Changing the Culture
Broadly speaking, culture is cultivated behaviour, that which describes the ideas, customs, social behaviour, shared values and moral outlook of groups of people. It is the outcome of the accumulation of knowledge, experience, beliefs and social habits that are socially shared and socially transmitted from generation to generation. Whereas race is defined by genetics and is passed on by heredity, culture is not defined by race and is passed on to the next generation by learning, involving both communication and imitation – a sort of spiritual osmosis. So culture is the sum total of the learned behaviour of a group of people that identifies the tradition of that people and distinguishes them from people of a different culture.
Culture is generally linked to a nation state, such as Japanese culture, or to a regional grouping of nation states, such as European culture. In the larger grouping, there can be cultural differences between the various members of that grouping, deriving from history, religion, geography and language. For example, Australia’s traditional culture can be said to be western, or European, in its broadest sense, British in a narrower sense, but with cultural characteristics that are unique to what can be described as traditional Australian culture.
This traditional Australian culture derives from Christianity and British Parliamentary democracy, which itself has its origins in the reformed Christianity of 16th century England. Culture has a strong gravitational pull that leads to widely accepted social habits of behaviour and conduct governing social interaction; it induces a cultural paradigm that is shared amongst people of the same culture. When Australia was established under its own Constitution in 1901, this cultural paradigm could best be summed up in the widely used expression “God, King and Country”, which was reflected in the Preamble to the Australian Constitution, which begins;
“Whereas, the people of NSW, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessings of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:”.
The establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia, on January 1st 1901, was the outcome of a process unique in the world. The colonial Assemblies of the separate colonies making up what was then the Dominion of Australia, organised and facilitated conventions of citizens throughout the country to consider the drafting of a proposed Constitution for the newly independent nation soon to be forthcoming.
The draft that resulted from this series of Conventions was then submitted for the judgement and decision of the people by way of referendum. Thus the Constitution that evolved from this process was the most democratic in history. Not only was the Constitution approved by the people, but it provided that any Constitutional amendment must be approved by a majority of the people in a majority of states.
Contrast this process, for example, with the US Constitution, which was devised and adopted by the 13 sovereign states making up the United States and has never been submitted to the people for their consideration. It became effective on the ratification of nine of the thirteen states. Moreover, the US Constitution can only be amended when two-thirds of both Houses of Congress or two-thirds of the States propose an amendment, after which it must be approved by three quarters of the States to become effective. The people have no direct input into the process.
Australia, at the time of its establishment as an independent nation, was the most prosperous country in the world. Its cultural genesis was built around values that were widely accepted, such as egalitarianism, loyalty, duty, responsibility, civility,
An unwritten moral code was shared amongst the people. Manliness was a virtue, as was womanliness, and both were different. Men were manly and women were womanly. There was no confusion.
Since the 1960s, the traditional culture of Australia has been under attack, to the extent that it has almost been eradicated from the social consciousness of most Australians of less than fifty years of age. This attack has been enduring and, at first, slow moving, but the pace has accelerated during the last ten years; it has also been purposeful, having as its goal the destruction of Australia’s national culture and its replacement by an international culture, known as Marxism, but better described as international fascism.
In the history of man, nations have risen to prominence, acquiring wealth and power through the industry of their peoples and, before long, start to search around for a way to extend their influence and establish a hegemony – that is, leadership and sovereignty – by overpowering their neighbours. Ancient examples include Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome.
During the age of exploration, European powers such as England, France, Portugal, Spain and Holland became colonial empires by establishing imperial hegemony, through military force, over less developed peoples in Africa, Asia, the Americas and the Pacific.
More recently, we have seen the hegemony of Nazi Germany over most of Europe, and that of the Soviet Union over Eastern Europe.
Today, we are witnessing China seeking to extend her hegemony into the South Pacific.
All of these hegemonies have been established and maintained by military strength and, for several centuries, Britain’s foreign policy was founded upon the overriding principle that no one country should have hegemony in Europe – “maintaining the balance of power” was how it was put. Most of her military activity in Europe could be attributed to defence of that policy.
In the early twentieth century, the Italian communist theoretician and philosopher, Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), put forward the view that the historical rollover from one hegemony to another showed that while the exercise of military power might succeed in establishing a hegemony, it was an expensive and insecure means of maintaining it. Instead, Gramsci developed the theory that cultural manipulation was more effective than military domination in achieving an enduring hegemony. Thus, a communist dictatorship of the world, he posited, could only be achieved by creating a cultural hegemony, a hegemony of ideas and philosophies unconnected to nation or race, and that would therefore know no national boundaries.
