The Birth Of Cultural Marxism
posted by Arthur Foxake, 22 March, 2015
Ever wondered when and where the idiotic pseudo -philosophies of hippys and the idiotic and divisive politically correct dogmas of the modern left were born. The Social justice Warriors (aka 'liberals' or progressives' though they are really neither of these things but instead are moralistic authoritarians who hate free speech and personal liberty and support censorship, government control of media and criminalisation of dissent.
Contact us:
|
The infiltration of state institutions and the hijacking of media, academic institutions, politics, the law, education and social policy by politically correct thinking and what George orwwell described in his novel 1984 as "Oligarchical Collectivism" is not as new as people might think.
'Cultural Marxism' as the bane of politically correct thinking and the institutionalised loathing of the values on which the merger of Graeco - Roman (often wrongly called Judeo - Christian) and Germano - Celtic culture, the renaissance, the enlightenment and the age of reason were founded in favour of a synthetic culture which, in everything but its rejection of religion, owes more to The Inquisition than to the liberal ideals on which mordern European and American civilisation were founded. The joining of a cultural element to Marxist economic ideology took place in the years of turmoil after World War One.
The embedded article is a comprehensive analysis of the foundations of cultural Marxism and of how the arrogant self - righteousness of elitist intellectuals was married to the bourgeois angst of middle class guilt addicts (who a few decades earlier would have been Cristian evangelists campaigning against the immorality of the masses) to create a class of political and social activists who despise mainstream society and embrace society - skewing causes such as gay rights or Black Lives matter.
The years after World War One were a simple, romantic, and golden time in America.
California beaches became acessible to the masses, the affluent lifestyles of suburbia developed in an era of prosperity, and with its industrialised rivals, Britain, Germany, France and Italy crippled by the war in Europe the USA could revel in its new role as leader of the free world. There was poverty and ignorance of course, slum dwellers in industrial cities lived in appalling conditions, gangsterism prospered and in rural areas poor whites abused the black descendents of slaves as if they were members of an inferior species. But overall the future looked bright for Americas capitalist economy and its liberal sciety which was base on liberty and self sufficiency.
"The Roaring Twenties" was an era of great economic prosperity in The Land of the Free. but in keeping with the first part of Austrian economist Josef Schumpeter's warning, America's capitalism contained the seeds of its own destruction. In 1929 Wall Street crashed and burned and the USA, along with the rest of the developed world, struggled throughout most of the 1930s. And during that period, though many prospered by benefitting from low interest rates and the growth of new industries, the seeds of western economic and cultural decline were sown.
The roots of cultural decay, set in the rich manure of the academic establishment, go very deep. Over a century ago academics and members of the political and financial elites began to talk about the need for a new world order. Use that phrase in a public forum now and you will be called a conspiracy theorist, but the phrase was used by many influential early socialists including English Mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell, US President Woodrow Wilson, Pope Leo XIII, King Edward VIII of England, Joseph Kennedy (father of JFK,) Kofi Annan (UN Secretary General) Martin Luther King, Henry Ford, David Rockefeller, H. G. Wells and Nelson Mandela. Check out all of them and many more at New World Order quotes. At around the same time a loose clan of ideologues inside Europe’s communist movement developed a vision for the future based on world view thinking and ideological collectivism, and the first calls for a world government were heard. Today, it is known as the Frankfurt School, and its ideals have perverted American society.
Before WWI, Marxists held the idea that if (when) war broke out in Europe, working class men and women everywhere would "throw off their chains," rebel against the bourgeoisie and create a Europe - wide communist revolution. The problem with all Marxist theory is that it looks great on paper but never works well in reality (to be fair the same can be said of any economic theory.) When war broke out in 1914, instead of starting a revolution, the proletariat volunteered, put on their uniforms and went off to defend their countries and their way of life against threats created largely by the arrogance, stupidity and incompetence of their leaders.
After the war ended, Marxist theorists were left asking, "What went wrong?" The declarations of war that kicked off World War Once should have been their moment, but they found that while workers were happy to support the unions in the fight for better pay and workers' rights, they did not fancy swapping the aristocratic devel they knew for the bureaucvratic devil they did not. Russian anarchist Mikhail bakunin had warned Karm Marx in 1870 that a communist government would quickly become as tyrannical as the old aristocratic regime it replaced. By the mid 1920s events in the Soviet Union were making clear the truth of this.
Two very prominent Marxists thinkers in the first half of the twentieth century were Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukács. Each had concluded that European working classes had been deceived by the economic success of Western democracy and the capitalist system. They were not collaborators but both reasoned that until democracy, capitalism and the communities that bound people in nations had been destroyed, a communist revolution was not possible.
Gramsci's best known best known work introduces the idea of cultural hegemony, in which he outlines how the state and dominant class in capitalist society, which in Britain we would call the middle class (the professionals, managers and administrators, usually and wrongly dubbed the bourgeoisie by Marxists, use their domination of cultural institutions to maintain power. The bourgeoisie, according to Gramsci, develop a hegemonic culture using ideology rather than violence, economic force, or coercion. This Hegemonic culture spawns its own set of morals and values which become the "common sense" values of national communities and thus maintain the status quo. Cultural Hegemonic power is therefore the means by which the elite maintain the consent to the capitalist order which democratic governments neeed to have legitimacy, rather than using coercive power using force to maintain order as tyrants do. This cultural hegemony is produced and reproduced by the dominant class through the institutions that form the superstructure.
Gramersci's contribution to cultural Marxism was to provide the argument for destroying the moral values and community bonds that hold communities together. The process of destruction has been visible since the 1960s and can be seen now as leftists, who have taken to calling themselves 'liberals' or 'progressives', attack conservative websites, deplatform or shout down speakers who oppose their point of view, demonstrate against and call for the sacking of university professors who, while being liberal in outlook, point out that it is not racist to oppose uncontrolled immigration, is not homophobic to decline to support same sex marriage and not Islamophobic to argue that Muslim immigrants be held accountable to the same laws as secular, Christian or Hindu members of society.
In 1918, Lukács was made minister of culture in Communist Hungary following the break up of the Austro - Hungarian Empire. While serving in this office, Lukács formed the idea that if the family unit, the basic support unit of western society, could be broken and sexual morals were eroded, society could be broken down and the way prepared for a communist takeover. He implemented a policy named "cultural terrorism," which aimed to deliver these two objectives. A major plank of the policy the targetting of target children’s minds through propaganda in the form of lectures and stories that encouraged them to deride family values and reject Christian ethics. We have seen these very things happeninging in democratic societies with traditional education giving way to politicised lessons and teaching of distorted versions of history ehich always cast Europeans as the villains.
In the lectures Lukacs promoted, graphic sexual matter was presented to children, and they were taught that sexual promiscuity was acceptable. Again we have seen recent parallels as the Gay, Lesbian and Transgender agenda has been introduced into schools.
Does anybody still think Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory?
Lukacs was forced into exile when Romania invaded in 1921 and the communist government was overthrown and cultural terrorism went underground. The next development in Cultural Marxism had to wait until 1923 when the founder of cultural terrorism attended a "Marxist study week" in Frankfurt, Germany. There, Lukács met a wealthy, eager Marxist apparatchik named Felix Weil who was completely seduced by the idea of cultural terrorism and coercion by stealth. Until Lukács appeared on the European political stage classical Marxist theory was based solely on the economic changes needed to overthrow class conflict. Weil was enthused by Lukács’ and Gramersci's cultural angle on Marxism.
Weil’s interest in the ideas of the two founders of cultural Marxism led him to use some of his wealth to set up a new Marxist think tank — The Institute for Social Research. It would later come to be known as simply The Frankfurt School (so if anyone tells you The Frankfurt School is a 'conspiracy theory', now you know it is not.
By 1930, the school had come under the auspices of a new director Max Horkheimer. The thinkers began mixing the ideas of Sigmund Freud on mass manipulation of the human mind with the economic theories of Marx, and the cultural assaults of Lukacs and Gramsci and cultural Marxism was born.
In the original version of Marxism expounded in Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto, the 'workers of the world' were supposedly oppressed by the ruling classes. The central theory of Cultural Marxism proposed that all members of society was psychologically oppressed by the cultural and social institutions of Western Christian democracy. The Frankfurt School concluded that this new thrust to destroy the social and economic order would need new hate symbols to spur the change. The workers were not able to rise up on their own.
The rise of The National Socialists in Germany was a stroke of luck. When Hitler seized power in 1933, Germany became a bad and place to be a Jewish Marxist, as most of the school’s faculty were. So, the school moved to New York City, the bastion of Western culture at the time. In 1934, the school was reborn at Columbia University (one of the colleges barack Obama claims to have attended, though his records remain sealed so we cannot know. Interesting though, in view of Obama's track record of trying to attach himself to symbolically important places in the rise of Amerian marxism.) From this new base, the ideas of Institute For Social Research members began to exert an infulence on American culture. It was at Columbia University that the school honed the tool it would use to destroy Western culture: the printed word.
The alumni of The Frankfurt School published a lot of popular material. The first of these publications was Critical Theory.
The theory was simple, so much so in fact it barely warrants the title theory: Marxists would attack the cultural edifices that held back the revolutionary spirit of the workers by criticizing every pillar of Western culture. Family, democracy, common law, freedom of speech, education and others that were seen as supporting the status quo would be targeted. The hope was that these pillars would crumble under the pressure.
Next was a book co-authored by Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality in which the authors redefined traditional American views on gender roles and sexual mores as "prejudice," and opened, amongst other things, the way for a shift in the attitudes of feminism from simple and justified demands for equal pay and social status to the rabidly testosterone hating campaign to destroy men it has now become. Adorno compared them to the traditions that led to the rise of fascism in Europe. The effect of the book was to brand any strongly held opinion as authoritarianism. Such abuses of language are a favourite tactic of cultural Marxists whose attacks have caused many inoffensive words to become proscribed in polite society. For example, I was discriminating in my choices of wine until about fifteen years ago when I was told that discrimination identifies me as racist because only racists discriminate. I'm joking of course, Cultural Marxists can call me what they like, I'm still discriminating in my choices.
Is it just a coincidence that the go-to slur for the politically correct today is 'fascist'?
***************************
After World War Two the Frankfurt School pushed its shift away from economics and toward Freud by publishing works on psychological repression. In the years between the twentieth centruy's two great wars there had been an upsurge of interestst in psychology, sociology and the possiblities of using mass manipulation techiques to control public opinion and shape perceptions. First, however, they had to persuade the masses to question traditional values and this was no small task. The working classes are by far the most conservative of all social strata and persuading them to accept that homosexual relationships were as valid as traditional marriage or that a family could function if the man stayed at home to cook, clean and look after the children was never going to be easy. Members of the school set about their task with enthusiasm, working on the age old priniciple of divide and rule.
Their throughout the 1950s works first split society into two main groups: oppressors and victims. Arguing that throughout history reality had always been shaped by the groups who controlled traditional institutions (straight, white, Christian, European men,)they cast women, blacks, atheists and homosexuals as victims. From there, they floated outrageous ideas; prinicipally that sex differences did not exist, (for people who claimed they believed in science, they could be remarkably dismissive of scientific evidence that challenged the advancement of their agenda,) that the social roles of men and women were social constructs defined by the "oppressors." Other groups, ethnic minorities for example, were also reduced to mere social constructs. There was no difference between races (they were on firmer ground here, biologically at least,)
Adorno and Horkheimer returned to Germany when WWII ended. Herbert Marcuse, another member of the school, stayed in America. In 1955, he published Eros and Civilization.
In the book, Marcuse argued that Western culture was inherently repressive because it gave up happiness for social progress.
The book called for “polymorphous perversity,†a concept crafted by Freud. It posed the idea of sexual pleasure outside the traditional norms. Eros and Civilization would become very influential in shaping the sexual revolution of the 1960s.
Marcuse would be the one to answer Horkheimer’s question from the 1930s: Who would replace the working class as the new vanguards of the Marxist revolution?
Marcuse believed that it would be a victim coalition of minorities—blacks, women, and homosexuals.
The social movements of the 1960s—black power, feminism, gay rights, sexual liberation—gave Marcuse a unique vehicle to release cultural Marxist ideas into the mainstream. Railing against all things “establishment,†The Frankfurt School’s ideals caught on like wildfire across American universities.
Marcuse then published Repressive Tolerance in 1965 as the various social movements in America were in full swing. In it, he argued that tolerance of all values and ideas meant the repression of “correct†ideas.
It was here that Marcuse coined the term “liberating tolerance.†It called for tolerance of any ideas coming from the left but intolerance of those from the right. One of the overarching themes of the Frankfurt School was total intolerance for any viewpoint but its own. That is also a basic trait of today’s political-correctness believers.
To quote Max Horkheimer, “Logic is not independent of content.â€
Recalling the Words of Winston (Not That One)
The Frankfurt School’s work has had a deep impact on American culture. It has recast the homogenous America of the 1950s into today’s divided, animosity-filled nation.
In turn, this has contributed to the undeniable breakdown of the family unit, as well as identity politics, radical feminism, and racial polarization in America.
It’s hard to decide if today’s culture is more like Orwell’s 1984 or Huxley’s Brave New World.
Never one to buck a populist trend, the political establishment in America has fully embraced the ideas of the Frankfurt School and has pushed them on American society through public miseducation.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the beacons of progressivism, are both disciples of Saul Alinsky, a devoted cultural Marxist.
And so we now live in a hyper-sensitive society in which social memes and feelings have overtaken biological and objective reality as the main determinants of right and wrong.
Political correctness is a war on logic and reason.
To quote Winston, the protagonist in Orwell’s dystopia, “Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4.â€
Today, America is not free.
-->
Cultural Marxism Explained
https://worldaffairs.blog/2017/03/05/cultural-marxism-explained/
( center Check out Syria – War of Deception, my new e-book on the Syrian war, the most consequential war of recent times)
Liberalism in social issues in the last few decades can be essentially summarized as Cultural Marxism. Feminism, civil rights movement, gay movement, political correctness, mass and illegal immigration, and the current transgender movement are all products of Cultural Marxism (CM).
The original Marxism – let’s call it Economic Marxism (EM) – was purely based on wealth/income inequality and it gained influence by stoking class warfare and envy. Cultural Marxism (CM) adopted the same principles but applied them to race, gender, sexual preference etc.
EM: rich versus poor; CM: man versus woman, white versus black, straight versus gay and so on.
Superficially, EM sounded good to the poor: destroy inequality, distribute wealth (Robin Hood theory), and make everyone alike. Of course, in the end, Marxism – in the form of socialism or communism – ends up making everyone equally miserable. Cultural Marxism also has the same end-result. And just like classic Marxism, CM is also very anti-religion and anti-spirituality.
The essence of Marxism and Cultural Marxism (CM) are the same: Victims versus Perpetrators or Powerful versus the Powerless.
The solution is always the same: make the powerful group weaker and the powerless group stronger. However, remember that even in a totally Marxist world, there will always be a group that’s wealthy and powerful. That’s the irony!
CM is not about creating harmony. The essence of CM is divide and rule. It’s about chaos and resentment. If everyone got along with each other in a society, Cultural Marxists become useless. Thus, to justify their existence and hold on to their power, Cultural Marxists need constant conflict.
CM’s strategy involves two tactics.
First, rather than simply helping the “powerless†group, CM also attacks and weakens the so-called “powerful†group. This is done through laws, mass media, movies/TV/music, propaganda and social engineering.
Second, CM constantly reminds one group of its “victim status†and the reason behind their misery: the “perpetrator†group. To keep the perpetrator group from revolting, CM uses guilt and coercion.
CM started out in the 1920s by fueling sexual liberation and the battle of men versus women – this was the beginning of feminism. Rather than saying the rich were evil and had too much power and money, the new argument was: men had too much power and money. Patriarchy was evil. It was only fair that women should have equal power. If only women had all the power, money and freedom as men, the society would be great.
Then, in the 1930s, because of Hitler, many leftist Jewish intellectuals from the “Frankfurt School†in Germany came to the U.S. It’s worth noting that after the creation of USSR in 1922, Germany came under the influence of Marxism as well. This meant rejecting religious morality. Thus, it was no surprise that cultural decadence became widespread — prostitution, drinking, drugs, orgies and homosexuality were rampant in big cities, particularly Berlin.
Weimar Berlin Decadence
When the German socialist intellectuals came to the U.S., they simply repackaged their Marxist views as psychological/ethical concepts which were half science and half morality. These sociologists were also highly influenced by Freud’s pseudo psychology that was obsessed with sexuality. They called their new idea “Critical Theory†and, in their own words, it aimed to develop a fundamental critique of society, which contemplates the need for an alteration of society as a whole.
Their book in 1950, “Authoritarian Personality,†for example, had a huge influence on the American society (see pic at the end of the blog). Everything they proposed was anti-family, anti-Christianity and anti-tradition — patriarchy, Christianity, tradition, patriotism and God were all portrayed as authoritarian and oppressive. These messages also resonated very well, since it’s tempting to free oneself from social mores and norms (“let’s skip the church, do drugs and have a lot sex†will always get more followers than “go to church, don’t do drugs and limit your sexual activity.“)
The problem with these pseudo-sociologists/psychologists was that they had sadly been persecuted in Nazi Germany and thus were obsessed with anti-Semitism and prejudice. Seen through this prism of victimhood, they saw Christianity and any amount of (white) racial pride or nationalism as dangerous. Their work is filled with words such as bigots, fascists, prejudice, ethno-centrism and anti-Semitism. For example, just Chapter 3 in this book is 100 pages long and is titled “The study of Anti-Semitic Ideology.†They were very smart but not smart enough to psycho-analyze themselves and see their own biases. Moreover, the fact that they were sponsored/funded by the American Jewish Committee only reinforced these biases.
