A sobering reflection on Cultural Marxism

I attended a garden party at the Leader of the Opposition’s official residence Stornoway last night and I mentioned this talk by Dr. Anca-Maria Cernea on Cultural Marxism.

 

I might have well have been wearing a tin foil hat.

However, having read widely, including Whittaker Chambers’ important book Witness, and therefore knowing the roots of some of the progressive ideas that for years have been part of the very intellectual ether even so-called Canadian conservatives accept a priori, I think this talk is important.

Dr. Cernea writes:

Cultural Marxism was devised since the beginning as a tool to morally and culturally undermine the West and make it an easier prey for the communists to take over.

It appears nowadays to be even more revolutionary than classical Marxism – it pretends to reinvent the family, the sex identity and human nature, while classical Marxism was pretending to re-invent society on the basis of a violent take-over of property.

In fact, both forms of Marxism were aimed at the installation of a worldwide communist society. But, as Hannah Arendt has pointed out, the aim of all totalitarian ideologies “is not the transformation of the outside world or the revolutionizing transmutation of society, but the transformation of human nature itself”. The differences of doctrine between the two forms of Marxism are less important than what they have in common: they share the same hatred for the order of reality and the will to destroy it.

Given the common traits shared by both forms of Marxism, many people in my country can recognize instinctively certain propaganda themes, certain policies imposed by the EU or UN, certain language clichés as “communist”. This is oftentimes visible on internet chats and forums, where, for instance there is an article about politically correct speech codes; many people react by saying “but this is communism!”. They sense it, and they are right, even if they can’t always indicate in detail the communist pedigree of these phenomena.

There is continuity from Marx and Engels, for whom the bourgeois family was obviously an obstacle to the revolution, to Lenin, who implemented the first sex revolution in human history, legalizing abortion and homosexuality, encouraging sexual promiscuity and making divorce easier than buying a train ticket (and no, it wasn’t because of “individualism” or “consumerism”, it was because of the Marxist-Leninist satanic ideology).

Then, there is continuity from Lenin to the Frankfurt School, which was initiated by Lenin himself, together with Georg Lukács and Willi Münzenberg, the head of Komintern – who was quoted saying: “We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks”.

The Frankfurt School started in Frankfurt, Germany, but later metastasized to the USA. It is also known as the “Critical School”, or “Critical Theory”, and it leads directly from Lenin to the present-day “gay rights” and “gender” ideologies, from Georg Lukács, through Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse and many others, to… Judith Butler’s gender ideology.

The authors of the Frankfurt School concentrate their effort on the destruction of Western culture – by just criticizing, “unmasking”, discrediting, deconstructing every piece of it, but without proposing any explicit utopia in replacement; they just respond to the call of their founder, Georg Lukács:

“Who will save us from Western Civilization?”

One of the characteristics of this school is the use of terms and concepts taken from psychology, combining Marx and Freud, in order to question the basic moral principles and institutions of Western society, starting with the family.

There is also the other pathway, parallel to the Frankfurt School, trough Antonio Gramsci.

Unlike the Frankfurt School, Gramsci is clear about his purpose; his plan is to bring about a Soviet-type communist society. But in contrast with classical Marxist teaching, he recommends that “cultural hegemony” be conquered first – through gradual, imperceptible mutations in language and social patterns, introduced with the help of fellow travelers, like actors or other celebrities, as well as through the creation of false majorities, infiltration and take-over of institutions, media, education, and most importantly, of the Catholic Church – so that, one day, people would wake up in a communist society, without realizing how they got there.

This is what is generally meant by “cultural Marxism”.

 

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to A sobering reflection on Cultural Marxism

  1. Bradley Laing says:

    She is read off of cue-cards given to her by a man named William S. Lind.

    I have read Gramsci. If you want some details, e-mail me.

  2. Bradley Laing says:

    Unlike the Frankfurt School, Gramsci is clear about his purpose; his plan is to bring about a Soviet-type communist society. But in contrast with classical Marxist teaching, he recommends that “cultural hegemony” be conquered first – through gradual, imperceptible mutations in language and social patterns, introduced with the help of fellow travelers, like actors or other celebrities, as well as through the creation of false majorities, infiltration and take-over of institutions, media, education, and most importantly, of the Catholic Church – so that, one day, people would wake up in a communist society, without realizing how they got there.

    Actually, what he wanted was for the Italian Communist Party to gain power at the ballot box, by having the other, existing institutions stand down and let nationalization of the factories, bank and railroads happen. He did not imagine “taking over” the media, he imagined the Italian Communist party making good enough magazines and newspapers to compete with those run by the rival socialist parties, and the capitalist newspapers, as well.

    He did visit a dictatorship with a censored press in 1923, and like it. in fact, in all of his writings, the idea of a censored press versus a free press is not mentioned.

    And when it comes to “creation of false majorities,” he wanted real majorities to lead. He seems to have wanted to run the grade schools and universities in Italy. But I cannot tell you if he expected the majority to embrace atheism, or not.

  3. Bradley Laing says:

    Georg Lukács did two things in 1918: declare that he wanted sex education in Hungarian schools, and declared that he wanted to see alcohol outlawed. He did this for a Hungarian communist government that collapsed after 9 months.

  4. William Tighe says:

    “to Lenin, who implemented the first sex revolution in human history, legalizing abortion and homosexuality, encouraging sexual promiscuity and making divorce easier than buying a train ticket”

    The same sort of thing, at least as regards “making divorce easy/ier” happened during the French Revolution as well.

  5. William Tighe says:

    “to Lenin, who implemented the first sex revolution in human history, legalizing abortion and homosexuality, encouraging sexual promiscuity and making divorce easier than buying a train ticket”

    The same thing, at least as regards easy divorce, happened in the French Revolution.

