Most Europeans look back on the 1950s as a good time. Our homes were
safe, to the point where
many people did not bother to lock their doors.
Public schools were generally excellent, and their problems were things
like talking in class and running in the halls. Most men treated women
like ladies, and most ladies devoted their time and effort to making
good homes, rearing their children well and helping their communities
through volunteer work. Children grew up in two–parent households, and
the mother was there to meet the child when he came home from school.
Entertainment was something the whole family could enjoy.
What happened?
If a man of the 1950s were suddenly introduced into Western Europe in
the 2000s, he would hardly recognise it as the same country. He would
be in immediate danger of getting mugged, carjacked or worse, because he
would not have learned to live in constant fear. He would not know that
he shouldn't go into certain parts of the city, that his car must not
only be locked but equipped with an alarm, that he dare not go to sleep
at night without locking the windows and bolting the doors - and setting
the electronic security system.
If he brought his family with him, he and his wife would probably
cheerfully pack their children off to the nearest public school. When
the children came home in the afternoon and told them they had to go
through a metal detector to get in the building, had been given some
funny white powder by another kid and learned that homosexuality is
normal and good, the parents would be uncomprehending.
In the office, the man might light up a cigarette, drop a reference
to the "little lady", and say he was happy to see the firm employing
some coloured folks in important positions. Any of those acts would earn
a swift reprimand, and together they might get him fired.
When she went into the city to shop, the wife would put on a nice
suit, hat, and possibly gloves. She would not understand why people
stared, and mocked.
And when the whole family sat down after dinner and turned on the
television, they would not understand how pornography from some sleazy,
blank-fronted "Adults Only" kiosk had gotten on their set.
Were they able, our 1950s family would head back to the 1950s as fast
as they could, with a gripping horror story to tell. Their story would
be of a nation that had decayed and degenerated at a fantastic pace,
moving in less than a half a century from the greatest countries on
earth to Third World nations, overrun by crime, noise, drugs and dirt.
The fall of Rome was graceful by comparison.
Why did it happen?
Over the last fifty years, Western Europe has been conquered by the
same force that earlier took over Russia, China, Germany and Italy. That
force is ideology. Here, as elsewhere, ideology has inflicted enormous
damage on the traditional culture it came to dominate, fracturing it
everywhere and sweeping much of it away. In its place came fear, and
ruin. Russia will take a generation or more to recover from Communism,
if it ever can.
The ideology that has taken over Western Europe goes most commonly by
the name of "Political Correctness". Some people see it as a joke. It
is not. It is deadly serious. It seeks to alter virtually all the rules,
formal and informal, that govern relations among people and
institutions. It wants to change behaviour, thought, even the words we
use. To a significant extent, it already has. Whoever or whatever
controls language also controls thought. Who dares to speak of "ladies"
now?
Just what is "Political Correctness?" Political Correctness is in
fact cultural Marxism (Cultural Communism) - Marxism translated from
economic into cultural terms. The effort to translate Marxism from
economics into culture did not begin with the student rebellion of the
1960s. It goes back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the
Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. In 1923, in Germany, a group of
Marxists founded an institute devoted to making the transition, the
Institute of Social Research (later known as the Frankfurt School). One
of its founders, George Lukacs, stated its purpose as answering the
question, "Who shall save us from Western Civilisation?" The Frankfurt
School gained profound influence in European and American universities
after many of its leading lights fled and spread all over Europe and
even to the United States in the 1930s to escape National Socialism in
Germany. In Western Europe it gained influence in universities from
1945.
The Frankfurt School blended Marx with Freud, and later influences
(some Fascist as well as Marxist) added linguistics to create "Critical
Theory" and "deconstruction". These in turn greatly influenced education
theory, and through institutions of higher education gave birth to what
we now call "Political Correctness". The lineage is clear, and it is
traceable right back to Karl Marx.
The parallels between the old, economic Marxism and cultural Marxism
are evident. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, shares with
classical Marxism the vision of a "classless society", i.e., a society
not merely of equal opportunity, but equal condition. Since that vision
contradicts human nature - because people are different, they end up
unequal, regardless of the starting point - society will not accord with
it unless forced. So, under both variants of Marxism, it is forced.
This is the first major parallel between classical and cultural Marxism:
both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political
Correctness can be seen on campuses where "PC" has taken over the
college: freedom of speech, of the press, and even of thought are all
eliminated.
The second major parallel is that both classical, economic Marxism
and cultural Marxism have single-factor explanations of history.
Classical Marxism argues that all of history was determined by ownership
of the means of production. Cultural Marxism says that history is
wholly explained by which groups - defined by sex, race, religion and
sexual normality or abnormality - have power over which other groups.
