The New Left, Cultural Marxism and Psychopolitics Disguised as Multiculturalism

By LindaKimball Posted in Comments (32) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

There are two misconceptions held by many Americans.  The first is that communism ceased to be a threat when the Soviet Union imploded.  The second is that the New Left of the Sixties collapsed and disappeared as well.  "The Sixties are dead," wrote columnist George Will (Slamming the Doors, Newsweek, Mar. 25, 1991)

Because the New Left lacked cohesion it fell apart as a political movement.  However, its revolutionaries reorganized themselves into a multitude of single issue groups.  Thus we now have for example, radical feminists, black extremists, anti-war `peace' activists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, and `gay' rights groups.  All of these groups pursue their piece of the radical agenda through a complex network of subversive organizations such as the Gay Straight Lesbian Educators Network (GSLEN), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), People for the American Way, United for Peace and Justice, Planned Parenthood, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), and Code Pink for Peace.

Both communism and the New Left are alive and thriving here in America.  Code words by which they can be recognized are: tolerance, social justice, economic justice, peace, reproductive rights, sex education and safe sex, safe schools, inclusion, diversity, and sensitivity.  All together, this is Cultural Marxism disguised as multiculturalism.

Birth of Multiculturalism

In anticipation of the revolutionary storm that would baptize the world in an inferno of red terror, leading to its rebirth as the promised land of social justice and proletarian equality--Frederich Engels wrote, "All the...large and small nationalities are destined to perish...in the revolutionary world storm... (A general war will) wipe out all...nations, down to their very names.  The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only reactionary classes...but...reactionary peoples."  (The Magyar Struggle, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Jan. 13, 1849)

By the end of WWI, socialists realized that something was amiss, for the world's proletariat had not heeded Marx's call to rise up in opposition to evil capitalism and to embrace communism instead.  They wondered what had gone wrong.

Separately, two Marxist theorists--Antonio Gramsci of Italy and Georg Lukacs of Hungary--concluded that the Christianized West was the obstacle standing in the way of a communist new world order.  The West would have to be conquered first.

Gramsci posited that because Christianity had been dominant in the West for over 2000 years, not only was it fused with Western civilization, but it had corrupted the workers class.  The West would have to be de-Christianized, said Gramsci, by means of a "long march through the culture."  Additionally, a new proletariat must be created.  In his "Prison Notebooks," he suggested that the new proletariat be comprised of many criminals, women, and racial minorities.

The new battleground, reasoned Gramsci, must become the culture, starting with the traditional family and completely engulfing churches, schools, media, entertainment, civic organizations, literature, science, and history.  All of these things must be radically transformed and the social and cultural order gradually turned upside-down with the new proletariat placed in power at the top.

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.  

Hungary's youth, having been fed a steady diet of values-neutral (atheism) and radical sex education while simultaneously encouraged to rebel against all authority, easily turned into delinquents ranging from bullies and petty thieves to sex predators, murderers, and sociopaths.

Lukacs plans were the precursor to what Cultural Marxism in the guise of SIECUS, GSLEN, and the ACLU--acting as enforcer--later brought into American schools.

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.

The pernicious influence of Adorno's `authoritarian personality' idea can be clearly seen in the following quote:  "In Aug., 2003, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced the results of their $1.2 million tax-payer funded study.  It stated, essentially, that traditionalists are mentally disturbed.  Scholars from the Universities of Maryland, California at Berkeley, and Stanford had determined that social conservatives...suffer from `mental rigidity,' `dogmatism,' and `uncertainty avoidance,' together with associated indicators for mental illness." (www.edwatch.org `Social and Emotional Learning" Jan. 26, 2005)   From this Orwellian quote we can see just how successful has been Gramsci's `long march through the culture.'  

The corresponding and diabolically crafted corrective idea is political correctness.  The strong suggestion here is that in order for one not to be thought of as racist or fascist, then one must not only be nonjudgmental but must also embrace the `new' moral absolutes: diversity, choice, sensitivity, sexual orientation, and tolerance.  Political correctness is a Machiavellian psychological `command and control' device.  Its purpose is the imposition of uniformity in thought, speech, and behavior.

