this is undesirable because of their hostility to a nation's cultural and ethnic identity. To the financial elites, these boundaries are a hinderance to "free trade" and profiteering. Thus, the supposed mortal enemies (corporations and leftists) discovered that they had more in common than they once imagined. When the New Left abandoned anti-Capitalism, they were actually a valuable ally of the corporate elites, in that they were working to abolish the same political and economic boundaries that the plutocrats wanted to eliminate. For different reasons perhaps, but politics is after all largely a matter of practicality.
Thus, the Country Club Republicans, knowing that their wealthy constituents are contented as long as the stock dividends keep rolling in, abandoned their enmity towards the Left. They have jumped aboard the anti-national geopolitical bandwagon, and have (to various extents, ranging from Kemp's enthusiasm to President Bush's silence) accomodated the politically correct on the cultural front as best they can.
Where does this leave cultural conservatism and nationalism? They are without a voice in Washington by and large, because the corporatist "right" that was once their ally (out of expediency, perhaps) no longer feels that cultural Marxism and geopolitical internationalism is a threat as long as the Wall Street boys are happy. The grassroots right is also confronted with a mass media that floods their magazine stands and their airwaves with subversive entertainment and internationalist propaganda, propaganda which is reinforced by the school systems.
Thus, the era of McCarthys is over. Anti-Communism once united us as a nation, while opposition to the ideological progeny of Communism doesn't do the same. We will not find a voice at the top, there will be no top-down or bully pulpit position to oppose internationalism and cultural Marxism. Thus, it must be done at the local level.
At town hall, we must convince zoning boards to deny Planned Parenthood a building space, or deny such space to the local chapter of the NAACP and B'nai B'rith. Our schoolboards should say "enough is enough" to gay and feminist propaganda. What was once the counterculture of the New Left has become the dominant culture, so at local levels, we will combat it with our own counterculture.
And what is to be done concerning internationalism, you may ask? Surely, we as communities can do something about cultural Marxism at the local level, but isn't internationalisation decided at the highest levels of finance and government? Well, at the local level we can educate our children in the nationalist cause, so that, in time, the internationalist ideologues preach not to an apathetic but a hostile populace. Then, nationalist leadership will follow, but no sooner.
Currently, our school system teaches a version of history sympathetic to internationalism, one which, implicitly or explicitly, informs malleable young minds about the virtues of "peacekeeping" by UN-style efforts past and present. Wilson, we are told "made the world safe for Democracy" in WW1, and FDR was the hero who saved the world from the evils of fascism. When our children are told the truth, that Wilson's internationalism is what lead to the Second World War, and that FDR was actually a fanatical warmonger who wanted to drag us into a second world war that most Americans wanted no part of, our next generation will start questioning the moral underpinnings of globalism, as surely as they will question feminism and the sexual revolution if it weren't presented in such a favorable light in our schools.
Yes, there can be a New McCarthyism, but it will be at a local level. Each school board and town hall should have its own voice of reason, its own McCarthy, preparing the way politically for a leadership that once again cooperates with rather than subverts the goals and aspirations of middle America. If we sit and wait for some miracle worker to be elected who will reverse the direction our country has headed towards overnight, it will guarantee sinking iretrievably into our present cesspool.
FYI...
FYI...
FYI...
And this is how we ended up with a RINO like GWBush as the so-called "Conservative "candidate in a Presidential election , with his Left/Liberal "compassionate conservatism" instead of real conservative policies.And a RINO like Lazio as our "conservative" opposition to Hillary in New York State.
McCarthy & Co. should have gone after the powers behind American Communism--in particular the Foundations and Alger Hiss' C.F.R....
By and large, neo-Gramscians have abandoned their call for dictatorships of the proletariat and abolition of private property. Indeed, in many cases, cultural Marxists have found allies in finance and big business (particularly the media) that they cannot afford to alienate. Hence, they abandoned "class warfare" in favor of agendas of racial, "gender" and sexual politics.
You, sir have it exactly right. It's an unholy alliance wherein the Left has ceeded the sphere of commerce, property and profit to financial interests (who care nothing at all for the inherent 'messiness' and disorder of free minds and free markets) in exchange for total control of its sphere of interest - the transformation and enslavement of our inner selves. The ultimate consequence of the cultural war waged by the children of Gramsci will be civil war...
“The
state system which exists in our country is terrible not because it is
undemocratic, authoritarian, based only on physical constraint - a man can live
in such conditions without harm to his spiritual essence.”
“Our
present system is unique in world history, because above and above its physical
and economic constraints, it demands of us total surrender of our souls,
continuous and active participation in the general, conscious lie.
To this putrefaction of the soul, this spiritual enslavement, human beings who
wish to be human cannot consent. When Caesar, having exacted what is Caesar's,
demands still more insistently that we render unto him what is God's - that is a
sacrifice we dare not make!”
