In case anybody out there isn’t up to speed already.
You may have heard the terms “Cultural Marxism,” “Critical Theory” or “Frankfurt School” bandied about. And while you might have an intuitive approximation of what these terms mean for America in the 21st century, there’s a good chance that you don’t know much about the deep theory, where the ideology comes from and what it has planned for America – and the world.
The underlying theory here is a variant of Marxism, pioneered by early-20th-century Italian Marxist politician and linguist Antonio Gramsci. Gramscian Marxism is a radical departure from Classical Marxism. One does not need to endorse the Classical Marxism of Marx, Engels and others to appreciate the significant differences between the two. He is easily the most influential thinker that you have never heard of.
Whereas Classical Marxism located what has been called “the revolutionary subject” (the people who will overthrow capitalism and usher in socialism) within the broad working class, primarily in what is now the First World, Gramscism takes a very different approach. This approach underpins most of the social unrest that is gripping America and the West today. In a sense, we are living through the endgame of a Gramscian revolution.
There are two important diversions that Gramscism has from more traditional Marxist thought: First, that economics was the base of culture and politics. Second, philosophical materialism in the Marxist sense where reality is effectively formed by the means of economic production.
For Gramsci, culture was more important than either economics or politics. This was what needed to be changed for there to be a revolution. As such, the weapon to be used for revolution was not the economic might of an organized working class, but a “long march through the institutions” (a phrase actually coined by German Marxist Rudi Dutschke), whereby every institution in the West would be subverted through penetration and infiltration.
I’ve said it many times, and I’ll keep right on saying it: Gramsci was a damned genius, albeit a diabolical one. Marx’s original idea was that Communism was a historical inevitability, an evolutionary transition that would lead to a bottom-up eruption of revolutionary violence sparked by the Proletariat’s frustration and fury over having been used and abused by the Bourgeoisie for long enough to have gotten themselves a solid bellyful of it.
Gramsci, on the other hand, held that such a revolution was unlikely—particularly in the West, where general prosperity and the lassitude of relative contentment would tend to dull the Workers’ passion for any bloody, bothersome overthrow. Instead, in successful Western nations a Marxist state is far more likely to be brought into being through a slow, patient process of incrementalist takeover of the cultural institutions—the arts, entertainment, and news media, and most especially the schools and universities—followed by thorough brainwashing of the benighted Sheeple via said institutions. Gramsci’s divergence from Marxism v1.0 was nothing short of brilliant; certainly, the results speak for themselves.
This is a long ‘un, and quite ably covers one hell of a lot of ground. In fact, it’s good enough that I immediately bookmarked it myself for future use as reference material; no matter how well-versed you may be in this stuff, I’d bet nearly everyone will find something here they didn’t already know. Originally put up by our friends at Ammo.com, this one is strongly recommended reading. Many thanks to the good folks at AP for re-posting it, and to WRSA for kindly bringing it to our attention.