A Blueprint for American Decline: Cultural Marxism and the Democratic Party

America has moved ever leftward in the past fifty years.  Now as most leftward nations do, we are going broke, our individual liberty and prosperity are in decline, and we can only wonder how it all came about.

Personally, I think it has been the successful infiltration of the Democratic Party by Marxists, radicals and determined socialists.   This didn't happen over night.  The greatest nation on earth has been poisoned slowly over time, though a patient gradualism, in which our traditions, institutions and way of life have been slowly displaced.  The frog has been slowly boiled, with the heat raised only a degree at a time, unnoticed until it is too late.  Frog soup, anyone?

The Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci advocated this gradualist approach to undermining the west, while he was sitting in an Italian prison in the 1930's.  He advocated the destruction of Christianity so it could be replaced by a nearly religious faith in the power of the state.  He wished for a "long march through the institutions," a take-over by the left of the media and academia.  The leftist press would publish only such news as would move the revolution forward, and the university would thoroughly immerse students in collectivist propaganda.

Gramsci advocated "cultural hegemony," which is most often referred to as "cultural Marxism" today.  Per Wikepedia:

Cultural hegemony is the philosophic and sociological theory, by the Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci, that a culturally diverse society can be dominated (ruled) by one social class, by manipulating the societal culture (beliefs, explanations, perceptions, values) so that its ruling-class worldview is imposed as the societal norm, which then is perceived as a universally valid ideology and status quo beneficial to all of society, whilst benefiting only the ruling class.

Having the "right" beliefs is rewarded in such a society, through social acceptance, better grades in school, and more opportunities for employment.  Having the "wrong" beliefs can result in social ostracism and loss of employment.  In the worst case, one might have his name publicly blacklisted, where would-be employers can reject him and media can denounce him to the public at large (the Southern Poverty Law Center maintains such a list).  Such ostracism effectively stops private inquiry, research and publication that might present facts contrary to the leftist worldview.

Cultural Marxism works to slowly desensitize the average citizen from his bourgeois beliefs in the church, in the institution of marriage, merit-based employment and admission to the university.  The church is undermined through ridicule, as in the immersion of a crucifix in a jar of urine as a form of high art.  Marriage is undermined through the advocacy of gay marriage now and polygamy later.  A sense of guilt is inculcated in students for being white, capitalist, prosperous, American and free, as these conditions are effectively (though falsely) connected to poverty and misery in the third world.  Since we are [allegedly] responsible for this poverty and misery, we are obligated to hand over our wallets to leftist politicians for delivery to the third world victims.

We are further encouraged to go along through propaganda disguised as science:  man-made global warming will destroy the planet unless we turn over the means of production to much greater government control.  So we introduce yet another disincentive to resistance:  fear.  Nature will kill you if you do not surrender individual freedom to a new super-government.

Beliefs and behavior are also regulated through informal speech codes imposed in both academia and the media:  one does not refer to the race of rioters or the ideology of terrorists when writing news reports.  One does not hold anyone accountable for violence or anti-social behavior, and to do so constitutes a terrible condition known as racism...for which one will be blacklisted, ostracized and unemployed.

All of this leftwing activity points to one grand scheme:  the massive redistribution of wealth from those who produce it to those who do not.  We are pressured to go along through guilt and fear.  Guilt of our own success, fear of social ostracism, fear of "climate change," fear of violence by those we are entreated to appease.

Now a writer named Frank Miele explains the long term effects of cultural Marxism in his article "Is American decline the product of chance or of design?"  Before the counter revolution can begin, however, we need to understand how we got to where we are.

Making Progressive Pets of the Enemies of Civilization

An excellent post today at Protein Wisdom:  Resisting an Epiphany by the Sanity Inspector (hat tip:  Smitty at The Other McCain):

Americans are a kind, forbearing, humble, welcoming people, lefties’ incessant accusations otherwise notwithstanding. I have never had a negative personal experience with a Muslim and, SFAIK (anonymous internet flammage aside) no Muslim has ever had one with me. I suspect that that is true of most everyone reading this, left or right. In fact, I sometimes have occasion to help Muslims who are new to the area, or to America altogether. They just want to run their convenience stores, parking garages, and halal meat shops, and get on in life, same as everyone else.

And yet the Islamic terrorists, well-trained foreign agent or Sudden Jihad Syndrome flipout, are hiding among them, not us. And the alleged moderate Muslims who run interference for them are quick to scold us for noticing, as are the progressives who tend to make mascots of civilization’s enemies. And every snowflake in an avalanche can plead “who, me?”.

