The problem at the heart of cultural marxism

Last week seems like it was a year ago, with everything that has happened. But that’s when Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Jordan Peterson expressed the optimistic sentiment on Twitter that, in Taleb’s words, “something is starting to crumble.” Something meaning, in my mind, the dominance of cultural marxism. While the PC left is lashing out harder than ever and taking its ideology to the extremes, there is every indication that these are the death throes of the establishment, desperately trying to retain control for as long as it can.

Racing to their own “peak political correctness”, the left are actually in a race to the bottom when it comes to the number of people who can still identify with and approve of their message. They can celebrate Britain’s “first gender-fluid family“, raising their son (pardon my French) as gender neutral, but while most people will support the parents’ rights to live as they choose, most will also reject the parents’ decision to force their own ideas about gender on their child. Logic dictates that the more extreme the left becomes, the more they will alienate themselves from large segments of the population. After many years of dominance in the media, arts, entertainment and the political arena, progressives are finally starting to overplay their hand – constantly needing to outdo one another in embracing anything that is not the norm (except when it comes to their norm of how to think and vote, of course).

Many casual voters are drawn to the left, because the left has a lot of positive buzzwords which make people want to agree with them. Leftist ideals are associated with tolerance, peace, sharing and – as I’ve called it before – “generally being sweet to everyone”. The left is less bothered with the effect their ideals have in reality. Their tolerance ends where their own politics end – anyone who disagrees is vilified, slandered and attacked. Moreover, the hierarchy in their favorite victim groups is in constant motion, in some cases pitting these groups against one another. By welcoming Islam with open arms they are turning away from groups they used to champion: women, who are not allowed on the streets of some Muslim-dominated parts of Paris – once the city of romance, and gays, who even if they have come to the West fleeing persecution by Islamists, are not allowed to speak out against their oppressors.

Progressives also have an uncanny ability to make people feel like it’s bad to disagree with them. Heavy on emotions, they are always offended by the things we do and say. Some college campuses gave their students a day off because the “wrong” person had been elected president. These are the institutions charged with the bolstering of our future’s intellectual elite. They are supposed to safeguard the development of our knowledge and wisdom, to ensure we can keep moving forward. But they intend to do it while only zipping tea amongst themselves and plugging their ears, going “La la la la la” when someone offers a different point of view. And that is a best-case scenario, of course, because they may also resort to physical violence. This wave of political violence is the inevitable outcome of allowing “offended” people to decide what we can and cannot say based only on their being offended. As Thomas Sowell pointed out in 2015:

The concept of “micro-aggression” is just one of many tactics used to stifle differences of opinion by declaring some opinions to be “hate speech,” instead of debating those differences in a marketplace of ideas. To accuse people of aggression for not marching in lockstep with political correctness is to set the stage for justifying real aggression against them.

But a large segment of the population, most people who are not actively politically engaged, just want everyone to get along and be nice to one another. So why not try not to offend anyone? Cultural Marxism has been exploiting that pliant nature for decades, ever since it took hold of all the major institutions that define our culture. Their problem now is that the more they get, the more they want. They have stifled the opposition so effectively that they have forgotten what it’s like when people disagree with them. Their responses to people rejecting their ideologies have been telling. Europeans are starting to grow weary of the EU? Give them more EU. People think immigration is too high? Bring in more immigrants. People are worried about the rise of Islam? Push Islam on them.

Our open access to information through the internet has been nothing less than a political revolution. Ideas and criticisms that had for a long time been hidden under the surface of what the mainstream media would show us, were suddenly out in the open. “Dissidents” and “wrongthinkers” could suddenly build and find their own platforms where they could discuss their concerns and expand and share their knowledge. The left is losing power, because it has lost its monopoly on information. We’re finally seeing reality as it is, rather than the way the left wants us to see it. Therein lies the big problem for the postmodernists: they deny reality itself, because it doesn’t fit in with their ideology.

Reality is racist:

Reality is sexist:

The problem at the heart of cultural marxism is that most of us can get by just fine on common sense. We can easily accommodate the (statistical) exceptions, whether they are different because of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, political affiliation, or whatever else. Most of us will respect those who respect us and will have no problem with whoever you are or whatever you do. But that is not enough for postmodernists. They are so obsessed with their tolerance of everything different that they are trying to destroy the norm. They seek to undermine anything to do with western civilization or tradition and are willing to replace it with anything else, no matter how backward, or even with nothing at all. That is counterproductive and it needs to stop. And stop it will, it’s just a shame that too many people take too long to figure out that this is the inevitable conclusion of the postmodernist ideology.

 

Post scriptum 1: What happened in Charlottesville is disgusting and tragic. The people waving swastika flags and wearing KKK hoods under the banner of a “united right” have been rightly condemned by most of the right wing, and I daresay all of the rationally thinking right wing. However, the media spin on the violence surrounding the event, illustrates the point of this article perfectly. Although by many accounts the violence was initiated, once again, by (far-)left counter protesters, there is not a single mention of their actions in the mainstream media. That the most egregious violence of the day came from the right does not absolve the left of their responsibility in this tragic escalation.

The mainstream, both left and right, did not accept President Trump’s condemnation of both sides’ violence and instead insisted on him disavowing his far-right supporters. Predictably, even when he did that, the mainstream still was not content. The insistence to get Trump to disavow the far-right implies that the far-left indeed had no part in the events in Charlottesville, which legitimizes Antifa’s longrunning tactic of employing political violence to silence their opposition.

By comparison: when James T. Hodgkinson shot Congressman Steve Scalise, all Bernie Sanders had to say was that he was “sickened” by the shooting and the media accepted that as a full disavowal.

Post scriptum 2: Some might object to the suggestion that the left have been in charge for decades, as there have been right wing parties and people in power. However, while the political pendulum may be swinging back towards the right, the political center has undeniably shifted to the left. Support for multiculturalism and immigration have become mainstream. Rehabilitation over punishment of criminals has become mainstream. Political globalism has become mainstream, as has the welfare state. Inasmuch as the right has acquired power in relevant places, it has had to adopt a lot of these stances, with only a few exceptions.

3 comments

  1. I agree with most of the articvle, but disagree with addendum 2 where it states ‘the political pendulum is undeniably swinging left as has the political center. Support for multiculturalism and immigration have become mainstream.’ It swung left some time ago, it is now swinging right, the public are starting to reject the liberal left and especialy multiculturalism and mass immigration. We are seeing the backlash of decades of PC posturing by the left.

    1. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You are right, I should have put that in past tense. The political center has shifted to the left, but the right is definitely already on its way back. I’ll update the article to be more precise!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *