cultural marxism as anti-marxism

A perennial problem among dissidents today is terminology. Nobody agrees on terminology. Everybody has their own idea of what certain terms mean and as a result there are endless misunderstandings. Two terms that cause immense confusion are marxism and cultural marxism.

People who see themselves as conservatives often use the term marxism to describe any ideological position that they particularly dislike. It’s very similar to the way SJWs and liberals use the term fascist. In both cases a word with a specific meaning has become detached from that meaning and the word has become merely an all-purpose term of abuse.

To me marxism is an economic theory and an economic ideology. To me you’re not a marxist unless you’re intending to nationalise the banks, socialise the means of production, usher in the dictatorship of the proletariat, that sort of thing. Classical marxism.

Classical marxism is stone dead. It has been for decades.

When dissident rightists talk about marxism they’re often talking about cultural marxism. Now cultural marxism is a real phenomenon and it truly is evil but where we differ is that I consider that cultural marxism has nothing whatever to do with classical marxism. Cultural marxism is the negation of marxism. Cultural marxism is anti-marxist.

Cultural marxism is in fact a right-wing ideology. This is obvious if you look carefully. Consider open borders. Who benefits from open borders? Mega-corporations that want cheap labour. Who benefits from the destruction of the family? The same mega-corporations which want us reduced to mere economic units. Who benefits from the homosexual agenda? The same mega-corporations – they love homosexuals because homosexuals do nothing but consume. Who benefits from feminism? The same mega-corporations. They get cheaper and more docile labour. Who benefits from environmental hysteria? The same mega-corporations who use that hysteria to siphon taxpayers’ money into their own pockets through green subsidies. Cultural marxism is capitalist. It is supported and promoted by capitalists.

This is a major problem because the lack of terminological precision is very much in the interests of those who currently run our world. They want us to think that they are leftists when in fact they are nothing of the kind. They want us to think that they care about the disadvantaged and the oppressed when in fact they care only about bankers and billionaires.

I don’t deny that the phenomenon that gets labelled as cultural marxism exists. I don’t deny that it is pure evil. These people exist and they intend to destroy everything that makes civilised life possible. But these people are not marxists.

This isn’t intended as a defence of marxism. Marxism is dead. And even when it was still a living ideology it had its problems, to say the least. Marxism was never a very attractive alternative. But then capitalism is if anything even less attractive, and even more destructive. We need an alternative to both marxism and capitalism. An alternative that might perhaps draw on elements of both, or it might not. An alternative that will probably draw on elements of traditional societies that both marxism and capitalism have rejected.

Either way there’s no way we are going to get an alternative until we understand that cultural marxism is merely a stalking horse for the worst kind of civilisationally destructive capitalism. We need a new name for cultural marxism. Perhaps the most accurate name would be cultural capitalism!

Advertisements

religion and politics don’t need to make sense

In my previous post I made the point that conservatives see politics as something that is open to debate while liberals see their own political beliefs as religious dogma that is not subject to debate. This is of course hardly original or startling although there are still conservatives who have failed to notice such an obvious fact.

There is something much more interesting that follows from this. Religion does not need to make sense. It is a matter of faith. You do not enter into debate on the subject. Rational argument is irrelevant to religious belief. It naturally follows that the same rule applies to any political ideology that functions as a substitute religion. Debate cannot be permitted.

What must be understood is that it’s not that liberals are unwilling to enter into political debate. They cannot do so. To do so would be to admit that their faith is subject to doubt. It would mean admitting that heretics might be right and the orthodox might be wrong.

The history of the decline of Christianity in the West provides compelling evidence that liberals are, from their point of view, quite correct in rejecting the possibility of discussion. They have a faith and they are satisfied with it. It gives them a reason to live, it gives them a feeling of moral superiority and it gives them a warm fuzzy emotional buzz. From their point of view their political religion works perfectly. The fact that it might make no sense at all and that it might all collapse like a house of cards if subjected to rational argument does not matter because they have no intention of allowing that to happen.

Conservatives just don’t get this. They still insist on assuming that politics is something that can be discussed and debated rationally. They still insist on thinking that political ideologies have to be logical and have to make sense.

This is why conservatism has failed. They can come up with impressive rational arguments in favour of their own economic and social policies but people don’t respond to rational arguments. People don’t decide how to vote based on rational arguments. They make such decisions based on emotions. If voting for a particular party makes them feel morally superior they will do so. If voting for a particular party gives them an emotional rush they will do so.

People do not vote based on a rational assessment of their own interests. There is nothing remotely rational about voting behaviour.