The
most important part of our freedom, inner freedom, is always subject to our
will. If we surrender it to corruption, we
do not deserve to be called human.”
Aleksandr
I. Solzhenitsyn, From
Under the Rubble,
from the essay "As Breathing and Consciousness Return"
- October, 1973
It's good to see you back, Max (with both barrels blazing!).
Nice application of Gramsci and the current face of cultural Marxism. We have a two-fold problem: 1) Our society is no longer producing stable and moral individuals who are firm in their convictions. The primary reason for this is the complete and utter breakdown of the traditional family unit and strong fathers fulfilling their responsibilities towards same. 2) The individual of firm convictions who does dare to make a stand is immediately recognized, called-out and denounced by the PC-crowd which unfortunately controls almost all of our cultural institutions. The great levelling process at work. IMO, media drives the debate. Our culture is literally saturated and controlled by Media. Your conclusion that we must act locally to effect change is sound. Indeed, we fathers must begin (and perhaps end) with our children, making every effort to raise individuals of strength and conviction.
We are witnessing the fruition of a long march through our American culture/society, it is past time we realized where must begin again taking steps to reclaim our noble heritage. Excellent essay, my friend.
bttt
Great article, thank you. My single important comment is that we should not lose sight of one fact: the left is all about political power. The old left had the working class as a vehicle to reach that goal, electorally or through revolution. The new left has, as you correctly note, the cultural fringe (with your permission I call the cultural elite "fringe" alongside the cultural underclass). If the process of disenfranchizement of Middle America continues, the new new left may even make an alliance with Middle America. In fact, much in Clinton's triangulations is aimed to seduce American middle class while never abandoning the radical fringe. Clinton's re-election in '96 wasn't carried through by the gay and the feminists, it was American middle class seduced by the promise of free health care and suchlike middle class entitlements. A big government, grown by well-meaning cultural heartland will be used by the next generation of leftist politicians to crush its values.
So, it is vital to oppose the Planned Parenthood and the like on the local level. It is equally vital to oppose the big government -- the left's true bastion of power -- in education, health care, and business regulation.
bttt
Another excellent essay, Gecko! You made some really good points...
In any case, today we have what may best be called a complete reversal of McCarthyism - our elected officials are often outright supportive (e.g. Clintonites) or at best apathetic ("moderate" Republicans) to the types of subversion that the grassroots Right combats.
You nailed it. If anyone can't understand why some Republicans would be apathetic to subversion, then they still don't believe that many politicians from both parties (while maybe disagreeing on a few issues) ultimately share the same agenda. These Republicans have put power and money above their country, and have sold us out.
Font fixed?
And another BUMP!
AAUGH! What is going on with this font?
LOL
Dinosaurs Still Walk The Earth, regrettably.
A bump for Max to the Max !
I'll bump to that!
Excellent post!
Bumpus Maximus!! Today the Left and their Neo-Con allies despise true Conservatives--it's time for them to fear us again, and to be put utterly on the defensive!!
At first I thought your remark about "Dinosaurs" was directed towards paleoconservatives (as is fashionable among neo-Cons to assert, particularly in response to the views of the 'Old Right' on race relations and immigration). Fortunately, I had the sense to check your link first and was reassured to see that by dinosaurs you meant Marxists rather than their McCarthyite opponents. There's one form of neo-ism I may embrace as a self-description of my opposition to the New Left and Internationalism in various forms: neo-McCarthyism.
It's gratifying to know that many Libertarians are as culturally conservative as I am. I believe that we are fighting the same fight, but we chose different strategies in winning the battle.
I see no problem with strengthening Federal Government's power WITHIN Constitutionally sanctioned bounds. For example, it is within the powers of the State to regulate immigration and trade, and I see these as desirable aims. I believe that these powers were given to the State for a reason. Strengthening the State is the only way to ensure from having our nations swallowed by transnational bureaucracies and economic organisations. Thus, I believe that a knee-jerk anti-Federalist reaction is dangerous to say the least in view of the increasing powers of institutions such as the UN, the World Bank, etc.
However, in fighting the "culture war," I believe that the solution rests not with Federally mandated censorship, but rather with decisions made at the State and local levels to rid our society of what I call cultural Marxism. It is not within the powers of the Federal Government to do so, because any ban on leftist entertainment and ideology would be a violation of the First Amendment. Communities, on the other hand, are entirely in their right to forbid the local chapters of Planned Parenthood, B'nai B'rith, and the NAACP to pollute their neighborhoods. With time, the courts will decide in the favor of the communities rather than the leftist agitators, but as I said, this requires apathy to lift. Part of the apathy at the local level stems from a sense of powerlessness - i.e. the belief that Conservative decisions will be overidden by Federal authority. Only by keeping up a drumbeat from the Right at the local level can Leftist intrusions sanctioned by the Federal level be halted.
Yes, there can be a New McCarthyism, but it will be at a local level. Each school board and town hall should have its own voice of reason, its own McCarthy, preparing the way politically for a leadership that once again cooperates with rather than subverts the goals and aspirations of middle America.
