The New Left ?

[rushmc 18]

I believe Linda is on the right track.



The New Left, Cultural Marxism,
and Psychopolitics Disguised
as Multiculturalism

by Linda Kimball


------------------------------------------------------------ There are two misconceptions held by many Americans. The first is that communism ceased to be a threat when the Soviet Union imploded. The second is that the New Left of the Sixties collapsed and disappeared as well. “The Sixties are dead,” wrote columnist George Will (Slamming the Doors, Newsweek, Mar. 25, 1991)

Because the New Left lacked cohesion it fell apart as a political movement. However, its revolutionaries reorganized themselves into a multitude of single issue groups. Thus we now have for example, radical feminists, black extremists, anti-war ‘peace’ activists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, and ‘gay’ rights groups. All of these groups pursue their piece of the radical agenda through a complex network of subversive organizations such as the Gay Straight Lesbian Educators Network (GSLEN), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), People for the American Way, United for Peace and Justice, Planned Parenthood, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), and Code Pink for Peace.

Both communism and the New Left are alive and thriving here in America. Code words by which they can be recognized are: tolerance, social justice, economic justice, peace, reproductive rights, sex education and safe sex, safe schools, inclusion, diversity, and sensitivity. All together, this is Cultural Marxism disguised as multiculturalism.

Birth of Multiculturalism

In anticipation of the revolutionary storm that would baptize the world in an inferno of red terror, leading to its rebirth as the promised land of social justice and proletarian equality—Frederich Engels wrote, “All the…large and small nationalities are destined to perish…in the revolutionary world storm… (A general war will) wipe out all…nations, down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only reactionary classes…but…reactionary peoples.” (The Magyar Struggle, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Jan. 13, 1849)

By the end of WWI, socialists realized that something was amiss, for the world’s proletariat had not heeded Marx’s call to rise up in opposition to evil capitalism and to embrace communism instead. They wondered what had gone wrong.

Separately, two Marxist theorists—Antonio Gramsci of Italy and Georg Lukacs of Hungary—concluded that the Christianized West was the obstacle standing in the way of a communist new world order. The West would have to be conquered first.

Gramsci posited that because Christianity had been dominant in the West for over 2000 years, not only was it fused with Western civilization, but it had corrupted the workers class. The West would have to be de-Christianized, said Gramsci, by means of a “long march through the culture.” Additionally, a new proletariat must be created. In his “Prison Notebooks,” he suggested that the new proletariat be comprised of many criminals, women, and racial minorities.

The new battleground, reasoned Gramsci, must become the culture, starting with the traditional family and completely engulfing churches, schools, media, entertainment, civic organizations, literature, science, and history. All of these things must be radically transformed and the social and cultural order gradually turned upside-down with the new proletariat placed in power at the top.

In 1919, Georg Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary. He immediately set plans in motion to de-Christianize Hungary. Reasoning that if Christian sexual ethics could be undermined among children, then both the hated patriarchal family and the Church would be dealt a crippling blow, Lukacs--towards this end--launched a radical sex education program in the schools. Sex lectures were organized and literature handed out which graphically instructed youth in free love (promiscuity) and sexual intercourse while simultaneously encouraging them to deride and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority. All of this was accompanied by a reign of cultural terror perpetrated against parents, priests, and dissenters.

Hungary’s youth, having been fed a steady diet of values-neutral (atheism) and radical sex education while simultaneously encouraged to rebel against all authority, easily turned into delinquents ranging from bullies and petty thieves to sex predators, murderers, and sociopaths.

Lukacs plans were the precursor to what Cultural Marxism in the guise of SIECUS, GSLEN, and the ACLU--acting as enforcer--later brought into American schools.

In 1923, the Frankfurt School—a Marxist think-tank—was founded in Weimar Germany. Among its founders were Georg Lukacs, Herbert Marcuse, and Theodor Adorno. The school was a multidisciplinary effort which included sociologists, sexologists, and psychologists.

The primary goal of the Frankfurt School was to translate Marxism from economic terms into cultural terms. Toward this end, Marcuse—who favored polymorphous perversion—expanded the ranks of Gramsci’s new proletariat by including homosexuals, lesbians, and transsexuals. Into this was spliced Lukacs radical sex education and cultural terrorism tactics. Gramsci’s ‘long march’ was added to the mix, and then all of this was wedded to Freudian psychoanalysis and psychological conditioning techniques. The end product was Cultural Marxism, known in the West as multiculturalism.

