Archive for the ‘cultural marxism’ Category

Link

October 8, 2009

There’s an excellent post over at Spearhead by Hawaiian Libertarian:

Active Measures to Normalize the West… …or “How to Brainwash a Nation.”

Must read. It’s about the deliberate Marxist subversion of our culture.

Advertisements

Matriachy and the Frankfort School

May 8, 2008

What is the Frankfurt School?

The transformation of American culture envisioned by the ‘cultural Marxists’ is based on matriarchal theory. That is, they propose transforming American culture into a female-dominated one. This is a direct throwback to Wilhelm Reich, a Frankfurt School member who considered matriarchal theory in psychoanalytic terms. In 1933, he wrote in The Mass Psychology of Fascism that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of ‘natural society.’
Eric Fromm, another charter member of the Institute, was also one of the most active advocates of matriarchal theory. Fromm was especially taken with the idea that all love and altruistic feelings were ultimately derived from the maternal love necessitated by the extended period of human pregnancy and postnatal care. “Love was thus not dependent on sexuality, as Freud had supposed. In fact, sex was more often tied to hatred and destruction. Masculinity and femininity [24] were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.” This dogma was the precedent for today’s radical feminist pronouncements appearing in nearly every major newspaper and TV program, including the television newscasts. For these current day radicals, male and female roles result from cultural indoctrination in America — an indoctrination carried out by the male patriarchy to the detriment of women. Nature plays no role in this matter.

Marxist-feminist Universities and the Decline of Character

March 24, 2008

Today I was thinking about one of the women who turned me into a misogynist. She was a platonic friend I was very close to. She was raised very strictly, with a close-knit family; her grandparents and several other relatives lived very nearby and she saw them often, and the whole family were churchgoers, and a very high standard of behavior was expected of her. I had a very high opinion of her moral character.

Then she went to college.

By the end of the first year, she had fallen in with a bad crowd. Actually, by today’s standards, they weren’t that bad; they weren’t running around shoplifting and using drugs and suchlike. Nonetheless, they were of highly dubious character. One of her friends had to flee to Brazil because she was accessory to a murder. Another drew erotic pictures which she claimed were of adults, but they looked like five-year-olds to those of us familiar with the normal development of the human species. And of course they were all Marxists of some sort. It was actually sort of entertaining to hear them bandy their political opinions around, as they invariably showed an utter lack of basic information, never mind sound judgment, but the entertainment value was offset by the knowledge that they all had the right to vote.

By the middle of her second year, she was engaging in all sorts of reprehensible behavior. And of course, she was steadily edging me out of her life, in a needlessly sadistic way. I restrained myself as best I could from criticizing her behavior, as I was her friend and not her mother, but she knew I disapproved anyway. Indeed, I believe that she disapproved herself. She knew that she was behaving badly and she felt guilty about it. But to have remained true to her values would have meant losing all of her college friends.

To give just one illustration of her conduct: when she was in her senior year of high school, she got a part-time job. Most of her co-workers used a lot of swearwords, and they all assured her that she would get into the habit too. Still living with her parents, she stuck to her guns, and after a couple of months the other employees had begun toning down their own language in deference to her. By her second year of college, her vocabulary was such that passing sailors routinely fainted from shock.

Although seeing her moral collapse and losing her friendship was deeply painful to me, I can’t entirely blame her. I do blame her for the cruel manner in which she drove me away, which was completely unnecessary, although now I do understand that it’s difficult for women to resist hurting people when they have the chance to. But I completely understand why she was willing to jettison all of her morals even though she clearly knew in her heart that she was behaving wrongly. It was the price she paid for companionship, which women desperately need. Her happiness and well-being no longer depended on the approval of her conservative Christian parents, or of me. It depended on the approval of those around her, her fellow students and her professors – and we all know what kind of people become professors.

She was demonstrating the female evolutionary strategy for survival. Where men have the “fight or flight” response, women have the “tend or befriend” response. Standing up for principles is masculine behavior. Virtually the only women who can do it are lesbians, like myself, and we are very different in personality from straight women. As I’ve said before, women really shouldn’t be condemned for this – though they also shouldn’t be allowed to wield power for which they are biologically unsuited. For most of human history, not to mention the history of our ape forebears, the survival of the species depended upon females pleasing those who had the local power. A female driven out of the tribe for not going with the flow would die very quickly, and certainly would not pass on her genes. There are millions of years of evolution inducing women to knuckle in to the people who have power over their lives. A few decades of feminist propaganda isn’t going to undo that. This is why women have never been allowed much power in any civilization – and why every civilization that violated this cardinal rule collapsed.

Not that men do not also need the approval of their peers. But unlike women, a large percentage of them are able to get along without it for a time, because this could be a successful survival strategy for our ancestors; a man (or male hominid or he-ape) who insisted on going his own way could end up starting his own tribe, or inventing something like a spear that gave him a survival edge, and getting plenty of poontang, hence plenty of descendants. We are all descended from women who gave in and men who did not. It is the way of nature.

But there is another aspect to this, and that is part of the difference between male dominance (which is universal among humans) and patriarchy (which is not). I derive my definition of the term “patriarchy” from the brilliant Daniel Amneus, whose works can be found in my sidebar. In patriarchy, not only do men hold most of the positions of real power, which is always going to be the case no matter what, but children are considered to be the father’s and wives are bound to their husbands. In a patriarchy, men in a sense “own” their wives and children – not the way one owns a horse, but the sense of ownership is what compels men to protect their wives and children and steward their morals. Contrast this with today, when children are considered to be the mother’s, husbands are bound to the wives (in the sense of alimony), and the idea that men own their wives and children is considered horribly backward. The result of that last is that men allow their children to behave immorally – indeed, they have little power to stop them – and they also do not or cannot protect them, which is why schools have become so dangerous.

