The prejudicial tone is set from the very start where the
author, Jason Wilson, uses the words "the barmy theory of 'cultural
Marxism'". However cultural Marxism exists; it is a completely real
political movement. Its proponents call it different names like "critical
theory" and "deep social research", but the content of their
work is exactly as its critics describe it. I myself have already addressed
some of these issues; see the background links below. After the Bolshevik revolution
in
Russia in
1917, it was assumed by communists around the world that the revolution would
spread to other nations. There were attempts to foment similar coups in
Germany,
China and other
countries, but they all failed leaving
Russia
standing alone as the world's sole Marxist power. Some Marxist theoreticians of
the day claimed that the purely economic and political notions of vanguardist
Marxism-Leninism were too crude and unrealistic. In order to change society
into the one the Marxists wanted it was going to be necessary to alter people
on a mass-psychological and cultural level. These are areas of research
orthodox Marxists wouldn't even consider entering. Cultural Marxism emerged
about a hundred years ago and centred around the
Frankfurt
School; its members drew on the
works of psychoanalysts like Sigmund Freud and Erich Fromm as well as Marxist
theoreticians like Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse. One of them was Theodor
Adorno whom I've discussed before several times because he worked out how music
could be used to control people's minds, see:
http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/madonnas-illuminati-song.html.
The way to achieve Utopia was to carry out a "long march through the
institutions" and install their new ideal communist society by
infiltrating education, the media and government. The way to build a new human
world... yes, a
New World Order... was to knock everything down
and build it up again in their image from the very foundations. Therefore cultural
values previously assumed to be essential were torn apart and subjected to critical
analysis. Traditional human relationships were called into question; those
between the social classes, races and creeds, people and the church, men and
woman, parents and children, friends and family, were discarded in favour of
new models. Controls were suggested on lifestyle, actions, language and even
thoughts. This is a process still ongoing today. It is essentially a very virulent
form of mind control. George Orwell, who was a member of the British equivalent
of the
Frankfurt School,
the Fabian Society, tried to warn the people with his prophetic allegorical novel
Nineteen Eighty-Four. Cultural
Marxism is about getting inside out heads and taking a hatchet to our mental
integrity. This is why the
Frankfurt School
were so keen on the work of Freud and Fromm etc.
Jason Wilson uses a lot of snide rhetoric and dysphemism in
his article which is intended to mislead and repel the reader. It is
illustrated with a portrait of Anders Behring Breivik, a Norwegian who shot
dead sixty-nine teenagers and blew up eight more people in a bomb attack in
Oslo.
Breivik looks to me like an MK Ultra programmed assassin, but that's not
relevant right now. What is relevant is that
Wilson
is hoping to poison the well by associating this deranged killer with anybody
who disagrees with his article.
Wilson
stoops to the nadir of defamation, as well as intellectual laziness, by
bringing up that old chestnut of anti-Semitism, yet again. This is a very
tiresome ploy that I've had to discredit many times, see:
http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/its-jooooozzz.html.
Of course there are those who are opposed to cultural Marxism who do blame it all
on the Jews, but luckily these are a minority, certainly at least in the
Conspirasphere, and I always debate those individuals when I come across them.
Ironically, a lot of the people
Wilson
is targeting are anti-Islamists and often devout Zionists, at least tactical
ones.
Wilson only uses the word
"racist" in his article once, but I'm sure this is an error on his
part. Oppose cultural Marxism and you will quickly be labelled a racist,
whether you really are one or not. Also "sexist!", "homophobe!"
and many other similarly nasty epithets. The central strategy of modern
cultural Marxism is the oppression of white straight males. This is not because
the leftist elite favour non-WSM's over WSM's; they want to destroy us all and this
is just their current chosen method. If you are a WSM who so much as breathes a
word of concern for the well-being of your people then it makes you morally
other. In fact for a WSM to be ideologically pure he needs to despise his own
people and celebrate their downfall. In today's world WSM's are treated appallingly
and hardly anyone notices. We can be refused employment or promotion because
we're WSM's; we are banned from some public places, along with dogs. We can be
attacked, violated, cheated on, and humiliated. In
South
Africa we can even be subjected to genocide,
see:
http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/nelson-mandela-dies.html.
The justification for this is that our great-great-great-grandfather
might have kept a black houseboy and
beaten his wife. WSM's are told again and again that we are
"privileged", and nothing that is done to us will ever alter that falsehood.
It will be assumed that, as Jason Wilson says:
"It allows those smarting from a loss of privilege to be offered
the shroud of victimhood..." It is an unbreakable premise that this is
the
one and only reason anybody could
ever wish to oppose cultural Marxism. This is sad because I am a WSM and I don't
want to be privileged, even if I thought I was. I consider myself about as
un-racist as it's possible to be. I served alongside people of all colours in
the hospital and regard them as closer to me than my family. I live happily with
three Sudanese Muslims. My daughter has a mixed-race boyfriend. I support gay
marriage too.