In 1950, the Frankfurt School augmented Cultural Marxism with Theodor Adorno’s idea of the ‘authoritarian personality.’ This concept is premised on the notion that Christianity, capitalism, and the traditional family create a character prone to racism and fascism. Thus, anyone who upholds America’s traditional moral values and institutions is both racist and fascist. Children raised by traditional values parents, we are told to believe, will almost certainly become racists and fascists. By extension, if fascism and racism are endemic to America’s traditional culture, then everyone raised in the traditions of God, family, patriotism, gun ownership, or free markets is in need of psychological help.

The pernicious influence of Adorno’s ‘authoritarian personality’ idea can be clearly seen in the following quote: “In Aug., 2003, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced the results of their $1.2 million tax-payer funded study. It stated, essentially, that traditionalists are mentally disturbed. Scholars from the Universities of Maryland, California at Berkeley, and Stanford had determined that social conservatives…suffer from ‘mental rigidity,’ ‘dogmatism,’ and ‘uncertainty avoidance,’ together with associated indicators for mental illness.” (www.edwatch.org ‘Social and Emotional Learning” Jan. 26, 2005) From this Orwellian quote we can see just how successful has been Gramsci’s ‘long march through the culture.’ < /p>

The corresponding and diabolically crafted corrective idea is political correctness. The strong suggestion here is that in order for one not to be thought of as racist or fascist, then one must not only be nonjudgmental but must also embrace the ‘new’ moral absolutes: diversity, choice, sensitivity, sexual orientation, and tolerance. Political correctness is a Machiavellian psychological ‘command and control’ device. Its purpose is the imposition of uniformity in thought, speech, and behavior.

Critical theory is yet another psychological ‘command and control’ device. As stated by Daniel J. Flynn, “Critical Theory, as its name implies, criticizes. What deconstruction does to literature, Critical Theory does to societies.” (Intellectual Morons, p 15-16) Critical Theory is an ongoing and brutal assault via vicious criticism relentlessly leveled against Christians, Christmas, the Boy Scouts, Ten Commandments, our military, and all other aspects of traditional American culture and society.

Both political correctness and Critical Theory are in essence, psychological bullying. They are the psycho political battering rams by which Frankfurt School disciples such as the ACLU are forcing Americans to submit to and to obey the will and the way of the Left. These devious devices are but psychological versions of Georg Lukacs and Laventi Beria’s ‘cultural terrorism’ tactics. In the words of Beria, “Obedience is the result of force…Force is the antithesis of humanizing actions. It is so synonymous in the human mind with savageness, lawlessness, brutality, and barbarism, that it is only necessary to display an inhuman attitude toward people to be granted by those people the possessions of force.” (The Russian Manual on Psychopolitics: Obedience, by Laventi Beria, head of Soviet Secret Police and Stalin’s right-hand man)

Double-thinking ‘fence-sitters’, otherwise known as moderates, centrists, and RINOs are an obvious result of these psychological ‘obedience’ techniques. These people—afraid of incurring the wrath of name-calling obedience trainers--- have opted to straddle the fence lest they be found guilty of possessing an opinion, one way or another. At the merest hint of displeasure from the obedience-trainers, up goes the yellow flag of surrender upon which it is boldly written: “I believe in nothing and am tolerant of everything!”

The linchpin of Cultural Marxism is cultural determinism, the parent of identity politics and group solidarity. In its turn, cultural determinism was birthed by the Darwinian idea that man is but a soulless animal and therefore his identity is determined by for example, his skin color or his sexual and/or erotic preferences. This proposition rejects the concepts of the human spirit, individuality, free will, and morally informed conscience (paired with personal accountability and responsibility) because it emphatically denies the existence of the God of the Bible. Consequently, and by extension, it also rejects the first principles of our liberty enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. These are our “unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Cultural Marxism must reject these because these principles of liberty “are endowed by our Creator,” who made man in His image.

Cultural determinism, states David Horowitz, is “identity politics—the politics of radical feminism, queer revolution, and Afro-centrism—which is the basis of academic multiculturalism…a form of intellectual fascism and, insofar as it has any politics, of political fascism as well.” (Mussolini and Neo-Fascist Tribalism: Up from Multiculturalism, by David Horowitz, Jan. 1998)

It is said that courage is the first of the virtues because without it fear will paralyze man, thus keeping him from acting upon his moral convictions and speaking truth. Thus bringing about a general state of paralyzing fear, apathy, and submission—the chains of tyranny—is the purpose behind psychopolitical cultural terrorism, for the communist Left’s revolutionary agenda must, at all costs, be clothed in darkness.

The antidote is courage and the light of truth. If we are to win this cultural war and reclaim and rebuild America so our children and their children’s children can live in a ‘Shining City on the Hill’ where liberty, families, opportunity, free markets, and decency flourish, we must muster the courage to fearlessly expose the communist Left’s revolutionary agenda to the Light of Truth. Truth and the courage to speak it will set us free.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,123]

I thought the LEft was useless and destined to fail and nobody would ever vote for them cause they don't stand for anything?

Now they are scary and communist and will cause the downfall of the US?

Will you please make up your fucking mind which one it is.....

(I see scare tactics are still high on the list of the US Right.)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I thought the LEft was useless and destined to fail and nobody would ever vote for them cause they don't stand for anything?

Now they are scary and communist and will cause the downfall of the US?

Will you please make up your fucking mind which one it is.....

(I see scare tactics are still high on the list of the US Right.)

Hey, this was sent to me and I thought I would throw it out there to talk over. Guess that ain't gonna work huh?

And by the way, where have I posted any of the stuff before you list up above???

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Channman 2]

Interesting article, will have to read through it again.

"Truth and the courage to speak it will set us free".

I like that statement, will put that to memory.

> The New Left, Cultural Marxism,
and Psychopolitics Disguised
as Multiculturalism

This would be a great college course, I wonder if they teach this class at Berkeley?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Both political correctness and Critical Theory are in essence, psychological bullying.

I agree with that statement. Except, she won't, or is unable, to acknowledge similar tactics by the far right. The left is just more clumsy and obtuse about it, the right's tactics are a bit more hidden in traditional 'religious' culture (not what we'd really call "Americal rugged inventiveness and individualism"), but still seems to value a group-think mentality, JUST LIKE THE LEFT.

And, the only way to overcome this trend, and the analogous psychological bullying from the far right also (and it's nice of Ms. Kimball to list many of the guilty groups), is to be strong in our individualism.

simple enough - that way neither set of pushy group-think ideologies can take more than a minor, but necessary, role, as would be most healthy apportionment (as extreme examples to define an unhealthy boundary).

I think the left is doing it on purpose, and the right has overresponded and is just as bad today.

I'd be less worried about the stupid political tactics these people are using, and more worried about a populace that falls for it.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,400]

>I'd be less worried about the stupid political tactics these people are
>using, and more worried about a populace that falls for it.

Good point, and one that is often overlooked. It's not the bias of the media in either direction, or the propaganda machines of either party (or either side of a war) that causes problems - but rather the willingness/desire of the populace to believe them.

[wmw999 2,123]

Whoa -- Something shiny! Cool-oh, let me go chase it!!!

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Both political correctness and Critical Theory are in essence, psychological bullying.

I agree with that statement. Except, she won't, or is unable, to acknowledge similar tactics by the far right. The left is just more clumsy and obtuse about it, the right's tactics are a bit more hidden in traditional 'religious' culture (not what we'd really call "Americal rugged inventiveness and individualism"), but still seems to value a group-think mentality, JUST LIKE THE LEFT.

And, the only way to overcome this trend, and the analogous psychological bullying from the far right also (and it's nice of Ms. Kimball to list many of the guilty groups), is to be strong in our individualism.

simple enough - that way neither set of pushy group-think ideologies can take more than a minor, but necessary, role, as would be most healthy apportionment (as extreme examples to define an unhealthy boundary).

I think the left is doing it on purpose, and the right has overresponded and is just as bad today.

I'd be less worried about the stupid political tactics these people are using, and more worried about a populace that falls for it.

Interesting points! Something to think about. Thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

It's not the bias of the media in either direction, or the propaganda machines of either party (or either side of a war) that causes problems - but rather the willingness/desire of the populace to believe them.

Exactly!