In Gramsci’s theory, which has since become orthodox Marxist philosophy, cultural hegemony is the domination of a culturally diverse society by that society’s ideological ruling class, which manipulates the culture of that society, so that the worldview of the ruling class becomes the accepted cultural norm.
In Nazi Germany, which established a military hegemony in Europe for a short time, attempts were made to underpin their hegemony with cultural change implemented by politicisation of the schools and universities, the civil service, the military forces and the church. This process was called gleichschaltung – synchronisation or co-ordination; the objective of gleichschaltung was that the Nazi worldview, reinforced as it was with unrelenting propaganda, would become the accepted cultural norm in German society. Some considerable progress was made towards this objective, but the Third Reich lasted for only 12 years, from 1933 to 1945, a period that proved insufficient for the completion of the task.
In the modern West, the Fabian Society, a relatively small group of intellectuals established in Britain in1894, supplied the mechanism that has brought to life Gramsci’s vision of Communist world domination through cultural hegemony.
The Fabian Society took its name from the Roman General of the Second Punic War, Fabius Maximus, (“Greatest”) also known as Fabius Cunctator (“Delayer”), celebrated for his cautious military tactics in refusing to engage in battle against Hannibal’s army. Thus, the Fabian society adopted a gradualist approach to achieving social reform, seeking opportunities to spread its influence in political circles, particularly in the Labor movement, and in intellectual circles.
The marriage of Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony with the Fabian techniques of gradualism, has as its intention the establishment of Communism as a dominant worldview, held universally by citizens, that encompasses social, political and economic ideologies, and which is held to be natural, inevitable and perpetual, as well as beneficial for everyone.
This brave new world, envisioned by its proponents and adherents is, in reality, the false vision of a new religion, which is known as “Cultural Marxism”, but which I prefer to describe as “Fabian Fascism”, a name that encompasses both its methodology and its outcome. Hereafter, I use the terms interchangeably. Like all religions, Fabian Fascism binds its adherents in rigid conformity to its doctrines and precepts. The prophets of this religion are the ruling intellectuals, and its underlying principle is that there is no transcendent God, transcendence being a quality confined only to the doctrines of Cultural Marxism, which is relentlessly propagated in our universities, and which is known today as “political correctness”. Of course, non-adherents to Fabian Fascism may put forward another view, that this religion does, in fact, have a god, one spoken of in the ancient prophetic scriptures as the “god of this world”, although it must be added that transcendence is not attributed to him.
This religion of Fabian Fascism has laid siege to Christendom, and has almost succeeded in establishing the cultural hegemony of which Gramsci philosophised. Its success over the last fifty years has been nothing less than spectacular, as it reaped the fruit of the undermining of cultural values that had taken place in the previous fifty years.
Thus, an invisible ruling class, comprising social manipulators, academics, media personalities, political operators, billionaires and other elements of society referred to as “the elite”, or “the intelligentsia”, applying the techniques of Fabianism to the philosophy of Gramsci, has succeeded in establishing a hegemony, at least in infant form, over the culture of the West – its beliefs, explanations, perceptions and values.
But of course, contrary to doctrine, these ideologies have not proved beneficial for everyone. Those who hold alternative views to the dominant worldview of the new religion of Fabian Fascism are demonised, in terms validated by the new cultural orthodoxy, as “bigots”, “racists”, “misogynists”, “haters” etc. Rational discussion and civil discourse are not processes that are welcome in Fabian Fascism; absolute submission to the ideology of the ruling class is a necessary precondition to social acceptance, and even participation in civic life.
The implementation of this new cultural hegemony of Fabian Fascism, through the application of cultural Marxism, has been undertaken gradually and step by step, reflecting the Fabian approach, which can be compared to putting a frog in a saucepan of cold water on a warm stove. The frog doesn’t notice the gradual heating of the water until he is cooked; thus, it is only in hindsight that societies notice the subtle and gradual change to social, political and economic practices that have taken place.
The extent to which the cultural hegemony established by Marxism in Australia has penetrated and replaced the pre-existing culture, can be found almost wherever one cares to look across the devastated social landscape.
