“The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped. Their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties which grant constitutional power to those who oppress these minorities.”
This “false consciousness,” which one of the truly great Cultural Marxists railed against was the consciousness which has been shaped and formed by thousands of years of Christianity upon the West. It was this “false consciousness” that Marcuse and his cohorts at the Frankfurt School desired to overthrow and so the oppressed must be protected from this “false consciousness” even if it meant denying the proper protection of law to those who were designed as the “oppressors.” In this quote Marcuse is styling his worldview and beliefs as the true consciousness vis-a-vis the false consciousness that he and his ideological soul mates were waging civilizational war against.
This false consciousness would be overthrown by use of the tool-kit developed by the Cultural Marxists. These tools came to be known as,
1.) Critical theory
In Cultural Marxism via the work of critical theory, every aspect of a person’s identity is to be questioned, be it gender, sexual orientation, family, race, culture, religion, in order to benefit supposedly oppressed groups. By deconstructing heretofore stable and unchanging identity social categories (part of the false consciousness problem) those who were part of moral, ethnic, racial, and religious minority groups could pull down and destroy the whole idea of norms that arise in cultures that are comprised of distinct majorities.
The underlying and enduring aspect of critical theory common to all its multitudinous expressions is the creation and application of interdisciplinary theories growing out of a worldview dedicated to overturning the false consciousness of traditional Christian thought and social order and so serving as an instrument of social transformation. Critical theory comes in all shapes, sizes, and expressions but the one thing it has in common is criticizing any residual influence of Christianity that remains on any and all of our Western institutions and disciplines. It typically expresses itself as the voice of the oppressed and the aggrieved and in doing so seeks to employ “social justice” and “fairness” as the sting within the theory. However, in order to do so Critical theory must invert and redefine almost all realities in order to be able to secure the superior position of the oppressed.
2.) The New Proletariat
The Cultural Marxists empirically observed that Marxism, in its classical expression, failed when it posited that there was automatic friction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Because of this observation, the Cultural Marxists understood that if the West was going to be a cake turned then what was required was the creation of both a new model and a new proletariat that would serve the purpose of providing the necessary friction and manpower in order to achieve Marxist transformation.
The Cultural Marxist finally conceived of both new model and new proletariat when it changed the old class model of have vs. have not to the new model of oppressor vs. oppressed. The oppressed was thus to the agenda of Cultural Marxism what the working class proletariat was to the agenda of Classical Marxism. Just as in Classical Marxism there remained the sense of grievance in this new proletariat but instead of the grievance being based on an economic pivot Cultural Marxism chose the pivot of the unprivileged oppressed outcast as the tool by which to achieve social transformation in a Marxist direction. Having chosen that pivot it then worked to propagandize a large number of groups that they were both oppressed and that their identity as humans should be tied up with their oppression.
Concretely speaking, the new Cultural Marxist proletariat — those who would do the yeoman work of the cultural Marxist march through the Institutions — would be comprised of all who would believe the critical theory propaganda that they were underprivileged and oppressed. Those successfully propagandized and recruited were feminists, ethnic minorities, and the sexually deviant. These were the new proletariat oppressed and they would fight against the new bourgeoisie who were cast as the oppressors. The new bourgeoisie were cast as Christian patriarchy, Heterosexual Married, the white majority (especially white males), people who insist that gender is binary (CIS-gender), and most emphatically Christians who rejected this Cultural Marxist social construct template. Ironically the new social construct that the cultural Marxist created used as one of its chief tools for social transformation the idea that previous normativity itself was merely social construct. In the cultural Marxist world, the oppressors were successful as oppressors because they had managed to force their social constructs on the oppressed. The work of the critical theory was to expose these putative social constructs for what they were.
In order of this to happen then, the previous normativity must be shamed and countered by the recruitment and so rise of a new normativity. For example, heterosexual marriage must be challenged by other forms of sexuality as mainstreamed into the social order. For example, since whites are oppressor then new slogans like “diversity is our strength,” as combined with immigration policies which will decrease the overall percentage total of whites must be pursued. For example, if patriarchy is oppressive then matriarchy and anarchy is the solution. For example, if CIS-gender is merely a dominant social construct then transgenderism must be injected into the blood stream of the West. For example if Christianity is oppressive then a two pronged approach must be employed. First, Christianity must be emptied of its previous content and filled with the ideology of Cultural Marxism as its new content and second, those Christians who refuse to be re-programmed must be marginalized and diluted by bringing in teeming numbers of Muslim immigrants.
The ground for all this was set by Theodore Adorno’s book “The Authoritarian Personality,” wherein Adorno patholigizes what had always been considered normative. By the time Adorno is finished patriarchy, patriotism, familialism, and the Christian faith are all given the bum’s rush and characterized as signs of sickness. Of course the consequence of this, if taken seriously, is a social order that is rootless, international, alienated, and godless. These are the very characteristics which are descriptive of the West as a result of the canker that is cultural Marxism.
The ground being set, the Cultural Marxist advance is made by use of the technique of shaming. Shaming occurs when labels are affixed to people for perfectly normal behavior. For example, if one is white and desirous of living in a homogeneous neighborhood or attend a homogeneous church one is shamed with catcalls of “racist,” or “Islamaphobe,” or “homophobe,” or “Un-Christian.” However when large influxes of differing people groups are relocated into Western cities (Lewiston, Maine comes to mind) with the natural result that these groups create their own sub-culture where homogeneity is characteristic this is called the benefit of multiculturalism. Shaming is saved for the majority White Christian. Normativity is reserved for the alien and the stranger.
4.) Political Correctness
A further tool for the advance of Cultural Marxism is the tool of Political correctness. Political correctness has many expressions but we will consider its use as a tool of thought control by way of linguistic manipulation. Political correctness controls thought by creating taboos in speech usage as enforced via social stigmatization. Words that cannot be said become words that will not be thought. This thought control is ubiquitous on American campuses today as riots ensure when certain speech is to be expressed. The recent riots on University campuses against Charles Murray and before him Milo Yiannopoulos provide proof.
This thought control is also achieved by seeking to control the language by scandalizing language that does not serve the purposes of the Cultural Marxist. Examples of this abound. Most recently the phrase “anchor baby” created a firestorm. The Cultural Marxists insisted that this was a pejorative. However, it is only a pejorative if you assume their worldview. By insisting that this phrase dare not be uttered the Cultural Marxists were advancing their agenda and their worldview. Instead they began to insist that the phrased, “citizen children of unauthorized immigrants” be used in its place. But of course, the very issue up for debate is whether such children should be citizens. By using their language they win the debate. Another example is “illegal immigrant.” Despite the fact that those immigrants which are here illegally are indeed, by definition, “illegal immigrants,” the Cultural Marxists demand that these people be referred to as “undocumented workers.” Such language advances their worldview and agenda. Control the language, control the thinking. Control the language and the thinking control the outcome. One more example will suffice. What we today call “affirmative action,” is the triumph of political correctness. “Affirmative action,” is in reality ethnic discrimination but many can’t see that because of the thought control achieved by our cultural mind masters.
In the end Cultural Marxism as an ideology has as a goal the elimination of all stigmatization except the stigmatization of those who believe that stigmatism has a proper and necessary role in any social order. In the Cultural Marxist world oppressed and oppressor categories will eliminated with the consequence that stigma will be ended. The pedophile and tranny will be just as normal as the heterosexual and the Christian. In reality what will happen is that God’s normal will be stigmatized and maybe even criminalized.
Future article — The role of false guilt and liberation theology in Cultural Marxism.
6 thoughts on “The Cultural Marxist Toolbox”
Spiritual warfare between the anti-Christ Left and the Christian Right, when it is fought out through public social media, I’ve been wondering something; are we on the Right wasting time engaging the Left in the first place? I remember your post regarding Fox News losing a battle before it began by their discussing with a transgender transvestite something, the failure being their taking that individual seriously in the first place. But what I mean specifically is not what’s on television or even the blogs of scholars but what’s on Facebook post discussion threads and what’s discussed casually on the streets by commentators unprofessional or untrained in masterful speech. Are we in such instances giving more opportunity for the Leftist enemy to win the world just by being so willing to engage them in discussion when all they’re going to do is use their tactics wherein they know how to make Truth look bad..?
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: CSB. but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, ready at any time to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you. I Peter 3:15
If Christians don’t answer those who revile the Gospel who will?
There is a time for studied silence …. and there is a time for a vigorous defense. God give us wisdom to know when the time is for each.
And by Facebook I don’t mean one’s own profile wall when they have a bunch of anti-Chrust friends or even groups run by Christians, but all these discussion groups called “Republicans and Democrats Debate!” or “Christians and Seculars Debate!”
(correction, *anti-Christ… Auto-correct seems to only work when it’s not needed.)
One more thing: I do know brainwashed Cultural Marxist “Christians” are included in the anti-Christ Left, and often come to debate against orthodox Christians in these groups I’m talking about and casual discussions in public. These too it seems futile to discuss with. I’m thinking of Paul’s admonishing to not even speak with or go near schismatics (forgetting the specific book chapter and verse though).
Remember Paul on Mar’s Hill making a defense of the Gospel. He didn’t meet much success in terms of converts. Paul seldom saw much success in terms of converts. Yet he was, like we are, to defend the Gospel.
Keep in mind Gabe, that when we debate in public formats it is often for the sake of those looking on more than it is for the person we are actually debating.