Why the reactionary left is at war with Trump

 

Our present cultural dilemma:

Clickbait noun ˈklik-ˌbāt: something (such as a headline) designed to make readers want to click on a hyperlink especially when the link leads to content of dubious value or interest

I am constantly astounded at how easily many are being influenced by low resolution, overly simplistic analyses of our present culturally defining moment. Most will accept the clickbait which offers the most simplistic answers to the problems with which we are being confronted in so much as the clickbait preferred resonates with their particular ideological preferences. This reactionary attitude applies to all political stripes regardless of ideological bent.

What astounds me is that so few care to assess our defining cultural moment for themselves. I read few root cause analyses capable of defining our cultural situation. I see few suggestions as to how these issues might be addressed. There has been little attempt to even measure whether or not the preferred path forward is practical and useful.

Clickbait has replaced thousands of years of philosophical and theological studies of the human condition. It offers idiots reactionary solutions that appeal to the lowest common denominator. It's like crack cocaine to the weakest and least intelligent of minds. The true opiate of the people isn't Christianity, rather it is the belief that the state can solve our problems. No wonder society has become so desperate and nihilistic.

What is WOKE at its foundations ideologically speaking?

As a counter-reaction to this nihilism and loss of meaning the leading voices in restoring confidence and faith in our culture have identified two major components of WOKE ideology that have provoked the present backlash against radical leftism. Most of these voices of reason have become well known via alternative media and the 5^th Estate while the 4^th Estate generally holds them in utter contempt since the 4^th Estate operates as apologists for the political elite today. The first major ideological component to WOKE is Postmodern Cultural Relativism which states that all cultures except ours have equal value. Postmodernists also assert that language isn't really used to communicate, rather it's a tool wielded only to assert power and control. Postmodernists also deny that there is a grand narrative that can help explain life. Therefore, it's the Postmodernists like Derrida and Foucault, just to name two, who are responsible for the prevailing war on the meaning of language itself. Foucault was also a renowned paedophile.

The other ideological element of the radical left identified as prevalent today is Cultural Marxist Critical Race and Gender Theory. Cultural Marxism attempts to replace the Grand Narrative that built the West, namely Christianity. Postmodernists choose to ignore this fact since their first assertion is to reject the very idea of a Grand Narrative, nonetheless, they have adopted Critical Theory as their Grand Narrative. Moreover, there isn't a university in the West which doesn't teach these Neo-Marxist ideas as viable philosophical bases for political theory. This takeover of the Academy is known by those who have engaged in it as "the long march through the institutions" and how frighteningly successful it has been. Antonio Gramsci wrote in the 1930s of a “war of position” for socialists and communists to subvert Western culture from the inside. Gramsci was an Italian communist who is credited with the blueprint that has served as the foundation for the Cultural Marxist movement in modern America. Later dubbed by 1960s German student activist Rudi Dutschke as “the long march through the institutions”. Gramsci wrote in the 1930s of a “war of position” for socialists and communists to subvert Western culture from the inside in an attempt to compel it to redefine itself. So, Gramsci used war metaphors to distinguish between a political “war of position”—which he compared to trench warfare—and the “war of movement (or maneuver),” which would be a sudden full-frontal assault resulting in complete social upheaval.

A Shift in Strategy

In the 1998 book The Antonio Gramsci Reader, edited by David Forgacs, Gramsci’s development of a new form of strategy for ushering in the socialist revolution is made clear. Gramsci argued that the Bolshevik Russian revolution of 1917 worked because the conditions were ripe for such a sudden upheaval. He described the Russian revolution as an example of a “war of movement” due to its sudden and complete overthrow of the existing governing structure of society. Gramsci reasoned that in Russia in 1917, “the state was everything, civil society was primordial and gelatinous.” As such, a direct attack on the current rulers could be effective because there existed no other significant structure or institutions of political influence that needed to be overcome.

In Western societies, by contrast, Gramsci observed that the state is “only an outer ditch” behind which lies a robust and sturdy civil society. Gramsci believed that the conditions in Russia in 1917 that made revolution possible would not materialize in more advanced capitalist countries in the West. The strategy must be different and must include a mass democratic movement, an ideological struggle. His advocacy of a war of position instead of a war of movement was not a rebuke of revolution itself, just a differing tactic—a tactic that required the infiltration of influential organizations that make up civil society. Gramsci likened these organizations to the “trenches” in which the war of position would need to be fought.

The massive structures of the modern democracies, both as state organizations, and as complexes of associations in civil society, constitute for the art of politics as it were the “trenches” and the permanent fortifications of the front in the war of position: they render merely “partial” the element of maneuver which before used the “the whole” of war, etc. Gramsci argued that a “frontal attack” on established institutions like governments in Western societies may face significant resistance and thus need greater preparation—with the main groundwork being the development of a collective will among the people and a takeover of leadership among civil society and key political positions. It is important to bear in mind that Gramsci’s ultimate goal is still socialism and overthrow of the capitalist order. His contribution was to outline a different strategy for this to occur.

Gramsci’s Analysis of “Civil Society” and Hegemony

Gramsci defined civil society as the “ensemble of organisms commonly called ‘private.’” More directly, he described civil society as that sphere of social activities and institutions not directly part of the government. Primary examples included political parties, trade unions, church organizations, and other popular voluntary associations. Gramsci noted that dominant social groups in civil society organized consent and hegemony—they assumed a leadership position by the consent of members. Their leadership role includes fostering an ideological consensus among their members. Gramsci envisioned that these groups would organize their opposition to the existing social order.

Gramsci, however, viewed civil society in Western societies to be a strong defensive system for the current State, which in turn existed to protect the interest of the capitalist class. “In the West, there was a proper relation between state and civil society, and when the state trembled a sturdy structure of civil society was at once revealed. The state was only an outer ditch, behind which there stood a powerful system of fortresses and earthworks,” he wrote. In short, in times when the state itself may have shown weakness to overthrow from opposing ideological forces, the institutions of civil society provided political reinforcement for the existing order. In his view, a new collective will is required to advance this war of position for the revolution. To him, it is vital to evaluate what can stand in the way of this will, i.e. certain influential social groups with the prevailing capitalist ideologies that could impede this progress.

Gramsci spoke of organizations including churches, charities, the media, schools, universities and “economic corporate” power as organizations that needed to be invaded by socialist thinkers. The new dictatorship of the proletariat in the West, according to Gramsci, could only arise out of an active consensus of the working masses—led by those critical civil society organizations generating an ideological hegemony.

The only possible antidote:

Which is why using our taxes we have actively helped to fund an attack on the foundations of not merely the Academy itself, but the entire civil society of the once Christian West. This blend of Postmodernism and Cultural Marxism have caused the West to forget who we are to sew sympathy for the Devil. We are committing cultural suicide due to parasitical empathy for the very thing which intends to destroy us. What I have shared here is not a hidden Gnostic mystery. Rather it is common knowledge to any who are aware of what is actually being taught in our universities which in turn has been applied politically by the ideologically addled political class who have received university degrees in advanced Marxism. So, if you want a clickbait meme guaranteed to contain the absolute Truth, repent of your ideological possession and turn to Christ for without Christianity the West as a project in human dignity and freedom cannot survive!