Towards a One Party System
A common misconception in America today is that our nation is evenly divided between conservatives and liberals in an absolute sense. This is not necessarily true. Though national elections always seem to progress along a 51 percent to 49 percent opposition, with red states barely beating our blue states or blue states barely beating out red states, this is not a practical representation of the legitimate ideological boundaries within the U.S. What you really have in America is a wide spectrum of beliefs of varying degrees in-between ultimate extremes. I am of course referring to the general public in this respect. The top of the political pyramid is a different story entirely. For them there are no sides whatsoever. Top Republicans and top Democrats are essentially the same animal with the same goals. They may wear different masks and exploit diverging rhetoric, but at the end of the day for elitists, America is a one-party system. For the rest of us there is a hazy drift, with many people holding some views that lean conservative and other views that lean liberal. Unfortunately, “moderates” do very little to direct the future of nations. Nearly all great changes and great upheavals are initiated by the elites themselves (extremists in their own right) or by smaller groups on opposite ends of the spectrum (which are often manipulated by elitists). At the very far reaches of the void of the left and liberalism festers what I would call a sociopolitical theology; the cult of cultural Marxism.
The Nature of Cultural Marxism
If you are confused as to what cultural Marxism really is I highly suggest you research as much as possible into the Frankfurt School founded by Marxist professors and academics in Germany during the 1920s and the early 1930s. The basic foundation of the Frankfurt School was to take the collectivist philosophy of Karl Marx, which revolved primarily around economic class structure, and apply it in a more sociological manner utilizing Hegelian dynamics. The Frankfurt School sought to explore “class oppression” not only between the rich and the poor, the workers and the aristocracy, but also in aspect to races, religions, families, genders, behavioral psychology, etc. That is to say, the Marxists of the Frankfurt School were looking for new methods to divide and conquer existing societies and nations beyond simple economic conflicts. After the rise of fascism in Germany, numerous members of the Frankfurt School fled to the U.S., bringing their ideological framework with them and applying it in U.S. universities and academic circles. One of the primary character traits or strategies of cultural Marxists today is that they rarely if ever actually self-identify as cultural Marxists. This strategy allows them to change their colors on a whim, like a chameleon, and it prevents opponents from pinning down their world view in order to present a solid argument against them. It also allows them to disassociate from past cultural Marxists with negative reputations while holding the same beliefs as those historical figures. The cultural Marxist denies he is a cultural Marxist, then he goes on to argue an ideology which perfectly matches what cultural Marxists have historically believed. This is only one of the many reasons why most people, conservatives and moderate liberals alike, distrust and even despise cultural Marxists. The pervasive weakness among cultural Marxists in America is that they tend to believe their own propaganda. They think that they are an actual social force in this country with the numbers and support to back their activities. They fell into this delusion because for a time they have been effective at infiltrating popular media and generating a false consensus, not to mention organizing public and online mobs to be used as a weapon against others. They seem to be everywhere, yet they are few. Lately, though, the illusion of numbers is beginning to collapse for them. Masses of people, even those that identify with the “Left”, are beginning to disown what are often referred to as “social justice warriors” (cultural Marxists) and are speaking out. Here is a list of reasons why the public is shifting and the tide is turning against social justice and cultural Marxists.
Third Wave Feminism
Cultural Marxists are collectivists at their very core. This means that their ideological pursuit is the eradication of individualism, individual liberty, and groups based on voluntary participation in the name of the “greater good of the greater number.” Collectivists seek to centralize everything. This goal could not be more evident than in the efforts of third-wave feminists. Third-wave feminists are best understood through the lens of what they refer to as “intersectionality,” a made up social justice term that whitewashes the new feminist strategy of co-opting ALL other social issues and forcing them under the umbrella of the feminist movement. Feminism is not simply about creating equal opportunity and equal rights for women, not anymore. Instead, third-wave feminism claims dominion over women’s rights, all gender related issues, race issues, gay rights issues, economic “inequality”, immigration issues, etc. Of course, if you believe in working for equal rights of all people regardless of their individual and ethnic traits, you would be called an egalitarian by definition, not a feminist. But feminists attack this distinction and continue to demand that they are the sole proprietors of “equality” and claim all other methodologies are irrelevant. This kind of totalitarianism has provoked a growing backlash against feminists, even from more left leaning subsections of the American population. People are beginning to realize that there really is no need for feminism anymore. Women already have equal protection under the law, and they already have equal opportunity.
