“CULTURAL MARXISM: The Corruption of America” (plus my thoughts)

This film might strike some as a piece of shameless propaganda:

In it’s own special way, it indeed is. Plenty of truths contained therein, so I would recommend it to others, but only if you promise to sit through the whole 90 minutes. Made me twitch with rebuttals and quibbles, but still I’m glad I watched that tonight because it got me thinking.

Said before and will keep saying that the term “cultural Marxis” has become a misnomer. And this matters because accuracy in language is especially needed on concepts of this magnitude. Previously wrote on here how I view Karl Marx being blamed for all modern problems due to this ideology that continues to bare the name “cultural Marxism” despite it having little to nothing to do with what Marx was actually about. Ok, there are a few points to be made here.

First off, economic class concerns in the 1880s during the rise of Industrialization coinciding with the rise of what we know of as capitalism, which in short order began paving the way toward corporatism. Karl Marx was a product of the 19th century when agrarianism was still common and factories were pretty new. Conditions within those factories hadn’t been regulated yet, so employees could be treated as relatively disposable, creating a situation arguably not a huge step up from slavery. He foresaw what that might develop into, so far as one reasonably could way back then, pre-20th century modernization. And he rightfully protested it, like any luddite worth his salt would. Hell, had I been in his shoes I’d likely have tried sounding the alarm too, and so did plenty of others. Not like Marx was the only one to ever express an opinion on this matter, nor that his teachings were the primary ones to prove super influential on the predecessors to those now known as SJWs. Lots of thinkers contributed to the ideology being referred to as “cultural marxism.”

It’s obvious what it is now is an ideology fashioned over the last century to suit the interests of globalists and power-seekers. Certainly not benefiting the people Marx ever had in mind. Complete reversal instead. That’s what’s so insidious and destructive and outright dishonest about continuing to refer to that ideology as “cultural marxism.” How can opposites both be forms of Marxism? Because it’s evolved, you say? Then why keep calling it by defunct language? Only confuses people, like the maker of that otherwise pretty interesting documentary. Or maybe for some people the term “cultural marxism” really just serves as politically-less-incorrect code for Jews. That’s what I’m starting to think this business of holding onto that term and warning people off of having anything to do with the Frankfurt School authors as though their books were possessed by the devil.

I’ve read number books by Erich Fromm, and guess what, folks! He’s on our side. Read him and see. He wrote against us becoming automatons and corporate and/or government slaves. Not on the side of the globalists. Which people might realize if they actually took time to read the authors they’re criticizing (or in Fromm’s case there, a title page merely flashed across the screen — deemed automatically guilty by association for being a member of the Frankfurt School — no one who studied Marx’s writings could possibly be nuanced and critical in his treatment of it, right? NOT IF THEY WERE IN THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL. Oy.  rolleyes_smilie  Yet another example of how we remain willfully blind.) Excerpts from a few of Fromm’s books I’ve transcribed onto this blog for anyone curious enough to take a glimpse into the sort of things he actually said.

So anyway, Marx wasn’t aiming to be some sort of malicious devil or usher for the rise of totalitarian states. Goes to show how much control we have over what’s done with our ideas once we’ve shared them. Can take on a life of their own. Or be co-opted. Maybe also inverted so that the public gets the message that being class conscious is no different than being race or sex/gender conscious. All are the same and all belong on the political Left. And that’s where there’s a serious problem, considering how much class consciousness really ought to matter to so many of us relative to the few who’ve become an enormously influential economic elite. That’s on a special level way above snowflake identity politics or even race relations seeing as how we’re all in the same societal basket headed in the same direction. That is key, and I don’t think it’s a mistake that the situation has been framed the way it was in that film in relation to so-called “cultural marxism.” Plenty of other sources do the same thing, I’ve seen.

All those dots connected around the 1-hour mark onward — valuable. Too bad they’re packaged in with”cultural marxism”-declaring propaganda. Reduces the whole film’s credibility, that along with the hokey voice-overs and lack of informative explanation on what was proposed by Marx and Frankfurt School authors. Basically just pointed to them and sneered, booing us away from paying too much mind to them other than aiming to avoid them at all cost. Not useful. Propagandist dick move there. Inaccurate for the sake of protecting some semblance of what capitalism was envisioned to be. We’re now post that, whether we like it or not.

This is where I deviate sharply from this film and others like it. Is there a conspiracy of Jews influenced by Marx and whomever else trying to run the world? Who cares? Would it really matter what ethnicity they happen to be? Followers of a globalist agenda obviously aren’t all Jewish (like the Clintons and Bushes and Obamas). Everybody like to form an elaborate theory about who’s angling for power and why and what all they may be tied into. Here’s all we need to know: totalitarianism is the ultimate threat. It’s anti-capitalist, anti-true socialism even, anti-individual, anti-social, anti-human. Whatever form it may take isn’t of particular importance, not in the big picture. At least not outside of comprehending the steps of that rise and consolidation of power.

Are certain relationships about power? Yes, they are. Probably not all, but when it comes to politics there’s most definitely always the threat of a power grab.

Now, in my own personal opinion, I don’t rightly care to nitpick anymore over what elements involved may have come about via intentional collusion and what might simply be the luck of the draw or mounting consequences of short-term opportunism or whatever else. Lots of moving parts at play in the 20th century. The convergence of a plethora of technologies inside growing nation-states and the rise of consumerism and a public education system and wars and exploring the sciences (including psychology) and corporatism and the explosion of our economy….on and on it goes. So much unprecedented shit happening all at once, coming in from every which way. Distractions galore. Looks to me to simply be a conspiracy of Life. So much culminated into the conditions we’re experiencing now, so much that couldn’t have been foreseen or predicted. And some people take advantage of the situation, as to be expected.

Tyranny lurks and seeks out opportunity. Why? Because power does matter to us humans, and to some a whole lot more than others. The will to play god will probably never go out of style. Something psychological within inclines us that way. And some succeed from time to time. Tragic when that happens.

Acknowledging all of that, the part in the film where they talk about our U.S. Constitution and the visions of our forefathers I am deeply in agreement with, BUT we nowadays face the conundrum of living in such complex societies that are indeed already globally connected through markets and military threats. The notion of doing away with our standing army at this point would strike nearly all as ludicrous and surely national suicide. Having a standing army (or in our case, a whole military-industrial complex) is deemed a necessity to at least remain sovereign. But then, of course, that’s never what a military remains limited to, especially not one as powerful as ours. Then there’s also the concern about how the U.S. military is essentially an employment sector by now, and a huge one at that. Employs over a million citizens, I believe. How would anyone wish to go about dismantling that mammoth? Would prove political suicide for a candidate to even suggest such a thing.

See, this is where we’re wrapped up in paradoxes of our own human creation. Not sure how we wriggle out of this mess. It’s become self-perpetuating. And, unfortunately, increasingly less transparent as well as less accessible by the average citizen. I completely agree with the documentary-makers’ sentiments expressed about state and local rights, but how do we check federal powers at this point? Sure, absolutely most of Congress deserves to be impeached. I’ve been saying that for over a decade. But how? We’ve become so divided and are firmly bogged down arguing over so many less important matters. Which propaganda aided in bringing about.

Sure, people should cancel their cable subscriptions and quit believing what’s put on by the mainstream media. Stop paying for pop culture garbage over intellectually-beneficial content. Easy to say, but no way to enforce it. Barely can entice those who aren’t already curious and seeking. Demonstrating how Americans got in this mess in the first place: we suck at remaining vigilant and principled.

Is pessimism also a feature of “cultural marxism”?  lol  He claimed so, but that’s ridiculous. One can recognize the present situation for what it is and still work toward protecting what we’re able. I won’t pretend to be optimist about what may lay in store. But we work with what we can. We start clarifying our values and living in accordance. Whether we ultimately triumph as a people in the end or not, it’s the journey that’s of most concern since that’s day by day. One foot in front of the other. Less overwhelming when we each try to take it on as that.

That’s enough to say on this for one evening.