People do not choose their political beliefs by weighing up evidence. They choose the political beliefs that will make them feel good.

People need to feel that their lives have meaning. Choosing a political belief that is emotionally satisfying and that feels morally right helps to give a person the feeling that their life does have meaning and purpose.

Liberalism can only de fought and defeated by an opposing ideology that works the same way – an ideology that appeals to the emotions, that makes a person feel that they are fighting for something good and worthwhile, that feels morally right and that gives meaning to the life of those who believe in it.

conservative delusions: politics as a subject for debate

To say that liberals treat liberalism as a religion rather than a political ideology is to state the obvious. What is perhaps less obvious is that this is not a recent development. And what it is important to emphasise is that many conservatives still do not comprehend this. Conservatives have the quaint idea that liberals see politics as something that can be debated. Liberals do not see it this way. Disagreement is not disagreement, it is heresy and it is a sign of moral wickedness. Politics is not something that is open to discussion.

The particular flavour of the Social Justice cult is also the result of a mixture of religious enthusiasm and feminisation.

If you go back to the 1960s when the Old Left started to decay and the New Left took its place the religious fervour was already there. The New Left had no interest in economics. They had sold out to capitalism. They were not interested in changing or reforming or destroying the capitalist economic system. The New Left was all about morality and emotion and power. They were on the side of moral probity. Anybody who opposed them was therefore, by definition, morally wrong.

The New Left was feminised. It attracted women, it attracted homosexual men, it attracted weak girly-men. It adopted a peculiarly feminised attitude towards dissent. If you were a dissenter you weren’t someone who disagreed with them. You were a bad person. You made them feel bad. You were immoral.

The New Left made a lot of noises about freedom and especially freedom of speech. Conservatives tended to accept these protestations at face value. Big mistake. The New Left never saw freedom of speech as anything but a weapon with which to attack their enemies. They never had the slightest intention of granting freedom of speech to their opponents. Older Australians may remember the way Australian university students shut down lectures by distinguished visiting psychologist Hans Eysenck in 1977. Eysenck was suspected of thought crime. Forty years ago the social justice warriors were already using violence and intimidation to silence anyone guilty of heresy.

The New Left saw all freedoms in this way – as potential weapons. Sexual freedom was a weapon with which to destroy the family. Feminism was promoted as an ideology that offered freedom to women. In fact of course feminists never intended that women should have actual freedom. Women were to be free to do what the feminists told them to do.

Conservatives at the time understood that the New Left agenda was dangerous but they made the mistake of seriously underestimating the extent of the danger. Or rather they wildly over-estimated society’s ability to survive the New Left’s social experiments. And they made the huge mistake of thinking that the New Left really did believe in freedom of speech.

So where do the neocons figure in all this? The New Left is right-wing on economic issues mostly because economic issues don’t affect them in a religious or emotional way so they take the line of least resistance, and as a result they get generously funded by rich capitalists. The neocons are much more excited by economic issues but what really marks them out is that they approach foreign policy as a religious issue. Anyone who opposes their foreign policy is not just mistaken, but morally wrong and a bad person.

the future of religion

A recent post at A Political Refugee From the Global Village tackles the question of finding a substitute for belief in God. This is a question that people like Jordan Peterson seem to be grappling with, although in Peterson’s case without any success.

The first question to ask is whether any society has managed to survive without religion. The answer is, it depends on what you mean by religion. Did the classical Greeks and Romans actually believe in their gods? Or in any god at all? They seemed to be pretty sceptical but the fragmentary nature of the sources makes it difficult to know just how much the average person in the classical world believed in religion.

One of the strongest arguments in favour of religion is that it provides the only viable foundation for morality. I think it should be noted that if the classical world was characterised by scepticism it was also characterised by depressingly low levels of morality.

What about Asian civilisations such as Imperial China? Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and Shintoism don’t seem to be religions in quite the same way that Christianity or Islam are religions. Nonetheless they seem to have worked fairly well as the basis for building civilisations and they seem to have done rather better on the morality front than the Greeks and Romans.

It might therefore be possible to base a genuine civilisation on a religion that is more like a civic or communal faith than the relationship with a personal God that is the way most of us think about Christianity. It has to be stressed however that the great danger is that such a religion will be wishy-washy and vague and woolly-minded and hopelessly feminised, just like modern Christianity. That just isn’t going to work. What is needed is a civic religion that is strong and virile and hard-headed.