For example, Australia Day, commemorating the remarkable voyage, settlement and development of this nation, is now referred to as Invasion Day, to assuage the feelings of city dwelling minority blood aboriginals; abortion, the murder of unborn infants, is now commonplace and performed without any consideration of ethics or morality on the part of the doctor, the mother, or the government, which provides the funds; the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has now become accepted by governments and by most citizens, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary; governments have legislated to allow the term “marriage” to be applied to homosexual couples; adoption agencies must allow homosexual couples to adopt babies; gender fluidity has been given official recognition; masculinity is proclaimed as “toxic”; protection of our national borders is now seen as cruel and oppressive. On and on it goes, as one citadel of cultural value after another falls to the invader.
All of these issues have been run through the cultural manipulation mill so that they now form part of the orthodox social attitudes and widespread cultural values that predominate in Australia today. That they are so dramatically different to those of fifty years ago reflects the Fabian methodology of “creeping change”. Very few citizens, for example, would have thought that decriminalising homosexual practices occurring in private would lead to the legalisation of homosexual marriages; or that legalising abortion in cases of rape would lead to the murder of infants at the point of birth; or that taking a more relaxed and less severe legal approach to smoking marijuana would lead to publicly funded, legal injecting rooms for heroin addicts and official acceptance of widespread use of dangerous, mind altering drugs by young people.
The name given to this persistent and endless attack on traditional cultural norms is Cultural Marxism; it is the religion of “progressives”; but its real character is better understood by applying the term Fabian Fascism.
The consequences of this infiltration of Cultural Marxism into Australian society can be observed by the changes in our social and cultural institutions:
- Schools and universities have evolved into publicly funded centres of social contagion, where our children are infected with the dangerous bacillus of Cultural Marxism, the cultural paradigm propagated in all subject areas;
- Government departments, in the same manner as Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth”, have become instruments for the implementation of Cultural Marxism;
- Society has been divided between those brainwashed into Cultural Marxism by their engagement with the “education” system, and those who have retained a capacity to think and reason for themselves;
- Families have been divided between adherents of Cultural Marxism and those whose worldview reflects some remnant of the pre-existing culture;
- The nation is experiencing an epidemic of widespread and chronic clinical depression, as human beings seek to cope with a life without meaning, without purpose and without hope.
If Gramsci’s theory of establishing a worldwide cultural hegemony was to be achieved, there were three institutions most likely to offer resistance to change; the family, the church and the nation state. Early manifestations of cultural Marxism were aimed at addressing and overcoming these natural centres of resistance.
Each generation, humans start from scratch and, as Hannah Arendt said, every generation of Western civilization is invaded by barbarians — we call them “children.” As babies we come into the world with the same programming as Viking, Hun or caveman babies.
These “barbarians” need to be civilised and that’s a job primarily done by families; which is why, for parents, the exhaustion, excitement, and melancholy nostalgia that is part of parenthood, inevitably means that the days are long and the years are short.
We teach our children how to be citizens in the broadest sense of the word, through formal education, religious teaching, social norms and the modelling of proper behaviour. In other words, the task of parents is to assimilate their children into their culture.
This role of inter-generational cultural transmission made the family a prime target of Fabian Fascism; if the traditional family were allowed to exist, changing the culture would be almost impossible to achieve. Thus the family has been the vehicle of cultural transmission most under attack during the last fifty years.
It probably began with the economic conscription of women into the workforce. Housing and land prices escalated to such an extent that home ownership became impossible for the average worker. In an almost empty continent, local government bodies refused to release adequate land for housing development to meet the needs of a growing population in the post war period. Without women working, it became almost impossible for the single income family to survive; it was even penalized by the taxation system.
With Dad and Mum both working, childcare fell into the hands of government funded “child care” centres, thus robbing the child of the essential influence and company of parents. Concurrently, school education abandoned the traditional education of which parents would approve and wandered off into the weird world of “social studies”, from which springs the current focus on distorting Australia’s history, gender dysphoria, and identity politics. What it means is that parents putting their children into school are committing them into the hands of the enemy. The school system spends the next twelve years conditioning them to accept subjection to a peer group; it is the foundation of the lifelong process of turning men into Pavlov’s dogs; it replaces human individuality with a herd mentality.
Most parents don’t realise this, and if they do, their debt financing obligations leaves them with no alternative.
At the same time, token faith degenerated into unbelief and moral degradation was the result. Men began relinquishing their traditional role with its duties and responsibilities in favour of “Leisure”, while women were becoming more financially independent and therefore, more socially mobile. Workforce “relationships” sparked an increase in marriage breakdowns and liberalisation of divorce laws was enacted to accommodate the new reality of casual “marriage”. Children became the property of the courts supported by a huge retinue of childcare “experts”.
It is hardly surprising then, that family values that once centred on God, king and country have been eroded to the extent that young people today are utterly confused and disconnected from any substantial cultural roots, turning instead to the drug culture, homosexuality, transgenderism etc. Nor is it any wonder that Australia’s education standards have plummeted down the international scale.
All of this has taken place gradually, and step by fatal step. It is the consequence, primarily, of the failure of men to be men, and the colonisation of our education system by cultural Marxists. School graduates today know more about LGBTI “rights” than they do about the Australian Constitution. The notion of individual responsibility in areas like health, education and family matters has been supplanted by reliance on Government funding and, as a consequence, submission to bureaucratic directives and policies. Big Brother has arrived.
Another important vehicle intended to be of use in the transmission of the culture from one generation to another, is the Christian Church. Given that our traditional culture derives from Christianity and the British Parliamentary system, the Church was a critical resource on which families, and society generally, could draw. The Church became the guardian of the culture, as well as the arbiter of society’s moral questions. Of course, that was not a role given to it by God, but as Christianity became established in the West, Churches gradually grew into accepting the responsibility of exercising moral and ethical judgement.
As such, the Church was a key target of Fabian fascists, who recognised it as an obstruction in their path to cultural overthrow. Gradually, and over many years, the Church was colonised by change agents determined both to undermine the Church itself and to alter its doctrinal purity. These agents flocked into the Ministry, disdaining spiritual anointing in favour of ecclesiastical appointing. Unwilling to await any divine impetus and too impatient for the status that came with the job, these hirelings rushed out to exercise authority over God’s people. They were mindful of Jesus’ words “Go ye!”, but ignored His words “Tarry ye!”. There was too much going and not enough tarrying, with the result that the Church became infested with “leaders” who brought the latest religious fashion, and that’s all, into the meeting places. But truth that is not lived is no better than error; the scribes who sat in the seat of Moses were not the victims of error; they were the victims of failure to live the truth that they taught. And the Church has followed the same path. As Keats said; “Nothing ever becomes real until it is experienced”. That applies to the word of truth; anyone can speak it, but until the hearer sees it and feels it, it is not truth.
Rapidly, the Church fell to the demonic invasion; no watchman on the walls saw it coming, but a few people in the pews realised that what had been, no longer was, and they began moving out. A new order had manifested itself.
Now what calls itself the Church, can hardly claim the name Christian. Scriptural integrity has been abandoned, the scriptures being deconstructed to mean what they plainly don’t; business models have been developed using commercial hype with marketing experts giving advice on building up the numbers; a professional career structure has been developed and pulpits are occupied by false teachers and hirelings greedy and ambitious for advancement; much that is described as worship is emotional manipulation and self-centred, not God-centred; carnality and worldliness rule. This is what I call Rabbinical Christianity.
Consequentially, therefore, there has been the abandonment of obedience, virtue, integrity, discretion, courage, humility, modesty, purity of heart, and consequently, a total loss of power and influence in the world. The modern Church has received the gospel in word only, and not with power and the Holy Spirit (see 1 Thessalonians 1:6). The modern Church, which has a name that lives, is dead (Revelation 3:1). But Christians are caught up in this godless system, which begs the question: “Why do you seek the living amongst the dead” (Luke 24:5).
The Nation State
A nation state is generally comprised of people with a common culture, shared by most, if not all, of its citizens. Nations states therefore, are a formidable barrier to cultural penetration and the insinuation of cultural change. If they continue to exist, it is likely that cultural hegemony will be more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
An outstanding example of the resistance of nation states to cultural replacement is the former state of Yugoslavia, established after the First World War out of the tattered remnants of the Austro/Hungarian Empire.
The Balkan states of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Macedonia, Slovenia and Montenegro were amalgamated into the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, under King Alexander. The name, Yugoslavia, meant South Slavs, which is what the dominant Serbs were; but the new nation was also made up of peoples whose culture followed Catholic, Muslim, Orthodox or Protestant traditions, and Slav, Latin, Greek and Germanic ethnic identity. Thus, the seeds of Yugoslavia’s disintegration were sown at its birth in 1918.
The fact that it endured until 1992 was the result firstly, of international pressure, followed by Nazi domination, the overthrow of which led to the rule of a Communist strongman, Joseph Tito. It was his death that led to the fracturing of this artificial construct of a state in 1992. Secession and wars broke out and the United Nations sent military forces into the country to enforce peace. The federation of states broke up into its cultural components.
The point is that the different cultures of the different peoples of Yugoslavia were not eliminated by strong rulers or international pressure, just suppressed; cultural change could not be enforced by a powerful central authority, just unwilling and resentful compliance. When the strong hand was removed, each cultural component of the nation re-emerged and the people reverted to cultural type. It follows therefore, that for Cultural Marxism to succeed in establishing Fabian Fascism, the concept of the nation state as the best vehicle for the expression of identity, and the most appropriate entity for the organisation of the affairs of men, must be undermined.
Multiculturalism then, is the weapon devised to undermine the nation state and destroy national sovereignty, as a precursor to implementing cultural change. Multiculturalism aims to weaken nations by creating cultural divisions resulting in the destruction of social cohesion. Gramsci’s theory of establishing cultural hegemony works best in a culturally diverse society, and so multiculturalism became the vehicle to establish the social conditions that were to eliminate, or at least undermine, the pre-existing monocultural nature of the nation state. The long-term objective of multiculturalism is to replace the sovereignty of all individual nations with an international fascist government masquerading as “Socialist”, or “Marxist”, or whatever title might be conveniently applied. The United Nations is, in embryonic form, the forerunner of such a government of all nations.
If we want to see what a world government would look like, we need look no further than Europe, where member nations of the EEC have lost any control over the laws by which their citizens are governed. In fact, of course, they are not member nations at all, but member states of a much larger supranational identity. Unelected bureaucrats govern by diktat, totally removed from any consequences of popular concern or agitation at their decisions.
Multiculturalism is, naturally enough, a policy espoused and promoted by the left. Conservatives generally have been slow to realise the objective behind it and now, as we stand amidst the ruins of what was, it may be too late to do anything about what is.
There are several observations to be made about multiculturalism, its processes, its nature and character, and its natural enemy.
- The first and basic step in implementation of the multicultural programme is to denigrate and degrade the existing national culture. Thus, cherished celebrations of the nation state, such as Australia Day and Anzac Day, are denigrated. Christmas is under siege.
- Multiculturalism is a godless, but nevertheless a religious, worldview. It is the evangelical offshoot of the humanist religion of Cultural Marxism.
- Multiculturalism’s aim is to make the nation state unviable, through social conflict (called “cultural diversity”), balkanization of our cities into ethnic and cultural enclaves, enmity and hostility between different cultural groups, leading to a fractured community, discord and street violence and rioting, all of which we see happening with increasing intensity in the Western world.
- Social breakdown in a nation state can lead to intervention by the United Nations, as happened in the former state of Yugoslavia. The evangelists of Cultural Marxism in Australia already give credence to the UN and its diktats that provide a taste of the future of Government in Australia. Despite the Constitution insisting that the legislative power of the Commonwealth is “vested in a Federal Parliament, consisting of the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives”, it has become routine for UN Covenants to be adopted by the Australian Parliament without any legislation at all. Cultural Marxism uses the UN as a pathway to the establishment of an international, one-world, Communist Government, as envisaged by Antonio Gramsci, almost one hundred years ago.
The only force capable of resisting and opposing Cultural Marxism and its parent, Fabian Fascism, is spiritual Christianity, the Rock upon which many Godless, totalitarian empires have foundered. It is also that from which the nations of Christendom have derived their culture, and concepts such as individual liberty, personal responsibility, truth, contribution, mutuality, social obligation, duty and the pursuit of excellence.
Democracy only works in a society in which these Christian concepts are reflected in law and social behaviour. As John Adams, second President of the United States, said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”.
Although the concept of democracy derives from ancient Greece, not all people enjoyed democratic rights and the government of states was a moveable feast, encompassing democracy, monarchy, oligarchy or tyranny. The only alternative to democracy today is totalitarianism, such as Fascism, Communism, Islamism or Tribalism. The type of democracy that we see in the Anglosphere and Europe is a concept of government that has its origins in Christianity.
Christianity has been eroded and degraded by the modern tendency to undermine the scriptures so as to bring them into line with emerging cultural orthodoxies. Recognising homosexual ”marriage” is only the latest in a long line of scriptural compromises that have rendered the church powerless and ineffective. It cannot be expected that the church of today in the Western world is able, or even willing, to engage in the struggle against Cultural Marxism. It has fallen asleep and doesn’t know that the thief has entered the house.