In the first part of this series, we looked at how, confronted with the obvious failure of Marxist economics and the general disdain for communist revolution amongst the proletariat, the Marxists retooled their ideologies over the middle 20th century. The Long March through the Institutions was born.
50 years later, a great many of us are left, shaking our heads and wondering, “Where did this all come from?” The slight majority who, for instance, voted for gay marriage thinking that they were simply voting for “equality for gay people”, suddenly find themselves dealing with drag queens in school libraries, boys in dresses joining the Girl Guides, and women being bullied that they are just “birthing persons” and “men get periods, too”.
Where the hell did all that come from? The same place as all the rest of this far-left lunacy.
As outlined in the previous post, a key platform of neo-Marxism is so-called Critical Theory.
One example of critical theory, espoused by Wilhelm Reich in his book The Sexual Revolution, is that, as capitalist societies reproduce themselves by enforcing a moralistic, repressive view of sexuality, there must be a sexual revolution if people are to be fully liberated and empowered. The Italian political philosopher Augusto Del Noce, in his essay “The Ascendence of Erotism”, noted that the traditional monogamous family and a heterosexual view of sexuality have been especially targeted as oppressive and outdated.
Contemporary radical sexuality theory, underpinning the Safe Schools program and the same-sex-marriage and transgender movements, owes much to critical theory and the pioneering work of Reich. One of the designers of the Safe Schools program, Roz Ward, has justified the program by arguing that “only Marxism provides the theory and practice of genuine human liberation” and “it will only be through a revitalised class struggle and revolutionary change that we can hope for the liberation of LGBTI people”.
Ward, it must be remembered, is the activist who boasted that she “teach[es] your children to be gay and communist”, and that her work would not be done until the red flag was hoisted over parliament.
As significant as the Frankfurt School in the origins of political correctness and cancel culture is the impact of the cultural revolution of the late 1960s and early 1970s […] when critical theory morphed into a rainbow alliance of cultural-Left ideologies and movements, including postmodernism, deconstructionism and radical feminist, gender, queer and post-colonial theories. While such ideologies and theories are often in disagreement, what they have in common is a deep-seated hatred of Western civilisation, Judeo-Christianity and capitalism […] Radical gender activists deny the inherent biological nature of sexuality and condemn Western societies and the nuclear family as heteronormative, homophobic and transphobic.
So, if you’re wondering how the hell we got to the point where school children are made to apologise for being white, boys are made to apologise for being male, and Christians are being scrubbed from Australian society — that’s how.
Once again, this is not just some paranoid, Bircher conspiracy theory. The left have been openly telling us what they’re doing, for decades.
Joan Kirner, who was soon to become Victoria’s Education Minister and Premier, argued at a Fabian Society meeting in Melbourne in 1985 that education had to be reshaped as “part of the socialist struggle for equality, participation and social change, rather than an instrument of the capitalist system”.
The teacher training textbook Making the Difference, published in 1982, also argues schools must become centres for political activism […] the authors write that teachers “have to decide whose side they are on” […]
The [Australian Education Union] argues that Australian society is riven with inequality and disadvantage and that consequently the education system needs a radical overhaul. It argues that Catholic and independent schools should not be funded by governments, it is wrong to compare and rank students in terms of academic performance, and the curriculum must prioritise anthropogenic global warming, LGBT+ and peace studies, multiculturalism and Aboriginal history, culture and spirituality. Not surprisingly, the AEU’s 2003 “Policy on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender People” says “Homophobia and Heterosexism must be included in the content of pre-service training for all teachers”.
As parents in the US have discovered, students are increasingly being assigned, not the great texts of the English canon, but what seems indistinguishable from gay porn and paedophile literature.
In an issue of the [Australian Association for the Teaching of English]’s journal titled “Love in English”, the argument is put that the literary works chosen for Years 11 and 12 are guilty of prioritising “heterosexual and cisgender identities as the norms against which to define the other”. The solution is for English teachers to embrace a “queer-inclusive curriculum” that “celebrates diverse sexualities”. The AATE also tells teachers they should stop teaching pronouns like she and he in the classroom and instead ensure “their, they, them are used as alternatives to gendered pronouns”.
Quadrant Online
But, if promoting homosexuality as a key anti-capitalist strategy (thereby depriving the wicked capitalists of the next generation of workers) is just the start why bother waiting until kids are adults before “teaching them to be gay and communist”?
Get ‘em early as we can, the argument goes: welcome to Queer Theory.
Get your barf bags ready, people…
Please share this article so that others can discover The BFD