The third parallel is that both varieties of Marxism declare certain
groups virtuous and others evil a priori, that is, without regard for
the actual behaviour of individuals. Classical Marxism defines workers
and peasants as virtuous and the bourgeoisie (the middle class) and
other owners of capital as evil. Cultural Marxism defines all
minorities, what they see as the victims: Muslims, Feminist women,
homosexuals and some additional minority groups as virtuous and they
view ethnic Christian European men as evil. (Cultural Marxism does not
recognise the existence of non-Feminist women, and defines Muslims,
Asians and Africans who reject Political Correctness as evil, just like
native Christian or even atheist Europeans.).
The fourth parallel is in means: expropriation. Economic Marxists,
where they obtained power, expropriated the property of the bourgeoisie
and handed it to the state, as the "representative" of the workers and
the peasants. Cultural Marxists, when they gain power (including through
our own government), lay penalties on native European men and others
who disagree with them and give privileges to the "victim" groups they
favour. Affirmative action is an example.
Finally, both varieties of Marxists employ a method of analysis
designed to show the correctness of their ideology in every situation.
For classical Marxists, the analysis is economic. For cultural Marxists,
the analysis is linguistic: deconstruction. Deconstruction "proves"
that any "text", past or present, illustrates the oppression of Muslims,
women, homosexuals, etc. by reading that meaning into words of the text
(regardless of their actual meaning). Both methods are, of course,
phony analyses that twist the evidence to fit preordained conclusions,
but they lend a 'scientific" air to the ideology.
These parallels are neither remarkable nor coincidental. They exist
because Political Correctness is directly derived from classical
Marxism, and is in fact a variant of Marxism. Through most of the
history of Marxism, cultural Marxists were "read out" of the movement by
classical, economic Marxists. Today, with economic Marxism dead,
cultural Marxism has filled its shoes. The medium has changed, but the
message is the same: a society of radical egalitarianism enforced by the
power of the state.
Political Correctness now looms over Western European society like a
colossus. It has taken over both political wings, left and right. Among
so-called Western European "conservative" parties the actual cultural
conservatives are shown the door because being a cultural conservative
opposes the very essence of political correctness. It controls the most
powerful element in our culture, the media and entertainment industry.
It dominates both public and higher education: many a college campus is a
small, ivy-covered North Korea. It has even captured the higher clergy
in many Christian churches. Anyone in the Establishment who departs from
its dictates swiftly ceases to be a member of the Establishment.
The most vital question is: how can Western Europeans combat
Political Correctness and retake their society from the cultural
Marxists?
It is not sufficient just to criticise Political Correctness. It
tolerates a certain amount of criticism, even gentle mocking. It does so
through no genuine tolerance for other points of view, but in order to
disarm its opponents, to let itself seem less menacing than it is. The
cultural Marxists do not yet have total power, and they are too wise to
appear totalitarian until their victory is assured.
Rather, those who would defeat cultural Marxism must defy it. They
must use words it forbids, and refuse to use the words it mandates;
remember, sex is better than gender. They must shout from the rooftops
the realities it seeks to suppress, such as our opposition to Sharia on a
national and local level, the Islamisation of our countries, the facts
that violent crime is disproportionately committed by Muslims and that
most cases of AIDS are voluntary, i.e., acquired from immoral sexual
acts. They must refuse to turn their children over to public schools.
Above all, those who would defy Political Correctness must behave
according to the old rules of our culture, not the new rules the
cultural Marxists lay down. Ladies should be wives and homemakers, not
cops or soldiers, and men should still hold doors open for ladies.
Children should not be born out of wedlock. Glorification of
homosexuality should be shunned. Jurors should not accept Islam as an
excuse for murder.
Defiance spreads. When other Western Europeans see one person defy
Political Correctness and survive - and you still can, for now - they
are emboldened. They are tempted to defy it, too, and some do. The
ripples from a single act of defiance, of one instance of walking up to
the clay idol and breaking off its nose, can range far. There is nothing
the Politically Correct fear more than open defiance, and for good
reason; it is their chief vulnerability. That should lead cultural
conservatives to defy cultural Marxism at every turn.
While the hour is late, the battle is not decided. Very few Western
Europeans realise that Political Correctness is in fact Marxism in a
different set of clothes. As that realisation spreads, defiance will
spread with it. At present, Political Correctness prospers by disguising
itself. Through defiance, and through education on our own part (which
should be part of every act of defiance), we can strip away its
camouflage and reveal the Marxism beneath the window-dressing of
"sensitivity", "tolerance", and "multiculturalism".
Who dares, wins.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment