In the past 20-30 years, the suffix “phobic” has been added to a certain words to create new classes of antipathy. In the “old days”, words like “claustrophobic” and “acrophobic” were used to denote negative states of mind relative to certain external stimuli. These kinds of words originated from the medical community, psychological branch. The new words include “homophobic” and “Islamophobic”, but they did not originate from medicine but rather from the political community, ideology branch.
And which ideology might you ask? Well, we sometimes refer to these words as part of political correctness, but the ideology at the root of political correctness is Cultural Marxism (CM). In a previous posting I’ve briefly outlined some of the origins of CM, but there remains to be considered the “why” and the “how” of this ideology. At the “why” level we have the true goals of CM, and the objectives to meet those goals. At the “how” level is how CM is sold: the propaganda level. It is important to always keep in mind the true goals and objectives of CM, because the propaganda will contain half-truths and feel-good sentiment, and will often seem quite unrelated to the actual goals and objectives.
Goals and Objectives
In order to understand the objectives of CM, one must keep in mind the overall goal, which is the establishment of a socialist/communist utopia. The achievement of this goal will require the abandonment of the existing political, cultural and governmental order. And there is a specific target: the West, whose origins were essentially based on Judeo-Christianity. Thus the major overall objective is to change the hold that Judeo-Christian thinking has on the West.
Consider the following quote from “Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology”:
“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.”
It should be noted that Cultural Marxism is the child of the classical Marxism of the 19th and early 20th century. According to Marxist theory, a world-wide war would be the catalyst for the workers of the world to overthrow their factory owners and create a communist society as Karl Marx envisioned. However, World War I came, but communism took hold in only one country – Tsarist Russia. And even there, it wasn’t so much a common-man movement, but a coup d’etat led by a relatively small band of ruthless elites. Thus in the early 1920’s, Marxist thinkers began to analyze what went wrong, and the search was on to find substitutes for the oppressor/oppressed factory owner/factory worker model, and the thinking morphed into focusing on culture.
Gramsci and Lukacs
Perhaps the two most important intellectuals who initiated the translation of Marxism from economic to cultural terms are the Italian Antonio Gramsci and the Hungarian Georg Lukacs. Here’s some description of Gramsci from “Gramsci’s Grand Plan”:
“What Gramsci proposed, in short, was a renovation of Communist methodology and a streamlining and updating of Marx’s antiquated strategies. Let there be no doubt that Gramsci’s vision of the future was entirely Marxist and that he accepted the validity of Marxism’s overall worldview. Where he differed was in the process for achieving the victory of that worldview. Gramsci wrote that “there can and must be a ‘political hegemony’ even before assuming government power, and in order to exercise political leadership or hegemony one must not count solely on the power and material force that are given by government.” What he meant is that it is incumbent upon Marxists to win the hearts and minds of the people, and not to rest hopes for the future solely on force or power.
“Furthermore, Communists were enjoined to put aside some of their class prejudice in the struggle for power, seeking to win even elements within the bourgeois classes, a process which Gramsci described as “the absorption of the elites of the enemy classes.” Not only would this strengthen Marxism with new blood, but it would deprive the enemy of this lost talent. Winning the bright young sons and daughters of the bourgeoisie to the red banner, wrote Gramsci, “results in [the anti-Marxist forces’] decapitation and renders them impotent.” In short, violence and force will not by themselves genuinely transform the world. Rather it is through winning hegemony over the minds of the people and in robbing enemy classes of their most gifted men that Marxism will triumph over all.”
Fast forward to today: it is uncanny how closely Gramsci’s vision has been realized in the West in general and the US specifically. Beginning with the Roosevelt administration, the Left (which is ideologically synonymous with CM) has increasingly infiltrated much of our society: the media and Hollywood, for example are largely sold out to the Left, academia more so. And this has been done without the use of force, but rather indeed through absorbing elites, has it not? Look at academia, from university to pre-K: essentially only one worldview allowed: Marxism.
Gramsci had moved to Russia in 1922, but when Lenin was replaced by Stalin, it became too risky for creative intellectuals to express their own opinions, thus Gramsci returned to Italy to work with the Italian Communist party. However with Mussolini in power, Gramsci was soon imprisoned. Yet even in prison he was able to write, and during his years of imprisonment he composed what is referred to as the Prison Notebooks, arguably the most influential writings defining CM.
Concerning the Hungarian communist Georg Lukasc, consider the following from “The New Left, Cultural Marxism and Psychopolitics Disguised as Multiculturalism” by Linda Kimball:
“In 1919, Georg Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary. He immediately set plans in motion to de-Christianize Hungary. Reasoning that if Christian sexual ethics could be undermined among children, then both the hated patriarchal family and the Church would be dealt a crippling blow, Lukacs–towards this end–launched a radical sex education program in the schools. Sex lectures were organized and literature handed out which graphically instructed youth in free love (promiscuity) and sexual intercourse while simultaneously encouraging them to deride and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority. All of this was accompanied by a reign of cultural terror perpetrated against parents, priests, and dissenters.”
Isn’t the use of sex education – at an earlier and earlier age – widespread in our country? Lukacs’s program has been referred to as “cultural terrorism”; is that not essentially what similar programs are today? The question can be asked, why is sex education within families not deemed to be sufficient? Answer? The CM’s want to accomplish something that they understand most families would never think of doing: corrupting their children. (To see where things stood on sex education in the US back in 2012 with Common Core, consider this video.)
Lukasc in 1923 published “History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics”, considered one of the foundational books in the development of CM.
The Frankfurt School
In addition to these two pioneers, a group of Marxist intellectuals in the early 1920’s in Germany founded a think tank ultimately referred to as the “Frankfurt School” from which emerged important facets of the CM ideology. Consider the following also from Kimball’s article:
“In 1923, the Frankfurt School–a Marxist think-tank–was founded in Weimar Germany. Among its founders were Georg Lukacs, Herbert Marcuse, and Theodor Adorno. The school was a multidisciplinary effort which included sociologists, sexologists, and psychologists.
“The primary goal of the Frankfurt School was to translate Marxism from economic terms into cultural terms. Toward this end, Marcuse–who favored polymorphous perversion–expanded the ranks of Gramsci’s new proletariat by including homosexuals, lesbians, and transsexuals. Into this was spliced Lukacs radical sex education and cultural terrorism tactics. Gramsci’s `long march’ was added to the mix, and then all of this was wedded to Freudian psychoanalysis and psychological conditioning techniques. The end product was Cultural Marxism, known in the West as multiculturalism.
“In 1950, the Frankfurt School augmented Cultural Marxism with Theodor Adorno’s idea of the `authoritarian personality.’ This concept is premised on the notion that Christianity, capitalism, and the traditional family create a character prone to racism and fascism. Thus, anyone who upholds America’s traditional moral values and institutions is both racist and fascist. Children raised by traditional values parents, we are told to believe, will almost certainly become racists and fascists. By extension, if fascism and racism are endemic to America’s traditional culture, then everyone raised in the traditions of God, family, patriotism, gun ownership, or free markets is in need of psychological help.”
Note that in the early 1930’s the Frankfurt School fled Hitler’s Germany to the United States and settled in Columbia University in New York.
Among important concepts/techniques developed by the Frankfurt School included the following:
Critical Theory – Refers to destructive criticism of all aspects of traditional, Judeo-Christian-based culture, including family, sexual mores, religion, capitalism, patriotism, authority, morality, tradition, and similar. Critical Theory doesn’t propose remedial measures; its intention is to destroy.
Repressive Tolerance – Tolerance or intolerance, based on conformity to the CM oppressor/oppressed narrative. Hence for example, since Christianity is posited as oppressive, it deserves intolerance; whereas, Islam is posited as oppressed, so it is given tolerance.
Polymorphous Perversity — A psychoanalytic concept proposing the human ability to gain sexual gratification outside socially normative sexual behaviors. Herbert Marcuse was a supporter of this concept, and his thoughts in this area became well-known among youth during the 1960’s
In fact, if there is to be one member of the Frankfurt School that could be considered most influential in the development and implementation of CM, it would be Marcuse. At some point, the chant among Leftists became: “Marx, Mao, and Marcuse”. Marcuse was the leading “intellectual” promoting the cultural revolution of the 1960’s, and his book “Eros and Civilization” gave a seemingly intellectual basis for the upheaval. His slogan “make love and not war” was taken very literally by American youth.
What can be seen from these examples of the initial formulation of CM was the need to invert the cultural consensus of the West from Judeo-Christian ideology to a Marxist utopian worldview, with the initial focus being in the academic world. Books were published, disciples created, and the ideology began to be implemented in the various sub-categories of the “dispossessed” whose lives had supposedly been ruined by the traditional white, male, Christian, Capitalist, traditional family-oriented society that characterized the West. However, it was understood that the process of overturning the traditional world view would take time, hence the characterization of the “long march through the culture”, implying several generations.
Note that in addition to the major objective to remove the influence of Judeo-Christian thinking, there are several subsidiary objectives that have been pursed. One is to do whatever it takes to maintain their constituencies; an “ends justify the means” approach, with objective truth a victim. Frankfurt School operative and German philosopher Max Horkheimer wrote, “logic is not independent of content.”; in other words, something is “true” if it helps the CM cause, and “false” if it does not. I call it “Hork-logic.” So little and big lies are no problem, as long as the results are what is desired. (See “Hands up, don’t shoot.”)
A second subsidiary objective has been to ruthlessly attack the opposition in the information battle space. In the old days of classic Marxism, opposition was dealt with by gulags and firing squads, but in CM the equally effective techniques include character assassination, demonization and marginalization. As a case in point, consider Black conservatives, and see how the Left – news media, entertainment, and political — treats them. They pay a big cost. Words as weapons.
It must be stressed that the SELLING of the revolutionary Marxist ideology must be done in a stealth manner: the true goals and objectives must be hidden from the masses, and the propagation of the ideology must take place at a different level: namely the propaganda realm, with the most important tools being “political correctness”, and its companion, “multiculturalism”.
In the next article, this propaganda level of Cultural Marxism will be addressed.
In order to understand political correctness, a prior understanding of its origins is essential. Once the true goals and objectives of CM are understood and internalized, then at any point when political correctness appears on the landscape, one can simply reflect on how it is supporting the true, hidden goals and objectives of Cultural Marxism.
Note that in all of the above, there is scripture which establishes the exact context for CM and its child, political correctness:
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Ephesians 6:12)
If you suspect that I am equating CM with the demonic – that is, “spiritual wickedness in high places” – you would be correct. If its primary objective is to destroy Christianity, how can it be otherwise?
To learn more about the formulation of Cultural Marxism and the implementation of political correctness and its equally deceptive companion multiculturalism within the West, consider the following two videos:
A brief introduction is provided to the Frankfurt School and cultural Marxism by conservative journalist and PJTV participant Bill Whittle.
An elaboration on the Frankfurt School and cultural Marxism is provided by a variety of voices including conservatives William Lind and David Horowitz, and Leftist Berkley historian Martin Jay.
Concerning Utopian movements such as Marxism, consider the following excellent book:
Mark Levin, at the beginning of his Epilogue, states: MY PREMISE, IN THE first sentence of the first chapter of this book, is this: “Tyranny, broadly defined, is the use of power to dehumanize the individual and delegitimize his nature. Political utopianism is tyranny disguised as a desirable, workable, and even paradisiacal governing ideology.”