In fact, in many sectors women are given considerable advantages over men. Women are given greater favor in college applications and grant applications which is why women today outnumber men in universities. Women are often given favor in job applications, even in professions which men are more inclined to succeed in (like firefighting, for example); this bias in favor of women by employers is often inspired by government incentives and by a fear of civil suits. Women have far more institutionalized advantages in divorce court, and, women are more likely to receive reduced sentences for the same crime as a man. The most common lie used by feminists to argue for the existence of inequality is the “gender pay gap,” which has long been debunked. A woman who works the same exact job as a man with the same effort and diligence, for the same exact hours, and does not take maternity leave or extra vacations is paid the SAME as that man. And if for some reason there is something amiss in the accounting, there are laws in place to punish employers that do actually pay women less for the same work. There is no gender pay gap except what women create for themselves through their own life choices. Since women have the same rights and protections as men today, feminists are forced to create oppression out of thin air to then fight against. The new battlefield for feminists and social justice warriors is about “feelings” rather than law. That is to say, feminists believe that personal feelings should be protected by law and that contrary or discriminatory thought must be criminalized. Of course, the definition of criminal discrimination is left rather broad. Ultimately, it is the feminists and their allies in government that arbitrarily decide what thoughts are “bad” and what thoughts are acceptable. The feminist movement must co-opt and absorb other groups and other issues and it must create exponentially more divisions and imaginary oppression in order to justify its existence. They will never stop. There will never come a day when feminists are satisfied because their goal is not equality. Their goal is social power, and to maintain social power indefinitely.
Mob Shaming And Self Censorship
Cultural Marxists will use any tool at their disposal to shut down or silence dissent, but they prefer to use mob tactics and public shaming as their bread and butter. Get enough of your cohorts together in an organized attack and the illusion of consensus becomes powerful leverage. There are numerous instances of accomplished people being railroaded out of their jobs in the past few years by cultural Marxist mobs, and numerous people harassed into self censorship for fear of being labeled a sexist, misogynist, racist, bigot, xenophobe, homophobe, etc. This tactic, though, has been so overused that it is now losing its effectiveness. There is a growing movement of people who no longer care what they are labeled by cultural Marxists and when the mob no longer has shaming as a tool, they can only move on to more “direct” actions.
Physical Interference With Freedom Of Speech
Now that the shaming techniques are becoming passé, cultural Marxists are attempting to physically disrupt discussion or silence opposing views. From the notorious social justice mob at the University of Missouri, which called for “some muscle over here,” to forcefully remove student journalists covering the protest, to feminist mobs shutting down conferences on men’s issues, to the professional agitators bused in to disrupt Trump rallies, cultural Marxists are beginning to physically impede the rights of other people to speak, or listen and participate. How do they rationalize this anti-1st Amendment activity? Easy! They simply argue that it is THEIR 1st Amendment right to disrupt YOUR 1st Amendment rights, even if you are in a public space. This is the kind of circular insanity that leads directly to Stalinist or Maoist totalitarianism. I’m sure that many people are also familiar with the heightened number of incidences in recent weeks of these same cultural Marxists being beaten up in response to their strategy. Expect this to continue and expect reactions to social justice mobs to become even more violent as we get closer to election time.
My favorite hypocritical claim from cultural Marxists is that there is no such thing as reverse racism. Meaning, a black or Hispanic or Asian person, etc., cannot be racist towards a white person. How is this possible? They assert that racism requires institutionalized “advantage” or “privilege.” Only white people can be racist because we have all the “privilege” and institutional protection. Of course, bringing up the fact that the president of the United States is a black man does not seem to matter. The so called “patriarchy” reigns supreme, and the patriarchy is white. If you think that reverse racism is not a real issue, then you might want to take a gander at this little debate at Harvard, in which the main argument by a Black Lives Matter activist was “white people do not have a right to life” (be sure to check out the links included with the video which affirm that this was not simply a debater “playing devil’s advocate”).