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>I'd be less worried about the stupid political tactics these people are
>using, and more worried about a populace that falls for it.

Good point, and one that is often overlooked. It's not the bias of the media in either direction, or the propaganda machines of either party (or either side of a war) that causes problems - but rather the willingness/desire of the populace to believe them.

I might agree with you 100% if the perspectives, stories and opinions presented (on the big networks) were balanced. But they are not. They lean heavy to support left views and many college studies are supporting this statement.

The end of you pharagraph is very true however

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>I might agree with you 100% if the perspectives, stories and
> opinions presented (on the big networks) were balanced. But they
> are not. They lean heavy to support left views and many college
> studies are supporting this statement.

Some play to the right, some play to the left. There are plenty of examples of both that are easy to find and document (and have been.) And again, this isn't the real problem. The real problem is lack of perspective and judgement in people _reading_ the news.

ABC story on how the federal government failed the people of NOLA miserably when dealing with Katrina? If you read it and get a few details on how we can better prepare for a hurricane next time, good for you. If your conclusion is "I knew Bush was trying to kill black people!" you may be more a victim of the news than a reader.

CNN story titled "Target: USA" on how vulnerable we are to terrorist attack? If you read it and decide to check into what sort of testing we currently do on containers shipped into our major ports, great. If your response is to cower under the table and demand the government take away our rights to protect us from the horrible, horrible terrorists - you might be falling for their hype (which, of course, sells more advertising.)

Now, is ABC publishing that story to destroy Bush? Is CNN publishing that story to scare people into supporting the administration's war on terror? Nope. They're both trying to sell advertising - but some people forget that basic desire sometimes.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Hmmm, so being anti-war means you're a Cultural Marxist???



someone should have told that to the Republican Party about 50 years back.


also according to the author Libertarians would fall under the "Commie" label as well.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Royd 0]

Quote

And, the only way to overcome this trend, and the analogous psychological bullying from the far right also (and it's nice of Ms. Kimball to list many of the guilty groups), is to be strong in our individualism.

I believe that would be the claim of many a fence sitter.
I'm just waiting for the day when those who continue to chip away at the foundation, eventually bring the building down on their own heads.

I just love saying,"I told you so."

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

And, the only way to overcome this trend, and the analogous psychological bullying from the far right also (and it's nice of Ms. Kimball to list many of the guilty groups), is to be strong in our individualism.

I believe that would be the claim of many a fence sitter.

Rugged individualism USED to be the hallmark of the social right and also helped to develop the fiscal right.

It drove inventors, entreprenuerial spirit, a desire to keep the money we earned (low taxes), keeping the government out of our business, personal respect of property and each other, the ability to be able to trust someone else, the desire to pay our debts and be responsible for individual actions, etc.

now it's 'follow the boucing ball' - I can't tell the difference between the far right and far left any more. They both espouse a "follow MY social agenda or ELSE - and by the way, I'll take all your money to push that agenda while I'm at it".

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Royd 0]

And, the only way to overcome this trend, and the analogous psychological bullying from the far right also (and it's nice of Ms. Kimball to list many of the guilty groups), is to be strong in our individualism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that would be the claim of many a fence sitter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

Rugged individualism USED to be the hallmark of the social right and also helped to develop the fiscal right.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I like to think of myself as one of those people.
The fact is that one of the main objectives of the socialist left is to demonize and destroy individualism, and since the govt. schools[ Yes, I listen to Neal Boortz] are controlled by leftists as a whole, they start the brainwashing very early.

[slug 1]

I don't have a clue what linda is trying to say

But she sure has a way with words

R.I.P.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

The fact is that one of the main objectives of the socialist left is to demonize and destroy individualism, and since the govt. schools[ Yes, I listen to Neal Boortz] are controlled by leftists as a whole, they start the brainwashing very early.

Public schools are controlled by local school boards, whose members are elected by the people of the district. When you are so far to the right that almost everyone looks like a leftist maybe the problem is you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Public schools are controlled by local school boards, whose members are elected by the people of the district. When you are so far to the right that almost everyone looks like a leftist maybe the problem is you.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I might agree with you 100% if the perspectives, stories and opinions presented (on the big networks) were balanced. But they are not. They lean heavy to support left views ............