On the ground, under the news radar, most people get along fine much of the time, even in the world’s hot spots. Muslims will even visit Palestinian churches to receive The Virgin’s blessing, I’ve heard. And yet “My biking buddy is a Muslim, therefore Islam is a religion of peace” is as idiotically simplistic a statement as “I get along fine with all the black people at work, therefore there is no more racism in America.” Only difference is that the stakes are far higher with the former delusion.

The writer is warning of the danger of overlooking the Islamic threat, because we all know moderate Muslims.    It is easy to conclude, wrongly, that these moderates are representative of the whole.  The mistake could be fatal, as it has often been in the recent past.

That's all fairly obvious and offers no new insights for me.  What I really got from this article is the author's reference to the Left "making mascots pets of the enemies of civilization."  I would substitute "pets" for "mascots."  Mascots are animals selected as lucky symbols of a sports team; the term pets more accurately describe the Left's relationship with Muslims:

Definition of PET

1

a : a pampered and usually spoiled childb : a person who is treated with unusual kindness or consideration : darling

2

: a domesticated animal kept for pleasure rather than utility 

The above definition succinctly describes the Left's passion and protection for, and relationship with, America-hating despots.  Substitute the word "potential terrorist" for animal in #2 above.

Now that really was an epiphany!

Jamie Glasov Explains: Why the Left is Just Plain Nuts

Note: I previously posted this article under the heading "The Psychological Pathologies of the Far Left." Then I remembered that most Americans voted for Barack Obama and are too dumb to know what that means. So retitled my article in simpler English that means the same thing and have reposted it here.

I started reading my new book last night. It’s by Jamie Glasov and is entitled “United In Hate,” about the coalition between the far left and militant Islam (see my previous post below on the subject). The book is good at explaining the mind set and the psychology of the far left. That mind set includes:

1. Self-hatred or self-loathing, leading to a desire to efface the self, to submerge the individual into the anonymity of the masses where personal identity and responsibility disappear. In the most extreme case, the leftist desires death, especially dying for the cause, as that goal gives him a tremendous sense of significance and purpose.

2. Estrangement from society as a whole, leading to sympathy for antagonistic or hostile systems that the leftist imagines will fulfill all of his psychological needs. Since he hates his own society he is naturally sympathetic to other systems that share his hate.

3. The desire for a political system where the individual will feel validated and empowered and given a feeling of purpose. The most powerful systems thrill him the most, particularly those that engage in mass killing and oppression. By identifying with these systems he attains a vicarious feeling of power. Glasov notes that both Stalin and Mao enjoyed their greatest praise and pilgrimages from western leftists precisely at the peak of their mass murder and oppression.

4. Guilt for being well off. Self-hating leftists imagine themselves to be victims of a society that has failed to provide them with a feeling of fulfillment or purpose; they naturally identify with other “victims.” However, western leftists live in the most prosperous nations on earth, and it is hard to feel like a victim under those circumstances. So they make unreasonable demands on the power structure so they can picket and march and preach hate of the establishment. They especially like to be arrested as this adds to their desired feeling of victimhood.

Glasov takes several key ideas from Eric Hoffer’s classic “The True Believer.” Just understanding the psychology of self-destructive leftists is worth the price of the book. I will write more about this book as I finish it.

A Liberal's Last Request Before Beheading

Don't this just say it all?











..................................

The Intellectual Dishonesty of the American Left

After Saddam Hussein was executed, there was the usual wailing and lamentations by the American Left. Not so much because they supported Hussein, but because they fear that his execution will reflect positively on George Bush, the Republican Party or the Iraq war.

Gateway Pundit had an article about the Left mourning the death of Saddam Hussein. This was an overstatement. The Left mourns his death only for the reasons cited above, not because they supported his rule or agreed with his murderous ways. However, Gateway Pundit is accurate in saying that much of the Left was unhinged at the execution. They cite, among others, this ridiculous post by Martin Lewis of the Huffington Post, claiming that Hussein was executed so George W. Bush could prove that his penis was larger than that of his father.

Oh Martin Lewis, what depth of analysis, what profound intellectualism, what incisive exposition! Lewis makes the following claims:

It only cost $354 billion (and counting) and the lives of 3,000 very expendable US military to enable the President to demonstrate to his dad that he has a bigger Dick. Or is one...

My response: The investment of lives and money in Iraq was not to hang Saddam Hussein, it was to produce a stable Iraq and eventually, a stable Middle East, one that would not support or fund terrorism against the West. Bush's plan was to produce a democratic Iraq, governed by the rule of law, because democratic nations don't generally commit unprovoked aggression against other nations. The possible flaw in Bush's reasoning was that an Islamic society can be made democratic. Whether it can or not remains to be seen.

