Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Government has done nothing but expand geometrically during the decades since “social issues” became the center of “conservative” political debate. We are being dragged towards socialism because “social issues” that have nothing whatsoever to do with socialism are being allowed to dominate the political landscape. Who cares how other people are living, as long as they’re not doing it with our money? Instead of being dragged into an idiotic fight over gay marriage, conservatives should be working to get government totally out of the marriage business, and focusing on dismantling the huge web of socialist wealth redistribution programs that are tied to government control of marriage. Nobody is saying that you have to abandon the “culture war” — just fight it outside of the political system. Of course, getting rid of welfare programs will have the effect of drastically reducing a lot of social problems, such as teenage girls having babies by a series of unemployed and unemployable men, and college students wasting four years and boatloads of taxpayer money “studying” things like “Queer Literature” and “Black Studies” — but the political focus needs to be on the financial side of the equation.

There is no such thing as “cultural marxism”. Marxism is an economic political philosophy which has its foundation in state ownership and control of all property and means of wealth procuction. Preventing government from having that control absolutely precludes the practice of Marxism. Living as a homosexual couple or having an abortion are not forms of “Marxism”; they are private choices made by private citizens, who should not have access to taxpayers’ money to subsidize those or any other choices (including heterosexual marriage and/or childbearing).


31 posted on 05/06/2009 2:33:31 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: GovernmentShrinker
In his columns on the next conservatism, Paul Weyrich has several times referred to “cultural Marxism.” He asked me, as Free Congress Foundation’s resident historian, to write this column explaining what cultural Marxism is and where it came from. In order to understand what something is, you have to know its history.

Cultural Marxism is a branch of western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as “multiculturalism” or, less formally, Political Correctness. From its beginning, the promoters of cultural Marxism have known they could be more effective if they concealed the Marxist nature of their work, hence the use of terms such as “multiculturalism.”

Cultural Marxism began not in the 1960s but in 1919, immediately after World War I. Marxist theory had predicted that in the event of a big European war, the working class all over Europe would rise up to overthrow capitalism and create communism. But when war came in 1914, that did not happen. When it finally did happen in Russia in 1917, workers in other European countries did not support it. What had gone wrong?

Independently, two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, came to the same answer: Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interest that Communism was impossible in the West until both could be destroyed. In 1919, Lukacs asked, “Who will save us from Western civilization?” That same year, when he became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun government in Hungary, one of Lukacs’s first acts was to introduce sex education into Hungary’s public schools. He knew that if he could destroy the West’s traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying Western culture itself.

In 1923, inspired in part by Lukacs, a group of German Marxists established a think tank at Frankfurt University in Germany called the Institute for Social Research. This institute, soon known simply as the Frankfurt School, would become the creator of cultural Marxism.

To translate Marxism from economic into cultural terms, the members of the Frankfurt School - - Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Wilhelm Reich, Eric Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, to name the most important - - had to contradict Marx on several points. They argued that culture was not just part of what Marx had called society’s “superstructure,” but an independent and very important variable. They also said that the working class would not lead a Marxist revolution, because it was becoming part of the middle class, the hated bourgeoisie.

Who would? In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question: a coalition of blacks, students, feminist women and homosexuals.

Fatefully for America, when Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, the Frankfurt School fled - - and reestablished itself in New York City. There, it shifted its focus from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to destroying it in the United States. To do so, it invented “Critical Theory.” What is the theory? To criticize every traditional institution, starting with the family, brutally and unremittingly, in order to bring them down. It wrote a series of “studies in prejudice,” which said that anyone who believes in traditional Western culture is prejudiced, a “racist” or “sexist” of “fascist” - - and is also mentally ill.

Most importantly, the Frankfurt School crossed Marx with Freud, taking from psychology the technique of psychological conditioning. Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood).

After World War II ended, most members of the Frankfurt School went back to Germany. But Herbert Marcuse stayed in America. He took the highly abstract works of other Frankfurt School members and repackaged them in ways college students could read and understand. In his book “Eros and Civilization,” he argued that by freeing sex from any restraints, we could elevate the pleasure principle over the reality principle and create a society with no work, only play (Marcuse coined the phrase, “Make love, not war”). Marcuse also argued for what he called “liberating tolerance,” which he defined as tolerance for all ideas coming from the Left and intolerance for any ideas coming from the Right. In the 1960s, Marcuse became the chief “guru” of the New Left, and he injected the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School into the baby boom generation, to the point where it is now America’s state ideology.

The next conservatism should unmask multiculturalism and Political Correctness and tell the American people what they really are: cultural Marxism. Its goal remains what Lukacs and Gramsci set in 1919: destroying Western culture and the Christian religion. It has already made vast strides toward that goal. But if the average American found out that Political Correctness is a form of Marxism, different from the Marxism of the Soviet Union but Marxism nonetheless, it would be in trouble. The next conservatism needs to reveal the man behind the curtain - - old Karl Marx himself.What is Cultural Marxism?

33 posted on 05/06/2009 2:40:06 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Legalized abortion has it roots in Marxism, socialism, and egalitarianism. Lenin and his communist Bolsheviks were the first ones to widely and openly legalize and advocate abortion as a woman’s right. Communism viewed abortion as a vital part of implementing Marx’s and Engel’s Communist Manifesto and their desire for the “Abolition of the family!” and liberation of women who were oppressed by capitalism, marriage, and the family. Modern day Marxists are proud of their pro-abortion heritage and are still leading proponents of abortion as seen by the short article Marxism and Abortion. This article offers us the following insights on how Marxists view abortion – “A Marxist believes that personality and human value are imparted by the external and economic environment, not by any inherent spiritual value, or even by biological processes . . . . The fetus, according to a Marxist, becomes a person when he is judged as such by ‘someone of higher wisdom.’ The humanity of the fetus depends upon how the mother perceives the ‘social relationship’ that exists between them. If the mother desires to keep the baby, then she ‘fantasizes’ it into becoming a human being. But, if she does not want the pregnancy, ‘it is something else entirely.’ Her opinion of the fetus thereby denies it of personhood . . . . ‘Biological processes,’ says Albury, ‘do not carry automatic moral values as the Right to Life suggests . . . . Human economic, social and political relationships create moral values.’ . . .

According to Albury, ‘Material conditions of life change, and so do moral values.’ This means that, to a Marxist, the unborn baby may be a human being for a time, but may then become depersonified and rendered 'pre-human,' all because his or her mother began to think differently about him or her. She adds: ‘Certainly, many women experience mixed feelings; the fantasy baby may even appear for a while. Women can tell it goodbye forever.’” The article concludes with this comment by Dr. John Whitehall: “The inhumanity of communism resides in this arbitrary assessment of human life, which is based on the Marxist valuation of certain social relationships. On this basis, millions have been told 'goodbye'--from the purges of Russia , to the genocide in Cambodia , to the killings in the Philippines , and now to the unborn baby.” I can only agree with Dr. Whitehall’s comment and add that it is amazing that anyone, especially libertarians, would cling to anything associated with Marx’s thoroughly discredited theories. We have already had too many innocent lives needlessly sacrificed for the addle-brained utopian scheme of a classless worker’s paradise; we don’t need to add any more.
Marxism and Abortion
34 posted on 05/06/2009 2:44:30 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: GovernmentShrinker
There is no such thing as “cultural marxism”. Well, that is curious given that we seem to find plenty of threads on FR tagged as Cultural Marxism - Keyword: culturalmarxism
36 posted on 05/06/2009 2:49:48 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Government has done nothing but expand geometrically during the decades since “social issues” became the center of “conservative” political debate. That is completely false...are you really going to tell me that "social issues" caused the New Deal...the Great Society...or any other gross expansion of Government? You know you can't back up that assertion with a single shred of evidence. If you are going to surrender the culture to the New Left...then you might as well give up any hope of limited government! I cannot associate or otherwise align myself with such pernicious, dishonest political thinking...I could just as easily blame American Idol...National Sports...and pop music.
37 posted on 05/06/2009 3:00:02 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Nobody is saying that you have to abandon the “culture war” — just fight it outside of the political system. You sir, must live in another world, because there are a plethora of leftists who are absolutely determined to pursue a "culture war" and use the the government to enact its policies, coercively foster it through education, law, etc. How does abandoning the culture to the left bring about a strictly limited, decentralized form of republican government? It doesn't!
38 posted on 05/06/2009 3:12:15 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: GovernmentShrinker

“What began to concern me more and more were the clear signs of rot and decadence germinating within American society-a rot and decadence that was no longer the consequence of liberalism but was the actual agenda of contemporary liberalism. . . . Sector after sector of American life has been ruthlessly corrupted by the liberal ethos. It is an ethos that aims simultaneously at political and social collectivism on the one hand, and moral anarchy on the other.”—Irving Kristol


41 posted on 05/06/2009 4:35:35 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson