What
is the strategy of cultural Marxism? Dennis Grimski has done a remarkable job
of summarizing it:
·
The strategy of Marxists is always to cultivate
a victimized group and then convince its members that solidarity is required
against the oppressors. This creates divisiveness, resentment and hatred and is
how Marxist ideologies fulfill their revolutionary objectives.
Why does Marxism sow divisiveness and revolution? These techniques
have always been the methods used by imperialists – make allies and set them
against the ruling class. Since the world religions have favored peace and
stability and have usually supported non-oppressive governing systems, the
Marxist has inevitably regarded organized religion as its foe. Kenneth
Craycraft has written:
·
The fact remains, contends Marx, that where
religious institutions are present, eo ipso, exploitation and alienation also
are present. Religion is an ideology which always supervenes upon material
forces in history, and which, like any other ideology, is used by the ruling
class to legitimate its power. The very presence of religion, by definition,
means that real human emancipation cannot yet have occurred…Religion will not
be abolished by criticism, but rather by action, i.e., changing the situation
in which religion is fostered. Religion is just another form of illusion which
disappears when other forms of illusion (including ultimately the state) also
disappear.
https://www.crisismagazine.com/1989/why-marx-hated-christianity-a-reply-to-leonardo-boff
Religion had to be eliminated, but how? Marx thought that it
would simply happen without revolution. However, the workers did not revolt as
predicted, even in the midst of the devastations of the world wars. Dennis
Grimski details the Marxism updated strategy:
·
[Georg] Lukacs
built on [Antonino] Gramsci, and decided that Marxist dialectical materialism
was not a good tool for predicting the future. Instead, it was a tool for
destroying society and Western culture itself. Lukacs wrote:
·
“Simply destroying the status quo, including the
destruction of a country’s historical institutions, beliefs and institutions,
especially the society’s reliance on Judeo-Christianity would bring about Marxism.”
https://bluewaterhealthyliving.com/the-frankfort-school-and-the-history-of-political-correctness/;
and all subsequent quotations)
How then to foment revolution? The prevailing traditions had
to be undermined. The powerful flames of sexual attraction would provide the
fire to incinerate the Biblical Faith:
·
Lukacs beliefs were so influential that in 1919
he actually became Deputy Commissar of Cultural Development in Hungary. Through
his government office, he developed a sex education curriculum and had it
inserted into the public school system. Lukacs taught children about “free
love” and the “rejection of morality.” Lukacs also had schools distribute
“condoms” without parental permission to promote sexual activity. In his role,
Lukacs tried to live out his ideology of societal destruction. The curriculum instructed
children not to obey their parent’s old fashioned values, but instead they
could have sex with anyone, at anytime, and anywhere.
The more youth practice a sexual lifestyle in opposition to Biblical
principles, the more they will feel judged by them, and the more they will
reject and hate them. However, it is not enough to simply sexualize the youth.
Everything of the old system had to be criticized and deconstructed. It is easy
to find fault with capitalism, traditional marriage, and straight white males. Why?
To some degree, in this broken world everything is broken. Grimski documents the
continual Marxist assault upon Western institutions to pave the way for
revolution and identifies Max Horkheimer as a key player:
·
At the Frankfurt School, Horkheimer coined two
terms that would embody the whole philosophy of his fellow travelers mission to
destroy a society’s culture and to replace it with the Marxist dialectic.
Horkheimer called his concepts: ”Cultural Marxism” and “Critical Theory.”
According to Cultural Marxism (CM), instead of a military invasion,
Western society must first be divided and corrupted from within before any
revolution could succeed.
·
For Horkheimer, “Cultural Marxism” (changing a
society’s culture with Marxist beliefs); and “Critical Theory,” (criticizing
everything in a society, everywhere, and at all times) were critical to
destroying a society and readying it for socialism. When you think of Cultural
Marxism as defined by Horkheimer, it was nothing but “political correctness” as
we know it today. Many Americans are familiar with political correctness, yet
you may not be familiar with its origins in cultural Marxist theory. While the
classic Marxist might argue that capitalism and the class structure it created
must be overthrown because it is oppressive to workers, Horkheimer introduced
the concept of “Cultural Marxism.” Under this term, Horkheimer argued:
o
“It is not economics that creates oppression but
rather the nuclear family, traditional institutions, traditional morality and
concepts of race, gender and sexual identity. These are the chains of tyranny
which must be broken by revolution.”
Everything had to go! No mention here of the tyranny endemic
to Marxism! This is the vital part of the equation missing in university
education and now even in grade schools. Instead, CMs view the youth as malleable
recruits once they are convinced that they are serving the higher cause of
tearing down an “unjust society” as they rebel against the society which had
nurtured them:
·
Per Horkheimer, Critical Theory has no positive
elements. Its whole purpose is to destroy a society by “promoting a dialogue of
constant ‘negative criticism’ in all spheres of society. All advocates of
“critical theory’ need to be taught to point out the rational contradictions in
a society’s belief system. Critical Theory is a process to tear down the social
fabric of society by using the school system, especially the social sciences:
sociology, psychology, economics, political science, and law of that society to
criticize the country’s culture, historical heritage and traditional
institutions. He believed you could take advantage of normal youth
“rebelliousness” to get them to attack their parents, and all things of value
in their society.
Consequently, the generation gap is growing. Parents, afraid
of loosing their youth often feel compelled to join them in hope of keeping
them.
·
For Horkheimer, critical theory was an infinite
and on-going criticism of the status quo. It was designed to be targeted at
youth and young adults, by having them learn that it was appropriate and
necessary to attack all of society’s rules and norms.
For this to work, reason and evidence had to be demoted as
merely the tools of an oppressive society. According to Horkheimer, the criticism
of Critical Theory was the only appropriate response:
·
“…It recognized that disinterested scientific
research was impossible in a society in which men were themselves not yet
autonomous…the researcher was always part of the social object he was
attempting to study.”
Consequently, every opposition to CM is dismissed as racist,
oppressive, and unscientific, and its speakers are shouted down before they can
be heard. Any forum to civilly discuss the merits of CM cannot be found, even
at the universities.
According Grimski, Critical Theory also targeted the traditional
family as an obstacle to their goal - dependence on the State. However, the
costs have been staggering:
·
As an example, look at the Black Family in
America, and its historical impact under the public welfare system implemented
by the ‘Great Society’ under President Johnson. In 1962, only 14% of black
families were single parent. However, in 2017, 72% of families are single
parent (almost 3:4 families). The government rules for family subsidization,
welfare, food stamps, etc. have but almost destroyed the black family unit in
America.
Consequently, the destruction of the black family had to be explained
in another way. Therefore, the CMs constantly harped on the legacy of slavery
and segregation as the cause and also that the USA is inherently racist and therefore
had to be radically transformed. Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfort School
described their strategy:
·
“One can rightfully speak of a cultural
revolution since the protest is directed toward the whole of society and its
cultural establishment, including the morality of the existing society. What we
must undertake is a diffuse disintegration of the entire societal system.”
This means revolution, and it is increasingly becoming more
obvious. What had started with the deconstruction of Western Biblical norms
grew into silencing techniques of shaming and “political correctness,” and then
progressed into discrediting and canceling out any opposition. Now we see it
manifested through Marxist support of violent groups, which use threat and
intimidation. All of this seems to be just a prelude to what characterizes
Marxist nations – the end of 1st Amendment guarantees, “re-education”
camps, repudiation of the family and its influence, and even genocide, all
justified to protect the welfare of humanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment