Cultural Marxisms Attack On Western Society_ Via …..Government..Schools etc

Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism

Briefly put, Marxist theory held that when a general European war came, the working class of different nations would rise up in unison and violently overthrow their bourgeois governments on the basis they had more in common with each other than the ruling class in their own country. It never happened because the worker/soldier rallied to their flag patriotically to fight one another during the Great War. However, these revolutionary Marxists believed the theory was right because of their experience of the Russian revolution.

In spite of this, they now reasoned that the workers will never see their true class interests until they were freed from Western culture, particularly the Christian religion – “the opium of the people”, which blinded them to their true class interests. Therefore, to create a Marxist paradise the culture of Western civilisation had to be destroyed. This was to be done through cultural Marxism.

Political correctness has its origins in cultural Marxism – that is Marxism translated from the economic into the cultural term. Its history goes back to the 1920’s and the writings of Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci.

He had travelled to the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and made some accurate observations that caused him to conclude that Western workers due to thFeir Christian souls could not bring about a Bolshevik-style uprising.

His advice to the intellectuals was to begin a long march through the educational and cultural institutions of the nation to create a new Soviet man before there could be a successful political revolution. Subsequently, this blueprint for mind and character change made Gramsci a hero of Revolutionary Marxism in American education and paved the way for creation of the New American Child in the schools by the education cartel.

At a secret meeting in 1923 of revolutionary Marxists in Germany, leading Marxist theoretician Georg Lukacs proposed the concept of inducing “Cultural Pessimism” to increase the state of hopelessness and alienation as a necessary prerequisite for revolution. We witness this phenomena of pessimism when spoilt rich kids from middle and upper class backgrounds adopt extreme Leftist ideologies and resort to bloody violence. Think of the American Patty Hearst, heiress, socialite, actress and bank robber for the Symbionese Liberation Army, a left-wing urban guerrilla group, as a good example

This led to a group of Marxist and Communist inspired psychologists, sociologists and other intellectuals to establish an institute in Germany devoted to making the transition from economic to cultural theory. It was modelled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow, yet hid its Marxist theoretical base. The Institute of Social Research, later known as the Frankfurt School was founded deliberately to undermine Western culture.

It blended Marxist and Freudian psychoanalytic theory that stressed the centrality of sex to personal and social development and added the study of linguistics to create Critical Theory and “deconstruction”. These later influenced education theory that gave birth to political correctness

Cultural Marxism, or political correctness shares with classical Marxism a vision of a classless society – a society of equal opportunity and equal condition. This vision contradicts human nature since people are different and end up unequal regardless of their starting point. So equality has to be enforced. It is therefore totalitarian in nature. This explains why political correctness aims to control freedom of thought, speech and the press.

Alexsander Solzhenitsyn has observed, “And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity.” In brief, socialism aims to abolish private property, the family, religion and hierarchies to produce sameness.

Cultural and economic Marxism share a single-factor explanation of history. Classical Marxism states history is determined by the ownership of production. Cultural Marxism says history is explained by which groups have power over other groups and these are defined by sex, race and sexual normality or abnormality. Classical Marxism defines workers and peasants as virtuous and the bourgeoisie or middle class and other capital owners as evil. Cultural Marxism defines blacks, feminist women, homosexuals and other minority groups as virtuous and white men as evil. It is a system for punishing dissent and aims to stigmatise what it perceives as cultural heretics.

Economic Marxism intended the expropriation of property from the bourgeoisie and handing it to the state as “representatives” of the worker. Cultural Marxism gain power by laying penalties on white men and others who disagree with them and give privilege to groups they favour. Affirmative action and multiculturalism is an example. Both varieties of Marxism use methods of analysis designed to show the correctness of their ideology. One is economic the other is linguistic – deconstruction. Deconstruction proves any “text” that illustrates the oppression of blacks, women and homosexuals regardless of their meaning. It is a flawed analysis that twists evidence to preordained conclusions.

The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci and Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs contributed the most to this new cultural Marxism. Antonio Gramsci worked for the Communist International during 1923-24 in Moscow and Vienna. In his view, a new “Communist man” had to be created before any political revolution was possible. This led to a focus on the efforts of intellectuals in the fields of education and culture. Gramsci envisioned a long march through the society’s institutions, including the government, the judiciary, the military, the schools and the media. He also concluded that so long as the workers had a Christian soul, they would not respond to revolutionary appeals.

He urged his fellow Marxists to form popular fronts with Western intellectuals who shared their contempt for Christianity and bourgeois culture.

Lukacs was the son of a wealthy Hungarian banker who began his political life as an agent of the Communist International. His book History and Class Consciousness gained him recognition as the leading Marxist theorist since Karl Marx. He promoted sexual licentiousness among women and children as a means of destroying the family, the core institution of Christianity and Western culture.

Lukacs believed that for a new Marxist culture to emerge, the existing culture must be destroyed. He said, “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution to the cultural contradictions of the epoch,” and, “Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”

When he became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary in 1919, Lukacs launched what became known as “Cultural Terrorism.” As part of this terrorism he established a radical sex education programme in Hungarian schools. Hungarian children were instructed in free love, sexual intercourse, and the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the out-datedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasures. Women, too, were called to rebel against the sexual mores of the time. Lukacs’s campaign of “Cultural Terrorism” was a precursor to what political correctness would later bring to the West.

Members of the Frankfurt School fled Germany in 1933 when the Nazi’s came into power. Most came to the United States to continue their work at the New York Columbia University. Now they concentrated their efforts on American society. It had many fronts: the relaxation of moral codes, the destruction of the traditional family, promotion of sexual promiscuity and perversion, denigration of religious belief, political correctness, and re-education by taking control of the university campuses. They wrote mostly in German thus concealing the real aims.

Interestingly, a version of the Frankfurt School was established at the Birmingham University Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in England. It was closed down in 2002.

The Frankfurt School combined Marxist analysis with Freudian psychoanalysis to criticise Western culture which included Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism. These criticisms were known collectively as Critical Theory.

Critical Theory incorporated sub-theories which were intended to chip away at specific elements of the existing culture, including “matriarchal theory,” “androgyny theory,” “personality theory,” “authority theory,” “family theory,” “sexuality theory,” “racial theory,” “legal theory,” and “literary theory.” Put into practice, these theories were to be used to overthrow the prevailing social order and usher in social revolution.

Marx had criminalised the capitalist class, the Frankfurt School criminalised the middle class. Truth did not matter for Marxist ideologues and only they defined it.

The belief that matriarchy was the solution to patriarchy flows from Marx’s comment in The German Ideology, published in 1845. Marx advanced the idea that wives and children were the first property of the patriarchal male. The Frankfurt School’s matriarchal theory and its near-relation, androgyny theory, originated from these sources.

Critical theorists recognized that traditional beliefs and the existing social structure would have to be destroyed and then replaced. The patriarchal social structure would be displaced with matriarchy; the belief that men and women are different and properly have different roles would be replaced with androgyny; and the belief that heterosexuality is normal would be replaced with the belief that homosexuality is equally “normal.”

American student revolutionaries in the 1960’s were also strongly influenced by the ideas of Herbert Marcuse, another member of the Frankfurt School. One of the more infamous is Angela Yvonne Davis, currently a controversial university professor who teaches Critical Resistance, concentrating on race, gender, equality, gay rights and prison abolition. She was involved in a 20-year campaign to end the ‘Prison-industrial’ complex to free black inmates. A life-long devoted communist, she has furthered the cause of the most oppressive blood-soaked regimes in recorded history for which she received the Lenin Prize from East Germany. She is another lesbian that was closely associated with the notorious Black Panther Party. This group was formed in the mid-1960’s and composed of African-Americans who were devoted to Black Power. They espoused socialist and Communist doctrines and were the icon of the counterculture. However, brutal militancy and violent tactics overshadowed their political goals.

