Combatting Cultural Marxism

Cultural Marxism is one of those terms that gets thrown around a lot, and like all such terms it tends to suffer from Adaptive Decay.  It therefore behooves me to write a Brief History on what the term really means.

We start with Trotsky and the New Soviet Man.

Communism in practice is a centralized bureaucracy with sufficient guns to carry out its plans.  They – the educated, chosen elite – unabashedly claim the Wisdom to direct all individual behaviour.  Their Scholarship, you see, has granted them Greater Insight into the human condition than any Priest could ever dream of.  They know what is best for you.  The transformation begins by use of force.

But this is only the beginning; ultimately the secret police and bureaucracy are intended to wither away, as the people internalize the dictates of the Chosen.

Thus you get the New Communist Man:

Man will make it his purpose to master his own feelings, to raise his instincts to the heights of consciousness, to make them transparent, to extend the wires of his will into hidden recesses, and thereby to raise himself to a new plain plane, to create a higher social biologic type, or, if you please, a superman.
~Leon Trotsky, Literature & Revolution

This inversion of Nietzche demands a reorientation of the individual; their loyalty to family, clan, and village must be washed away.  Their selfish desired must be purged, as they glorify self-sacrifice for the state.  The ideologies of love and trust must be realligned, from individual to collective.  The Collective is the arbiter of Morality; Morality is whatever serves the Collective.

Contrast for a moment to Robert A. Heinlein’s argument for military service:

I now define “moral behavior” as “behavior that tends toward survival.” I won’t argue with philosophers or theologians who choose to use the word “moral” to mean something else, but I do not think anyone can define “behavior that tends toward extinction” as being “moral” without stretching the word “moral” all out of shape.
…
Selfishness is the bedrock on which all moral behavior starts and it can be immoral only when it conflicts with a higher moral imperative. An animal so poor in spirit that he won’t even fight on his own behalf is already an evolutionary dead end; the best he can do for his breed is to crawl off and die, and not pass on his defective genes.
…
The next higher level is to work, fight, and sometimes die for your own immediate family. This is the level at which six pounds of mother cat can be so fierce that she’ll drive off a police dog. It is the level at which a father takes a moonlighting job to keep his kids in college — and the level at which a mother or father dives into a flood to save a drowning child … and it is still moral behavior even when it fails
~RAH, The Pragmatics of Patriotism

Here you see the fundamental difference between the Right and the Left.  The Right asks the questions: What is reality?  What is justified?  The progressive Right tries to understand the human condition, to anticipate how shifting technologies and environments will impact behaviour.  The conservative Right acknowledges tradition.  It cautions against leaving the beaten path, suggesting we try and see if there’s value in centuries-old practices before we throw out the baby with the bath water.

The Right understands that at the base of reality is Starvation and Violence; that we are creatures of hunger and passion, and no ammount of Positive Thinking will rectify a failed harvest.

The Left, meanwhile, lives in the world of the Matrix: 2+2=4 is a cultural perspective.  Human nature is malleable.  We can reprogram reality to suit our preferences.  We can build the New Soviet Man.

Thus, the violence.

To build the New Man, we must first wash away the old.  Heinlein’s statement about the mother cat: that cat holds certain values higher than the Collective, she will selfishly defend her offspring with no thoughts for the police dog.

This cannot be allowed.

So with carrot and stick wielded akimbo, the Left attacks the family.  Benefits for single mothers, interventionist Police State for married couples.  Drive a wedge between Woman and Man; drive a wedge between Parent and Child.  Such selfish Capitalism cannot be tolerated.

Next comes Religion; infect the church, alienate the congregation.  Any claim to Objective Morality is a threat to their ethos of Worldly Transcendence.  Rebrand Faith in the Collective as Atheism (just as disingenuous as their rebranding of Nietzche).  Reinterpret the Religious Canon so that Charity means Statism.  Paint as radical any sect which disagrees with the status quo by using their words; paint as victim any sect which attacks with violence.

Finally, race and class; a natural outgrowth.  From Loyalty to Family, you get Loyalty to Race and Community.  This is an anathema to the Universality Ethos.  Co-opt the ‘lesser’ race, by rewriting their history; undermine the ‘stronger’ race by labelling their in-group loyalty as evil.

Atomize All the Brutes.

A rejection, then, of the natural bonds which turn individuals into strong collectives through family, friendship, and community.  Instead, a flattened world of broken Atoms, forged into a collective, unthinking whole.

***

An aside on the Frankfurt School, the originators of Cultural Marxism, the ideologues who went beyond mere economic disempowerment, and applied the ideas directly to culture.

The name comes from the Nazis, who kicked the Great Founders of this movement out of Germany in 1933.  Fascism, as you may know, comes from the Latin root Fasces – a bundle of sticks tied together to create a formidable axe handle.  Strength Through Unity is an ancient saying, and the Fasces was a representation of it.

Fascism is founded upon this premise; it takes the organic unit of the family, and builds upon those natural loyalties, projecting them onto the State.  Fascism is bottom-up; Communism is top-down.

Is it any wonder that they despised the Marxists so much more than us?

***

The Southern Poverty Law Centre, a group of Marxist, Race co-opters, have delcared InMalaFide as dangerous, a representation of the Evil Right Wing.  In discussing the broader Manosphere, the  SPLC says:

While some of them voice legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many.

We point out the violence meted out to innocents through false rape claims.  We point out the psychological harm done to children through no fault divorce.  We point out the systemic abuse of males, and the ultimate costs this will have on society.

And yet these acts of outright violence pale in comparison to our tone.

A cop isn’t afraid of criminals.  Criminals know not to assault them; the risks are too high.  The nightmare which causes the cop to wake up in cold sweats is not about a gangbanger – it is the Nightmare of an Armed and Unafraid Citizenry.  Such a Citizen is equally dangerous to the criminal, and the no-knock-warrant.  Pistol by his side, he need fear No Man, not even the State.  A marriage, then; both sets of criminals against the Red Blooded Man.  For the cop knows that the greater the crime, the greater the overtime.

Like the Crooked Cop, the Left doesn’t care about injustice, about the misery of broken families, the rape of women, or individual economic devastation.  Far from it.  The more miserable society becomes, the greater their funding, and the greater the atomization.  Welfare for Blacks, to create systemic poverty.  Slutwalks, so that women will put themselves at risk.  Divorce, to create a group of dysfunctional children.

They profit off the violence.

But there is one weapon which can be used against them.  A weapon so terrifying and devasting, they are waging a desperate rear-guard action to try and circumvent it.  They – the Mind Police and Meatfuckers – are terrified of one thing:

Free Thought.

Allow me to finish with a quote from the Great Gonzo Journalist H.L. Mencken:

All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are.

We’ll win this war yet.