Some interesting observations from Troy Southgate on why the Left fails through co-optation, and why the Western world is drifting leftward culturally even as state-capitalism is tightening its grip.
“The concluding paragraph in ‘Cultures of Post-War British Fascism’ (Routledge, 2015), by John E. Richardson of Loughborough University, in a piece titled ´Cultural Marxism and the British National Party: Towards a Transnational Discourse´, is a sinister reminder of the crass naivety and inverted fascism of those who control political and historical discourse within modern academia. Personally, I do not even accept that ´Cultural Marxism´ exists, because whilst the Frankfurt School has clearly played a major role in the perceived subversion of traditional values and institutions, it has actively de-railed and co-opted Marxism to the extent that such concepts have been totally nullified and, thus, enabled the globalist establishment to facilitate its on-going policy of political, social and financial control.
The rise of political correctness and psychological obfuscation, therefore, is not designed to advance a Marxist agenda at all, but to restructure society in accordance with long-term economic objectives surrounding mass immigration into Europe, account for more women entering the workplace and fulfil a desire to brainwash future generations of young children and make them increasingly dependent on both the nation-state and the notion of the so-called global community. Compare these thoughts, if you will, to those of Richardson himself: “When viewed in toto, Cultural Marxism is little more than a need to acknowledge that we live in multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural societies; that all people should enjoy civil liberties within society, regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or political viewpoint; and that, as such, we all need to try to avoid being racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise discriminatory, and correct ourselves when we slip up.
It is, essentially, an acknowledgement of our shared humanity. It is this egalitarian principle that political reactionaries of all shades cannot abide, and it is the fight for principles of equality – of access, opportunity and outcome in all spheres of life – that they continue to oppose.” (p.223) Notwithstanding the fact that pluralistic societies are, by their very nature, extremely hostile and aggressive to those of us who continue to harbour dissenting opinions, only a fool would look upon the horrific consequences of Frankfurt School indoctrination as a fulfilment of anti-capitalist objectives. The reality, of course, is that everything which has taken place since the 1920s, when this insidious think-tank was first established, has been designed to suit a decidedly financial agenda.
Christians and Marxists have often been accused of viewing the world in a decidedly linear fashion, and rightly so, but whilst they do share many of the same progressivist traits the prevailing tendency towards an upwardly-focussed sequentialism can also be seen among those on the Right. I have often discussed why I completely reject the wildly reductionist notion of ‘Cultural Marxism,’ one of the Right’s more dishonest attempts to make excuses for the multifarious ills of capitalist society, but whilst left-wing think-tanks such as the Frankfurt School clearly have a lot to answer for and, undoubtedly, played a crucial role in both the ideological formulation and eventual praxis of the Left during the course of the twentieth-century, it is far too simplistic to imagine – even for one moment – that there has ever been an unbroken chain of socio-cultural decay that is directly attributable to the Frankfurt School alone or to Marxists in general.
One way of disproving the alleged supremacy of Marxism in the academic sphere, for example, is for younger people to familiarise themselves with some of the political and biographical works that were produced during the 1970s. Marxists had certainly enjoyed an influence in many European universities, without a doubt, something that culminated in the famous student riots of 1968, but it would be far too convenient to suggest that they had it all their own way or to discount the concomitant and, indeed, consequent opposition to Marxism itself. Many of the writers and social commentators of the early-1970s, no doubt as part of an orchestrated capitalist response to Marxism and its command of young intellectual minds during the previous decade, set about criticising and dismantling some of the chief exponents of left-wing ideas, be they old-school Marxist, Existentialist, Structuralist, New Left, Deconstructionist, Poststructuralist or Postmodernist.
I am not talking about a handful of obscure authors, either, because a concerted and collective effort was made by many of the mainstream publishers to completely nullify and render obsolete the more dangerous effects of Marxism and that which was once considered extreme soon degenerated into the preserve of the white-haired professor who may harbour a few left-wing views and produce the odd Marxian text but rarely ever set the cat among the campus pigeons by risking his comfortable position in the Humanities department. Marxism, therefore, once perceived as a serious threat by our capitalist masters, or at least presented as such, has now become a bankrupt ideological dinosaur that is only tolerated to the extent that it is never permitted to affect the smooth, day-to-day running of the economy. In short, Marxism has become a useful pressure-valve. So again, if you want a more realistic and semi-objective perspective about the perceived influence of Marxism, as well as its various philosophical permutations, try reading a few old texts in order to examine the way in which it was effectively sidelined in the wake of that heady Parisian spring. Like most common delusions, the spectre of an eternal and vigorously influential Marxism is really all in the mind.
I do not subscribe to the Right-wing belief in so-called ‘Cultural Marxism’ and have already posted several refutations of this erroneous and simplistic notion in the past. In the meantime, some of you may be interested to learn that Ernst Jünger (1895-1998) knew this to be true as early as 1932. Not in the sense that he was dealing with that precise term, but certainly as a result of his belief that capitalism was responsible for either adopting or implementing policies which are ordinarily associated with the Left. Writing in his famous essay, ‘The Worker: Dominion and Form’, Jünger explains that the bourgeois state has a feminine disposition and that it reveals its true face “when society seeks not to distance itself from contradictions, but to absorb them. Wherever it encounters a demand that can be seen as decisive, its cleverest ruse is to declare it as an expression of its concept of freedom, thus legitimizing it before the forum of its constitution: that is, rendering it harmless.”
There is, for example, an awful lot of misunderstanding about the role of the Frankfurt School, a phenomenon which actually modified and even departed from important Marxist principles in an attempt to render them ineffectual in the decades that followed the Weimar Republic. What may seem like ‘Cultural Marxism’, therefore, is actually a way for the capitalist ruling class to take credit for the introduction of new socio-political initiatives, be they homosexual marriage or intolerance towards the free discussion of immigration or even specific episodes in history. As Jünger went on to explain, such methods are “the last refuge of stupidity, insolence, and hopeless ineptitude, playing con-tricks by dressing itself up in the ethos of radicalism.” I must take issue with Jünger’s use of the terms ‘stupidity’ and ‘ineptitude’, however, because up to now this strategy has been incredibly effective and, in many ways, accounts for the slow demise of the Left since the late-1980s. Politicians are not stupid, even if they appear that way, and they are pursuing a clandestine agenda.
The fact the Left is now experiencing something of a mini-revival in the face of a vastly exaggerated fascist threat, particularly in America, is something that will be dealt with in a similar manner to that which Jünger has described. One shudders to think what Orwellian measures will be taken in order to provide its supporters with the illusion that their principles have been adopted by the political mainstream and that it is safe to retire to the welcoming confines of the armchair. Rest assured, one thing which will never undergo significant change is the capitalist economy.”