Davis was also heavily involved in the American Civil Rights Movement and was a prominent member and political candidate for the Communist Party. She initially studied Critical Theory under Marcuse who described her as “my best student”, and then travelled to Germany to study under Theodor Adorno. She thus served to link Cultural Marxism with the American New Left in the 1960’s. Davis was involved in the armed courthouse trial escape of two panthers when they took the judge as a hostage with a shotgun taped to his neck. He was fatally shot. The gun was registered in Davis’s name. She appeared on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives List before she was eventually arrested. She was acquitted of all charges at the subsequent trial.

Marcuse preached the “Great Refusal,” a rejection of all basic Western concepts, sexual liberation and the merits of feminist and black revolution. His primary thesis was that university students, ghetto blacks, the alienated, the asocial, and the Third World could take the place of the proletariat in the Communist revolution.

In his book An Essay on Liberation, he proclaimed his goals of a radical eroding of values; the relaxation of taboos; cultural subversion; Critical Theory; and a linguistic rebellion that would amount to a methodical reversal of meaning. As for racial conflict he wrote that white men are guilty and that blacks are the most natural force of rebellion.

He may be the most important member of the Frankfurt School in terms of the origins of political correctness, because he was the critical link to the counter culture of the 1960’s. His objective was clear: “One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including morality of existing society…” His means was liberating the powerful, primeval force of sex from its civilized restraints, a message preached in his book, Eros and Civilization, published in 1955.

Marcuse became one of the main gurus of the 1960’s American teenage sexual rebellion; he himself coined the expression, “Make love, not war.” With that role, the chain of Marxist influence via the Frankfurt School was completed: from Lukacs’ service as Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Hungarian government in 1919 to American students burning the flag and taking over college administration buildings in the 1960’s.

He was the pied piper of sixties radical youth, feminists, black militants, homosexuals and the alienated and asocial. He openly encouraged sex and drugs and introduced the idea of “polymorphous perversity” where all moral and cultural order is rejected. He also called for a “repressive tolerance” but this was to be applied only to the Left.

Previous societies had been subverted by the written word, but Marcuse believed that sex and drugs were infinitely superior weapons. He became a cult figure in North America and Europe. For example, during the student revolt in Paris in 1968 they carried banners proclaiming “Marx, Mao and Marcuse”.

Today, many of these same colleges are bastions of political correctness, and the former student radicals have become the faculties. The anti-war factions became the protestors against nuclear power which spawned groups like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, alarmist of population growth, global cooling and now global warming. Another advocate of the radical New Left, paediatrician Dr Benjamin Spock wrote a bestseller entitled ‘The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care’ . He propagated the idea of child permissiveness and the expectation of instant gratification. Attempts to outlaw the smacking of a child continue to this day.

In 1950 The Authoritarian Personality was published. Written by another revolutionary Marxist, Theodor Andorno, it substantially influenced American psychologists and social scientists whose concern was with “self esteem” and “self actualisation” thus displacing the emphasis on “the common good”. It suggested that Christianity, capitalism and the patriarchal/authoritarian family created prejudice, which, if not eradicated, would result in another Holocaust. It provided the basis for political correctness. It conformed to Critical Theory in every respect because it was anti-God, anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-nationalist, anti-patriot, anti-conservative, anti-hereditarian, anti-ethnocentric, anti-masculine, anti-tradition and anti-morality.

The Frankfurt School introduced the idea of psychological conditioning as a means of changing culture to fit their warped image. Anyone with middle class, conservative or Christian value was labelled a racist and a fascist. It was a libellous indictment of western values. They infiltrated American society to subvert it by saturating the existing culture with a destructive ideology of lies.

University campuses were turned into raucous boot camps for a new generation of political radicals, utopian socialists and psychedelic epicureans, who sought social change in the form of rampant drug addiction, anarchic turmoil and rebellious rioting, done in the cause of liberation and freedom.

Cultural radicals have successfully pushed an agenda of moral relativism, militant secularism, sexual and social “liberation”. Recall an icon of the 1960’s counter-culture, Timothy Leary who, promoting the benefits of LSD said, “Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out”. At the time, President Nixon labelled him the most dangerous man in America. Another member of the Beat Generation (beatniks) who rejected mainstream American values, experimented with drugs and alternative sexual lifestyles was the celebrated poet Allen Ginsburg. He played a leading role in the 1965 protest of the Vietnam war which was attacked by a motor cycle gang of Hells Angels yelling “Go back to Russia you fucking bastards.” He was closely associated with Communism and as a homosexual defended the freedom of expression of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) of which he was a member.

Perhaps no greater example of treachery can be found than that of the ultra-feminist, pro-Communist and three-times married Hollywood actress, Jane Fonda. She campaigned across America colleges agitating against the Vietnam war. In 1972 she travelled to Hanoi where she was famously photographed on a North Vietnamese Army anti-aircraft gun, alleged to have shot down American fighter jets. She was subsequently labelled as “Hanoi Jane” and compared to Tokyo Rose the Japanese propagandist in WWII.

We matched the American experience in what became known as the Swinging Sixties or the Counterculture movement of the 1960’s that celebrated unrepentant hedonism and conspicuous drug abuse. It was “Flower Power” and “Free Love” which directly challenged previous sexual norms eased with the eventual introduction of the contraceptive pill which would have a profound effect upon society. By the late 1980’s, 90% of young women were on the pill breaking the historic bond between sex and childbirth. The emphasis was now on pleasure, not procreation, gratification rather than reproduction. The book ‘The Joy of Sex’ became an international best seller. Fewer than one in 100 young women were virgins on marriage and abortion clinics were booming with business as never before.

The cultural standards of the day was drastically cast aside and traditional modes of authority were challenged. Far-reaching changes were brought about with calls for social justice and anti-war demonstrations were organised to “Ban the Bomb”.

At this time we saw the rise of not just feminism but lesbian feminism and the development of hippie communes. We witnessed the emergence of Punk Rock whose subculture promoted rebellion, anarchy and revolution. Sometimes Punk Rockers indulged in violent protest and mass public disorder involving Skinheads (hippies without hair) Mods, Rockers and the criminally inclined oxymoronic Hell’s Angels.

There was a loosening of censorship in the arts and a corresponding increase in the distribution of pornography. Immigration increased and with it the multicultural strains of deteriorating race relations that would eventually explode in massive public violence and disorder in several of our cities. Conventional marriage came under increasing attack and church attendance started to decline.

The Blair/Brown Labour Government’s indifference, hostility even, to traditional marriage, results in the lowest rate of marriage since 1862. The latest figures from the Office For National Statistics for 2008 showed 232,900 weddings, the fewest in a year since 1885, when the population was just 30 million against around 57 million today. In November 2010, Cabinet minister Duncan Smith warned that the collapse of marriage had brought soaring crime rates, doubled the chances of living in poverty and cost the country an astonishing £100 billion a year.

In 2009 Mr Justice Coleridge from the Family Divison of the High Court said that, “…the breakdown of marriage in this country is on a scale, depth and breadth which few of us could have imagined even a decade ago… Almost all of society’s … Ill can be traced directly to the collapse of the family life.”

Moreover, between 2000 and 2007 more than a dozen girls aged ten became pregnant as did an alarming 60,000 pregnancies to children under 16. A scheme is now run encouraging schoolgirls as young as 11 to request the morning-after-pill by text message on their mobile phone.

At the same time the crime statistics began to surge and society became more violent as it lost it former homogeneity and respect for authority. For example, there were 2,900 crimes of violence in 1939, 23,470 in 1964 and a staggering 1,158 million in 2008. Violent crime has soared by 77% since Labour came into power. Indeed, the Blairite doctrine on being tough on crime and its causes has long been abandoned in a sewer of conceit. A 2009 Home Office study reveals that Britain now has 1.6 million hardened criminals committing dozens of offences each year and a householder is attacked by a violent burglar every 30 minutes. Disturbingly, 250 women are arrested every day for violent crimes.