Critical theory is yet another psychological `command and control' device.  As stated by Daniel J. Flynn, "Critical Theory, as its name implies, criticizes.  What deconstruction does to literature, Critical Theory does to societies."  (Intellectual Morons, p 15-16) Critical Theory is an ongoing and brutal assault via vicious criticism relentlessly leveled against Christians, Christmas, the Boy Scouts, Ten Commandments, our military, and all other aspects of traditional American culture and society.  

Both political correctness and Critical Theory are in essence, psychological bullying.  They are the psycho political battering rams by which Frankfurt School disciples such as the ACLU are forcing Americans to submit to and to obey the will and the way of the Left.  These devious devices are but psychological versions of Georg Lukacs and Laventi Beria's `cultural terrorism' tactics.  In the words of Beria, "Obedience is the result of force...Force is the antithesis of humanizing actions.  It is so synonymous in the human mind with savageness, lawlessness, brutality, and barbarism, that it is only necessary to display an inhuman attitude toward people to be granted by those people the possessions of force." (The Russian Manual on Psychopolitics: Obedience, by Laventi Beria, head of Soviet Secret Police and Stalin's right-hand man)

Double-thinking `fence-sitters', otherwise known as moderates, centrists, and RINOs are an obvious result of these psychological `obedience' techniques.  These people--afraid of incurring the wrath of name-calling obedience trainers--- have opted to straddle the fence lest they be found guilty of possessing an opinion, one way or another.  At the merest hint of displeasure from the obedience-trainers, up goes the yellow flag of surrender upon which it is boldly written: "I believe in nothing and am tolerant of everything!"

The linchpin of Cultural Marxism is cultural determinism, the parent of identity politics and group solidarity.  In its turn, cultural determinism was birthed by the Darwinian idea that man is but a soulless animal and therefore his identity is determined by for example, his skin color or his sexual and/or erotic preferences.  This proposition rejects the concepts of the human spirit, individuality, free will, and morally informed conscience (paired with personal accountability and responsibility) because it emphatically denies the existence of the God of the Bible.  Consequently, and by extension, it also rejects the first principles of our liberty enumerated in the Declaration of Independence.  These are our "unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."     Cultural Marxism must reject these because these principles of liberty "are endowed by our Creator," who made man in His image.

Cultural determinism, states David Horowitz, is "identity politics--the politics of radical feminism, queer revolution, and Afro-centrism--which is the basis of academic multiculturalism...a form of intellectual fascism and, insofar as it has any politics, of political fascism as well."  (Mussolini and Neo-Fascist Tribalism: Up from Multiculturalism, by David Horowitz, Jan. 1998)  

It is said that courage is the first of the virtues because without it fear will paralyze man, thus keeping him from acting upon his moral convictions and speaking truth.  Thus bringing about a general state of paralyzing fear, apathy, and submission--the chains of tyranny--is the purpose behind psychopolitical cultural terrorism, for the communist Left's revolutionary agenda must, at all costs, be clothed in darkness.

The antidote is courage and the light of truth.  If we are to win this cultural war and reclaim and rebuild America so our children and their children's children can live in a `Shining City on the Hill' where liberty, families, opportunity, free markets, and decency flourish, we must muster the courage to fearlessly expose the communist Left's revolutionary agenda to the Light of Truth.    Truth and the courage to speak it will set us free.

Copyright Linda Kimball 2006

http://lindakimball.com/

About the writer: Linda is a writer and author of numerous published articles and essays on culture, politics, and worldview.  Her articles are published both nationally and internationally.

Additional References

Slouching Toward Gomorrah, by Robert H. Bork

Intellectual Morons, by Daniel J. Flynn

Related Articles

Trotsky's `Permanent Revolution' in America

Exposing America's Enemies, Part 2: Communist Progressive Democrats

Exposing America's Enemies: the `Social Justice Seeking' Communist Left

Speaking as a more moderate person on this website, who apparently who apparently flies a flag of surrender and believes in nothing - I have to say that I'm quite afraid of the world that you'd like to create as a "Shining City on the Hill."  I don't agree with the politics of different groups that you mention, but I respect those movements as movements of cultural individuality - which I'd never describe as communist in nature nor cultural terrorism.  Quite strong words for causes that I'd consider worthy whether I agree with them or not.  