A look at Bill Clinton of the so-called “Left” (part 2 of my inquiry into “Leftists” vs. “Rightists”)

Been thinking about how I want to further open up the conversation about “Leftists” vs. “Rightists,” and I’m immediately bogged down by the labels and how they mean such different things to different people. For example, is “liberal” synonymous with “leftist”? Is “conservative” synonymous with “rightist”? I don’t personally think so. There are liberal-minded libertarians, so where might they fall on the spectrum? And there are plenty who call themselves Democrats and Republicans who wind up supporting nearly identical policies that wind up expanding the scope and power of government in all the wrong ways.

A famous case-in-point: Bill Clinton. He ran on the Democratic ticket and yet when we look at what he actually promoted throughout his time as president, nearly everything he did paved the way to making it possible for George W. Bush to take shit to the next level once he was elected. Important examples include Bill Clinton’s role in supporting:

  • NAFTA and CAFTA (North American and Central American Free Trade Agreements, respectively), which virtually destroyed the incomes of small farmers in Mexico and Central American countries by pushing cheaper U.S. produce, which then helped pave the way for so many out-of-work Hispanics to vie for a chance to cross our borders in search of better economic opportunities (which subsequently led to their own exploitation as “cheap labor”);
  • GATT (General Agreement on Trade & Tariffs), which shortly thereafter allowed for the formation of the WTO (World Trade Organization) that claimed to be about “liberalizing trade” but actually turned out to be a global scheme devised to cater to major corporate interests;
  • helping chip away at and by the end of his presidency effectively gutting the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 with the passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (a.k.a. the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999), which was what had been put in place to restrict affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms, opening our country up to the crazy, albeit lucrative for some, derivatives game that has severely threatened and weakened our markets despite pandering to select corporate interests;
  • federal “Three-Strikes” law that did more to fill prisons than to actually seek proper justice in too many cases, at a time when the U.S. prison system’s incarceration rate was already growing nearly exponentially since the 1970s;
  • selecting as U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, a man who’d previously spent 26 years working for Goldman Sachs, a company that has since been playing an ever-increasing role in U.S. and foreign politics and global economics via lobbying efforts and direct infiltration (as is also clearly evident in the Obama administration);
  • selecting as his Vice President Al Gore, a man who later got involved in (and became very rich off of) carbon-related shenanigans and who was also tied in with Goldman Sachs (not that I doubt humans are impacting our environment in deleterious ways, just that I don’t believe Gore actually cares about any of that nearly as much as padding his own pockets);
  • as well as selecting Janet Reno as U.S. Attorney General during his presidency, a woman who came to be involved in several high-profile and questionable cases, including the extermination of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, and the ATF entrapment of Randy Weaver in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, giving the impression that she was instrumental in helping push a new form of conformity on the American citizenry (though she now, while knowingly afflicted with Parkinson’s disease, serves on the board of directors for the Innocence Project, which strikes me as a bit tragicomical, to say the least).

More could be said about him (not to mention his wife), but that’s enough for now to get my point across. How much of Bill Clinton’s actions strike a person as actually “rightist” in nature as well as in outcome? More police control. More corporate control. Guess it depends on how one defines “rightist” and “leftist,” huh?

Reviewing situations like this led me to see both the “Right” and the “Left” as belonging on a modern scale that has virtually nothing to do with true conservatism or libertarianism or independent thought and individualistic strivings. Both of these supposed “camps” are pushing toward greater government involvement in the lives of U.S. citizens and less allowance for individual initiatives on the ground level. Both are promoting corporatist agendas, first and foremost, above and beyond taking into account the needs and desires of average people and their voting constituents.

Where does corporatism fall on the scale? Can we really consider it “conservative” in nature when it’s really a radical economic overhaul? Surely not. Seems to me we’re dealing with separate scales altogether when we aim to make sense of what’s “left vs. right” and “liberal vs. conservative”; the former being more about the leanings within a corporatist political-economic environment and the latter being about how average individuals identify themselves (despite their voting tendencies).

Next time I hope to go into the so-called “Christian Right” and demonstrate how that too largely panders to and embraces corporatist ideology.