We are now spending more than £31 million each year on the ‘chemical cosh’ Ritalin to treat unruly children to counter poor discipline and inadequate parental control. A fifth of youngsters under 16 are now formally diagnosed with one or more behavioural disorders. In 2011, the Daily Mail disclosed that some 650,000 school kids aged between 8 and 13, are being prescribed Ritalin, or its equivalent, to control behaviour in schools by their teachers who feel they have lost control. According the NHS figures only 9,000 children were similarly treated in 1990.

The 2009 British Crime Survey revealed for the first time that a child is a victim of a violent attack every 20 seconds, mostly by other children and that child victims are three time more likely than adults to be assaulted. Little wonder, then, that 80,000 pupils from primary and secondary schools were suspended for attacking teachers or schoolmates, some as young as four-years-old.

Now, every British bank note is contaminated by cocaine within weeks of entering circulation. The police have stopped testing notes for traces of the drug in criminal investigations as the contamination is so widespread. According to the Forensic Science Service the results are now meaningless as every note tests positive for cocaine. Moreover, our nations economic health could be gauged by the fact that 21 percent of the working population is not earning a living. That amounts to an unprecedented 8.08 million people who are economically inactive.

It is worth noting that Roy Jenkins MP, was the Home Secretary in a Labour Government. (1965-67) when he was instrumental in the most wide-ranging reforms to the law. The birching of prisoners was stopped and capital punishment suspended. He was also involved in major changes relating to divorce, which became easier, the abolishment of theatre censorship and he supported legislation introducing abortion and the decriminalisation of homosexuality. These far-reaching changes epitomised for him a civilised rather than a permissive society. He did, nevertheless, see homosexuality as a disability rather than disease.

It should be observed that it was omnisexual Lord Boothby a Conservative Party politician; later notoriously associated homosexually with the criminal gangland killers the Kray twins; who put pressure on the Home Secretary Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, to appoint the Wolfenden Committee to decriminalise homosexuality because, in truth, they were being blackmailed by current and former gay lovers. Incidentally, Boothby was twice married, had fathered three children with two other wives and was the long-time lover of Sarah Macmillan, wife to Prime Minister Harold Macmillan. At one time it was reported that the Sunday Mirror was about to expose Boothby’s homosexual relationship with gangster Ronnie Kray. However, no names were printed but Boothby threatened to sue. The newspaper backed down, sacked its editor, apologised and paid Boothby £40,000 in an out of court settlement.

The Wolfenden Committee considered three important points.

• Is homosexuality a menace to the health of society? (They found no evidence for this)

• Did it damage family life? (They were undecided).

• Might homosexuals prey on boys? (The evidence was overwhelmingly against and suggested greater protection if the law was changed)

What is probably not generally known is that fraudulent sex researcher Alfred Kinsey made a hush-hush visit to England as a sex science advisor to Wolfenden. His name does not appear on the list of witnesses to the Wolfenden Report (1957). Nevertheless, Kinsey’s false homosexual data was relied on and his bogus research was extolled as credible. The Wolfenden Committee relied heavily on Kinsey’s revolutionary books Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).

The Wolfenden Report was published in 1957 and recommended that homosexual behaviour between consenting adults in private should not be a criminal offence. It went against popular opinion and it was a decade before the law was changed. Whatever the legal, medical or moral evidence of the day, It may be suggested they faced a contradiction. They recognised that the law had a function in preserving public order and decency, but that it had no place in intervening in the private lives of citizens. This neatly reflects the overstated and misleading opinion that the state has no part to play in the bedroom. A view firmly enshrined within homosexual politics because is exonerates them from moral opprobrium and public censure. It also facilitates their encroachment into the bedroom of the unsuspecting.

Professor Roger Scruton, has cogently observed that, “Moral norms, generated collectively, must also be collectively imposed. Sexual morality provides a particular clear and important case in point. Sex is the bond of society and also the force that explodes it. Properly managed, sexual feelings lead to lasting marriages, stable families, children with vigilant parents and the handing down from generation to generation of the precious store of social capital. Mismanaged, they lead to a society – perhaps one should say ‘society’ – of casual encounters, jealousies and aggressions, in which they are neither lasting commitments nor sacrifices on behalf of children.”

Putting aside, for a moment, the fact that today European law permits homosexual behaviour between multiple consenting adults in private, and that adultery and fornication are not subject to the criminal law, though they may have consequences for civil law, and ultimately the state with the cost of family breakdown, where does that leave other sexual behaviours that takes place in private? Incidentally, family breakdown currently costs £41.7 billion annually, or £1,350 for each taxpayer.

The state certainly intervenes in some cases of sadomasochism involving men or women; it quickly responds to the slaying of one person by another in the heat of sexual passion and it moves rapidly in cases of incest or paedophilia. Today, there is an ironic twist to this idea of the sanctity of bedroom privacy.

Observe the eagerness of the Labour Government to impose gay bedroom politics into the classroom, even for children as young as five. Defying common sense and an indivisible and coherent duty to protect the young, Children’s Secretary, Ed Balls, MP, intended to ban the teaching of homophobia, which decoded means anything unfavourable to homosexuality. Instead, children would be instructed positively to compare unhealthy pathologically abnormal sexual practices with life enhancing conventional ones, as if they were morally and culturally equivalent. To the great relief of most parents, the sex and relationship education plans were eventually scuppered with the dissolution of parliament prior to a general election.

History teaches that when the morality of society breaks down the first thing the state does to recover is to reinforce strict measures to strengthen conventional or traditional mores. The state particularly concentrates on sexual conduct ignoring any difference between private or public behaviour. Adultery, divorce and abortion become more difficult and homosexuality criminalised. We will encounter examples of this later.

It is entirely misleading to suggest that private sexual acts do not affect society. They do so, and on a significant and overwhelming scale. Conventional private sexual acts lead to the procreation of society thus ensuring its continuance into the future. This is wholesome and efficacious for the nation.

Unconventional sexual acts inhibit this process resulting in a range of unintended consequences which debilitate both the individual and the state. Gay sex involves extreme risk taking which has a significant impact on medical services and public finances. It will be necessary to examine this claim closely.

Wolfenden, on the other hand, seems to have recognised that some unpleasant consequences result from street prostitution, which is associated with ‘community instability’ and the ‘weakening of the family’. Therefore it seems astonishing that they failed to recognise the harm relating to homosexuality, although it is necessary to consider that some of their evidence came from questionable homosexual sources.

Privately, it appears that Wolfenden largely condemned homosexuality. He was certainly troubled by the fact his son Jeremy Wolfenden (1934-1965) was an openly, if not outwardly camp gay man. He kept his distance from him fearing it would become public knowledge. Jeremy was a brilliant Oxford scholar, a British spy for MI6 at the height of the Cold War based in the USSR, manically depressed with a passion for sex and drink. Compromised by the Russian KGB in a homosexual incident, he was turned into a double-agent. He married a Russian nanny in the hope of attaining emotional stability but continued to drink heavily and hardly ate. Eventually, he died suddenly probably due to liver failure at the age of 31.

The Women’s Liberation Movement was formed to push feminist rights. Much more radical was the “Family Communes” of lesbian feminists’ whose aim was to smash the nuclear family. All children born within the group would bear the name “Wild” in an attempt to eliminate perceived patriarchal oppression.

