The Land of the Blind
How Western academia was monopolized by the Left and how can we turn the tide.
When the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia it was due to a number of factors which predisposed their revolution to become a successful political project, in due part to the economic conditions determined by the course of the Great War. This caused an ongoing spiral of public dissent which created a perfect storm of events that allowed them to implement the brutal, Jacobin revolutionary methodology first put into practice by their predecessors during the French Revolution.
While the Left was quite a strong political force in Europe, with different currents being dominant in particular regions, (Anarchism flourished in Spain and Italy, rejecting any form of system participation through civic action or electoral struggle through a political party which the more authoritarian Marxist oriented circles in Northern Europe did) there never existed the adequate conditions for a popular overthrow of the current order by the same means as was the case the Bolsheviks. Because the Left was unable to seize power through direct action, it instead was forced to infiltrate spheres such as finance and electoral politics. This meant that its strength was limited to the syndical transmission of the political favours on behalf of the working class, as well as its parliamentary representation in the European legislative bodies; though the moral credibility of the latter is still quite questionable.
This, however, was not enough to fulfil the insane prophecy revealed to the Communists by Karl Marx in his opus which, then as now, was interpreted as akin to religious dogma by the Western Marxist intelligentsia in the late XIX and early XX centuries.
Inspired by the success of the Bolsheviks in Russia, the German communists led by the likes of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, who were the founders of the Spartacist League, ignited the failed German Revolution of 1919 also known as the Spartacist Uprising. The social democrats who were in power tried to quickly eradicate the danger, even if it was ideologically very close to their own doctrine established by the Reformist Karl Kaucky who himself was despised by the Communists.
The Uprising was crushed by the heroic Freikorps, the veteran soldiers returning from the trenches to their homeland who, instead of the coming home to the loving embrace of their friends and family, found barricades and communists on their streets. It is also important to note that many notable figures of the Conservative Revolutionary movement were part of the freikorps at that time. After the failed Uprising, which aimed at proclaiming the new Soviet Republic in Germany, the Left was defeated at almost every level and in every country in Europe. Their Illusion of being the vanguard of the working class was dashed to bits by the reality that most workers were loyal to their respective nations. The Communists in Europe learned a valuable lesson, however, in 1919, and that was the fact that a frontal attack on the establishment in the form of a violent revolution wouldn’t do the job in Europe. Instead, they would need an alternative approach.
The Marxist philosopher and theorist Antonio Gramsci, a notable figure in the Western Marxist circles under the intellectual influence of Niccolò Machiavelli, started to develop the theory of Cultural Hegemony, which would later become the central pillar of the subversive doctrines of the Frankfurt School and the entire Fabian branch of Marxism.
“The term cultural hegemony describes the domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class, who manipulate the culture of that society — the beliefs, explanations, perceptions, values, and more — so that their ruling-class worldview becomes the worldview that is imposed and accepted as the cultural norm; as the universally valid dominant ideology that justifies the social, political, and economic status quo as natural, inevitable, perpetual and beneficial for everyone, rather than as artificial social constructs that benefit only the ruling class.”
Gramsci at the same time claimed that the Traditional and Conservative intellectuals who preferred historical continuity and nourishment of a system of values derived from Tradition were to be replaced by the organic intellectuals of the Left, who in time would occupy the institutional frameworks and replace the paradigms hitherto ensuring the Cultural Hegemony as a step by step political instrument and an alternative to the violent approach favored by the Marxist-Leninists.
As Parker Yockey claimed in his 1939 Essay “The Tragedy of Youth”:
“Leftist ideas became the very air that the American youth was breathing.”
How did the United States become the launching point for this cultural distortion? The answer cannot be summed up in a few sentences. Even before the American Revolution, the founding fathers followed not the Continental Liberal doctrine which at its core encapsulated the hatred, destruction and authoritarian yearning for absolute control which exploded during the Reign of Terror in Thermidor XIX in France, but the British strain of Liberalism which was not totally deprived of the Traditional norms, exempting of course for Monarchism due to the social and economic context of that time. American Republicanism was rooted in Protestantism and the authentic culture of the former colonies on the one hand, which still retained in certain aspects of their European cultural heritage. This was even more evident in the far more aristocratic South in whose legal system reflected a pre-capitalist agrarian lifestyle and the absence of strong mercantilism which were the traits of the highly industrious North.