Localization has some good aspects to it, but I think most advocates overlook the extent to which the system encourages localities to become dependent on the feds. Local officials are hero's when they can bring in more federal grants, multinational plant sitings, get more school children scholarships at liberal Universities, etc. These local officials end up thinking just like bureaucrats.
Before we can become free again, we ned to identify the scalywaging spirits that always keep us enslaved.
Good to see the name Gramsci in this post. The leftists are currently embarked upon his "long, slow march through the institutions if this nation", much to our chagrin and dismay.
I think Pat Buchanan said that the worst thing we may ever learn about Joe McCarthy is that he was absolutely 100% correct.
bttt
Two more concerns.
Lumping together Planned Parenthood,-- organization devoted to infanticide, which arguably would have been voted out of existence were it not for the federal government coercion,-- and racial or ethnic identity organizations like B'nai B'rith, NAACP, or La Raza, is objectionable. I understand thet they all are tools of the left, but failing to distinguish between the two categories skews the message. It also confirms the falsehood perpetuated by the left, that minorities are enemies of the conservatives as such, not because of their prevailing ideologies. This is precisely the left's strategy.
The second, related concern is the linkage with McCarthyism. McCarty was in a position to say: "I am not questioning your right to hold communist views. There is a military power hostile to us, which recruits agents, both intelligence and cultural. I am questioning your allegiance". You can't say the same thing to a member of La Raza.
If your salient point is that we are fighting a cultural war, then you need to come to grips firstly with the nature of modern war. You quite correctly conclude that the Left’s theme is a Gramacian war against culture, and you call for, and expect, this culture to resist and fight back. I think however you, in a fashion rather typical of conservatives, (but oddly typical of many liberals as well) overlook the matter in which culture is affected by this war. A successful war effort, especially in modern, ruthless times, destroys the capacity of the opposition to recover from defeat by its “divide and conquer” strategy.
One example of this cultural conquest has been business. You are quite right in pointing out the changing matter of business’s cultural allegiance, and call for conservatism to find new roots at the grassroots level, re:
This is precisely where "Conservative" politicians have failed us. The financial elites once fought Communism alongside the grassroots because it was expedient for them to do so. Being wealthy and powerful, corporate and financial elites could enlist allies in Washington to fight the Red Menace as well. When the Left pointed its guns against cultural conservatism and corporate profit alike, the corporate elites and the grassroots could fight side by side. Joe McCarthy represented both the common man and the ruling classes in his efforts to rid the government, the universities, and the entertainment industry of Communist influence. However, when the Left changed its strategy, the alliance between the grassroots and corporate Right fell apart, and never since has another McCarthy emerged.--------------------------
Yes, there can be a New McCarthyism, but it will be at a local level. Each school board and town hall should have its own voice of reason, its own McCarthy, preparing the way politically for a leadership that once again cooperates with rather than subverts the goals and aspirations of middle America. If we sit and wait for some miracle worker to be elected who will reverse the direction our country has headed towards overnight, it will guarantee sinking irretrievably into our present cesspool.
In general though what is happening however is the effect of this old divide and conquer strategy. Big business used to have a moderately conservative social ethic. However the social upheavals of the 60’s and 70’s, combined with the corporate upheavals of the 80’s and 90’s, have effectively eliminated much of this old corporate social structure. In its place are a new breed of managerialists, very much formed by the latest managerial social theories in the liberal bastions of the east and west coast universities.
I think much the same thing is happening to “local” America. Most urban America is basically a vassel state of corporate America, and thus is poor territory where a permanent base resistant to it can be developed. More rural America has been economically almost wiped out by the modern global economy, and has thus very limited resources.
To paraphrase military metaphors, your strategy is too conventional, looking for cultural strong points to mount an organized large scale counter resistance. Instead, IMO, we need to truly adopt the strategy of guerrilla tactics, and look for dissatisfaction wherever we can among those left out of the march to the NWO, even those with formally left wing tendencies. Buchanan showed a stroke of genius in reaching out to labor unions, but this alone is not numerically enough. We need to focus on other disaffected groups, such as disaffected secondary school students, down-sized executives, disgrunteled computer programmers and technical workers, (the type likely to become hackers) discontented military and police officers, women in non fast-track jobs and others to be truly effective.
In tactics in other words, in many ways we must stop thinking like conservatives, which is our residual habit, and continue studying and thinking like the leftists we so long fought, and who know occupy the cultural seats of power.
The second, related concern is the linkage with McCarthyism. McCarty was in a position to say: "I am not questioning your right to hold communist views. There is a military power hostile to us, which recruits agents, both intelligence and cultural. I am questioning your allegiance". You can't say the same thing to a member of La Raza.