(BTW, if you doubt, how influential these people are, think about the reactions to Donald Trump. All the histrionic reactions and the language from the mainstream media are straight out of the works of Frankfurt School scholars.)
In the following decades, every major social movement — sexual revolution, feminism, atheism, anti-nationalism, free speech, pornography, drugs, abortion, divorce, children out of wedlock, civil rights, gay rights and others — was based on the same fundamental principles outlined by the Cultural Marxists of Frankfurt School.
CM revolution
In one sense, cultural Marxists were simply contrarians who wanted to flip everything upside down. Many religious people view this as also “satanic,†in the sense of completely turning around the concepts of good and bad.
Although there were some positive social changes due to CM, there have been many drawbacks as well. The detrimental effects of CM come from
1) The pace at which changes are introduced
2) Division and rancor among various groups
3) Weakening of the social bond and thus individuals
4) Economic malaise
5) Needless/Disruptive Social Engineering and
6) Unintended consequences.
RAPID PACE: Rather than an organic and natural progression, CM forces changes down society’s throat. Even if you take women’s suffrage, it seems like a good idea that the US Constitution was changed in 1919 to guarantee women’s right to vote. However, by that time, 15 States in the U.S. already had full suffrage and many other States allowed women to vote in certain elections. Thus, even without the help of CM, women would have acquired the right to vote in the near future.
Similarly, if you look at homosexuality and the new transgender movement, it is astonishing how social mores and laws that have been around for 10,000 years of human civilization are being overturned in a matter of 20 years. Gay marriages are now legal and the fundamental concepts of gender are being challenged (for example, California is now considering officially recognizing more than two genders; and kids as young as 5 are brainwashed to think they are of different gender. There are even laws in Canada that would jail parents if they don’t, for example, let their kid “choose†his/her own gender.)
Mass immigration is another example of drastic societal change. In the 1960s, whites were 90% of the population in the U.S. By 1980, whites’ share declined to 80%. Today, under the age of 5, whites are minorities (under 50%)! Overall, whites are 63% of US population now. It’s not just that that the relative numbers are decreasing. Whites are having fewer kids. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of white children in America actually decreased by 4.3 million.
Europe’s entire identity is also about to change — within a couple of decades, many European countries will have whites and Christians as minorities. Already, Muslim names are the most popular among new-born children in some European countries.
DIVISION AND RANCOR: Has feminism really made the society or women’s lives better? It’s not an easy question, since feminism also resulted in rising divorce rates, delayed marriages, more poverty for women, and decreased fertility rate. (Poverty rates for women at historically high level in 2014!). Studies show that American women are much unhappier today than in the 1960s. The share of single men and women are the highest in the U.S. history, and people are finding it harder than ever before to find a suitable partner. Even with all the advancement for women, CM manufactures fake issues such as “rape culture†and “pay inequality†to fuel the victim mentality.
Similarly, when Obama got elected, the media said that we have reached a post-racial America where race doesn’t matter anymore. Of course, America was “punkedâ€! After 8 years of Obama, we have Black Lives Matter movement and popular African American figures in social media (think Shaun King, Tariq Nasheed) who talk about “white supremacy†every day.
In fact, anti-white sentiments are fueled by CM in academia and media now. People are brainwashed about “white privilege,†the need to eliminate “whiteness,†and much more blatantly racist ideas that can never be said towards any other group.
WEAKENING OF INDIVIDUALS: CM has really weakened the fundamental institutions that held societies together for eons — family, religion, culture, race/tribe, national identity etc. The disintegration of these institutions has resulted in a society where many people fall through the cracks without help from families, neighbors, churches etc. It’s no wonder that 75% of Americans live from paycheck to paycheck and almost 1 in 4 Americans are on psychiatric drugs. Overall, feminism, multiculturalism, atheism, hedonism and consumerism have made people more vulnerable and disoriented.
CM 2
ECONOMIC MALAISE: Divorce is one of the easiest ways to become poorer. It’s especially draining on men in the West, but everyone suffers. Fact is that feminism made divorce very easy. This was accomplished by 1) changing the laws for divorce and alimony/child support payments 2) creating welfare programs that replaced husbands with the government as the provider and 3) completely altering the social moral landscape regarding sexuality, adultery, marriage, children out of wedlock etc.
Here is an example of the shocking changes in out-of-wedlock birth rates in 50 years, from 1965 to 2015:
Out-of-wedlock birth rates
Feminism also doubled the labor force and essentially lowered the wages for men. In the end, very few people benefited economically since now it takes two wage earners to support a family when one person could do it a few decades ago.
Mass and illegal immigration also reduce wages across the board and increase crime and the number of people dependent on welfare.
DISRUPTIVE SOCIAL ENGINEERING: CM disrupted a social order that was functional – albeit with many imperfections – for thousands of years. What people value, how people think and behave, how men and women interact and love one another, how fundamental social units (families) operate, what it means to be a community or a nation … all have been vastly modified and engineered by the elites in the past few decades. CM destroyed tradition and religion and replaced them with political correctness, morality according to corporate media, and Orwellian control by corporations and governments.
Furthermore, mass immigration – what is essentially an invasion of Europe – is going to create enormous disruption and social chaos over the next two decades. It’s a ticking time bomb. As WikiLeaks revealed, even progressive leaders privately acknowledge the tremendous problems of mass immigration — they just won’t admit to it in public. Read this shocking email that describes the problems of mass immigration in Europe.
Multiculturalism is good to some extent, but too much of it will only lead to a society without unity or purpose. Never in the history of mankind … multiculturalism, like we see now, has succeeded (or even attempted).
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: Elites don’t care about harmful unintended consequences of CM, since more the chaos, the better. If population decreases because of feminism, great, open the borders. If migrants in Sweden are committing rapes and murders, it only gives the elites an opportunity to experiment on how much mind control they can have on the Swedes (who are taught to pretend that everything is great). If Muslim immigration results in terrorist attacks, so be it — let’s use it as an excuse to increase mass surveillance and introduce militarized police. People are not even thinking through what gay and transgender movements will do the society in the long run.
So how come Cultural Marxism has succeeded so well? Most people don’t perceive the effects of CM because
it is marketed very well, with themes of noble reasons and causes
the events seem to happen logically, one after the other (for example, transgender movement came right after the gay movement).
There is also a clever 4-step process to establish the new norms. The steps involved are tolerance, acceptance, celebration and reverse intolerance. That is, first use a mix of guilt and appeal to tolerance. Then demand acceptance – that the new idea is as good as the old one. Then celebrate the new social construct as something great. Finally, establish the new construct as the normalcy and demonize all opposition.
the changes are hailed as positive and progressive by the media, Hollywood and the political elites. This gives a false sense of security to people, especially those who are on the losing side
political correctness coerces people from opposing it or even talking about it.
Where do we go from here? There is definitely a backlash and people in Europe and U.S. are starting to rebel and push back against Cultural Marxism. Trump’s election and the Alt-Right movement are examples of this reaction. Although leaders in The Netherlands (Geert Wilders) and France (Marine Le Pen) failed to win the elections in 2017, their movements and parties are not going anywhere. The next twenty years may be the most crucial in the history of western civilization.
REFERENCES: 1. Birth of Cultural Marxism – Frankfurt School 2. Cultural Marxism Explained in 7 Minutes (video)
The Pensee Unique
The expression was coined by Jean-François Kahn, editor-in-chief of L'Evenement du Jeudi,[2] in an editorial in January 1992. The phrase pensée unique is often used by political parties and organisations and in criticism.
https://www.proz.com/kudoz/french_to_english/journalism/1478828-pens%C3%A9e_unique.html
La Pensée Unique
https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/1995/01/RAMONET/6069
In today's democracies, more and more free citizens are feeling stuck with a kind of slimy doctrine that insensibly envelops all rebellious reasoning, inhibits, disturbs, paralyzes and stifles it. This doctrine is the unique thought, the only one authorized by an invisible and omnipresent police of opinion.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of communist regimes and the demoralization of socialism, the arrogance, arrogance, morgue and insolence of this new gospel have reached such a degree that one can, without exaggerating, qualify this fury. ideological of modern dogmatism.
What is unique thought? The translation into ideological terms with universal claim of the interests of a set of economic forces, in particular those of international capital. It was, so to speak, formulated and defined in 1944, on the occasion of the Bretton Woods agreements. Its main sources are the major economic and monetary institutions - World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, European Commission, Banque de France, etc. - who, through their funding, enlist in the service of their ideas, throughout the planet, many research centers, universities, foundations, which, in turn, refine and spread the good word.
This anonymous speech is repeated and reproduced by the main bodies of economic information, including the "Bibles" of investors and scholars - The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, The Economist, Far Eastern Economic Review, The Echoes, Reuters Agency etc. - properties, often large industrial or financial groups. Everywhere, faculties of economics, journalists, essayists, politicians, finally, take over the main commands of these new tables of the law and, through the relay of mass media, repeat them to satiety. Knowing that, in our media companies, repetition is worth demonstration.
The first principle of the unique thought is all the stronger because a distracted Marxist would not deny it: the economic prevails over the political. It is on the basis of such a principle that, for example, an instrument as important in the hands of the executive as the Bank of France was, without any notable opposition, made independent in 1994 and, in some away from political hazards ". "The Bank of France is independent, apolitical and cross-country," says indeed its governor, Mr. Jean-Claude Trichet, who adds however: "We ask to reduce public deficits", [and] "we pursue a strategy of money stable (1) ". As if these two objectives were not political! In the name of "realism" and "pragmatism" - that Mr. Alain Minc formulates as follows: "Capitalism can not collapse, it is the natural state of society. Democracy is not the natural state of society. The market, yes. (2) "- the economy is placed at the command post. An economy free, it goes without saying, the obstacle of the social, kind of pathetic gangue whose heaviness would cause regression and crisis.
The other key concepts of the single thought are known: the market, idol whose "invisible hand corrects the asperities and dysfunctions of capitalism", and especially the financial markets, whose "signals guide and determine the general movement of the world. 'economy'; competition and competitiveness, which "stimulate and energize businesses, leading to permanent and beneficial modernization"; free trade without shores, "factor of uninterrupted development of trade, and therefore of societies"; the globalization of both manufacturing production and financial flows; the international division of labor, which "moderates trade union demands and lowers wage costs"; strong money, "stabilizing factor"; deregulation; privatisation ; liberalization, etc. Always "less state", a constant arbitrage in favor of the income of the capital at the expense of those of the work. And an indifference to the ecological cost.
The constant repetition, in all the media, of this catechism (3) by almost all politicians, right and left (4), confers on it such a force of intimidation that it stifles all attempts at free reflection, and makes it very difficult to resist this new obscurantism (5).
It would almost come to be seen that the 17.4 million European unemployed, the urban disaster, the general precariousness, the corruption, the suburbs on fire, the ecological destruction, the return of racisms, fundamentalism and religious extremism, and the tide of the excluded are mere mirages, hal
Google Translate for Business:Translator ToolkitWebsite Translator
3 - Le brouillard insidieux de la pensée unique
http://algoric.pagesperso-orange.fr/eu/tik/14/ti143-surfpyr/a3.htm
Reasoning "fluid" is not an unnatural step. On the contrary, it is elementary common sense. But it is against culture for our minds closely conditioned by the "solid" reasoning, to which is added a practice now firmly rooted in the unique thought. Let an imaginary CEO illustrate it: "To drive our Innovation 2012 project, the consultant recommends the choice of an original personality.I think of Pignon: he wears jeans different from ours, his black urban 4x4 is not like our gray, he often has atypical electronic devices ... "Where is the error? Admittedly, the example is caricatural and deals with subaltern choices. But what he translates is transposable: the fantasy is expected on another look, a distance to see or do something else and the interpretation of the DG has nothing to do with what is involved. Worse, we do not even notice this shift (No. 112, 115). Sprocket fits details, but he wears the uniform. Too much mistaken in the single thought to simply realize that there is a uniform, the DG is convinced that he follows the consultant ... for whom innovate suppose that one considers something other than the uniform. "This is the famous third degree, incomprehensible for those who are very proud to understand the 2nd degree, and who believe that all that is not in the 2nd degree is on the 1st ... Do not give 3rd degree then that they are only in the second, they must first be amused and only then, very slowly, very gradually, intrigue them and then open new horizons "(Bernard Werber).
According to Vladimir Volkoff, "it does not seem that the world has ever had such a politically correct political omnipresent, as insidious, as triumphant as ours ... It debunks all truths whatever they are and does not put any another instead ... is not based on a revelation, but on the impossibility of any revelation ... that he seeks to impose universally by various means: persuasion, logomachy, intimidation, the practice of the conspiracy of silence over diverging opinions ... (It is necessary) to fight it on its favorite grounds:
- thought, which must not be unique;
- the tongue, which must not be made of wood or cotton;
- compassion, which should not turn to sentimentality;
- the media, which should not be enslaved by advertisers and demagogues.
Politically correct is also an enemy of the truth, which until now has been the declared goal of human knowledge, of doubt, which has been its faithful instrument: it is therefore through love of the truth and by the taste of the doubt, working together in the manner of a couple in mechanics, that we must seek to find this freedom of thought which was ours and of which it is not enough to deplore the loss ".
Combat the unique thought, rehabilitate the critical spirit, restore the responsibility ... The stakes are vital in terms of personal fulfillment and progress of civilization. At a time of sustainable development, they are crucial for companies and institutions, who have to face the challenge of innovation by and for collective efficiency. In our complex society, neither the isolated exploit of the little genius or super-boss, nor the timeless pace of herds of anesthetized clones can produce this efficacy, which depends on synergies to be achieved between different personalities, multiple functions, pluralistic disciplines. If this society of intelligence "fluid, differentiated and connected" scares those who reason "solid, uniform and cloisonné", it is rich in infinite potential, accessible through openness and autonomy in interdependence.
La Société des clones à l'ère de la reproduction multimédia
https://www.actes-sud.fr/catalogue/philosophie/la-societe-des-clones-lere-de-la-reproduction-multimedia
From living Egyptian statues to eighteenth century automata, from science fiction robots to creatures of the "artificial life", a long line of figures of the double has been constituted as so many symbolic testimonies of an anthropological adventure that has always been haunted. by the demiurgic desire to animate life a creation in the image of man. However, while the twentieth century did not inaugurate the process of duplication, it intensified its effects and expanded applications to the point of allowing human cloning.
As early as 1936, the philosopher Walter Benjamin emphasized the consequences that the advent of technical reproducibility could induce, not only as regards the status of the work of art but, in the long term, as to the singularity of the time of the experience on which it depends the very possibility of the unpublished. Because, created in the likeness of his human model, the automaton - robot without history or clone without memory - is only a man who lost his time.
Isabelle Rieusset-Lemarié's book endeavors, however, to explore the richness and metamorphosis of new artificial creatures: clones and puppets of synthesis, actors and virtual humans, avatars ... It also invites us to consider in all their ambivalence the stakes of our multimedia reproduction company confronted with the logics of standardization of cultural industries and biotechnological dangers, within a predatory market universe that respects neither cultural exception nor exception of the living.
Have you noticed how, at a given moment, all the media, all the chroniclers, and all the politicians think and say exactly the same thing, are interested in the same events, propose the same explanation? Call this phenomenon of universal mimicry the Single Thought: it spreads like a virus in the atmosphere, obviously accelerated by social media.
If you try to draw attention to other events, less media, less conventional or to provide contrary explanations on dominant facts - such as global warming, or the growth of inequalities, or the rise of nationalisms - you will be snubbed or ignored. If you are immune to this virus, you will be an outcast; to have peace, it is better to catch the virus like everyone else.
Thinking for yourself
We are very far, in our globalized world, the council that, in the 1680s, gave the Marquise de Sevigne in a letter to her daughter: "Just think or think wrong but think for yourself! The Marquise de Sevigne remains illustrious in the annals of French literature, but this advice to her daughter is forgotten. Do not think like everyone else, would it not also be a disease of the mind, another virus often called a spirit of contradiction?
The English even have a specific term for it: contrarian. Perhaps, but the contradiction is necessary in the search for the truth: "what is true, wrote the philosopher of sciences Karl Popper, it is what can be shown false". In simple terms, knowledge arises only at the end of the demolition of the dominant assumptions, heckled. This is illustrated by the "Yet it turns" of Galileo.
Let's leave the abstract reasoning to spot in our time, some peaks of fever of the Single Thought:
We hear, for example, that nationalisms everywhere appear in reaction against globalization, here is the return to the tribe. In fact, in order to demonstrate the above, we compare different political phenomena in different civilizations, which obey various causes. Trump, Marine the Pen, Xi Jinping, same fight? It seems to me that everyone should be put in context rather than guessing a community of destiny.
