Imagine the bomb-throwers of the 1960′s won. Imagine for a moment they got everything they wanted. Everything. Total victory would mean not only that the institutions of power fell into their hands, but that people’s minds had been revolutionized as well. Not only would the notion of resisting the Revolution be unthinkable, but the intellectual foundations of that Revolution had been bored into people’s heads as inescapable and basic.
Well, guess what? It happened.
If you doubt that, just recall what 60′s radicals wanted. They wanted power, power to overthrow a nation and people they despised. Their cause was enthusiastically embraced by Hollywood, which portrayed radicals as courageous idealists motivated by justice. The depth of hatred for the middle class and the South, the cultural bedrock of America, was reflected in such movies as Joe and Easy Rider.
The 60′s radicals’ intellectual roots arose from the work of Herbert Marcuse, who influenced Angela Davis and Abbie Hoffman. Marcuse modified Marxism for a new generation of revolutionaries. Like Antonio Gramsci, Marcuse understood that society could not be transformed through the working class, which, contrary to orthodox Marxism, was not a revolutionary force, but a bedrock of social conservatism and Christian faith. There could be no political revolution without a “march through the culture. ”
Therefore, the seizure of power could only be accomplished by undermining the cultural norms that held traditional society together, including Christianity, the family, and the established demographics from which national loyalty and cohesion depended.
Marcuse used his impressive political and scholarly connections to kick-start his revolution. During World War II, he worked for the Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of the CIA. After the war, he taught philosophy and politics at Columbia, Harvard, Brandeis, and the University of California, converting his many students and associates to his “New Left ” revolution.
Subversion from within, by hijacking traditional institutions and utilizing them for revolutionary purposes, has done more to promote the radical agenda than all the Weatherman bombs ever could. Universities, originally founded to spread Christian theology, are now fortresses of Marcusian Political Correctness. The heirs of Marcuse and his many followers now control all the major news, educational, and political institutions. It is they who are mainstream, and we are left on the outside taking fire.
So thoroughly has the new ruling elite perverted our institutions that even the so-called “conservative ” movement is waging war on the heartland. Mainstream conservatives (now called “Neocons” to distinguish them from traditional conservatives) have taken up the radicals’ agenda of waging unending, uncompromising war on America’s core components, namely, the middle class and its values. The reason is that Neocons are not conservatives at all, but big-government radicals who worship the raw exercise of power. They invoke the name of Burke while promoting the ideology of Trotsky. But like a serial murderer on CSI, they have left an unmistakable trail of evidence which reveals the truth about them, which is summarized here.
By their own words, Neocons hold the opposite values of conservatives such as Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, and Richard Weaver, who grasped that social and political rights arise naturally from a stable cultural tradition, rather than from the minds of social engineers. Paleoconservatives, then, maintain that customs, traditions, and heritage must be preserved and vigorously defended.
Neocons, on the other hand, have more in common with the 1960′s bomb-throwers. From amnesty for illegal alien invaders to embracing the communist-backed goals of the Civil Rights revolution, Neocons stand for revolutionary change, change not to adapt and preserve America, but to reconstruct it according to a new blueprint. Neocon writer Michael Ledeen put it this way:
“Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace.”
Despite this undeclared war against it, the heartland of America, especially the South, continues its loyalty to the powers that now actively work to destroy them. Pat Buchanan speaks for many when he wonders why Neocons so despise the very people who supply the muscle and faith that make America what it is:
Why the Hollywood Left hates Dixie is easy to understand. It is conservative, Christian, traditionalist, hostile to the cultural revolution. But why do the neocons? After all, the folks Krauthammer calls “white trash ” are the most reliable conservative voters in America, God-and-country people. They enlist in disproportionate numbers in the military, and die in disproportionate numbers in America’s wars.
The answer is simple: both Neocons and the Old Left share the same core values, which derived from Marx and Trotsky, rather than from Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee. Neocons and the Old Left want to gut what’s left of the real America. Sadly, many Americans swallow Neocon distortions as the truth. When Bush invokes universalism and equality as America’s core principles, principles that supposedly justify government interventionism at home and abroad, people buy it. Worse, too many also buy into the corollary that such a benign regime must be mindlessly trusted and obeyed. Gramsci would be proud to see his ideas implemented so thoroughly.
At the last Democratic debate, when the issue of illegal immigration was raised, all the candidates preceded their responses with the assertion that immigration is a good thing because, as Christopher Dodd put it, “it makes us a better country.” Really? That reminds me of the old insult that “any change would be an improvement. ” What the Democrats were saying is that Americans are so debased, so despicable, that the unknown political, cultural, and social impact from a Third World influx would be preferable to us remaining what we are. That, in case you missed it, was an insult.
And now you know where it came from.