Actually, what one could say during the Cold War about Communists (i.e. agents of a foreign power) can equally well be said about La Raza or B'nai B'rith. La Raza's political sympathies lie with Mexico or various Latin American nations, while Jewish activist groups put Israel's interests ahead of those of the United States. Now, granted, Mexico and Israel aren't military threats like the Soviet Union was, but the fact remains that having individuals whose political sympathies lie with ANY foreign power is undesirable.
Instead, IMO, we need to truly adopt the strategy of guerrilla tactics, and look for dissatisfaction wherever we can among those left out of the march to the NWO, even those with formally left wing tendencies. Buchanan showed a stroke of genius in reaching out to labor unions, but this alone is not numerically enough. We need to focus on other disaffected groups, such as disaffected secondary school students, down-sized executives, disgrunteled computer programmers and technical workers, (the type likely to become hackers) discontented military and police officers, women in non fast-track jobs and others
Part of the problem of reaching out to all and any disgruntled citizens is that there is rarely a common denominator to their dissatisfaction. The only thing union men, computer hackers, and dissillusioned police/military officers have in common is their disgust with the status quo, therefore it's hard to imagine a political program that would appeal to all of these individuals except for a purely negative message of "Aren't you all fed up with this crap?"
Now, you point out a possible unifying theme to attract the politically homeless: people left behind by the global economy on the financial front, and people left behind culturally by the Gramscian onslaught on our education system and mass media. Of course this is a reasonable common denominator, and Buchanan has more or less identified this as his theme. The problem is that it is too abstract. The computer hacker, the disgruntled cop, and the union man are facing particular problems, and couldn't care less that their problems are subsumed under a general ideological framework known as "the New World Order." Although the global economy, internationalism, and the culture war are real, most people don't care about such broad-brush politicizing. They want their own issues addressed on a piecemeal basis...which means essentially saying different (though not necessarily mutually exclusive) things to different people. Buchanan and Co. paint a broad picture which is shown to all audiences. The problem is, the audiences are interested in specific details relevant to them rather than how they fit into the wider political puzzle.
having individuals whose political sympathies lie with ANY foreign power is undesirable.
That may be so, but it's still a far cry from McCarthyism, when there were actual spies, stealing bomb designs and getting paid for it. Even so, McCarthy received a degree of vindication only recently, when with the Venona intercepts his allegations of espionage were proven. Conservatives attacking Americans of a particular origin based solely on the fact that they may have sympathies outside of US would receive very little popular mainstream support, thus dooming your grassroots effort and driving the minorities further into the Democrats' camp. "What are they going to be mad at next? Irish bars?"
That may be so, but it's still a far cry from McCarthyism, when there were actual spies, stealing bomb designs and getting paid for it
The point of my essay was that McCarthyism was in a sense too narrow in its focus. McCarthyism in its old form is an anachronism because 1) there is no Soviet Union today and 2) the Left has changed its tactics. Today, the Left does not operate by serving an enemy nation such as China directly. Rather, the Left has adopted the Gramscian strategy of subverting our society from within with inumerable politically correct doctrines. Therefore, combatting them is not a matter of national security in the military sense, but a matter of internal security, so to speak. Therefore, the new McCarthyism can't use the pretexts that Joe McCarthy used, they're no longer relevant.
On the other hand, because the national security issue is not directly relevant, the purging of Leftist influence cannot be Constitutionally conducted at the Federal Level (never mind the fact that the folks in Federal Government aren't on our side on this matter anyway), and thus must be dealt with locally.
I agree with your historical analysis of the left and McCarthyism, and I agree that the important fight is on the grassroots level. I also agree that the ethnic/racial identity organizations in question are tools of the left.
What I think is counterproductive is the appearance of declaring a racial or ethnic identity per se as a political enemy. Even if blacks vote 90% democrat, the problem is not their blackness, but the client-of-the-government position they got maneuvered into. But even a conservative black may have attachment to the stated goals of NAACP, or consider an attack on NAACP as a black identity organization a racist attack. Ditto for B'nai B'rith, since most people don't view B'nai B'rith as an Israel's fifth column, no do they view Israel as an enemy.
This would confirm the charge of bigotry in the minds of many Americans, including those of conservative persuasion and mainstream extraction. McCarthy had a perfect defense of there being an actual, demonstrable treason, and still didn't win many popularity contests. Cultural conservatives today won't have such defense.
Sounds like a great plan but what kind of organizational structure would this guerrilla campaign have, if any at all?
When and where is the first cell meeting in or around Southeast Texas?
If I'm not mistaking, the John Birch Society copied the Cell Structure and political organisation system of the US Communist Party, using the logic that one must fight fire with fire and have the enemy dictate the organisational strategy. By the same logic, any counter-Gramscian movement today must employ the very same "cultural hegemonic" strategies that the Gramscian Left uses.
ZC, you're an ex-Bircher...help me out here. Is this the case, or do I have JBS confused with some other anti-Communist group?