It is said that the Women’s Liberation Movement owes its origins to Betty Friedan who wrote The Feminist Mystique (1963). Friedan was a long-time functionary of the Communist left in America. In fact she was a political activist and professional propagandist for the Communists for ten years before the publication of her book. According to Professor Ruth Wisse of Harvard University the “…women’s liberation, if not the most extreme then certainly the most influential neo-Marxist movement in America, has done to the American home what communism did to the Russian economy, and most of the ruin is irreversible. By defining between men and women in terms of power and competition instead of reciprocity and cooperation, the movement tore apart the most basic and fragile contract in human society, the unit from which all other social institutions draw their strength.”

Friedan was an important contributor to political correctness and her book reflected Friedrich Engels work The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State first published in 1884. It popularised the current feminist belief that deep-rooted discrimination against the oppressed female sex was a function of patriarchy and the belief that matriarchy was the solution. This idea flowed from Marx’s comment in The German Ideology published in 1845. The Frankfurt School’s matriarchy theory and androgyny theory originated from these sources.

http://www.gayconspiracy.info/page72.html

The Historical Roots of “Political Correctness”

By Raymond V. Raehn

America is today dominated by an alien system of beliefs, attitudes and values that we have come to know as “Political Correctness.” Political Correctness seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans and is therefore totalitarian in nature. Its roots lie in a version of Marxism which seeks a radical inversion of the traditional culture in order to create a social revolution.

Social revolution has a long history, conceivably going as far back as Plato’s Republic. But it was the French Revolution of 1789 that inspired Karl Marx to develop his theories in the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, the success of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia set off a wave of optimistic expectation among the Marxist forces in Europe and America that the new proletarian world of equality was finally coming into being. Russia, as the first communist nation in the world, would lead the revolutionary forces to victory.

The Marxist revolutionary forces in Europe leaped at this opportunity. Following the end of World War I, there was a Communist “Spartacist uprising in Berlin, Germany lead by Rosa Luxemburg; the creation of a “Soviet” in Bavaria led by Kurt Eisner; and a Hungarian communist republic established by Bela Kun in 1919. At the time, there was great concern that all of Europe might fall under the banner of Bolshevism. This sense of impeding doom was given vivid life by Trotsky’s Red Army invasion of Poland in 1919.
However, the Red Army was defeated by Polish forces at the battle of the Vistula in 1920. The Spartacist, Bavarian Soviet and Bela Kun governments all failed to gain widespread support from the workers and after a brief time they were all overthrown. These events created a quandary for the Marxist revolutionaries in Europe. Under Marxist economic theory, the oppressed workers were supposed to be the beneficiaries of a social revolution that would place them on top of the power structure. When these revolutionary opportunities presented themselves, however, the workers did not respond. The Marxist revolutionaries did not blame their theory for these failures. They blamed the workers.

One group of Marxist intellectuals resolved their quandary by an analysis that focused on society’s cultural “superstructure” rather than on the economic substructures as Marx did. The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci and Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs contributed the most to this new cultural Marxism.

Antonio Gramsci worked for the Communist International during 1923-24 in Moscow and Vienna. He was later imprisoned in one of Mussolini’s jails where he wrote his famous “Prison Notebooks.” Among Marxists, Gramsci is noted for his theory of cultural hegemony as the means to class dominance. In his view, a new “Communist man” had to be created before any political revolution was possible. This led to a focus on the efforts of intellectuals in the fields of education and culture. Gramsci envisioned a long march through the society’s institutions, including the government, the judiciary, the military, the schools and the media. He also concluded that so long as the workers had a Christian soul, they would not respond to revolutionary appeals.

Georg Lukacs was the son a wealthy Hungarian banker. Lukacs began his political life as an agent of the Communist International. His book History and Class Consciousness gained him recognition as the leading Marxist theorist since Karl Marx. Lukacs believed that for a new Marxist culture to emerge, the existing culture must be destroyed. He said, “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution to the cultural contradictions of the epoch,” and, “Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”

When he became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary in 1919, Lukacs launched what became known as “Cultural Terrorism.” As part of this terrorism he instituted a radical sex education program in Hungarian schools. Hungarian children were instructed in free love, sexual intercourse, the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the out-datedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasures. Women, too, were called to rebel against the sexual mores of the time. Lukacs’s campaign of “Cultural Terrorism” was a precursor to what Political Correctness would later bring to American schools.

In 1923, Lukacs and other Marxist intellectuals associated with the Communist Party of Germany founded the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University in Frankfurt, Germany. The Institute, which became known as the Frankfurt School, was modeled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. In 1933, when Nazis came to power in Germany, the members of the Frankfurt School fled. Most came to the United States.

The members of the Frankfurt School conducted numerous studies on the beliefs, attitudes and values they believed lay behind the rise of National Socialism in Germany. The Frankfurt School’s studies combined Marxist analysis with Freudian psychoanalysis to form the basis of what became known as “Critical Theory.” Critical Theory was essentially destructive criticism of the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism. These criticisms were reflected in such works of the Frankfurt School as Erich Fromm’s Escape from Freedom and The Dogma of Christ, Wilhelm’s Reich’s The Mass Psychology of Fascism and Theodor Adorno’s The Authoritarian Personality.
The Authoritarian Personality, published in 1950, substantially influenced American psychologists and social scientists. The book was premised on one basic idea, that the presence in a society of Christianity, capitalism and the patriarchal-authoritarian family created a character prone to racial prejudice and German fascism. The Authoritarian Personality became a handbook for a national campaign against any kind of prejudice or discrimination on the theory that if these evils were not eradicated, another Holocaust might occur on the American continent. This campaign, in turn, provided a basis for Political Correctness.

Critical Theory incorporated sub-theories which themselves were intended to chip away at specific elements of the existing culture, including “matriarchal theory,” “androgyny theory,” “personality theory,” “authority theory,” “family theory,” “sexuality theory,” “racial theory,” “legal theory” and “literary theory.” Put into practice, these theories were to be used to overthrow the prevailing social order and usher in social revolution based on cultural Marxism.

To achieve this, the Critical Theorists of the Frankfurt School recognized that traditional beliefs and the existing social structure would have to be destroyed and then replaced. The patriarchal social structure would be replaced with matriarchy; the belief that men and women are different and properly have different roles would be replaced with androgyny; and the belief that heterosexuality is normal would be replaced with the belief that homosexuality is “normal.”

As a grand scheme intended to deny the intrinsic worth of white, heterosexual males, the Critical Theorists of the Frankfurt School opened the door to the racial and sexual antagonisms of the Trotskyites. Leon Trotsky believed that oppressed blacks could be the vanguard of a communist revolution in North America. He denounced white workers who were prejudiced against blacks and instructed them to unite with the blacks in revolution. Trotsky’s ideas were adopted by many of the student leaders of the 1960s counterculture movement, who attempted to elevate the black revolutionaries to positions of leadership in their movement.

The student revolutionaries were also strongly influenced by the ideas of Herbert Marcuse, another member of the Frankfurt School. Marcuse preached the “Great Refusal,” a rejection of all basic Western concepts, sexual liberation and the merits of feminist and black revolutions. His primary thesis was that university students, ghetto blacks, the alienated, the asocial, and the Third World could take the place of the proletariat in the Communist revolution. In his book, An Essay on Liberation, Marcuse proclaimed his goals of a radical transvaluation of values; the relaxation of taboos, cultural subversion; Critical Theory; and a linguistic rebellion that would amount to a methodical reversal of meaning. As for racial conflict, Marcuse wrote that white men are guilty and that blacks are the most natural force of rebellion.