  6. Bradley Laing says:

    At least one author I found online says that the quote:

    ““Who will save us from Western Civilization?”

    Is wrong.

    The quote is actually:

    “But then the question arose: who was to save us from Western civilisation?”

    —The actual quote is a *past tense* reference to World War One, published in 1962.

    In “Preface to The Theory of the Novel,” 1962

    —-If Lukas did not say it until 1962, it is hard to understand how the Frankfurt School thinker could have spent 1922 through 1961 trying to carry it out.

  7. Bradley Laing says:

    One of the really frustrating things about being interested in the “cultural marxism” theory is that at least some of the writers involved simply throw anything they can find in a pile. One of the Frankfurt School authors, writing in 1944 said that the last time painting had been what he wanted was the French Impressionists, from the 1877. By contrast, Gramsci wrote a letter to Leon Trotsky in 1924 about a group of architects, and painters, called the Italian Futurists. Trotsky used the information for a book suggesting that there would be “Proletarian Art.” The same government officials who promoted modern art under Trotsky in 1924 forbid it after 1929. Most of the artistic styles Trotsky wrote about came after 1877.

    So, is it Trotsky in 1924 or the Frankfurt School in 1944 that understood painting styles that “Cultural Marxists” wanted people to see?

    The writers who simply thrown anything they can find on a pile can easily be found with an internet search engine.

  8. Bradley Laing says:

    The first Pennsylvania Station, in New York, was built in 1910 and torn down in 1963. The replacement Pennsylvania Station opened in 1968. One conservative author went on his weblog and complained that the 1968 Pennsylvania Station was based on “socialist workers housing designed by the Bauhaus.” The problem is, the Bauhaus did not exist until 1919, and many examples of both Modernist, and non-Modernist architecture that pre-dated 1919 could have been used as a model for the new Penn Station. The conservative author was ignoring who made the decision, and what other options they could have chosen.

    This is the clearest example of “throwing things into a pile” I can list.

  9. Bradley Laing says:

    Years ago, I went to a university library to find the book “Keys of This Blood: Pope John Paul II Versus Russia and the West for Control of the New World Order.” The author, Martin said he thought that Gorbachev, the Soviet leader was trying to use Gramsci’s theories to secure Soviet political power. I checked the end notes, and it listed a book about the KGB. I took the elevator to another part of the building, found the KGB book, and checked the index. There was no Gramsci reference in the book.

    So, what did that mean? I decided that I had no idea where Martin got his information about Gramsci. And I stopped there. Because the “Worldcat” online resource listed at least ten more books by Martin, and I did not want to read enough Martin to guess where he found out about Gramsci. Assuming the information could be found in any of those ten books.

  10. Bradley Laing says:

    One thing I noticed while re-reading my own posts is that I have not said a lot about Dr. Cernea.

    That is because I know I have never read enough of her sources, as I know from reading her articles. For example she cites “Karl Marx’s Satanist texts” as explained by Richard Wurmbrand. I have never read Wurmbrand, and I have no idea what his sources were. I have read, second hand, that Marx changed his mind between 1851 and 1888, so that he had contradictions in his writings. Which sounds more like “Karl Marx’s all-too-human texts,” to me. But I have not studied Wurmbrand, so what should I say?

  11. EPMS says:

    I have to admire our blogger for posting this very interesting series of comments, most of which seem to rebut Dr Cernea’s points, especially since the original impetus for the post was apparently a less than positive response to the speech’s ideas by the garden party attendees. It is a complicated debate into which I am not competent to wade, although the use of the word “Satanist” is not a good sign, in my opinion. It is one thing to feel it is necessary to debate, say, Judith Butler, as Pope Benedict has done, and another to believe in the existence of a worldwide intellectual conspiracy with concrete objectives comparable to those of the Communist party.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      EPMS,

      You wrote: … and another to believe in the existence of a worldwide intellectual conspiracy with concrete objectives comparable to those of the Communist party.

      Unfortunately, this is not a matter of belief. Rather, it is a matter of fact — either such an institution exists or it does not.

      Unfortunately, the evidence seems pretty conclusive in this case.

      The nature of evil has always been to lurk in the shadows, working its subterfuge unseen until it is too late. The only way to defeat it is to “out” it with conclusive evidence so that those who were not aware of it cannot continue in denial.

      Norm.

      • EPMS says:

        What facts? What institution? Are you talking about some kind of “Illuminati” thing? Tin-foil hat indeed. The problem with a conspiracy originating in academia is that you can’t actually get two out of three academics to agree on whether or not it’s stopped raining.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        EPMS,

        You asked: What facts? What institution?

        Ah, pardon me, but, did you actually read the OP?

        You said: The problem with a conspiracy originating in academia is that you can’t actually get two out of three academics to agree on whether or not it’s stopped raining.

        Perhaps, but left-leaning academics toe the party line when their funding grants depend upon it.

        Among the academics discussed in the OP, the debate is over how best to attain their ends rather than on the ends themselves. They shred our constitutions of government by getting judges who are sympathetic to — or even adhere to — their positions to decide that the words in those very documents mean something that the people who wrote and ratified those words never intended or understood those words to mean — like “marriage” (understood to mean a union of one man and one woman) and “free speech” (never intended to legalize pornography), for example.

        Norm.

  12. EPMS says:

    I did read it. The comments by Bradley Laing suggest that Dr Cernea took statements out of context to construct a flimsy case. In any event, the end is the key here, because a conspiracy without a goal is not a conspiracy, it’s just a climate of opinion. Are you saying that the Supreme Court of the United States has been taken over by Marxists who wish to redefine marriage in the interest of some larger agenda?

  13. Bradley Laing says:

    Does Rev22:17 think that the judges he mention want people to buy 1877 French Impressionist paintings, or artistic styles that date to 1924?

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