Localization has some good aspects to it, but I think most advocates overlook the extent to which the system encourages localities to become dependent on the feds
It's probably also the case that any local institution that becomes too autonomous is quickly put under quite a lot of Federal pressure. For instance, should a community be relatively self-sufficient and not require a symbiosis with the Feds, the Feds will take steps to make the region dependent on Federal bureaucrats. Federal land grabs are the most salient example of this phenomenon.
Aunt-B, I know the subject of Federal land grabs and local autonomy is close to your heart, so I thought I'd bump you this thread...
For instance, should a community be relatively self-sufficient and not require a symbiosis with the Feds, the Feds will take steps to make the region dependent on Federal bureaucrats.
That certainly is true to say the least. Most people unacquainted with state and local issues don’t realize how closely these jurisdictions have to work with the federal government, and thus how much power the federal government exerts over state and local governments. In a similar vein you work on an issue even from a local NGO organization and you realize how much you are dependent on government, in all sorts of ways.
Its interesting, how a lot of conservatives, (even you Gecko!) still are vaguely influenced by the primitive anarchist type ideal of persons and local governments acting independently. The reality is that is only a myth. Everything we do of importance really involves the federal government rather closely.
The problem is that it is too abstract. The computer hacker, the disgruntled cop, and the union man are facing particular problems, and couldn't care less that their problems are subsumed under a general ideological framework known as "the New World Order." Although the global economy, internationalism, and the culture war are real, most people don't care about such broad-brush politicizing. They want their own issues addressed on a piecemeal basis...which means essentially saying different (though not necessarily mutually exclusive) things to different people.
Well it certainly is true that the average person is not easily capable of abstract political thought. But I think the influence of the NWO is more easily shown when it is linked to concrete institutions which exemplify the NWO. The educational system for instance basically exemplifies the thinking and programme of internationalism. If people could be shown on a concrete basis how the educational system with its international emphasis is selling the interests of its supporters and particpants down the drain, I think a lot of people that aren't interested in Buchanan, including even some who generally think he's a qook, would listen a lot more carefully.
Right now there's a lot of anger out there, but it lacks a focul point. It is rather difficult for the average person to see how the anger represented by school violence, computer hackers and virus speaders, etc. are all more generally representative of wrongs felt by the general population as a whole, and created by their exploitation by the leadership class. It is a difficult sell for sure, but don't underestimate the potential of people for action once they realize the individual frustrations they all individually experience really have a common source.
BTW Either/or, I think the Communist/JBS cell type organization is pretty much obsolete as a practical matter. It worked in the 19th century against the czar, but the the government basically has no problems today putting its agents anywhere it wants, even fanitical closed religious groups like Waco.
Thanks, Okie. You sure are brightening my day! (/sarcasm)
See in Claire Wolfe's Speech to AZ Libertarians 04/19/97
"I do believe that a fight is inevitable, whether that's a fight in the streets or the trenches, or whether that is some sort of confrontation that may not involve arms but may nevertheless involve violence and head-to-head action. I think that's inevitable, and I think more and more people are coming to the conclusion that it is."In my opinion, even if all these disaffected groups, from neo-McCarthyists to libertarians miraculously agreed on an agenda, that still would be a tiny minority of the apathetic and generally satisfied electorate.
. McCarthy had a perfect defense of there being an actual, demonstrable treason, and still didn't win many popularity contests. Cultural conservatives today won't have such defense.
For some reason, combatting external enemies always gains more popular (and legal) support than combatting enemies within. Thus, McCarthy could justify purging Communists on the grounds that they were often directly agents of Moscow.
The problem is, most Leftists are NOT agents of a foreign power. They have their own subversive agenda independent of any puppet master, and as such are protected by the Bill of Rights. This is why the Federal Government can't do anything (legally) about leftist subversion, but something can be done at the local level, at least hypothetically. The Federal Government can't disband the NAACP or B'nai B'rith by force, but communities can (via zoning laws, etc) deny their local chapters building space.
This addresses another interesting point - the fact that the enemy within is more dangerous than the one without for a number of reasons. First, he is among us rather than far away. Second, he has Constitutional Rights (i.e. you win a medal of honor for killing Vietnamese Communists but you'll go to jail for shooting an American Marxist). Third, and most important, it's always easier to rally up the jingoists in favor of a foreign war than it is to convince them that internal subversion is a threat. There's something about human nature that fears the distant and unfamiliar rather than the commonplace (i.e. people are terrified of snakes but not off far more dangerous everyday things like electrical outlets), even when the commonplace can be deadlier.
I think the Communist/JBS cell type organization is pretty much obsolete as a practical matter. It worked in the 19th century against the czar, but the the government basically has no problems today putting its agents anywhere it wants
Actually, we (Either/Or and I) may have been too hasty in calling for replicating the Communist cell structure, which was the Leftist tactic of yesteryear. You're right that it had great utility in Czarist Russia, but it accomplished relatively little in 1950's America. Thus, the Left adopted a different tactic: Gramscian infiltration. My talk about "cells" was more of a call to replicate the successful tactics of the Left as a means of promoting our ideology. What that means, of course, is getting Rightist sympathisers into academia, Hollywood, etc...an uphill battle to say the least.
To summarize:
- Directly challenging the very existence of left-leaning ethnic and racial organizations is inconstitutional.
- Harassing them through zoning laws is hardly possible -- how can you deny a permit to an office in an office park, and if you do, doo you expect the NAACP to just disband for lack of office space?
- And at any rate it serves no purpose other than confirming in the general public the worst suspicions about the conservatives, that they have no other principles but racial and ethnic prejudice.
In my opinion, even if all these disaffected groups, from neo-McCarthyists to libertarians miraculously agreed on an agenda, that still would be a tiny minority of the apathetic and generally satisfied electorate.
Well you can't blame them for being apathetic, when they don't feel real change is possible. The internationalist elite is always bombarding them with rhetoric about how "you can't stop progress" and controls both major parties and the news media. Even if change of course was affected by the legislaters, the Courts would probably find it unconsitutional. That's why Americans and others just prefer to concentrate on beer and sports.
- And at any rate it serves no purpose other than confirming in the general public the worst suspicions about the conservatives, that they have no other principles but racial and ethnic prejudice
You mean that they are no different than liberals? Actually it sort of makes me laugh to think of any municipality standing up to the emensly strong national NAACP and ADL. Of course it there is no real legitimate reason either to deny these groups their consitutional rights, other than the fact they spend most of their time trying to deny everyone else their rights, and thus in no way are really good democrats and constitutionalists themselves. But it does seem rather silly to think that even the national GOP can't stand up to their demands for hate speech laws that your local mom and pop small town will take them on. Of course that ties back to the reasons for apathy. Constitutional and democratic measures will always be frustrated by a system manipulated by the elites, while any other options will be rejected by the same people that are supposedly so in favor of change.
Its interesting, how a lot of conservatives, (even you Gecko!) still are vaguely influenced by the primitive anarchist type ideal of persons and local governments acting independently
I think you're exagerating what I'm saying. My claim was that at the Federal level, the entrenched powers that be have no interest in combatting cultural Marxism (harmless to the GOP, appealing to Democrats) or internationalisation (which has adherents in both parties because there's money to be made). Therefore, the only possible alternative to these agendas will come at the local level. If resistance is impossible at the local level for practical reasons, it is nonexistent at national reasons because there is no will to do so among those who have influence at the national level. What this means is that people have to be willing to withstand hundreds of lost battles (locally) until representatives wake up to the fact that there's a call for action at the federal level. Nothing is being done locally precisely because nobody wants to bear the brunt of being one of the hundred early defeats before a voice at the national level arises.
Cultural Marxism can be seen as the social and ethical foundation for other aspects of the New Left. While Marxism abandoned its Bolshevik trappings and forged alliances with financial elites, it has retained its internationalist doctrine. The New World Order, espoused by the same individuals who preach cultural Marxism in many cases, retains the old Marxist aim about nation-states withering away as political entity. Only under NWO, they wither away and are ruled by a transnational "capitalist" elite rather than a Bolshevik vanguard. Cultural Marxism prepares the way for political internationalism, because it is a nation's culture that gives its people an identity as a political and social unit rather than an arbitrary (as hoped by the internationalists) demarcation of borders. Nationalism rather than "Capitalism" is the true enemy of the Left. The Left can compromise with the capitalists by allowing them to stay rich in a New World Order, but they cannot compromise with Nationalists and Cultural Conservatives.
Exactly. Very well put. And the leader of this new Gramscian trans-national commie-capitalist elite? George Soros and his "open society." It is the "Open Society" which is all the things you have attributed to the neo-Gramscian capitalist Left. For them, all nationalism and all religion is anathema and must be crushed. They have the hundreds of millions of dollars (which no one knows the real origin of) to slowly begin building, brick by brick, this new global totalitarianism. They have been wildly successful in the former communist countries of Central Europe (except Belarus, Serbia, Croatia [until recently]. And the "conservatives" in the US have bought into it hook, line, and sinker. They stand up and applaud like trained seals.
Excellent essay. Please keep 'em coming.
As you know, my view on the culture war is that its main battle is for of self-sufficiency: removal of phony support, in the form of various "safety nets", that is provided by the government at the price of emasculation of American spirit. I had vivid discussions with both of you regarding our opposing views on things like protectionism and socialized education.
Two processes are helpful along that road: legislative victories, however incrementally small, and the inability of the socialist project to deliver on its promise. So, while the country is not in the mood for any revolutionary change, at the ballot box or otherwise, we see conservative books sell, conservative churches filling up, homeschoolers winning spelling bees, and new immigrants calling for respect for traditional values (there was a letter to the editor, printed recently in my local paper, from a Somalian father appalled by the sex education his children were receiving in public school).