Marcuse may be the most important member of the Frankfurt School in terms of the origins of Political Correctness, because he was the critical link to the counterculture of the 1960s. His objective was clear: “One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including morality of existing society…” His means was liberating the powerful, primeval force of sex from its civilized restraints, a message preached in his book, Eros and Civilization, published in 1955. Marcuse became one of the main gurus of the 1960s adolescent sexual rebellion; he himself coined the expression, “make love, not war.” With that role, the chain of Marxist influence via the Frankfurt School was completed: from Lukacs’s service as Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Hungarian government in 1919 to American students burning the flag and taking over college administration buildings in the 1960s. Today, many of these same colleges are bastions of Political Correctness, and the former student radicals have become the faculties.

One of the most important contributors to Political Correctness was Betty Friedan. Through her book The Feminine Mystique, Friedan became the mother of the modern feminist movement in America. Friedan was not a member of the Frankfurt School, but she was strongly influenced by it. Her work offers a useful case study of the Marxist roots of Political Correctness.

Friedan devoted almost a full chapter of The Feminine Mystique to Abraham Maslow’s theory of self-actualization. Maslow was a social psychologist who in his early years did research on female dominance and sexuality. Maslow was a friend of Herbert Marcuse at Bandeis University and had met Erich Fromm in 1936. He was strongly impressed by Fromm’s Frankfurt School ideology. He wrote an article, “The Authoritarian Character Structure,” published in 1944, that reflected the personality theory of Critical Theory. Maslow was also impressed with the work of Wilhelm Reich, who was another Frankfurt School originator of personality theory.

The significance of the historical roots of Political Correctness cannot be fully appreciated unless Betty Friedan’s revolution in sex roles is viewed for what it really was – a manifestation of the social revolutionary process begun by Karl Marx. Friedan’s reliance on Abraham Maslow’s reflection of Frankfurt School ideology is simply one indicator. Other indicators include the correspondence of Friedan’s revolution in sex roles with Georg Lukacs’ annihilation of old values and the creation of new ones, and with Herbert Marcuse’s transvaluation of values. But the idea of transforming a patriarchy into a matriarchy – which is what a sex-role inversion is designed to do – can be connected directed to Friedrich Engels book The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the Sate. First published in 1884, this book popularized the now-accepted feminist belief that deep-rooted discrimination against the oppressed female sex was a function of patriarchy. The belief that matriarchy was the solution to patriarchy flows from Marx’s comments in The German Ideology, published in 1845. In this work Marx advanced the idea that wives and children were the first property of the patriarchal male. The Frankfurt School’s matriarchal theory (and its near-relation, androgyny theory) both originated from these sources.

When addressing the general public, advocates of Political Correctness – or cultural Marxism, to give it its true name – present their beliefs attractively. It’s all just a matter of being “sensitive” to other people, they say. They use words such as “tolerance” and “diversity,” asking, “Why can’t we all just get along?”

The reality is different. Political Correctness is not at all about “being nice,” unless one thinks gulags are nice places. Political Correctness is Marxism, with all that implies: loss of freedom of expression, thought control, inversion of the traditional social order and, ultimately, a totalitarian state. If anything, the cultural Marxism created by the Frankfurt School is more horrifying than the old, economic Marxism that ruined Russia. At least the economic Marxists did not exalt sexual perversion and attempt to create a matriarchy, as the Frankfurt School and its descendants have done.

This short essay has sought to show one critical linkage, that between classical Marxism and the ingredients of the “cultural revolution” that broke out in America in the 1960s. The appendices to this paper offer a “wiring diagram” which may make the trail easier to follow, along with a more detailed look at some of the main actors. Of course, the action does not stop in the ‘60s; the workings of Frankfurt School are yet very much with us, especially in the field of education. That topic, and other present-day effects of Frankfurt School thinking, will be the subjects of future chapters in this book.

Profiles

Georg Lukacs

• He began his political life as a Kremlin agent of the Communist International.

• His History and Class-Consciousness gained him recognition as the leading Marxist theorist since Karl Marx.

• In 1919 he became the Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Bela Kun Regime in Hungary. He instigated what become known as the “Cultural Terrorism.”

• The Cultural Terrorism was a precursor of what was to happen in American schools.

• He launched an “explosive” sex education program. Special lectures were organized in Hungarian schools and literature was printed and distributed to instruct children about free love, the nature of sexual intercourse, the archaic nature of the bourgeois family codes, the outdatedness of monogamy and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasure. Children urged thus to reject and deride paternal authority and the authority of the Church, and to ignore precepts of morality, were easily and spontaneously turned into delinquents with whom only the police could cope. This call to rebellion addressed to Hungarian children was matched by a call to rebellion addressed to Hungarian women.

• In rejecting the idea that Bolshevism spelled the destruction of civilization and culture, Lukacs stated: “Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”

• Lukacs’ state of mind was expressed in his own words:

o “All the social forces I had hated since my youth, and which I aimed in spirit to annihilate, now came together to unleash the First Global War.”

o “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution to the cultural contradictions of the epoch.”

o “The question is, Who will free us from the yoke of Western Civilization?”

o “Any political movement capable of bringing Bolshevism to the West would have to be ‘Demonic’.”

o “The abandonment of the soul’s uniqueness solves the problem of ‘unleashing’ the diabolic forces lurking in all the violence which are needed to create a revolution.”

• Lukacs’ state of mind was typical of those who represented the forces of Revolutionary Marxism.

• At a secret meeting in Germany in 1923, Lukacs proposed the concept of inducing “Cultural Pessimism” in order to increase the state of hopelessness and alienation in the people of the West as a necessary prerequisite for revolution.

• This meeting led to the founding of the Institute for Social Research at Frankfurt University in Germany in 1923 – an organization of Marxist and Communistoriented psychologists, sociologists and other intellectuals that came to be known as the Frankfurt School, which devoted itself to implementing Georg Lukacs’s program.

Antonio Gramsci

• He was an Italian Marxist on an intellectual par with Georg Lukacs who arrived by analysis at the same conclusions as Lukacs and the Frankfurt School regarding the critical importance of intellectuals in fomenting revolution in the West.

• He had traveled to the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and made some accurate observations that caused him to conclude that a Bolshevikstyle uprising could not be brought about by Western workers due to the nature of their Christian souls.

• Antonio Gramsci became the leader of the Italian Communist Party, which earned him a place in one of Mussolini’s jails in the 1930s, where he wrote Prison Notebooks and other documents.

• These works became available in English to Americans.

• His advice to the intellectuals was to begin a long march through the educational and cultural institutions of the nation in order to create a new Soviet man before there could be a successful political revolution.

• This reflected his observations in the Soviet Union that its leaders could not create such a new Soviet man after the Bolshevik Revolution.

• This blueprint for mind and character change made Gramsci a hero of Revolutionary Marxism in American education and paved the way for creation of the New American Child in the schools by the education cartel.

• The essential nature of Antonio Gramsci’s revolutionary strategy is reflected in Charles A. Reich’s The Greening of America: “There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions in 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 revolution of the New Generation.”

Wilhelm Reich

• In his 1933 book entitled The Mass Psychology of Fascism, he explained that the Frankfurt School departed from the Marxist sociology that set “Bourgeois” against “Proletariat.” Instead, the battle would be between “reactionary” and “revolutionary” characters.

• He also wrote a book entitled The Sexual Revolution, which was a precursor of what was to come in the 1960s.

• His “sex-economic” sociology was an effort to harmonize Freud’s psychology with Marx’s economic theory.

• Reich’s theory was expressed in his words: “The authoritarian family is the authoritarian state in miniature. Man’s authoritarian character structure is basically produced by the embedding of sexual inhibitions and fear in the living substance of sexual impulses. Familial imperialism is ideologically reproduced in national imperialism…the authoritarian family…is a factor where reactionary ideology and reactionary structures are produced.”

• Wilhelm Reich’s theory, when coupled with Georg Lukacs’ sex education in Hungary, can be seen as the source for the American education cartel’s insistence on sex education from kindergarten onwards and its complete negation of the paternal family, external authority, and the traditional character structure.

• Reich’s theory encompassed other assertions that seem to have permeated American education:

o The organized religious mysticism of Christianity was an element of the authoritarian family that led to Fascism.

o The patriarchal power in and outside of man was to be dethroned.

o Revolutionary sexual politics would mean the complete collapse of authoritarian ideology.

o Birth control was revolutionary ideology.

o Man was fundamentally a sexual animal.

• Reich’s The Mass Psychology of Fascism was in its ninth printing as of 1991, and is available in most college bookstores.
Erich Fromm

• Like Wilhelm Reich, Fromm was a social psychologist of the Frankfurt School who came to America in the 1930s.

• His book Escape from Freedom, published in 1941, is an ideological companion to Wilhelm Reich’s The Mass Psychology of Fascism.

• Fromm asserted that early capitalism created a social order that bred a sadomasochistic and authoritarian character of which Martin Luther and Adolph Hitler were prime examples.

• He asserted that the same capitalistic social order resulted in Calvin’s Theory of Predestination, which reflected the principle of the basic inequality of men that was revived in Nazi ideology.

• He asserted the authoritarian character experiences only domination or submission and “differences, whether sex or race, to him are necessarily of superiority or inferiority.”

• He asserted that “Positive Freedom” implies the principle that there is no higher power than the unique individual self; that man is the center and purpose of life; that the growth and realization of man’s individuality is an end that can never be subordinated to purposes which are supposed to have a greater dignity.

• Fromm made the real meaning of this “Positive Freedom” clear in another of his many books – The Dogma of Christ… wherein he describes a revolutionary character such as himself as: the man who has emancipated himself from the ties of blood and soil, from his mother and father, and from special loyalties to state, race, party or religion.

• Fromm makes his revolutionary intent very clear in The Dogma of Christ… “We might define revolution in a psychological sense, saying that a revolution is a political movement led by people with revolutionary characters, and attracting people with revolutionary characters.”

Herbert Marcuse

• Like Wilhelm Reich and Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse was an intellectual of the Frankfurt School who came to America in the 1930s.

• He has often been described as a Marxist philosopher, but he was in fact a fullblooded social revolutionary who contemplated the disintegration of American society just as Karl Marx and Georg Lukacs contemplated the disintegration of German society: “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 has ended. These ideas are old-fashioned…What we must undertake is a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system.”

• Marcuse published Eros and Civilization in 1955, which became the founding document of the 1960s counterculture and brought the Frankfurt School into the colleges and universities of America.

• He asserted that the only way to escape the one-dimensionality of modern industrial society was to liberate the erotic side of man, the sensuous instinct, in rebellion against “technological rationality.”

• This erotic liberation was to take the form of the “Great Refusal,” a total rejection of the capitalist monster and its entire works, including technological reason and ritual-authoritarian language.

• He provided the obtuse intellectual justifications for adolescent sexual rebellion, and the slogan “Make Love, Not War.”

• His theory included the belief that the Women’s Liberation Movement was to be the most important component of the opposition, and potentially the most radical.

• His revolutionary efforts would blossom into a full-scale war by revolutionary Marxism against the European white male in the schools and colleges.

Theodor Adorno

• He was another Marxist revolutionary and member of the Frankfurt School who came to America in the 1930s.

• Along with others, Adorno authored The Authoritarian Personality, which was published in 1950.

• Adorno’s book was inspired by the same kind of theoretical assertions revealed in the works of Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse based on analytical studies of German society that were begun in 1923.

• The basic theme was the same. There was such a thing as an authoritarian character that was the opposite of the desired revolutionary character. This authoritarian character was a product of capitalism, Christianity, conservatism, the patriarchal family and sexual repression. In Germany, this combination induced prejudice, anti-Semitism and fascism according to Frankfurt School theory.

• It so happened that most Americans were products of capitalism, Christianity, conservatism, the patriarchal family and sexual repression in their youth. So Theodor Adorno and other members of the Frankfurt School had a golden opportunity to execute Georg Lukacs’s and Antonio Gramsci’s program for creating social revolution in America instead of Germany.

• They would posit the existence of authoritarian personalities among Americans with tendencies toward prejudice, and then exploit this to force the “scientifically planned re-education” of Americans with the excuse that it was being done in order to eradicate prejudice.

• This scientifically-planned re-education would become the master plan for the transformation of America’s system of fundamental values into their opposite revolutionary values in American education so that school children would become replicas of the Frankfurt School revolutionary characters and thus create the New American Child.

• This can be confirmed by noting that The Authoritarian Personality is the key source of the affective domain of Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives of 1964, which guided the education cartel thereafter.

“Political Correctness:” A Short History of an Ideology

(born April 13, 1885, Budapest, Hung. — died June 4, 1971, Budapest) Hungarian philosopher and critic. Born into a wealthy Jewish family, he joined the Hungarian Communist Party in 1918. In History and Class Consciousness (1923), he developed a Marxist philosophy of history and laid the basis for his literary criticism by linking the development of form in art with the history of the class struggle. A major figure during the 1956 Hungarian uprising, he was deported but was allowed to return in 1957. His works include the essay collection Soul and Form (1911) and The Historical Novel (1955). His earlier work, especially Theory of the Novel (1920) and History and Class Consciousness (1923), is now considered superior to his later Stalinist-influenced criticism, which celebrated the official Soviet policy of Socialist Realism.
For more information on György Lukács, visit Britannica.com.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/georg-luk-cs#ixzz1Z1nfZK3o

5 responses to “Cultural Marxisms Attack On Western Society_ Via …..Government..Schools etc

  1. UNDERAGE AND CHILDHOOD SEX…..WHATS’ WITH LBC NIGHT RADIO WITH MILLIONS OF SUBJECTS- THE SEX IS BEING PUSHED FAR TOO MUCH,
    http://www.gayconspiracy.info/page72.html

    Previous societies had been subverted by the written word, but Marcuse believed that sex and drugs were infinitely superior weapons. He became a cult figure in North America and Europe. For example, during the student revolt in Paris in 1968 they carried banners proclaiming “Marx, Mao and Marcuse”.

    Today, many of these same colleges are bastions of political correctness, and the former student radicals have become the faculties. The anti-war factions became the protestors against nuclear power which spawned groups like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, alarmist of population growth, global cooling and now global warming. Another advocate of the radical New Left, paediatrician Dr Benjamin Spock wrote a bestseller entitled ‘The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care’ . He propagated the idea of child permissiveness and the expectation of instant gratification. Attempts to outlaw the smacking of a child continue to this day.

  2. Interestingly, a version of the Frankfurt School was established at the Birmingham University Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in England. It was closed down in 2002.

  3. Liquidating Western Civilization: The Legacy of the Frankfurt School
    March 24th by Robin Phillips

    http://atgsociety.com/2011/03/liquidating-western-civilization-the-legacy-of-the-frankfurt-school/

    Throughout the 20th century, various individuals and institutions attempted to apply the strategy of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci for undermining Western Civilization. (To read what that strategy was, visit my article ‘Antonio Gramsci and Social Marxism‘) The most successful of these attempts was the influential Frankfurt School.

    The devastation, purposelessness and sheer futility of World War I, together with the Spanish Influenza that followed on its heels, produced a generation of exhausted and cynical intellectuals ready to embrace either the false optimism of fascism or the scathing pessimism of cultural Marxism. Many who took the latter course grouped together in the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt in Germany (formally called Institute for the Study of Marxism). Their movement was characterized by a distinctive intellectual vision that came to be known as “the Frankfurt school.” That vision was essentially Gramscian, funneling the principles of cultural Marxism towards the liquidation of Western civilization.

    The Frankfurt think-tank would come to include sociologists, art critics, psychologists, philosophers, sexologists, political scientists and a host of other experts all united in the aim of converting Marxism from a strictly economic theory into a cultural reality.