As for dicks, Martin Lewis seems awfully obsessed with them, particularly large ones, but then, his sexual preferences are not the issue here. He continues:

To Ronald Reagan. For unilaterally deciding in 1983 to end the 16-year
international isolation of Iraq for its barbarity - and sending Donald Rumsfeld
as his personal goodwill ambassador to befriend Saddam Hussein - during the
exact same time when Hussein was committing the very crimes for which he was
hung. Crimes that were publicized worldwide at the time by Amnesty International and others - and thus fully known about by Reagan, George W. Bush and their entire administration.

Other moonbat posters at Lewis's site and also at Gateway Pundit try to argue the same thing, that Hussein was an American ally. "TrueAmerican" argues that "Saddam Hussein was one of Ronald Reagan's 'Freedom Fighters.' " A poster named Kathy claims Hussein was executed before any of his other, greater crimes could be tried, since in a court of law it would come out that the United States was "complicit" in those crimes.

My response to all of them: Horse manure. This diplomatic initiative did not occur in a vaccum and must be analyzed in the context of its time and the events surrounding it. According to Wikipedia:

Iraq successfully gained some military and financial aid, as well as
diplomatic and moral support, from the United States, the Soviet Union, and
France, which together feared the prospects of the expansion of
revolutionary Iran's influence in the region. The Iranians, claiming that
the international community should force Iraq to pay war reparations to
Iran, refused any suggestions for a cease-fire. They continued the war until
1988, hoping to bring down Saddam's secular regime and instigate a Shi'ite
rebellion in Iraq.

Donald Rumsfeld did indeed have a diplomatic mission to Iraq where he shook hands with Hussein - in 1983. That was 23 years ago, during the Iraq-Iran war, and there were strategic reasons for his visit. He was not a "goodwill ambassador" as the dishonest Mr. Lewis asserts.

This time period was soon after Iran seized the American Embasssy in Tehran and imprisoned 52 Americans for 444 days. Iran's deed was an act of war. Reagan saw, correctly, that Iran was the common enemy of both the United States and Iraq and it was in our best interests to contain the radical Muslim government of Iran.

Any U.S. aid provided to Iraq was temporary and tactical in nature and intended to prevent the takeover of Iraq by Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). I don't know the dollar volume of this aid, but I suspect it was fairly small. In any case, this aid wouldn't have been necessary had Reagan's predecessor, Democrat Jimmy Carter, not undermined the pro-West Shah of Iran so that the radical muslims, led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, could take over.

Donald Rumsfeld was sent over to discuss these matters with Hussein and shook his hand. That means absolutely nothing. Neville Chamberlain shook Hitler's hand while trying to negotiate peace. Does that mean England "supported Hitler"? Madeleine Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, shook hands with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, and in fact there is a picture of her toasting him with a champagne glass (see pic above right). I believe that was right before Clinton supplied North Korea with nuclear reactors. Was Clinton pro Communist? Is Clinton "complicit" in that terror state's decision to build nuclear weapons and, in all probability, supply them to other terror states? Of course not, though Clinton's strategy was dangerously reckless and naive.

The point is, sometimes American administrations have to meet with despots and make deals with them that hopefully will benefit the United States. The Left's argument that Rumsfeld and Reagan supported Hussein's terrorism or atrocities because of a diplomatic handshake is therefore both frivolous and asinine.

Likewise, the argument that we should have had no diplomatic contact with Iraq or provided them with a small amount of tactical aid to affect the balance of power in the Middle East is also frivolous. We gave lots of aid to Joseph Stalin during World War II, and not because we supported his previous mass murder of Russians and Ukrainians, but because of strategic necessity in time of war while confronting a common enemy. Oh yes, and that was when we had FDR as president, a Democrat. Was FDR therefore "complicit" in the subsequent Soviet annexation of Eastern Europe?

Further, the genocide that Hussein committed against the Kurds did not happen until 1988, five years after Rumsfeld's visit, so any attempt by Moonbat Martin to imply a connection is pretty farfetched. At the time of the genocide, Hussein claimed the attack on the Kurds was launched by Iran and we were unable to determine otherwise for some years afterwards.

Lewis becomes even more unhinged as responders try to reason with him. He finally descends into hysterical ranting, claiming the United States "supported and funded" Saddam Hussein. He points out that Donald Rumsfeld went to Iraq and shook hands with Hussein and they even have a picture to prove it. So in the minds of demented moonbats, that means Donald Rumsfeld was "Saddam's buddy."

It is typical of the Left, who have so little in the way of facts or logic to support their positions, to hurl unfounded charges and gross generalities that they can't begin to prove.
.......
Update: Dan Collins over at Protein Wisdom describes the same Leftist bullshit, this time excreted by Moonbat Robert Fisk. Take a look.
....