As anyone who has been a frequent reader of this blog will have noticed, a term that I have used time and time again is “Cultural Marxism”. It seems as if coincidentally enough, the term itself is becoming more and more well known. I’d put this down to the fact that like me, many other people are waking up to the obvious propaganda that the mainstream media are putting out, because they know damn well that what they’re being told doesn’t match up with what they’re actually experiencing in real life. So these people turn to alternative media sources for their information, they find alternative views that make more sense than what they were hearing before and in the process, they’re opened up to new concepts that they had never known about before, yet have experienced their whole life. Cultural Marxism is one such concept.
Seeing the writing on the wall and being perceptive enough to realise how damaging the internet is to their stranglehold on information supply, the mainstream media are doing what they do best. They are using their propaganda techniques to try and discredit these alternative views before they can convert anyone else. The latest example I can see comes from the gutter tier publication know as The Guardian. Lets just be blunt about it. We all rightly ridicule Fox News for their obviously biased reporting on matters. However, the likes of The Guardian is every bit as biased as Fox News, albeit on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Finding fair and balanced reporting on either is about as likely as finding a unicorn.
I came across a Guardian article today which tries to hide the truth about Cultural Marxism in plain sight for its readers. It gives a very biased definition of what it is and tries to make it all out to be an insane conspiracy theory that shouldn’t be taken seriously. Straight away it goes on the attack, using terms such as ” fantasy life of the contemporary right” as if anyone who believes in it is just a tinfoil hat wearing nutjob.
The author then goes on to lay out actual historical facts and tries to dismiss them as all being part of this right-wing “fantasy” that he’s discussing. This is completely ridiculous. He’s literally saying the exact opposite of what is true even though a simple google search would prove him wrong. The existence of the Frankfurt School of critical theory is an historical fact. It’s historical fact that most of it’s leading members were Jews who were run out of Nazi Germany and fled to America. What is open to interpretation is how much influence they gained in America in the following decades, but it’s obvious to anyone who actually does read up on their history that from the 1960s onwards, a lot of people in America (the baby boomer/hippie generation) suddenly came around to the Frankfurt school way of thinking regarding race, gender, sex, religion etc. This is because these people were subjected to a propaganda campaign every bit as insidious as the likes of Khmer Rouge era Cambodia, Stalin era USSR, or North Korea today. Even looking at at the Wikipedia article for one of the names cited by The Guardian, Herbert Marceuse, we see this.
Celebrated as the “Father of the New Left“, his best known works are Eros and Civilization (1955) and One-Dimensional Man(1964). His Marxist scholarship inspired many radical intellectuals and political activists in the 1960s and 1970s, both in the U.S. and internationally.
The article tries to discredit the concept of Cultural Marxism by pointing out (quite truthfully, I’ll admit) that corporate capitalism (something which is very much opposed by classic Marxism) is still doing very well in the West. However, this doesn’t take into consideration the fact that some of the biggest supporters of Cultural Marxism are big corporations for reasons that should be obvious. Two of the biggest components of cultural Marxism are mass immigration and feminism, two things that are of to the benefit of big corporations. Both increase the number of potential workers in the system (mass immigration by allowing more people into the country, feminism by encouraging women to choose careers instead of following the traditional “wife and mother” role).
The laws of supply and demand means that by increasing the number of potential workers, you in turn devalue what they offer (in this case, their labour) which drives down wages. It also increases the number of potential consumers of products and services. The result, higher profits for said corporations. This also means more competition for limited housing supply which pushes up the cost of getting a mortgage, which increases profits for the banking sector. It’s no coincidence that a single income family in the West 50 years ago was better capable of affording to support a family of 5 or 6 and pay a mortgage, than a dual income family of today at supporting a family of 4 and paying a mortgage today.
Anyway, at this point I’m getting a bit tired of writing. The article is there at the top and people can read it for themselves. I’d also suggest reading the comments on the story. Assuming The Guardian doesn’t end up deleting comments they disagree with (I’m not sure what their moderation policy is like) you’ll be able to see an interesting discussion with some people agreeing and some disagreeing with the article. I’d also suggest actually researching the names and institutions mentioned in the article, in order to learn more about them. In the age of the internet, being ignorant is simply a matter of laziness. Don’t be lazy, please discover the truth for yourselves.
The Guardian article cites this video for ridicule. I think it’s a damn good video personally.