There has to be a focus of devotion and if it’s not a personal God then there seem to be only two alternatives – the focus has to be worship of the state or worship of a king. Kings are hopelessly out of fashion and the ridiculous and pathetic constitutional monarchies of Europe have discredited the idea of monarchy altogether. The focus of devotion is therefore going to be the state.

That sounds like plain old totalitarianism but it isn’t, or at least not necessarily. The totalitarian societies have that so far come into being have been little more than slave states, with ordinary people being nothing more than anonymous cogs in a machine. A state religion could, perhaps, offer a great deal more. It could offer a genuine sense of purpose with the people being part of the state rather than servants of the state. It would be a very difficult trick to pull off but it might be possible.

Such a system could be described as a kind of religious fascism. It could incorporate some elements of Christianity and of paganism.

The question is, is there a viable alternative? Liberals like Jordan Peterson would like to think we could have a kind of touchy-feely secular religiosity that is compatible with liberal democracy. This is mere delusion. Liberal democracy is a dead end. It offers nothing but futility, emptiness and death. It is a death cult. What is needed is something that would allow us to sweep liberal democracy into the dustbin of history. Whatever the future turns out to be like Jordan Peterson is not going to like it. He’s going to be doing a lot of crying.

there’s no such thing as society – right-liberalism in action

In 1987 Margaret Thatcher made the notorious statement that, “There is no such thing as society.” That statement seems to sum up the right-wing liberal position rather nicely (and let’s be quite clear that Thatcher was no conservative).

The most amazing thing about this position, to me at least, is that anyone would want to adopt such a worldview. A world entirely composed of atomised individuals motivated purely by selfishness and the blind pursuit of crude pleasure does not sound very enticing to me but right-liberals seem to love the idea.

Of course Mrs Thatcher went on to say, “…who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families…” Today, to an increasing extent, we don’t even have families.And right-liberals like Mrs Thatcher did little or nothing to defend the traditional family.

Without society and without families people are condemned to lives of emptiness, futility and loneliness. All they can do is turn to the government. Which, ironically, is exactly what Thatcher didn’t want people to do. It’s a nice little illustration of the inherently nonsensical nature of right-liberal dogma. Destroy society and destroy the family and you’re going to get the kind of intrusive bureaucratic statism that right-liberals claim to despise.

One consequence of the abolition of society is the elimination of shame. You will inevitably have no sense of shame if you don’t consider that there’s such a thing as society. When you look at our contemporary leaders that lack of a sense of shame becomes very obvious.

Even classical Marxism (as distinct from cultural marxism) is more appealing than right-liberalism. Classical Marxists were trying to create Utopia. They had a vision of a better world. It might have been an unworkable vision but at least it was a vision and it was considerably more attractive than the nihilism and despair to which right-liberalism inevitably leads. Classical Marxists thought they were building Heaven right here on Earthy. Right-liberals are building Hell right here on Earth.

politics, culture and immigration

One thing I notice on a lot of dissident right sites is an obsession with the idea that immigration must be stopped and that every other issue needs to be either put on the back burner or even entirely abandoned in order to focus on immigration. I think this is a mistaken view. I want to emphasise that this does not mean that I don’t think the immigration issue is important. It is vitally important. I simply don’t think that fighting on that one issue is a viable strategy. I’ll try to explain why I think this way.

The most crucial thing to understand is that politics really is downstream of culture. The state of the culture determines whether a particular political fight is winnable or not, in the current circumstances. At this point in time I don’t think the political fight on immigration is winnable. It could become winnable but that will necessitate at least some degree of cultural change.

The immigration debate cannot be won right now for several reasons. These reasons apply in the US, in Britain, in Australia and in western Europe, to varying degrees.

The first reason is that many people, possibly even a majority, simply do not see immigration as a major problem. The communities devastated by diversity are mostly poorer communities. Upper class and upper middle class people have not been affected. Even lower middle class people have, to a large extent, escaped the worst effects. Since people generally have difficulty in understanding the concept of long-term consequences those who have not so far been affected still believe they never will be.

Secondly, most people are still more concerned about social conformity than immigration. The social consequences to the individual of opposing immigration (accusations of racism, possible loss of jobs, social harassment) seem to outweigh the social consequences of immigration for the nation as a whole.

Thirdly, most people still buy the economic arguments in favour of immigration – without immigration economic growth would slow down and nothing could possibly be worse than having a slight slowdown in GDP growth.

Fourthly, the elites are still absolutely united in their determination to push immigration.

So what changes need to be made to the culture? Firstly the idea that GDP is the one and only measure of national well-being needs to be attacked. People need to be persuaded that there’s more to life than having the latest smartphone. Secondly, the whole basis of liberalism has to be attacked.

The most dangerous delusion is that you can accept liberalism on social issues and still successfully oppose immigration. You can’t. If for example you accept the liberal argument on abortion then it’s impossible not to accept the liberal position on all other social issues. If individual choice (even extending as far as the choice to kill your baby) is all that matters then how exactly are you going to oppose the principle that individuals should have the choice to live wherever they want to live? Including the choice to live in your country rather than their own?

You can’t use the argument that by exercising that choice they are infringing other people’s rights. You’ve already accepted that a woman’s right to choose is sacred, even if it means killing her baby (which is about as big an infringement of someone’s else rights that can be imagined). You can’t use the argument that immigration has social consequences, since you’ve already accepted the principle that only the individual’s wishes matter. It’s the same with all other social issues. If you accept that people can choose their own gender you can’t very well argue that they can’t choose where to live.

If you accept that the individual is all that matters then society as such doesn’t exist (this was in fact the position taken by the right-wing liberal Margaret Thatcher). If we’re nothing but individuals pursuing pleasure and our own interests then borders must inevitably come to be seen as unnecessary, oppressive and harmful.

Interestingly enough you can oppose immigration from a left-wing perspective, if you drop the internationalism. In fact if you’re seriously left-wing you have to abandon internationalism anyway – it’s impossible to maintain a welfare state or anything approaching a command economy if you have open borders. So a communist can, quite logically and coherently, be opposed to immigration but a liberal cannot. This is not an argument in favour of communism, merely an observation.

The bottom line is that if you accept liberalism you will get open borders. If you oppose open borders you must oppose liberalism. And the fight against liberalism is the fight that really matters. It’s the fight that must be won.

can liberalism ever be stopped?

In a reply to my previous post, Accepting the consequences of the red pill, бармаглот makes a quite valid point:

“The question is, why care so much about the names? I believe as long as the system is alright, it doesn’t matter whether it can be considered liberal or conservative. Edwardian Britain, the US before 1950s, First Czechoslovak Republic, Poland, Hungary, and Romania of the 1920s and 1930s, pre-WWII Yugoslavia, France, Austria, and Italy, the Russian Empire between 1906 and 1914 – who cares whether these systems were liberal or conservative as long as they’re, well, not too bad (but not perfect by all means)?”

This is a valid point. And I agree that the societies listed above were all quite civilised. If those societies had stayed as they were then everything would have been fine.

The problem is that liberalism (in the form of both liberal institutions and liberal ideas) is a kind of self-destruct mechanism. Liberalism is not static. A conservative (an actual conservative) would look at any of those societies and think this is pretty good, what we need to do is to make sure it stays that way. We need to be incredibly reluctant to change anything. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

A liberal on the other hand would look at such societies and exclaim, “We have so much work still to do.” And would immediately start demanding change. A good society is not enough. It has to be made perfect. Their efforts to achieve perfection always end in destruction.

Liberalism therefore creates ever-increasing instability.

Liberal institutions and beliefs are by their very nature sources of instability and social decay. Representative democracy is inherently corrupt. It’s political prostitution. And it always tends to ever-greater corruption and cynicism. Liberal scepticism will always lead to despair and nihilism. Liberal tolerance always leads to degeneracy. The mild forms of feminism that existed in those societies ends with the toxic feminism we have now.

And the dishonesty of liberals posing as conservatives fools voters into thinking they’re voting for stability when they’re actually voting for the opposite.

I guess the big question is whether there is anything to stop a liberal society from destroying itself? Was there ever a point at which the march of liberalism could have been halted? Is liberalism unstoppable once it gets going?

I do have a suspicion that it was the Second World War that changed everything. Prior to that our civilisation had not quite developed a full-blown death wish. After that war it seems like it was just downhill all the way. There was a complete loss of civilisational confidence. Taken in conjunction with the First World War there was also the total discrediting of the established order and established authority. It became very easy to sell people on the need for drastic change, sweeping reforms, a major assault on injustices and oppressions. Everything old became bad, because it was supposedly the old ways of doing things that had led to disaster.

Of course it’s questionable whether WW2 could have been avoided. It’s possible that the First World War made the second inevitable.

The world wars may well have caused conservatives to lose faith in conservatism. They started to speak the language of change and reform as well. Whatever actual conservative principles they may have had were abandoned.

The trouble is that once our civilisational confidence and our belief in any kind of traditions was shaken the process seems to have built up an unstoppable momentum. Our obsession with trashing the past becomes ever more extreme. Liberalism hasn’t merely continued on its course, it has steadily accelerated.