Counterculture Con HQ

December 4, 2009

The Culture Destroyers

I have lots of friends and family on the Left.  All of them good people.  They are for the most part what I would call traditional Liberals.  The kind to whom the notion of “Liberalism” still represents all the good fights of the 60s and 70s.   That was a good time to be a Liberal.  I should know, I was there myself–at least in the 80s and 90s–to bask in the afterglow of victory over Segregation and for Womyn’s Liberation.  But Liberalism, like all movements, evolves.  And it has its factions.  And one of those factions I like to call the Culture Destroyers.  Don’t get stuck on the first paragraph below, this isn’t about healthcare reform:

Watching the left attempting to undo the greatness of American medicine and dismantle the unprecedentedly powerful American economic engine built almost entirely on non-governmental entrepreneurial effort, I realize once again that the left is far better at destroying than building.

I first realized this as I watched the left — and here I sadly include the whole organized left from liberal to far left — do whatever it could to destroy one of the most wonderful organizations in American life, the Boy Scouts of America. From Democratic city governments to the New York Times and other liberal editorial pages to the most destructive organization on the left, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), there has been the most concerted effort to break the Boy Scouts.

When challenged about this, fellow Americans on the left respond that this is a false accusation, that they have no desire to destroy the Boy Scouts, only to coerce the organization into accepting as scouts and scout leaders boys and men who have announced they are gay.

This is not an honest response, however, because the left is in fact doing whatever it can to destroy the Boy Scouts until the Boy Scouts change their policy on gays. The left-wing position is that if the Boy Scouts do not change a policy that has been in place since the inception of the organization, they do not deserve to exist.

Therefore it is entirely accurate to state that the left wishes to destroy the Boy Scouts as that organization now exists. No matter how much good the Boy Scouts have done and continue to do for millions of boys, for the left, all this good amounts to nothing.

For the left in this instance, as in most instances, the attitude is: Destroy the imperfect in order to build the perfect.

There is no left-wing Boy Scouts. The left knows best how to crush the non-left Boy Scouts, but it has never made a boys organization of its own.

Yeah, I know.  It’s just the Boy Scouts.   As trivial as the “War on Christmas.”  Right?

Wrong.

It is symptomic of far larger things afoot.  When the Soviet Union fell, those on the Far Left remained hostile to Western Civilization, Capitalism, as well as the Judeo-christian values they believed underpinned the two.  One thing you have to realize about these people is that nothing is over till it’s over.  They’re like that crazy lady in Fatal Attraction.  A stake through the heart might slow her down, but nothing short of dismemberment and casting her limbs to the four corners of the Realm will really stop her.  Activism is their religion, they are energized by it, and they live for it.  So the Culture Destroyers decided upon another strategy of bringing their old foe down, and that’s where what might be called “cultural marxism” comes into  play.  If you can’t destroy your enemy from without, you take it over from within.  And they realized that in order to transform a society from within, you have to destroy the culture, religion, traditions and laws that are the foundation of its institutions:

This key insight was developed in particular by an Italian Marxist philosopher called Antonio Gramsci. His thinking was taken up by Sixties radicals — who are, of course, the generation that holds power in the West today.

Gramsci understood that the working class would never rise up to seize the levers of ‘production, distribution and exchange’ as communism had prophesied. Economics was not the path to revolution.

He believed instead that society could be overthrown if the values underpinning it could be turned into their antithesis: if its core principles were replaced by those of groups who were considered to be outsiders or who actively transgressed the moral codes of that society.

So he advocated a ‘long march through the institutions’ to capture the citadels of the culture and turn them into a collective fifth column, undermining from within and turning all the core values of society upside-down and inside-out.

This strategy has been carried out to the letter.

The nuclear family has been widely shattered. Illegitimacy was transformed from a stigma into a ‘right’. The tragic disadvantage of fatherlessness was redefined as a neutrally-viewed ‘lifestyle choice’.

Education was wrecked, with its core tenet of transmitting a culture to successive generations replaced by the idea that what children already knew was of superior value to anything the adult world might foist upon them.

The outcome of this ‘child-centred’ approach has been widespread illiteracy and ignorance and an eroded capacity for independent thought.

Law and order were similarly undermined, with criminals deemed to be beyond punishment since they were ‘victims’ of society and with illegal drugtaking tacitly encouraged by a campaign to denigrate anti-drugs laws.

The ‘rights’ agenda — commonly known as ‘political correctness’ — turned morality inside out by excusing any misdeeds by self-designated ‘victim’ groups on the grounds that such ‘victims’ could never be held responsible for what they did.

Feminism, anti-racism and gay rights thus turned men, white people and Christians into the enemies of decency who were forced to jump through hoops to prove their virtue.

This Through The Looking Glass mindset rests on the belief that the world is divided into the powerful (who are responsible for all bad things) and the oppressed (who are responsible for none of them).

This is a Marxist doctrine.

There’s more, and it’s devastating.

But please don’t mistake these people for the benevolent Libs of our youth.  You know, the ones against such things as racial discrimination, and the like.  The Culture Destroyers I’m talking about can hardly even be considered Liberal.  They are Leftists.  Leftists posing as Liberals.  Essentially stalinists without guns.  Hyperbole?  Maybe, but only slightly.  And this faction mingles freely among traditional Liberals, who themselves are hardly even aware of the difference, so gradual is the process of cultural demoralization we’ve all been subjected to, and so caught up are they in their hatred of “the Right.”  The Right, who in this humble blogger’s opinion, has more in common today with the Liberals of the JFK era than does the current runaway train we still deign to call “Liberalism.”  A traditional Liberal is just along for the ride.  Sheep-like and oblivious, nudged ever Leftward if he/she hopes to maintain membership in the club.  A Leftist, however?  That is another matter.  He is a Culture Destroyer, and he has the engineer hogtied on the floor as that train rushes headlong into a blinding snowstorm careening towards a fate unknown.

The rest of that Boy Scouts article if you care to read it. He overreaches a bit, and I can spot a hole or two in that overreach, but the gist of it you can take straight to the bank.

17 Comments »

  1. so, some might ask:

    “Gramsci and the American Left who adopted his work were obviously responding to a very real and problematic (to say the least) set of issues, how do you account for what they were critiquing in your own critique of the ‘mess’ they left behind?”

    The ‘mess’ of course being the values of Western humanism and Judeo-Christian culture turned upside down.

    “And, how do you ensure the West doesn’t return to those problems (unequal economic, political, and social treatment of minorities, workers and women) when the ‘temple is cleared’?

    Comment by paleocon — December 5, 2009 @ 00:55

  2. That would be a valid question. And I think the answer is the difference between “reform” vs. “revolution.” Reform is often good. Revolution seldom is. The likes of Gramsci did not want to reform the system because reform would actually perpetuate the system they hated. And they were right. Reform did perpetuate the system. So they set about to topple it. A cultural marxist revolution from within.

    Now don’t be taken in by mere words. A culture destroyer isn’t a fool. He will come to you as an angel of light, offering “reform”. He might use the word “overhaul”, and dare I say it, “change.” He will also use the latest “isms.” So watch what they actually DO, not simply the words they use.

    Comment by Jesusland — December 5, 2009 @ 09:48

  3. But certainly, “rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God”, so said Jefferson.

    If the system of cultural hegemony in place wasn’t responding to the plight of the people then what hope was there? Certainly ‘revolution’ was the only answer …

    And indeed, if a revolution of guns wasn’t the answer, then a revolution of the mind was … Gramsci wasn’t the only critic of Western Democratic Industrialism. People like William Morris, Hilaire Belloc, GK Chesterton were also greatly troubled but they didn’t jettison their cultural heritage.

    Maybe a question of relevance, then, is who is the ‘enemy’ / ‘tyrant’ that requires toppling and for what does that enemy stand? Indeed, naming the enemy is of the first order in the 21st century.

    Comment by paleocon — December 5, 2009 @ 14:43

  4. Guns are fine, if that’s what it takes. I have nothing against using violence against tyranny. Pacifism is for suckers. But consider this. The American Revolution is the only revolution in history that was passed peacefully and democratically to the next generation. In that regard, we are unique. The reason for this is that unlike most revolutions, the America revolution threw off a FOREIGN yoke. The Brits were essentially an occupying force. Our revolution was unlike most revolutions in that regard. Most other revolutions were primarily about overthrowing an INTERNAL yoke. Internally, change should be organic and incremental, not dictated by small elites with foreign ideologies in some cataclysmic revolution. Of course, often violence is the only option, as in the Russian and French revolutions. But it never ends well. Thats why the Gramscis of the world offer either tyranny or chaos, not liberty.

    Comment by Jesusland — December 5, 2009 @ 20:39

  5. […] to transform the West as we know it into an unrecognizable Frankenstein of their own creation.  Gramsci could not be more proud right […]

    Pingback by Minarets, Muslims, and Multiculturalism « Counterculture Con HQ — December 6, 2009 @ 12:25

  6. […] Or at least the runaway train we now call “Liberalism,” of which I have spoken on previous ocassions. It is a Liberalism that has been hijacked by the far Left.  The far Left  intelligentsia, which […]

    Pingback by Taboos Are to be Broken « Counterculture Con HQ — December 13, 2009 @ 21:09

  7. What I don’t understand about excessive liberalism is why some, who are obviously intelligent, accept it?
    Then I think about high school, college and the business world.
    I met many highly intelligent well educated misfits during those years. Is common sense ever going to rule? A liberal education seems to stymie it.

    Comment by greyrooster — December 15, 2009 @ 16:02

  8. rooster, it’s because conservativism has such a bad rap. Like grownups have such a bad rap with rebellious teenagers. Then you grow up and look back and think what a jerk I was.

    Comment by Jesusland — December 15, 2009 @ 16:06

  9. […] Divine Conception reduced to a roll in the hay.  By a priest, no less.  An atheist could not have levelled a more sacrilegious attack on the foundation of our Faith than this priest did.  Great job.  Gramsci could not be more proud. […]

    Pingback by With Friends Like These… « Counterculture Con HQ — December 17, 2009 @ 22:15

  10. […] a Man giving birth, they say.  No quotes around Man.  Which sounds like more of that of secular progressive runaway train thingy trying to normalize the fringe and make it mainstream.  Because she’s not a man, she’s […]

    Pingback by Second Pregnant “Man” Due To Give Birth « Counterculture Con HQ — January 27, 2010 @ 06:26

  11. […] Jesusland @ 00:01 Secular progressivism and its role in the decline of Western civilization has been previously discussed here at CCHQ .  Now for the mechanics of how that self-destructive value system works its magic.  Below a […]

    Pingback by Postmodernism and Decline — Revisited « Counterculture Con HQ — February 14, 2010 @ 10:36

  12. […] Filed under: Uncategorized — Jesusland @ 00:05 It’s been the dream of the cultural marxists to break the “patriarchy” for decades.  Well, you just have to look at our divorce […]

    Pingback by The End of “The Patriarchy” « Counterculture Con HQ — March 2, 2010 @ 00:07

  13. […] the Progs, claim are offended.  In this case though their mascots appear to be internalizing their culture destroying training well and skipping the middle man […]

    Pingback by Muslims, Multi Culti Allies Attempt School Coup « Counterculture Con HQ — April 1, 2010 @ 14:58

  14. […] loathing of the Mainstream, bequeathed to us by Gramsci and the Frankfurt School, taken to its logical conclusion. In the seemingly no-boundaries world of […]

    Pingback by Sign of the Times: Extreme body modifications « Counterculture Con HQ — April 8, 2010 @ 00:15

  15. […] take a rocket scientist to know where he stands on the Islamization of Britain, does it?  The Gramscists on the Left have always hated primitive notions like patriotism, national pride, religion, […]

    Pingback by UK liberal democrat leader, Nick Clegg, run of the mill brit-hating Leftist « Counterculture Con HQ — April 22, 2010 @ 16:41

  16. […] is becoming a post-christian, multicultural hell hole.  Thanks of course to our old friend, Gramsci. To him goes the praise. The Prince of Wales, who is 60 today, is planning a symbolic change when he […]

    Pingback by The Madness of Prince Charles « Counterculture Con HQ — June 11, 2010 @ 01:06

  17. Do you have a spam problem on this website; I also am a blogger,
    and I was wanting to know your situation; we have developed some nice
    procedures and we are looking to exchange solutions
    with other folks, please shoot me an e-mail if interested.

    Comment by Treatment Centers In San Antonio — March 25, 2013 @ 17:26


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: