The left’s worldview is based on lies. This fact is the reason why all those making a fashy goy’s progress the past year or two decided to break from the herd and make their first step in this direction. They saw that the left require outright lies, half-truths, or omissions to keep their narrative afloat and resolved to live within truth instead. To wax parochial — as is my custom — we can contribute to this Alt-Right critique by turning our gaze to the ways the Australian left maintain their narrative’s hegemony.
We truly are spoiled for choice in finding sources, but The Guardian’s Jason Wilson is an irresistible case study for several reasons. For starters, he’s an expat living in Portland, Oregon, for reasons, one can be forgiven in thinking, revolve around getting high and generally LARPing as an anti-bourgeois bohemian. This distance in space — and possibly space-time — leads to some interesting observations in his oeuvre such as connecting Reclaim Australia to the ranchers in Oregon whilst linking The Daily Shoah along the way. This is simply not the stuff one finds in Fairfax publications, or going downmarket, New Matilda.
The importance of the lies the left tell the public and one another are writ large in Wilson’s copy. Take for example the sense of urgency that is felt by the left in quashing the spread of the Cultural Marxist meme; Wilson has written two near identical articles on the issue barely a year apart. The general trigger of the truth getting out prompted the first article, and the particular trigger of a) not being successful the first time around in policing thought, and b) an article by Chris Ulhmann offered the chance for self-plagiarism.
There are three premises in both pieces; 1) the Cultural Marxism meme is a warped mirroring of real events1, 2) it is anti-Semitic, and 3) it allows for the right to play the victim. Dealing with the first, it’s a case of it really happened the way the right says, but it also didn’t. We are told that the Frankfurt School were interested in authoritarianism and whenever they critiqued American culture it was with reference to defending European Hochkultur. One wonders if Uncle Addy dindu nuffin because he promoted Wagner over jazz — a very silly cherry picked example regarding high culture; but the first counter-example is an interesting example of an omission, half-truth and lie rolled into a single package.
The F-Scale was designed by Frankfurt Scholar Theodor Adorno to measure the authoritarian personality. It measures authoritarianism and presumably just how close another Shoah is by scoring participants with an F for fascism if they’re trusting of authority figures, if they don’t rack their minds with self-doubt about received opinion and tradition, if they’re not autistic and trust in heuristics, their attitude to sexuality (you know what this means) and so on. How anyone can say this is not a highly politicised sociological experiment designed at radical transformation of traditional society for some Marxian dystopia is living within lies to say the least.
Similarly Wilson omits to inform his reader on the impact the Frankfurt School has had on the New Left, Herbert Marcuse was called the Guru of the New Left. This neatly dovetails with his insistence that the proponents of the Cultural Marxism meme are arguing in bad faith and from a lack of knowledge. Reading the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Marcuse — which is a reputable academic source — is a good place to start to get a survey of Marcuse’s work and a critical analysis thereof. Once again, becoming more intimate with their work leads the honest person to conclude that they were not interested in objective scholarship but in Bolshevik agitation. Something Wilson is interested in glossing over. Curiously Wilson does not object to the right’s understanding of Antonio Gramsci in starting the process of developing Cultural Marxism; just one of those aspects of the truth in the half-truth of his first premise. We can agree with Wilson here, but omit his second clause and simply posit, it really happened the way the right says.
Apparently it is anti-Semitic to notice Jewishness; it is also anti-Semitic to be in the same room as someone whose grandfather knew Himmler’s milkman. The second premise rests on logical fallacies; the left believe that noticing ethnicity will lead to people firing up the ovens, and also the fallacy of guilt by association. The first is not worth wasting the words on but the second sheds much light on leftists’ attempts at narrative hegemony. William S Lind once gave a presentation on the topic at an event put on by Willis Carto to an audience of what Wilson refers to as anti-Semites. Lind mightn’t be one, but speaking to them puts him on the same level.
Returning to the particular trigger, Uhlmann mightn’t be an anti-Semite, but he shares the company of those who share the company of anti-Semites, which is just as bad. He is careful not to defame Uhlmann, but the seed is planted that he very well could be an ‘anti-Semite’, for what is association other than agreement? Uhlmann functions as Wilson’s cautionary moral tale for all would be thought criminals. Don’t want to be called an anti-Semite? Then don’t tell the truth about the intellectual trends of the 20th century.