From the original, and extremely well thought out article we have this:

The antidote is courage and the light of truth.  If we are to win this cultural war and reclaim and rebuild America so our children and their children's children can live in a `Shining City on the Hill' where liberty, families, opportunity, free markets, and decency flourish, we must muster the courage to fearlessly expose the communist Left's revolutionary agenda to the Light of Truth.    Truth and the courage to speak it will set us free.

To which you give us this:

I have to say that I'm quite afraid of the world that you'd like to create as a "Shining City on the Hill."

You fear liberty, family and decency? You fear truth and courage? Or do you merely object to having communism exposed?

Either I misunderstand your position...or your position is pathetic.

"Either I misunderstand your position...or your position is pathetic."

Apparently an example in point.

There is a lot of material out there that explains what you have detailed here, Linda.  I've read nothing that succeeds more concisely or directly.  Kudos, and thanks, for your exposition.

When the Southern Poverty Law Center devotes more than 2500 words in an abjectly failed and Godwin's-Law-violating effort to debunk those who recognize and sound a piercing clarion to the dangers of cultural Marxism, it's likely you're on to something:  

SPLCenter.org: Reframing the Enemy

It has nothing to do with class struggle or the liberation of the proletariat.  Indeed, it has effortlessly been coöpted by the captains of industry to serve the purpose of creating the new consuming man, a rootless spirit in a world of limitless commoditized preferences.  "Cultural Marxism" is not opposed to "free markets."  It welcomes them, and they are its sine qua non.  "Conservatives" need to decide, and quickly, between conservatism and unlimited capitalism.  The two are not ultimately reconcilable.

That's a good one...you're getting interesting there.  The next thing you'll be telling us is that the people in Russia long for the return of the KGB because of its stability...

Let me ask you a question.  In your "free cultural market Marxism" would some ordinary person like me be able to go to a bank and borrow money to start a business, sell products and services, and buy property and own it, or would I have to ask the Politburo first?

The world is full of more empty space than matter, also, but that doesn't mean you can put your hand through a table or walk through walls.

I do own some property and I have gotten bank loans to start businesses and I have employed people to make products and services, and I didn't have to ask the Politburo whether it jibed with their Five Year Plan.  Sometimes they succeed and sometimes they fail, but I'd like to know -- when you have given all the means of production back to the workers, isn't there some organizing principle or imperative of the State that needs to be satisfied?  Otherwise, why have a nation at all?  

And the answer is "yes, you would."  Noam Chomsky recently talked about his views on private property, and his view of it is extremely limited:  you might be able to claim that your shoes actually belong to you and that certain private things like your mattress belong to you, but because we have to avoid "concentrated private power" everything else would be essentially under the aegis of the State or up for grabs.  That's Chomsky's view of a civilized world, but then again, he's an anarcho-Socialist.

I'd like to visit Noam Chomsky in his office sometime with about 20 people and just sit down and tell him that most of the stuff in there isn't his private property, it's an example of concentrated private power.  Then we can all go back to his house and raid his refrigerator and crash there for a few days.  

Perhaps you are.  

Let me ask you a question.  In your "free cultural market Marxism" would some ordinary person like me be able to go to a bank and borrow money to start a business, sell products and services, and buy property and own it, or would I have to ask the Politburo first?

It's not my Marxism, it's the practice of late modern capitalism that confused conservatives are calling cultural Marxism.  I dispute the use of the term "Marxism" to describe the phenomenon the diary entry discusses precisely because under it, no one need consult with the politburo to open a business, at least as long as one's workforce is sufficiently diverse.  The opportunities for reinvention and self-expression that wealth affords are celebrated.  The practitioners of "Cultural Marxism" with their sybaritic lives of sexual license and globalized consumption have a great deal more in common with so-called "dynamists," to use Virginia Postrel's term (indeed, I would say they are the same people) than with the (at least publically) puritanical, dour old men of the Party.  They don't even pretend to like the working classes.  "Cultural Marxism" isn't Marxist, except perhaps in some dialectical sense whereby the perfection of capitalism leads inevitably to the worker's paradise, but no one believes in that anymore.  

I think I've somehow been unclear.  