    Among the intellectuals associated with the Frankfurt movement were Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Herbet Marcuse, Erich Fromm, Walter Benjamin, Leo Lowenthal, Wilhelm Reich and Georg Lukacs. What these men shared was a common disillusionment with the traditional Marxist doctrine of economic determinism. The failed revolution of German workers in 1919 seemed to indicate that a working class takeover was far from being the inevitability predicted by Marx. Echoing Gramsci, the thinkers of the Frankfurt school believed that the groundwork for this takeover would be through evacuating the values on which Western culture was built. Georg Lukacs, who helped to found the school, said that its purpose was to answer this question: “Who shall save us from Western Civilization?”

    When Hitler became chancellor in 1933, the school was forced to disband. The school relocated to Geneva, but after most of its intellectuals fled to the United States the institute was then transplanted to Columbia University, where their ideas were disseminated throughout American academic life.

    The Gramscian tactics of the Frankfurt school were remarkably cunning. On the surface of things, post-war America seemed like the last place that would give their anti-Western philosophy a hearing. After all, this was a time when the entire Western world, and especially America, was acutely conscious of the way fascism had nearly wiped out their civilization. By taking as his paradigm the pre-Christian primitivism of the “noble savage”, Hitler had represented the antithesis of Western values. Moreover, the Nazis had ridden to power on a wave of a fashionable neo-paganism, primordial tribalism and primitive folk culture that had presented itself as a secular alternative to the suffocating culture of the modern West. In a number of different ways, therefore, the defeat of Hitler represented the victory of Western values. In America and England this victory was accompanied with the renewed cultural optimism characteristic of the late 1940’s and 1950’s. Such optimism manifested itself in the birth of the baby boomers, the production of happy films like Singing in the Rain and the music of pop stars like Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra.

    The genius of the Frankfurt school was their ability to convert this newfound confidence in American society into a force for sabotaging American society. Their strategy involved a clever redefinition of Fascism as having been an extreme right-wing heresy. According to this narrative, Nazism had been the outgrowth of a society entrenched in capitalism. (“Whoever is not prepared to talk about capitalism should also remain silent about fascism” commented Frankfurt sociologist Max Horkheimer). Cultures that attached strong importance to family, religion, patriotism and private ownership, they argued, were virtual seed beds of fascism.

    On purely historical grounds, this explanation of fascism was complete bosh. However, by mixing incredibly complex social theories with Freudian psychoanalysis and pseudo-scientific cultural analysis, and then stirring in a heavy dose of historical revisionism, the Frankfurters produced a cocktail of ideas that effectively associated social conservatism with the Nazis. This association has stuck long after the psychobabble and pseudo-science that produced it has lain dormant in the garbage heap of discredited academia. The net result is that it would become intellectually respectable for Americans to embrace many of Hitler’s goals, but to do so under the flag of an anti-fascist agenda.

    The historical revisionism reached its apex in the writings of Herbert Marcuse, the most well-known member of the movement. For him – and for the academics who followed in his wake – the only answer to the problem of fascism was communism. “The Communist Parties are, and will remain, the sole anti-fascist power”, he declared. “…the denunciation of neo-fascism and Social Democracy must outweigh denunciation of Communist policy. The bourgeois freedom of democracy is better than totalitarian regimentation, but it had literally been brought at the price of decades of prolonged exploitation and by the obstruction of socialist freedom.”

    The Authoritarian Personality
    The pseudo-scientific sociology of the Frankfurt School reached its apex in Theodor Adorno’s book The Authoritarian Personality, written in 1950 after he had moved from Columbia to Berkeley. The book was ostensibly a study of American society based on social research into “the F-Scale.” (F for fascism.) According to the research (conducted with questionable methodology) Adorno allegedly proved that fascism and conservativism have a natural psychological link.

    According to the Frankfurt narrative, daughters obey their fathers only because their unresolved hatred of them has been converted into an attraction. This primes the culture for later falling under the spell of leaders like Hitler and Mussolini. The dynamic at work was articulated by the Frankfurt psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich, who suggested that “Familial imperialism is ideologically reproduced in national imperialism.” Max Horkheimer suggested similarly: “When the child respects in his father’s strength a moral relationship and thus learns to love what his reason recognizes to be a fact, he is experiencing his first training for the bourgeois authority relationship.”

    Critical Theory
    It wasn’t just their political opponents who fell under the hammer of this type of psychoanalysis. By pioneering a discipline known as “Critical Theory”, the Frankfurt school was able to deconstruct all of Western Civilization. Instead of showing that the values of the West were false, they diagnosed the culture as being inherently logo-centric, patriarchal, institutional, patriotic and capitalist. No aspect of Western society from cleanliness to Shakespeare was immune to this penetrating critique. Even the act of whistling fell under the deconstruction of Adorno, who thought that whistling indicated “control over music” and was symptomatic of the insidious pleasure Westerners take “in possessing the melody”.

    Reason itself was not without the taint of the authoritarian, fascist personality. Echoing what would later become a truism of Postmodernism social theory, Adorno and Horkheimer argued that fascism, like capitalism, were birthed in the Western cult of reason. They would be echoed by Marcuse in 1964, when he suggested that logic was a tool of domination and oppression. In place of rationality, they followed Nietzsche in asserting the primacy of the mythic, primordial and spontaneous urges of pre-Christian society, which exactly paralleled the preoccupations of their fascist nemeses. For Marcuse, the reunion to a more primitive state also involved a rejection of personal hygiene and the freedom to embrace a “body unsoiled by plastic cleanliness.”

    “A Worldwide Overturning of Values”
    “Terror and civilization are inseparable” wrote Adorno and Horkheimer in The Dialectic of Enlightenment. The solution to terror was therefore simple: dismantle civilization. Marcuse expressed their goal like this: “One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including morality of existing society…” Georg Lukacs argued similarly: “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution to the cultural contradictions of the epoch,” and, “Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”

    Lukacs used the Hungarian schools as a front for reaping this redemptive cultural nihilism. Through a curriculum of radical sex education, he hoped to weaken the traditional family nucleus. History PhD William Borst recounts how

    “Hungarian children learned the subtle nuances of free love, sexual intercourse, and the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the obsolete nature of monogamy, and the irrelevance of organized religion, which deprived man of pleasure. Children were urged to deride and ignore the authority of parental authority, and precepts of traditional morality.”

    Unlike the other members of the Frankfurt, Lukacs took refuge in the Soviet Union after Hitler came to power. Meanwhile, those who had immigrated to the United States continued to develop ever more sophisticated methods for liquidating Western values. One of their approaches methods –which was again rooted in the genius of Gramsci – was to make oppressed groups feel that the world owed them something. What Marx did for groups defined by their economic status, the Frankfurt school did for groups defined by race, ethnicity, gender and minority status (Marcuse added homosexuals to the list.)

    The Frankfurt school sought to build a base among academics who were willing to write about these oppressed peoples. By getting these groups to think of themselves as victims of Western oppression, the Frankfurt school sought to harness their energy in the fight against Christian values. The itinerary was being set for Western culture to splinter into numerous competing factions whereby America’s diversity (previously one of its strengths) would become a fatal weakness. Under the shadow of Frankfurt, multiculturalism would shift from being descriptive to being prescriptive, from describing a fact of American life to dictating policy. The former gave cohesion to American society, the latter would bring disintegration by fueling antagonism between different groups competing for legal privileges and exemptions.

    During the 1960’s Herbert Marcuse popularized these ideas and disseminated them to college radicals. By mobilizing the anti-war movement, the quiet revolution of Gramsci began to increase in volume. The counter-culture adopted Marcuse as their intellectual guru, and he in turn provided the youth with a steady stream of propaganda to sanctify their movement. (It was Marcuse who originally invented the catchphrase “Make Love, Not War.”)