The third premise is tied to Wilson’s broader Marxian narrative vis-à-vis capitalism. There is another explanatory narrative as to why the West went from tradition to decrying it, the transformative nature of capitalism itself. This is quite true, and a perceptive turn but it isn’t the full story. Capitalism is the victor over Marxist economics but Western Marxism turned it away from supporting bourgeois conservatism, or as Jonathan Bowden puts it, we live in a left-wing Capitalist society.
Credit where credit is due, Wilson is spot on in his analysis elsewhere commenting on the civil war of conservatives against right-liberals in the centre-right. The party elites do not share the same cultural and social outlooks as their conservative bases and are often hostile to them. This is explained away as the effects of capitalism.
Wilson sees this as an opportunity for the left to bring back into the fold the White working class whose instinctual conservatism they despise. Wilson advises the left to be dishonest with them and pursue a populism against centre-right elites whilst at the same time promoting the very same socio-cultural agenda. They deserve to lose their ‘privilege’. The irony here being that talk about ‘privilege’ points to the veracity of the Cultural Marxist meme.
Neglecting the ‘who’, ‘how’, ‘what’, ‘when’, and ‘why’, the left became sensitive to minority concerns. Non-Marxian socialists reformed their trade unions from excluding non-White labour to multiracialism just because; Marxists dropped their decades old view of homosexuality as bourgeois deviation for reasons. These social views are allegedly the mainstream view of the majority, but how did this happen? These are questions to which Wilson has no answers.
His own narrative is ineffectual in creating an explanatory framework contrary to Cultural Marxism. This gives us good reason to doubt the soundness of his first premise even before critiquing it, and it is the final nail in his argument’s coffin. Some might say they could have told us this without wasting the time to read Wilson’s op-eds. But it is edifying to go through this laborious process to show how the left require dishonesty to stay in power. It is their bread and butter.
It is remarkable then to find instances when the left tell the truth. But all such instances are in service to their lies. They know they can easily cower and coerce the centre-right into remaining with the herd, but they know a truly rightist view must never be given a platform because it threatens their fragile hegemony. They, therefore, must tread very carefully here when telling the truth about the actual right.
Wilson’s latest piece titled “The conservative crack-up: managing a disintegrating political message” deftly handles such a task.2 Although someone like Wilson opposes centre-right party elites and their talking points of free markets and moral traditionalism they see them as preferable to the Alt-Right. They’re in a sort of partnership with the left. Their job is to police the margins of the right and purge anyone who might pose an actual threat to the left. The internet and social media has made this impossible.
It absolutely frightens Wilson that
White nationalists, paleo-conservatives, neo-reactionaries and libertarians of various flavours run well-trafficked websites which are the equal of mainstream outlets in terms of aesthetic and editorial quality.
Worse still is the influence the Alt-Right is having on the mainstream with Trump retweeting “obvious white nationalist accounts”. Further evidence for Wilson that the right can’t police its margins.
It becomes apparent that part of the urgency for Wilson in rewriting his anti-anti-Cultural Marxism piece is due to the increased workload that the Alt-Right has plonked squarely on his desk by virtue of showing up cuckservatives. The dissident right intellectually outguns the centre-right, so it is only reasonable the more astute right-leaning commentators will absorb some of its illicit ideas. The left just cannot stand idly by and has taken it upon themselves to police the entire spectrum of the right.
In this precarious picture — for the left that is — truthfulness is required in order to find the source of those uppity Whites refusing to stay on their plantation. The usual trick of guilt by association won’t work this time but it remains to be seen what tactics the left will employ next. With the risk of sounding like a broken clock, no doubt their solutions will involve more lies and omissions.
Saving myself from accusations of being a monocausal lunatic, I’d advise readers to note that leftist subversion does not start or end with the Cultural Marxists. For other examples of such subversion see the discussion on World Historians, Dependency theory, Franz Boas’ relativism and more in Ricardo Duchesne, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012), pp. 1–69. ↩
I’d like to thank Marcus Halberstram over at Fash the Nation for bringing this article to TheDingoes’ attention and for having the good sense in not stealing our thunder provoking a war with the Dingoes a la the Nords. ↩
Postscript no I’m not a pomo boho mofo in putting the parenthesis in the title. The antics of the pseudo-intellectual left amuse me to no end, and emulating their conventions is equally amusing.