Patriarchy, and hence civilization, is largely fueled by men’s desire to pass on a legacy. This includes their culture and their sense of values. Even a poor man can know in his old age that he taught his children the difference between right and wrong. This is the chief reason that the world’s great religions command obedience and reverence to one’s parents. They would not have become the world’s great religions otherwise, because they would not have the mechanism of perpetuating themselves.

Many men today have become so corrupted by Marxism that they do not want to pass on the culture and code of their fathers to their children. Those who do want to, have an entire society working against them. The popular media, the divorce laws favoring women, and finally the pond scum who will be polluting young minds in college all strive to undercut every father’s effort to teach their children good behavior, ranging from not using drugs to not listening to “music” that sounds like an infinite number of monkeys banging on an infinite number of instruments.

Indeed, the concept that it is “normal” for adolescents to “rebel”, that indeed this behavior is necessary for healthy development, has become generally accepted, even though there is little evidence of it before the 20th century.

The fact is that civilization is one long fight against our ape instincts. It is natural for the young to cleave unto their peers, who will be their mates and hunting partners. It is unnatural to spend years listening to our elders droning on about the wisdom of dead white men and tempering our youthful energy to their expectations, to refrain from sex before marriage even though our hormones are clamoring for it, to restrain our violent impulses when we long to thrash our fellows to prove our dominance, to learn and study and work when we would like to be running around with the pack. These unnatural behaviors are what make civilization possible, and they depend upon patriarchy, upon parental power.

As the West has become increasingly matriarchal, we have increasingly yielded to nature, with the result that young people are becoming more irresponsible and delinquent with each year, not to mention more promiscuous and more violent. These are the behaviors that come of wanting status and approval from one’s peer group rather than from one’s elders. A young woman in college can win her father’s approval by remaining chaste, but she can win the approval of many young men her own age by sleeping with them. (As a bonus, she can then win the approval of her feminist professors, which is most of her professors, by later deciding that she was “date raped” and filing charges.) That the behavior which will win the father’s approval is also that which will lead to the most reliable, longest-lasting happiness is hard for an inexperienced girl full of the passion of youth to understand, especially when there are legions assuring her otherwise.

Character, like every other human achievement, depends upon patriarchy.

Note: There is a book about this phenomenon which parents may find of interest: Hold on to Your Kids: Why Parents Need to Matter More than Peers. I mentioned this book on a forum a few months ago and predictably, several Democrats attacked it fiercely. A Democrat is basically someone who has embraced cultural Marxism, while a Republican is someone who is still resisting, though usually without fully understanding the fight.

The inversion of cultural flow

March 10, 2008

Did you ever look through an illustrated book of the history of art, movies, fashion, advertisements? If so, you must have noticed how in the 1960’s everything suddenly became hideously ugly. Artists stopped learning how to draw. Clothes became undignified and degrading. This worship of ugliness is absolutely unprecedented in human history. What happened?

Two things.

The first was cultural marxism, something many of you in the MRA blogosphere are already familiar with. In the early 20th century, realizing that they weren’t going to succeed in establishing world communism by revolution, Marxists turned instead to undermining our culture and infiltrating such institutions as school and the media, in order to get the job done in a more roundabout way.

Rob Fedders of No Ma’am has discussed the cultural marxism-feminism connection at length, and his sidebars have many links about it. There’s a very good article here that discusses how Marxists preyed upon genuinely oppressed groups and women, who are suggestible and can be convinced that they are being oppressed: “…the working class would not lead a Marxist revolution, because it was becoming part of the middle class, the hated bourgeoisie. Who would? In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question: a coalition of blacks, students, feminist women and homosexuals.” Homosexuality is not, in fact, a political issue. Throughout the centuries that it was officially verboten, people nonetheless didn’t really care so long as their children produced heirs, because there wasn’t a dangerous political faction exploiting homosexuals for its own ends. We queers ought to avoid the Left like the plague. The Left doesn’t give a damn about us, it’s using us in the process of destroying civilization.

On a different level, in the 1930s members of CPUSA (the Communist Party of the USA) got instructions from Moscow to promote non-representational art so that the US’s public spaces would become arid and ugly.

Americans hearing that last one tend to laugh. But the Soviets, following the lead of Marxist theoreticians like Antonio Gramsci, took very seriously the idea that by blighting the U.S.’s intellectual and esthetic life, they could sap Americans’ will to resist Communist ideology and an eventual Communist takeover. The explicit goal was to erode the confidence of America’s ruling class and create an ideological vacuum to be filled by Marxism-Leninism.

Source: “>Gramscian Damage

The other source of the problem is feminism. This is touched on by the great Daniel Amneus in his The Garbage Generation: “the inversion of ‘cultural flow’ (in dress, hair style, music, ideas, language), formerly from the higher ranks of society to the lower, now from the lower to the higher”. This inversion is something that concerns me greatly, and since reading this book I’ve started to see it as a side effect of feminism: women realize, at some level, that few of them are going to equal male achievements, which is why it has become necessary to deface the very concept of achievement; and that recognizing legitimate authority has become “uncool” because legitimate authority goes against the anarchy upon which savage women and feminists thrive.