A "sybaritic" practitioner of "sexual license?"  As far as I know, the biggest pleasure Warren Buffet enjoys is a good steak and potatoes meal over drinks in Omaha.

And an occasional game of Bridge with Bill Gates, et. al.  

Your analysis of capitalism as it impacts everyday people is way too abstruse for most folks to understand.  The simple fact is that, at least in the United States, I can go to a bank and get a loan and start a business and prosper based on an idea.  I don't need to look to the State for salvation, and I completely reject the idea that someone should be looking over my shoulder to see that my workforce is "sufficiently diverse."

What produces the opportunity for "reinvention" and "self expression" is the existence of and legal respect for "concentrated" wealth and "private power."  Our economy is the world's best example of that -- people from all walks of life and all political proclivities can usually find someplace in this economy to thrive.  

 

That impulse is universal in my experience.  I live less than half a mile away from a gas station/service station/inspection station owned by a Lebanese family (yes! in Massachusetts) and in every conversation I've had with them, they're happy to be in the United States.  They all drive BMWs and work hard, and they're thriving here, and may God bless them.  People bring their cars to be serviced from miles around because they know that the proprietor is an excellent mechanic -- and for the purposes of his business, that's all that matters.  

He obviously likes the place and the people around him.  I assume that as an intelligent person if he felt persecuted or otherwise oppressed, he would pull up stakes and leave, but his business is doing too well...

Both communism and the New Left are alive and thriving here in America.  Code words by which they can be recognized are: tolerance, social justice, economic justice, peace, reproductive rights, sex education and safe sex, safe schools, inclusion, diversity, and sensitivity.  All together, this is Cultural Marxism disguised as multiculturalism.

The author offers this as labels it communism.  This leads me to think - why would you not want people who are tolerant of each other?  why would you not want social justice, peace, or schools where people don't shoot each other, or a society where people have safe sex?  And why on earth is any of this being equated with communism?  Doesn't anyone besides me think this is a bit strong hyperbole?  

You fear liberty, family and decency? You fear truth and courage? Or do you merely object to having communism exposed?



Yeah that's it completely, ya got me.  I fear all of that.  Why on earth would anyone ever object to a society that values truth, courage, liberty, and family values?   However, these have become code words in themselves for the right.  And while these code words are pefectly fine, combining it with the rest of the article's tone makes think this would be a society that I don't even watnt to imagine.  Frankly it sounds reverse cultural revolution.  I'd like a society where culture is celebrated, not ignored and marginalized, a society where my kids can get great education and don't need to fear their school or their surroundings.  

So if that makes me a communist then so be it.  You can decide for me whether I'm an idiot or a moron, it makes no difference to me what you want to call me - sticks and stones.

The author offers this as labels it communism.  This leads me to think - why would you not want people who are tolerant of each other?  why would you not want social justice, peace, or schools where people don't shoot each other, or a society where people have safe sex?  And why on earth is any of this being equated with communism?

If you achieve tolerance, by telling me that enforcings laws, ignoring race, and rewarding acheivement is racist then I don't want it. If social justice is defined as taking money from people who have worked to earn it and forcibly giving it to those who refuse to contribute to society, I don't want that either. Peace at the expense of personal security, no thanks. I'd rather not have "safe" schools, I'd rather have schools that actually educate children. Safe sex is great code for promescuity and irresponsible behavior.

Not content to pummel the guy, you've to grab a jackhammer and crush him into the ground...

...You win already.  Take a breather.

..I bet he's got some good wine and some soft cheese...

And we could take out a mortgage if the supplies get low!

I learned a lot from reading it.

~EC

This article is an interesting recap of the history of radicalism, concentrating on its European antecedents. But radicalism has a long and storied history in the US, from the bimetallism (inflationary) movement of the late 19th century, through the Progressive labor agitation of the teens and Twenties, to the Communist heyday in the Thirties. The radicals went into eclipse after WW2 when most of America recognized that our system really is pretty good and doesn't need to be fundamentally remade.

But the postwar period was also the time when everyone with any education at all was a liberal (not a "Progressive"). And this led to a couple of decades of real achievements for what became the New Left, as they were perceived by most Americans as standing for things that everyone really wanted and were good things to get.