The difficulty in overcoming cultural Marxism is that the
Frankfurt
School did a very devious thing
indeed; they managed to conflate their toxic propaganda with perfectly
legitimate civil rights issues. Feminism began because there used indeed to be very
real injustices against women. The same goes for black people, Jews,
homosexuals etc. The mind manipulators mutated these perfectly righteous
grievances into obsessive hatred and division. I do wonder if it's a
coincidence that the words "racist" and "rapist" are so
similar. Women were incited to hate men; black people were incited to hate
whites. White straight males were encouraged to hate
themselves, as I said. And before you knew it there was vengeance,
resentment, demoralization and conflict everywhere where none need exist. See
the fuss being made over a mere flag at the time of writing:
http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/keep-flag-up.html.
This is all part of the dynamite that the cultural Marxists want to use to shatter
the walls of society. If you still agree with Jason Wilson and think I'm being
"barmy" then consider the words of Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov. Bezmenov
was a Soviet agent who once spied on the West but then defected to
Canada.
He did a series of lectures and interviews in which he describes the
psychological warfare Marxists use against their enemies, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlpODYhnPEo.
Bezmenov came straight from the
USSR
itself and never was a member of the
Frankfurt
School or any of its affiliates,
yet what he depicts is the exact same strategy. Here's Richard D Hall talking
about this in more detail, see:
http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=178&part=1.
One of the tactics in destroying the family that Richard understands is the
destruction of the father archetype; this can include all masculine archetypes in
our lives. Already fathers are seen by many as an unnecessary and even detrimental
part of family life. There are outwardly harmless children's TV shows in which
fathers as portrayed as unintelligent and deserving of ridicule and contempt,
like
Peppa Pig. And we've all seen
those TV famous adverts for gravy, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWM3PfcUyUw.
Children are also sexualized at a younger and younger age with more and more explicit
sexual themes in media programmes aimed at younger and younger children. Sex
education at school begins far earlier nowadays than it used to. Language has
been warped by political correctness (a term invented by the Bolsheviks-
politishikaya pravelnost). The damage
has occurred in ways you might not have noticed. For example you rarely see the
words "gentlemen" and "ladies" on public lavatory signs;
it's always "men" and "women" as Orwell said about
Newspeak, eliminate creative and thoughtful synonyms and use as few words as
possible, and only the dullest and most basic ones. Also in tennis when women
play, it has always been traditionally called the "ladies" game, but
today you'll only ever hear "the women's singles final" etc. There
are many other examples, such as the actor Benedict Cummerbatch being forced to
issue multiple apologies for merely saying the words "coloured
actors", see:
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/jan/26/benedict-cumberbatch-apologises-after-calling-black-actors-coloured.
Prof. Tim Hunt, one of the country's top scientists and Nobel laureate, made
some admittedly ignorant and tactless jokes about female scientists, but he
lost his entire career as punishment, even though he apologized. It was as if
he had committed blasphemy, and in a way he had, see:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33090022.
The only part of Jason Wilson's article that is in any way worthy
of an analytical reply is where he says:
"The
whole story is transparently barmy. If humanities faculties are really geared
to brainwashing students into accepting the postulates of far left ideology,
the composition of western parliaments and presidencies, and the roaring
success of corporate capitalism suggest they’re doing an astoundingly bad job.
Anyone who takes a cool look at the last three decades of politics will think
it bizarre that anyone could interpret what’s happened as the triumph of an
all-powerful left." This is the same point made by a Facebook friend,
the same one who reminded me about this article. However they both assume that
the power structures of the world are geared to further the whims of greedy and
selfish apolitical fools who only want material wealth at the expense of
others. No; this is a complete misunderstanding of how the world works. Those
fools do certainly exist, but they are merely the pawns of those far higher up
the chain of command. What Marxists call "the capitalist ruling
class" does not rule at all. Corporate dictatorship is a tool being used
by the real elite, the Illuminati, to further its ends in one way, but a Corporatocracy
is not at the front of the queue nor the end goal. The Illuminati are also
behind Marxism and use that as well. The real rulers of this planet are not
political partisans; they will use whatever part of any political philosophy that
suits them best, both left and right wing. In fact the ultimate model for the
New World Order resembles a very extreme form of communism, with a
resource-based economy, the abolition of private property etc. What is set out
in Agenda 21 and suggested by Bill Gates et al is distinctly anti-capitalist.
Far more Pol Pot than Adam Smith. And at a higher level of course cultural
Marxism merges with transhumanism and eugenics, see:
http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/bases-project-live-in-london.html.
This is why we have to resist cultural Marxism, and make it clear why we're
doing so. It is definitely an issue of social justice and human rights, but
deep down it goes much further than that. Here's a radio show I recommend by
Tom Barnes and Andy Young on Enemy Within Radio, see:
https://www.spreaker.com/user/enemywithinradio/enemy-within-radio-live-143?.