I'll disagree with the blanket statement about the media. But regarding this statement in context with this thread this couldn't be more innacurate. The mainstream media coverage of the Lieberman loss....see....there I go falling into the trap again.....I mean the Lamont victory, has been completely one sided and the debate directed precisely where the right leaning media wants it. Lieberman was polished up nice and shiney as a mainstream Democrat and the so called "left leaning" pundits had nothing but nice things to say about him while at the same time condeminng Lamont's supporters as "fringe" and extreme. That's supposedly the "left side" of the argument! On the right you have Rupert Murdoch publically supporting him and even Sean Hannity talking about helping the Lieberman campaign. So basically how can anyone see the results of this election being some sort of massive shift to the left or some sort of party cleavage? Lieberman has a history of supporting legislation that favors big business and he was rabidly pro-war. So when you take into consideration that the MAJORITY of the public, not just democrats but the public as a whole is not in support for this war, how can a democratic primary ELECTION that favors the anti-war candidate be somehow labeled as a shift to the "new left"? The fact is, it can't. Let me rephrase, it shouldn't but it is because that's what the way the corporate media wants it portrayed.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I might agree with you 100% if the perspectives, stories and opinions presented (on the big networks) were balanced. But they are not. They lean heavy to support left views ............

I'll disagree with the blanket statement about the media. But regarding this statement in context with this thread this couldn't be more innacurate. The mainstream media coverage of the Lieberman loss....see....there I go falling into the trap again.....I mean the Lamont victory, has been completely one sided and the debate directed precisely where the right leaning media wants it. Lieberman was polished up nice and shiney as a mainstream Democrat and the so called "left leaning" pundits had nothing but nice things to say about him while at the same time condeminng Lamont's supporters as "fringe" and extreme. That's supposedly the "left side" of the argument! On the right you have Rupert Murdoch publically supporting him and even Sean Hannity talking about helping the Lieberman campaign. So basically how can anyone see the results of this election being some sort of massive shift to the left or some sort of party cleavage? Lieberman has a history of supporting legislation that favors big business and he was rabidly pro-war. So when you take into consideration that the MAJORITY of the public, not just democrats but the public as a whole is not in support for this war, how can a democratic primary ELECTION that favors the anti-war candidate be somehow labeled as a shift to the "new left"? The fact is, it can't. Let me rephrase, it shouldn't but it is because that's what the way the corporate media wants it portrayed.

I understand what you are saying but, in a way you validate my point.
The media loves Liberman and that perspective sets the perspective of the story. They hate Bush and that does the same too.

The Hanity comment is true but it has to be looked at in perspective (and I don't want to get into that here)

As for the Lamont victory? He is left in todays anti war fringe that has taken over the party. Liberman is by no means a conservative. But his support of the war tuned out the one issue left leaning moveon.org types.

I mean no disrespect or want to insult anyone with the last statement. I use it to define some groups in the context of todays debates. (I should be able to do better sorry)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

As for the Lamont victory? He is left in todays anti war fringe that has taken over the party.

Less than 40% of the public supports the war. I don't have the figure but I'd be willing to guess that at least 75% of democrats are against the war. So basically, those who support the war are the "fringe" and Lamont's victory is right in line with the thinking of the vast majority of democrats as well as 60% of all Americans. That's nine disapproval percentage points higher than a "mandate".

• Quote

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

He is left in todays anti war fringe

so, you actually believe that being anti-war is a "fringe" position?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 2,400]

>(the left politico in washinton)

It is your belief, then, that the federal government is currently controlled by left-leaning democrats?

I think there might be a wee hole in your theory.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Public schools are controlled by local school boards, whose members are elected by the people of the district. When you are so far to the right that almost everyone looks like a leftist maybe the problem is you.

That may be the way it looks on the surface but all the money collected goes to Washintong first and then you get your money back only when you teach what they (the left politico in washinton) tell you to teach.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Public schools are controlled by local school boards, whose members are elected by the people of the district. When you are so far to the right that almost everyone looks like a leftist maybe the problem is you.

That may be the way it looks on the surface but all the money collected goes to Washintong first and then you get your money back only when you teach what they (the left politico in washinton) tell you to teach.

Ahem, what have you been smoking? All three branches of the govt. in Washington are controlled by the Republicans. If Washington looks like its controlled by lefties to you, maybe the problem is YOU.