Sixty-Eighters

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, 02 June 2008 21:07.

BY Tomislav Sunic, and first published in Chronicles in March 1999

From Italy to France, from Germany to England, the post-World War II generation is now running the show. They have traded in their jeans and sneakers for political power. Thirty years ago, they rocked the boat at Berkeley, in Paris, and in Berlin; they marched against American imperialism in Vietnam, and supported the Yugoslav dictator, Josip Broz Tito, and his “socialism with a human face.” They made pilgrimages to Hanoi, Havana, and Belgrade, and many of them dressed in the Vietcong’s garb, or Mao’s clothes. A certain Bimbo named Jane Fonda even paid a courtesy visit to North Vietnam and posed for a photo-op with her rear on a communist howitzer. This generation protested against their wealthy parents, yet they used their fathers’ money to destroy their own welfare state. A burning joint passed from hand to hand, as Bob Dylan croaked the words that defined a generation: “Everybody must get stoned.”

This was a time which the youth in communist countries experienced quite differently. Prison camps were still alive, deportations were the order of the day from the Baltics to the Balkans, and the communist secret police—the Yugoslav UDBA, the Romanian Securitate, the East German Stasi, and the Soviet KGB—had their hands full. European 68ers did not know anything about their plight, and they simply ignored the communist topography of horror.

Back then, the 68ers had cultural power in their hands, controlling the best universities and spreading their permissive sensibility. Students were obliged to bow down to the unholy trinity of Marx, Freud, and Sartre, and the humanities curriculum showed the first signs of anti-Europeanism. Conservatives concentrated all of their attention on economic growth, naively believing that eliminating poverty and strengthening the middle class would bring about the renaissance of the conservative gospel.

Today, the 68ers (or “neo-liberals” or social democrats”) have grown up, and they have changed not only their name, but also their habitat and their discourse. Their time has come: Now they hold both cultural and political power. From Buenos Aires to Quai d’Orsay, from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to 10 Downing Street, they sit in air-conditioned executive offices or in ministerial cabinets, and they behave as if nothing has changed. Perfectly recycled in stylish Gucci suits, wearing expensive Bally shoes, sporting fine mascara, the 68ers pontificate about the global free market. They have embraced their former foe, capitalist entrepreneurship, and have added to it the fake humanistic facade of socialist philanthropy.

They have drawn up a hit list, filled with the names of senile individuals from distant countries who have been accused of “war crimes” and must be extradited to the 68ers’ kangaroo courts. Seldom, if ever, do they acknowledge the millions of victims of communism, documented recently by Stephane Courtois in Le livre noire du communisme. Nor do they wish to face their own role in communist genocide. And why should they? Their decades-long civil disobedience resulted in the downplaying of communist horror and legitimized the Gulag. While the 68ers did not play a direct role in Beria’s, Yagoda’s, or Tito’s ethnic cleansing, they were useful idiots. If today’s caviar left were to open the Pandora’s box of the Gulag, Augusto Pinochet would look like a naughty little scout from boot camp. The best way to cover up their own murderous past is to sing the hymns of human rights and to lecture on the metaphysics of permanent economic progress.

The 68ers and their well-clad cronies are the financial insiders now, speculating on stocks, never hesitating to transfer megabucks to Luxembourg via the Cayman Islands or, better yet, to do some hidden wheeling and dealing on Wall Street. They no longer spout nonsense about equality and social justice for the Vietcong, Congolese, or Tibetans, nor do they indulge in academic rantings about socialist utopia. And why should they? Today, the time is ripe for their gross corruption, veiled, of course, in the incessant rhetoric of multiculturalism. The 68ers have won: The world belongs to them.

But for how long? The 68ers have inherited a massive financial burden, much of it the result of government spending on the various programs that they once took to the streets to demand. At the same time, their work ethic pales next to the rugged individualism of their hard-working predecessors. From Germany to France, from Italy to England, they may excel in a liberal mimicry of capitalism, which in practice translates into the rise of a handful of the very rich and an ever-larger mass of the working poor. But who will foot the tab? No country can be run by humanitarian decrees. When push comes to shove, good leftist intentions mean nothing: The voters can kick the 68ers out of office just as quickly as they brought them in.

Many conservatives in Europe misunderstand the true nature of the modern left and its socialist offshoots. These conservatives naively assume that the cultural war will be won through political elections. They believe that political power (that is, the army, police, and diplomacy) will keep the country together and circumvent or circumscribe leftist influence. This is a dangerous and possibly fatal mistake, not just for the conservative cause, but for European civilization. The political power held today by the former 68ers is being institutionalized through legal restrictions on freedom of speech, of thought, and of research. Germany, Belgium, France, and other European countries have already passed strict laws forbidding young scholars to pursue open and honest research in certain touchy areas of modem history. Passages from the German Criminal Code bring to mind the Soviet comrade Vishinsky: They are not what we expect of a free and democratic country.