This so-called convergent upsurge of nationalism should also be placed in history: we are just emerging from a world where only nationalism and tribalism existed, whereas the singularity of our time is that for the first time globalization, truly universal, coexists, with tribalism, with difficulty, so much the fact is new.
The rise of tolerance
Similarly, and while "everyone" is rebuffing our ears with the rise of intolerance, I have pointed out, recently in this weekly column, how much the election of a Muslim mayor in London and a Christian mayor in Jakarta, were more astonishing and significant than the "return" of xenophobia; xenophobia has always been, whereas these two elections are only in our time.
Another example is the growth of inequality: the thesis of the 1% of super-rich exploiting the remaining 99%. There, we confuse visibility and reality. Bill Gates is perhaps the richest man in history but at least he created something, of everyday use, the Windows software, while the super-rich of the past, The Maharajahs of India or the Istanbul Sultans had not created anything at all. The questioning by "everyone" of the 1% is a relic of vulgar Marxism which attributes the misfortune of some to the exploitation by the Other. To claim that inequality threatens growth, which is repeated by the International Monetary Fund Christine Lagarde International Monetary Fund, is not demonstrated and seems absurd at the moment when a universal middle class is emerging. The gap between individuals may be growing here and there but the gap between peoples is narrowing. We will finish, while we could go on indefinitely, with climate change as a single thought. I do not deny change since climate, by definition, is what changes. I do not deny the warming since it is measurable. But from there, the unique Thought suggests that the only cause is the emission of carbon dioxide, that is to say, industrialization, that is to say, capitalism: what remains to be demonstrated. It also remains to demonstrate that governments can act against this secular, probably cyclical, warming trend. It is clear that politicians in search of renewed legitimacy have every reason to believe it: the unique Thought is their relay. Single Thinking is not a quest for truth but an affirmation of the intellectual power and monopoly of interpretation by a globalized elite that is also anti-globalist these days. "Everyone claims to be searching for the truth," said philosopher Isaiah Berlin, "but if you find out, it might be uninteresting." Let's look for it anyway.
A Society Of Clones And The Pensee Unique Virus
https://www.contrepoints.org/2016/07/09/259764-virus-de-pensee-unique
Have you noticed how, at a given moment, all the media, all the chroniclers, and all the politicians think and say exactly the same thing, are interested in the same events, propose the same explanation? Call this phenomenon of universal mimicry the Single Thought: it spreads like a virus in the atmosphere, obviously accelerated by social media.
If you try to draw attention to other events, less media, less conventional or to provide contrary explanations on dominant facts - such as global warming, or the growth of inequalities, or the rise of nationalisms - you will be snubbed or ignored. If you are immune to this virus, you will be an outcast; to have peace, it is better to catch the virus like everyone else.
Thinking for yourself
We are very far, in our globalized world, the council that, in the 1680s, gave the Marquise de Sevigne in a letter to her daughter: "Just think or think wrong but think for yourself! The Marquise de Sevigne remains illustrious in the annals of French literature, but this advice to her daughter is forgotten. Do not think like everyone else, would it not also be a disease of the mind, another virus often called a spirit of contradiction?
The English even have a specific term for it: contrarian. Perhaps, but the contradiction is necessary in the search for the truth: "what is true, wrote the philosopher of sciences Karl Popper, it is what can be shown false". In simple terms, knowledge arises only at the end of the demolition of the dominant assumptions, heckled. This is illustrated by the "Yet it turns" of Galileo.
Let's leave the abstract reasoning to spot in our time, some peaks of fever of the Single Thought:
We hear, for example, that nationalisms everywhere appear in reaction against globalization, here is the return to the tribe. In fact, in order to demonstrate the above, we compare different political phenomena in different civilizations, which obey various causes. Trump, Marine the Pen, Xi Jinping, same fight? It seems to me that everyone should be put in context rather than guessing a community of destiny.
This so-called convergent upsurge of nationalism should also be placed in history: we are just emerging from a world where only nationalism and tribalism existed, whereas the singularity of our time is that for the first time globalization, truly universal, coexists, with tribalism, with difficulty, so much the fact is new.
The rise of tolerance
Similarly, and while "everyone" is rebuffing our ears with the rise of intolerance, I have pointed out, recently in this weekly column, how much the election of a Muslim mayor in London and a Christian mayor in Jakarta, were more astonishing and significant than the "return" of xenophobia; xenophobia has always been, whereas these two elections are only in our time.
Another example is the growth of inequality: the thesis of the 1% of super-rich exploiting the remaining 99%. There, we confuse visibility and reality. Bill Gates is perhaps the richest man in history but at least he created something, of everyday use, the Windows software, while the super-rich of the past, the maharajahs of the India or the Istanbul Sultans had not created anything at all. The questioning by "everyone" of the 1% is a relic of vulgar Marxism which attributes the misfortune of some to the exploitation by the Other. To claim that inequality threatens growth, which is repeated by the International Monetary Fund Christine Lagarde International Monetary Fund, is not demonstrated and seems absurd at the moment when a universal middle class is emerging. The gap between individuals may be growing here and there but the gap between peoples is narrowing.
We will finish, while we could go on indefinitely, with climate change as a single thought. I do not deny change since climate, by definition, is what changes. I do not deny the warming since it is measurable.
But from there, the unique Thought suggests that the only cause is the emission of carbon dioxide, that is to say, industrialization, that is to say, capitalism: what remains to be demonstrated. It also remains to demonstrate that governments can act against this secular, probably cyclical, warming trend. It is clear that politicians in search of renewed legitimacy have every reason to believe it: the unique Thought is their relay.