But the wheels came off the bus in the mid Sixties. One theory is that all of America, having just thrilled to the successes of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, and looking ahead to a war on poverty, suddenly became deeply frightened by urban rioting and civil unrest. (The oft-cited turn against Vietnam came later in the decade, and was not nearly as widespread among ordinary Americans as revisionist historians want us to believe.) And a whole range of New Left leaders, including no less than MLK Jr., suddenly started speaking a new and unaccustomed language of radicalism: of radical change in the American order, an order that most Americans saw as needing incremental but not fundamental change.

And that was why the New Left became the lunatic fringe it is today. American society doesn't need a remake, and most Americans sense this, inarticulately but deeply. Not even 9/11 was enough to strike that deep chord of fear that presages radical change.

Huh? by cyrus

I must be really, really dense, because the more the exchange went on, the more convinced I became that he wasn't even addressing me.  I'm not sure what he thinks I said, but I'm pretty sure it's not what I think I said.

Radical mass movements all have a very similar appearance.  But I don't believe this is because they are all a disguised branch of the same movement (communism or whatever).  For example, it is a stretch to suggest that PETA or gay rights are outgrowths of communism.  They are just some of the many lunatic movements that spontaneously arise -- both on the left and the right.

Conservative American philosopher Eric Hoffer described it very well in his book The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature of Mass Movements(1951).  Communism, fascism, and religious radicalism exploit the same tricks to gather and control followers.

There will always be people who crave power, but who have failed to get it.  So they attack whatever they think is marginalizing them: Capitalism, democracy, science, Jews, black, gays, Microsoft, Walmart, etc.  Hating and demonizing a particular target is the hallmark by which you can know that a movement is suspect.

Kimball seems to hold a very strong and uncompromising view.  For example, I cannot agree that being more moderate is just a matter of being tricked by the opposite view.  Normal practical people eshew all of these fringe political movements, and turn their energy toward family, friends, recreation and productive profitable activity.  That's what makes America strong.

it looks like pre 9/11 Afghanistan, with crosses in the place of scimitars.

Or Alabama.  Whichever is worse.

Totalitarianism-- "Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: "A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)."

"Hannah Arendt argued that while Italian fascism constituted a classical case of dictatorship, Nazism and Stalinism fundamentally differed from such forms of tyranny, in that the single-party state was completely subjected to the party, either a representative of the nation (conceived by Nazism as a Volksgemeinschaft - a Nazi neologism for "National community" -, which could only be achieved by gaining control of all aspects of cultural and social life - Gleichschaltung) or of the proletariat."

If you don't know which is worse - pre9/11 Afghanistan or Alabama - you probably belong somewhere else.  Like Iran or Saudi Arabia.  Maybe that will help you figure it out.

...with only the first sentence.  The second one forces me to tell you to knock it off.

As to the original author... if you're reading this, try to remember in the future that we have moderates and "RiNOs" reading this blog.  Some of them are Contributors.  You're not.  That should tell you something about what kind of site we have here.

Moe "Brainwashed" Lane

We have a hard and fast rule around here: Those who are banned and then unbanned almost invariably remind us why we banned them again within five comments.

Congratulations. It took you all of one.

Now, I spent a good bit of time deliberating your posting rights, and so decided to be lenient. I did this despite my better judgment. Last time that happens.

Just so you'll understand why you're gone, variations on "the Taliban wing of the Republican Party" are off-limits here, period, full stop. You not only decided to try it with snark (which was off-limits to you), you had to leave it hanging out in the open.

So, farewell. And just so you'll feel better about yourself, you can take Moe's warning about as dissent from the headsman's axe. It isn't, but, well, that seems to fit your emotional needs.

Don't call us. We won't call you.

I merely hadn't realized that these muzzles come right off.

Is this your "City on a Hill"?

Warning the link has less than tasteful pictures of San Fransisco denizens.

I'll take sweet home Alabama anyday.

as bad as Taliban Afghanistan?  I mean, they had prayer in schools (even in Massachussetts!) and abortion was mostly illegal, so it must have been, right?  Odd that our parents and grandparents don't remember it as being so horrible - perhaps it's just sepia-toned nostalgia clouding their memories of the dark years of Trumanist and Eisenhowerist fascism.

If only more people understood the history that has lead us to where we are today.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service