It would not be a mistake to claim that before 1865, there were two Americas coexisting in the same state:
The South, which had inherited the true legacy of the healthy, non-subverted Republicanism of the Founding fathers, had developed an authentic Tradition of its own; even if it was somewhat detached from the Monarchical Concept of the European Tradition of the State. On the other side, the egoistic, profit-driven, expansionist North was strongly rooted in the ideas of Liberalism and the Third estate: atomistic Individualism, crude materialism and economic expansionism, and a concept of political authority devoid of auctoritas and imperium. The latter won the Civil War, which was nothing less than a clash of two worldviews, and thus a perfect habitat for totalitarian Liberalism and later Cultural Marxism was secured. After a relatively poor political scene expressed by the two political entities which in their essence were both Liberal, the Democrats, on one hand, the Republicans on the other, both in time came to favour an aggressive foreign policy driven by an intense form of military-economic expansionism. Thus, America was to become the Atlanticist Juggernaut the Eurasianists speak of today.
In 1933, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party seized power, which meant that many Marxist and Libertarian intellectuals started fleeing to the USA since almost all of Europe, except Britain and the Scandinavian countries, were not a place where they would be able to openly publish their ideas or receive a professorial tenure in their universities, themselves dominated by moderate thinkers in favour of the status quo. One such group included thinkers such as Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Friedrich Pollock, Erich Fromm, Otto Kirchheimer, Leo Löwenthal Franz Leopold Neumann and others moved to the United States and likewise their enterprise, the Institute for Social Research, better known by its more popular name the Frankfurt School, moved with them.
And so, the great march of Cultural conquest had begun. First, America became the country with the largest number of centres of higher education which took away from “Knowledge” its metaphysical nature as a right to the organic cultural bearing stratum. Knowledge became a commodity, something anyone could have access to for the right price. Instead of a Market Economy, the States became a Market Society void of any higher values, let alone tradition, which itself was something despised and rejected.
The film and music industries, the Modernist tendencies in art, the rudimental way of life shrouded in ignorance and conformism– America became everything that Europe is not nor ever could become without external Cultural distortion visited upon it. The thirties were the time of preparation for the culture-distorters to infect its host and totally detach it from its European roots, thus becoming the entity as we know it today. As Europe fell in 1945, the process of Americanization began. The same model of political subversion was enforced, and the Traditional institutions became a mere skeletal framework, bearing witness to the defeat for Europe’s soul.
Today, Conservatives stand at a crucial point for their existence: marginalized and under constant attack by the institutions, the culture-distorters have made the Right out to be a negative and destructive force. Meanwhile, the liberal tenant, marches along virtually unopposed, parading under the banners of political correctness, multiculturalism, gender studies, LGBTQ lobbyism and radical man-hating feminism reinforced by the Great Replacement of native Europeans and Americans of European ancestry by the means of mass immigration and state-sponsored clinical birth control. This has become the modus operandi of the Left as a whole. The gravest threat coming out from its monopoly of our higher institutions is not cultural deconstruction or the materialistic interpretation of History and reality, but the simulation of freedom with an inquisitorial PC viciousness.
They have become the tyrants Europeans aren’t even aware of. They have degenerated the Faustian, heroic European man into nothing more than a human resource, a mere statistic expressed by the name of the “Citizen”; the consumer drone unable to see nothing outside the scripted cultural narrative, raw material for capitalist reproduction stripped of any possibility for higher existence and spiritual transcendence– the caricature of the unblinking sheep which voluntarily walks towards its own slaughter.
What then needs to be done?
I firmly believe that we have to become the staunch defenders of constitutional categories such as freedom of speech and present what has been discussed herein as what it really is: a major civilizational rift caused by the legacy of parliamentary democracy and all the ills associated with it. To combat this, we must become Conservative Revolutionaries representing the cause of Traditional renewal of our societies.
The premise is to leave aside our petty squabbles, chauvinisms and parochial ways of thinking and instead aspire to create a worldwide network which will enable us to act as an intellectual superstructure, a hydra-like organisation being able to adapt to any kind of conditions determined by the mechanisms of metapolitical struggle. We have to uphold an integral approach, simultaneously being loyal to our Idea and at the same time being pragmatic, Machiavellian technocrats working our way through the organs of power in order to retake our institutions.
After that, the Great March of institutional reconquest will follow as a natural consequence. We will start by taking our universities back and from there we will be able to spread our values as an Erga omnes category. This will ensure the campuses will not be monopolised by the regressive left but instead enlightened by the Front of Tradition. After we awake the minds of the new culture-bearing strata elite, the road will be paved for the establishment of Cultural vitalism and identitarianism. This will be a declaration of war in the form of civil activism all over the West and it will be the students who become the harbingers of the Conservative Revolution, fighting for the survival of their Culture and heritage. Then, the darkness imposed on us will be chased away by the torch of truth in the hands of a generation representing the Idea for the European Imperium and with that, the shameful legacy of 1968 will be washed away by the rushing waters of reawakening the values of our ancestors.