What is to be expected from this is not so much a conservative edition of the Black (White?) Panthers, but a gradual withdrawal of popular consent from the institutions of government. I saw this process in the former Warsaw pact: those who used the limited sandbox of freedom their government allowed them, thrived in the sandbox and did their best to ignore the socialist system. By and large, they were no revolutionaries, but they were the backbone of passive resistance. Those who participated in the system -- in today's America they would be the government workers, public school teachers, leftist non-profits like your favorite NAACP and B'nai B'rith, -- did not get anywhere (the Soroses, -- the American counterpart of the Russian oligarchs, -- are few). The system failed them.
Still reaching out for the green light at the end of Daisy's dock, I see. I understand that Fitzgerald would have had a tough time fashioning a decent narrative if, early in the story, some harridan, waving a 12 pound lake trout, came gallumphing up to Gatsby in her waders shouting: "Stop that. Don't you see it's hopeless?" What is it about the sentimentality of men, their romanticism, that keeps them from letting go?
But I can't resist the opportunity to wave a few trout in your face--no matter how shrill I may sound. It's my duty as an American woman.
If the American "Right" is looking back fondly upon tailgunner Joe, then they are collectively much worse off than I think; And I think they're pretty bad off. Only someone of McCarthy's limited abilities could have succeeded in making the Hollywood Left ("Just a minute darling, I must play out this set, meet with my stock broker, and then we can shout 'workers of the world unite' as we paddle around in the pool--I don't want my facelift to get wet.") seem like persecuted heroes to subsequent generations of dopes (students of American History).
He was allowed to throw sand in his sandbox exactly as long as he stayed away from the truly powerful--the government bureaucracy, which eventually took him down, and the universities. Everything that dribbled down upon our heads from on high in the 60's, 70's and 80's was formulated in the 50's. McCarthy was a cartoon hero made to order for the American Left; A Left acknowledged by one and all to be the stupidest, most infantile and most hypocritical Left in the world.
How interesting that you think his career was the swan song duet of the Patricians and the Plebes putting Public Enemies through the wringer in two part harmony. How can you be so tone deaf? Don't you hear the strains of that same little ditty being sung whenever tobacco company executives, gun manufacturers, or Branch Davidians are hauled up before Congress (congressman Chuckie Schumer's face floats before my eyes here)?
When did you come to the conclusion that the People were such a darling bunch of cuties? Still less that their eternal appetite for witch burning should be catered to by some opportunistic, self-defined Tribune of the People? (Here, a bulbous-nosed, pig-eyed vision of Bill Clinton floats into view.)
Gaze into the mirror Gecko. You too could be a witch; In fact, you are if we are to believe what Our Betters tell us everyday in every cultural and educational institution possible. Yet, you seem willing to risk literally everything on the bet that some mythological band of decent Middle Americans are lurking out there in the hills, dales, field, forests,and mountains ready to protect you if only their rage can be adequately articulated by a New McCarthy.
Like many of us with liberal arts educations gathering dust on our bookshelves, you seek to ascribe the sickness of America to some European virus. The Gramscian cultural infiltration is the virus of the month around here.
When will we get it into our heads that the cultural strains that are so abhorrent to some of us have been growing here all along? The current fascination with the Gramscian critique reminds me of some people who accuse Pat Buchanan of committing Marxism when he points out that unfettered free market capitalism results in the destruction of local cultures. It betrays an ignorance of American philosophical history--possibly because our society does not express itself through intellectual elitism. What, in Europe, would be presented as a philosophical system, in the US reveals itself merely as a practice, a belief or even a fad.
You point out, correctly: "Unfortunately, such activists, once a laughable fringe with adherents in the ivory tower, have become mainstream."
But then you take refuge in the idea that this is the result of a disciplined "long march" through American life by organized, disciplined cultural Marxists! Nonsense! These "invaders" are as American as obesity.
Even if we are witnessing a hybridization of European and domestic philosophical eflluvia, the international face of community destruction and cultural chaos is an American face, Gecko. Only an Americanized Europe could have sat still for the bombing of an ancient European Capital with pious, puritanical sermons every day about the triumph of "humanitarianism". Only a Europe that had adopted American-style historic amnesia would clap politely as a rugged and stubborn christian tribe was demonised and then murdered on behalf of moslem supremicists. If a few Eurotrash saplings have taken root over here, well, turnabout is fair play.
On another thread, concerning the inevitable betrayal of conservatives by the Stupid Party and how the former seem to love it so much, you used the metaphor of the responsible breeding practice of shooting a dog that gets stuck by a porcupine a second time. May I suggest that you gaze a bit more closely at the "dog"? Yes. That's right. It's a porcupine.
You cling to the hope that there's still a great hunting dog out there just waiting to break it's chain. I'm telling you that the dog has evolved into a porcupine. If wild animals can be domesticated, what makes you think that certain humans cannot be "corrected"? All it takes is 51% since we made the word safe for democracy.
Your D-Day vision of re-invading "Middle America" and taking it back for the People on School Board Beach, on University Beach, on Town Council Beach, on Wall Street Beach and Hollywood Beach has just one little problem: Middle Americans will be fighting you every inch of the way. You stepped up to this abysmal realization several times in your essay, but you always turned away from it in favor of a Norman Rockwell pep rally.
The condition of Middle America has already passed critical. For myriad reasons a significant number of Americans have absorbed the self hatred of white elites. Unlike these elites, who have the wealth and mobility to shelter themselves from their handiwork for another generation, the general population has had to evolve the necessary thinking patterns to maintain the obssesively materialistic lifestyle that has completely supplanted any other cultural manifestation of the "American Dream".
In this context your exhortation that: "When our children are told the truth, that Wilson's internationalism is what lead to the Second World War, and that FDR was actually a fanatical warmonger who wanted to drag us into a second world war that most Americans wanted no part of, our next generation will start questioning the moral underpinnings of globalism, as surely as they will question feminism and the sexual revolution if it weren't presented in such a favorable light in our schools."seems quaint rather than inspiring. It's so far up the food chain from the root of the disaster that one is tempted to think you're being sarcastic. But I know it's my own opinion projecting itself onto your words.
The American people are not slumbering apatheticallyas you think. They're wide awake and reaching for the brass ring on this, the best of all possible merry-go-rounds.
If McCarthy has any lasting significance, it is as the official death rattle--the total political, cultural and social rout--of those people who supported him. That Chuckie Schumer routinely uses Joe's tactics (did you say "New McCarthyism"Gecko?) is proof enough that his spectre has been well and truly exorcised, and now has all the scare power of Casper The Friendly Ghost.
"...No--Gatsby turned out all right at the end; it is what preyed on Gatsby, what foul dust floated in the wake of his dreams that temporarily closed out my interest in the abortive sorrows and short-winded elations of men..."
Oh, and I'll tell you something else. I've been much more radicalized by the realization that Consumer Capitalism and the Red Menace turned out, after all to be nothing more than businesses competing for customers--different manifestations of the same force, as you point out so well.
Events since the fall of the Berlin Wall, have been much more shocking to me than perhaps they sould have been. It's always embarrasing to discover how naive I can be. But in the wake of these events, I find myself seriously wondering whether the Red Menace was worse than the colossus bestriding the planet now in the form of Madeline Albright's legs, Bill Clinton's penis, George Soros' hands, Sandy Berger's breasts, and Christiane Amanpour's head.
I see that you are just as loveable as ever.
"As the Tumbrels go Tumblin' along..."
Expecting the Neo-Con's or Globalists to fight for our Republic? Not in a Schachtmanite eon, Ma Dame.
Too bad I can't rhyme "the Red Menace" with "Bill Clinton's penis".
La Belle, I like what you say about McCarthy. There is no enemy so dangerous as an incompetent friend. Even conservatives can't occasionally avoid using the term "Left-Wing McCarthyism". Occasional self-irony is good, but only when it is not inadvertent.
Yet, you seem willing to risk literally everything on the bet that some mythological band of decent Middle Americans are lurking out there in the hills, dales, field, forests,and mountains ready to protect you if only their rage can be adequately articulated by a New McCarthy. .........
Your D-Day vision of re-invading "Middle America" and taking it back for the People on School Board Beach, on University Beach, on Town Council Beach, on Wall Street Beach and Hollywood Beach has just one little problem: Middle Americans will be fighting you every inch of the way. You stepped up to this abysmal realization several times in your essay, but you always turned away from it in favor of a Norman Rockwell pep rally.
But I can't sit still while you berate our beloved America. I know there is such an America out there. I overheard myself saying it.
Look at France. When De Gaulle announced his cry for "France libre" the total population of the Free France movement probably amounted to about one. Most Frenchmen where perfectly happy with Petain, LaVelle, Vichy and understanding of Hitler. Most of those who weren't preferred Stalin. Yet his cry of France to recover her "free spirit" and "inherent greatness" made him the most influential leader in the modern world.
Most honest nationalist leaders confront this dillema occasionally. Malcomb X noted how lazy and unmotivated most Blacks really were. Hitler notewd that 90 percent of Germans were traitors. Lenin thought revolution would never happen with the stupid, backward, unpolitical Russian peasants and workers. Sometimes we have to listen to the message of history and destiny. Even if at the time we are the only ones repeating it.
racial egalitarianism
Just out of curiosity, what do you object to about "racial egalitarianism?"
The Clintons are perfect posterchildren for feminism, the sexual revolution, and political correctness.
The Clintons are perfect examples of White Anglo Saxon Aryan Protestants who are NOT necessarily the best Americans. Barry Goldwater was a better American than Bill Clinton by a factor of 10, even though he was not a member of your favored race. You brigadiers can take your "racial egalitarianism" crap and stuff it.