Single Thinking is not a quest for truth but an affirmation of the intellectual power and monopoly of interpretation by a globalized elite that is also anti-globalist these days. "Everyone pr
The Maharajahs of India or the Istanbul Sultans had not created anything at all. The questioning by "everyone" of the 1% is a relic of vulgar Marxism which attributes the misfortune of some to the exploitation by the Other. To claim that inequality threatens growth, which is repeated by the International Monetary Fund Christine Lagarde International Monetary Fund, is not demonstrated and seems absurd at the moment when a universal middle class is emerging. The gap between individuals may be growing here and there but the gap between peoples is narrowing. We will finish, while we could go on indefinitely, with climate change as a single thought. I do not deny change since climate, by definition, is what changes. I do not deny the warming since it is measurable. But from there, the unique Thought suggests that the only cause is the emission of carbon dioxide, that is to say, industrialization, that is to say, capitalism: what remains to be demonstrated. It also remains to demonstrate that governments can act against this secular, probably cyclical, warming trend. It is clear that politicians in search of renewed legitimacy have every reason to believe it: the unique Thought is their relay. Single Thinking is not a quest for truth but an affirmation of the intellectual power and monopoly of interpretation by a globalized elite that is also anti-globalist these days. "Everyone claims to be searching for the truth," said philosopher Isaiah Berlin, "but if you find out, it might be uninteresting." Let's look for it anyway.
Google Translate for Business:Translator ToolkitWebsite Translator
RELATED POSTS:
Implosion of Germany's Green Party Threatens To Destabilse EU With the defeat of Donald Trump in the 2020 US election, the far left parties in Liberal Democracies celebrated the defeat of the far right. At around the same time it appeared that Germany's AfD party, Italy's Lega and and the Sweden Democrats had been discredited and surges in their popularity had been halted by negative propaganda campaigns while Germany's Green Party were at the height of their popularity and were hailed as Europe's great hope for a clean, net zero, woke, gay and trans friendly future.
Democracy Murdered In France
I'm hearing very disturbing news from the French regional elections, predicting that the Front National, comfortable winners in last week's first round of regional elections, hasve been routed in all regions. For that to happen, and to happen through a massive increase in turnout, suggests electoral fraud on a hughe scale. Or has France joined Britain in adopting the Islamic version of democracy, which is one man one vote, one Imam one thousand votes.
Who Runs America, The White House Or The Shadow Government?
Reports of President Barack Obama’s meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin at the G20 summit over the weekend do not look right in the context of yet another blitz of provocative rhetoric from The Pentagon and the Department of Defence towards Moscow. In view of the USA's constant push towards all out war with Russia, one has to ask who is in control: Obama or the generals?
Trump catches attention of CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral
Donald Trump is portrayed as a clown by mainstream media and his combover is the silliest I have ever seen. Still, he's a billionaie so I don't suppose he gives a flying fuck what The Daily Stirrer thinks of him. Not that we think he is all bad, anyone who attacks Obama's global naziism trade deals, TTIP and TPP mush have some good points.
How Mainstream Media And The Major Political Parties Are Making Sure Voters Do not Hear The Voices Of Politics' Most Powerful Critics
As the General Election campaign starts to heat up, we try to shift focus away from the squabbling between Conservative and Labour about who can make the most promises they have no intention of keeping and to the real issues concerning jobs, social breakdown , mass immigration, and loss of national sovereignty.
US Presidents Of The Past warned Against Secret, Shadow Government.
By now it should be obvious that peacemake, joybringer and putative aquatic pedestrian Barack Hussein Obama was never really in charge of the US Government. Whatever Obama said would happen, all the American government's policies ensured the opposit would happen. The embedded article thows some light on how the US government really works
The American Political System Is "Not A Democracy Or Constitutional Republic" - Thiel The state of democracy in the USA has become a hot topic of conversation in American business circles in recent years. While President Barack Hussein Obama, not so much a man as an ego on long skinny legs, has increasingly been inclined to rule by executive order in the manner of a despot or tyrant, even Obama's fiercest critics have to admit the American electoral system seems increasingly capable of delivering only political paralysis ...
Multi-Cultural England: Are You Feeling The Progressive Diversity.
As racial and sectarian tension increase on the streets of britain while politicians gear up for the election campaign, we take a look at the state of Britain today, Imigrant child abuse gangs, Clerics of alient faiths dictating moral strictures, and everywhere we look, foreigners being given provieged status. Is it any wonder the voters are angry?
Even The BIS Is Shocked At How Broken Markets Have Become.
If the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) the bank where banks and governments do business is worried about the state of the markets, we are in bigger trouble than anyone is letting on.
What Would George Orwell Think Of The Screeching Left's Horror At Plans To Shrink The State.
In part one of his classic social commentary, The Road To Wigan Pier, George Orwell wrote of the grinding poverty and appalling living conditions endured by people in industrial areas. The second part, which is more revevant to the 21st Century is a rant against the superiority of the upper class 'Fabian' socialists who have hijacked the Labour movement and whose Paternal Liberalism is in almost all ways more repugnant that the uncaring attitude of the old elite.
France’s President Hollande Says 'Non' To Obama’s Demand for Corporate Global Oligarchy
The embttled French President has become the first national leader to state categorically his country will not sign the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership being pushed by the USA's Obama Administration. Hollande's government is already the most unporular France has ever had and the President know to give away French sovereignty to US Corporate businesses would be political suicide.
New World Order
Living With The Conspiracy
Latest Posts
Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut]
CREATIVE COMMONS: attrib, no comm, no dervs.
KEYWORDS: news, opinion, dailystirrer,
If you liked this, please give it a boost
Fair Use: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers (usually as an embedded page which means you see their complete page with all content including attibutions, links and advertising within a window in our page). We feel this comes under the provisions of “fair use†in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic, cultural, scientific, spiritual and social issues. The material on this page is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use†you must request permission from the copyright owner. Information on this can be found within the embed frame. Contact us:
Close Window and return to previous URL
|
SITE SEARCH find keywords on this domain
This free script provided by
INFORMATION NAVIGATION
navigate
More From Around The Labyrinth
Our Latest Posts
Recommended Reading
|