    Instead of seeking to give the working classes control over the means of production, Marcuse sought to give groups aligned with the Left control over the intellectual infrastructures of the West. One of the ways he tried to do this goal was through redefining the notion of tolerance. Marcuse considered that the traditional way of conceiving tolerance –permitting another person’s viewpoint regardless of how one personally felt – to be ‘repressive tolerance.’ What was needed instead was what he termed “liberating tolerance.” Significantly, liberating tolerance involved “intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.” Movements from the Left included various groups that Marcuse encouraged to self-identify as oppressed, including homosexuals, women, blacks and immigrants. Only groups such as these could be considered legitimate objects of tolerance.

    What emerged under the shadow of this new “tolerance” was a type of intellectual redistribution. Instead of redistributing capital from the middle class to the working class, as traditional Marxism had urged, the new tolerance followed Gramsci in seeking to redistribute cultural capital. Marcuse made no secret that these were his ultimate goals, reflecting once, “I suggested…the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right…” Marcuse made no secret of the fact that he was willing to stamp out academic freedom in order to shift this balance of power. Significantly, he acknowledged that the new paradigm of tolerance involved “the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies.” while “the restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions which, by their very methods and concepts, serve to enclose the mind within the established universe of discourse and behavior…”

    By the 1960’s, the ideologies forged at Frankfurt had become the dominant position for most of the college radicals. Many of them then entered academia, media or politics with the deliberate purpose of changing the world. The change they would bring would be along the lines that Aldous Huxley articulated in his Forward to Brave New World. “A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.”

    The Legacy of Cultural Marxism
    A. N. Whitehead once described all of Western philosophy as simply a series of footnotes to Plato. It might be similarly urged that all of contemporary liberalism is merely a footnote to Gramsci. Indeed, his theories, mediated through the deconstructionism of the Frankfurt school, have formed the bedrock for the type of neo-Marxism that has become fashionable today (though the term “Marxism” is no longer in vogue). As Gene Veith observed in Postmodern Times:

    Today’s left wing shows little concern for the labor movement and economic theory, unlike the Marxists of the last generation. Instead, the Left emphasizes cultural change. Changing America’s values is seen as the best means for ushering in the socialist utopia. This is why the Left today champions any cause that undermines traditional moral and cultural values and why leftists gravitate to culture-shaping institutions – education, the arts, and the media.

    There are many practical areas where the legacy of cultural Marxism has found fruition today. One of these is in the network of tendencies that are popularly referred to as “political correctness.”

    In his book The Retreat of Reason, journalist Anthony Browne gave a concise definition of political correctness. “Political correctness” he wrote, “is an ideology that classifies certain groups of people as victims in need of protection from criticism, and which makes believers feel that no dissent should be tolerated.” Browne rightly identifies political correctness as a species of cultural Marxism. Instead of merely transferring wealth from the bourgeois to the working class, it has become politically correct for government to transfer power from the powerful to the powerless, or groups that are perceived to be victims.

    Browne’s analysis was echoed by Jonah Goldberg in his landmark study Liberal Fascism. Goldberg showed that in the latter half of the 20th century, civil rights shifted from describing a legal system that is color blind towards race or religion, to describing a system that must show preferential treatment to those groups which are assumed to have victim status. The result has been “identity politics” and a new tribalism, whereby people define themselves by their group and then compete with those in other communities.

    But above all, the arm of Frankfurt is seen in the antipathy to Christian values which permeates so much of our public discourse. In his chapter on Gramsci, perceptively subtitled ‘The Haunting of East and West’, Malachi Martin noted that

    “In the most practical terms, he needed to get individuals and groups in every class and station of life to think about life’s problems without reference to the Christian transcendent, without reference to God and the laws of God. He needed to get them to react with antipathy and positive opposition to any introduction of Christian ideals or the Christian transcendent into the treatment and solutions of the problems of modern life.”

    The Frankfurt school, like Gramsci, understood that culture is religion externalized and that it has no point of neutrality. Again, there is a crucial lesson that we can take away from this. Our art, language, architecture, technologies, economics, music, clothing, schools and every other aspect of culture all point to a certain worldview, whether that worldview is explicitly acknowledged or not.

    The Frankfurt school teaches us that a self-deceived man will always see in other people his own faults. One of the traits that the Frankfurt school took to be characteristic of the fascist character type was a rigid commitment to dominant values. Yet it seems undeniable that the ideology which emanated from the Think Tank involved an exceedingly rigid commitment to the values of deconstruction. To the extent that they used reason to attack reason, and used the freedoms of the West as a safe haven from which to attack Western freedoms, the architects of Frankfurt became the prototypes for the Postmodern embrace of contrarieties.

    Further Reading

    Liquidating Western Civilization: The Legacy of the Frankfurt School

    Rousseau and the Parenthood of the State, Part 1

    Rousseau and the Parenthood of the State, Part 2

    From ‘Christ of Culture’ to ‘Christ Against Culture’ (Evangelicalism and Secularism part 1)

    Republicanizing the American Religion (Evangelicalism and Secularism part 2)

    From Revivalism to Secularism (Evangelicalism and Secularism part 3)

    This article will be appearing in the monthly magazine of Christian Voice, a UK ministry whose website is http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/. The article is reprinted here with permission.

  4. The problem as I see it is: pseudo intellectuals from the Metropolitan Elite are in every institution where they can influence and make policy
    Universities and all places of higher education and in teacher training colleges to influence what people think and how they act.
    Local Authorities have too much control over State schools which are responsible for retaining and enforcing class predjudices.
    Local Authorities have always had considerable freedom in the way they organize state schools; who with te help of teachers mould education to suit the needs of Capitalism, and why parent’s who can afford to send their children to private fee paying schools, out of local authority control and “local authority social engineering”. While the well off elite deny the poorest in society the means for self improvement; and why the Labour Party for me stands for `self enrichment` and betrayal. Most who owe their mediocre success to family connections and not to any worthwhile activity. Milliband is a good example because he has never had a job outside of politics, he has no experience and it shows ad singles out what is wrong with British politics.

    predjuces.
    I say this because Local Authoritiesand have complete control over state schools and a considerable amount of freedom in the way they organize schools; who with the help of teachers mould education to suit themselves and the needs of capitalism. And why parent’s who can afford to send
    their their
    children do because local authorities have no control over private schools and what they are taught….or not taught!

    children to private fee paying schools; because private schools have no

    • We haven’t lived under Capitalism for many a decade now- Fabians kept that on a very tight leash, PPPs for example is soft Fascism used very much during the last regime.
      Education too the Fabian boot is stamped all over it…John Taylor Gatto study below!
      Silence from the Tories on these issues informs us- or should that we have only Fabian rule nothing more nothing less- Ed \Miliband a Fabian is no different to the other hundreds that stalk Westminster!

      An Everlasting Faith

      Fabianism was a principal force and inspiration behind all major school legislation of the first half of the twentieth century. And it will doubtless continue to be in the twenty-first. It will help us understand Fabian influence to look at the first Fabian-authored consideration of public schooling, the most talked-about education book of 1900, Thomas Davidson’s peculiar and fantastic History of Education.

      The Dictionary of American Biography describes Davidson as a naturalized Scot, American since 1867, and a follower of William Torrey Harris, federal Commissioner of Education—the most influential Hegelian in North America. Davidson was also first president of the Fabian Society in England, a fact not thought worthy of preservation in the biographical dictionary, but otherwise easy enough to confirm. This news is also absent from Pelling’s America and The British Left, although Davidson is credited there with “usurping” the Fabians.

      http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/9g.htm

      LSE Fabian –is it any wonder they churn out Fabian brainwashed Keynsian clones?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s