Many conservatives have failed to realize that political power must always be preceded by cultural power, and afterwards strengthened by an incessant media war. In our age of video, of hologram Hitlers, of sound-bite political lingo, the one who adapts the fastest to the changing world is bound to win. The 68ers realized long ago that one needs to infiltrate universities, publishing houses, and schools before storming the White House. For three decades, leftist scholars have diligently dished out their marxophille dogma to gullible students in Europe. Their progeny have grown up and are well positioned to follow suit.

If conservatives ever wish to surface again, they must resolutely commit themselves to fighting the cultural revolution by grooming highly sophisticated, highly intelligent journalists and scholars, and by coaching young people to defend the heritage of Europe. Conservative political leaders must realize that the culture is the only battleground on which cultural and political hegemony can be snatched away from the hydra of 68ers. Consider this: Conservatives can still boast of some prominent political leaders, yet the universities, schools, and the media are totally controlled by the left.

Conservative intellectuals in Europe are too differentiated, and they often suffer from pathological vanity and obsessive   individualism. Although they are sometimes wrongly accused of being populists, conservatives are incapable of whipping the young masses into a frenzy, or of creating militants ready to storm street barricades. Most conservatives don’t understand how to articulate their own message. It is impossible to get three conservatives to work together: Each will immediately wish to prove that he is the best. Cultural conservatives still don’t recognize their true enemy, much less know how to beat him. Frequently, they quarrel among themselves about their own nationalist victimology, or push their tribal dogmas to the extreme—always, of course, to the benefit of the international left. To be a conservative should not merely mean being frightened by postmodernity, or savoring one’s provincial “rootedness,” or wearing thick horn-rimmed glasses, or attending Sunday school lessons. Some great conservatives were agnostics, or pagans, or modernists, or revolutionary thinkers. By contrast, today’s conservatives have failed to address the social question of workers, and therefore, their turf has been stolen by the former 68ers, who are more versed in promising a glorious future.

What is to be done? Young conservatives, especially those with a solid background in the humanities, must start demystifying the leftist-liberal mythology. They must not gullibly imitate their teachers in the corrupt academy. After all, many self-proclaimed scholars are often half-wits with little knowledge of the drama of life, and they can easily be beaten on their own ground. In order to unseat the leftist-liberal political class and its pseudo-intellectual acolytes, young conservatives must resort to the same strategy that the left has pursued: Take to the cultural barricades, but to defend European civilization, rather than to tear it down.

And conservatives should not forget the ancient wisdom: Beat your leftist neighbor with his own weapon. Where it hurts the most.

Tags:



Comments:


1

Posted by John on Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:00 | #

The Vietnam war was not the fight against Communism it was sold as. In fact, it was all Communists fighting on both sides of that war (excepting the AVRN). The American anti-war movement, including much of the music scene, was infiltrated and coopted by the nominally conservative reptiles of the Communist American intelligence apparatus (don’t forget how they hosed Patriots like General MacArthur and Chiang Kai Chek). Jane Fonda was controlled opposition, imo. Her psyop function, ironically enough, was similar to Joseph McCarthy’s: to discredit opposition to the war and especially to drive the wedge further between working class white people and the anti-war movement. The Vietnam War was a disaster for white Americans.


2

Posted by EA (European American) Steve on Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:47 | #

to discredit opposition to the war and especially to drive the wedge further between working class white people and the anti-war movement. The Vietnam War was a disaster for white Americans.

—John

Exactly, the elite has used the tactic, ‘divide and conquer!’ The mid and late Vietnam War is a great example.


3

Posted by Bill on Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:50 | #

What a tangled web

I’ve struggled for a long time wondering how cultural Marxism, political correctness, multiculturalism and victim politics can sit comfortably alongside Capitalist neoLiberal economics.

I find it odd that cultural Marxism is the other side of the Capitalist neoLiberal coin.  On the one side there is neo Liberal economics (whatever works) and on the other side is the social Left Liberalism of anything goes.  The two halves making a whole ideology.

This essay reveals how today’s politics have come about, but for me, there are still unresolved questions such as, why did the old right go along with it?  -  Was it the profits stupid?

It looks like the old label left is supplying the old label right with a compliant, controlled consumer for their (right’s) bottom line - neat operation. 

To days elite consensus consists of a loose association of politicians, bankers, media, academia and assorted useful idiots - how was this association formed?

Is traditional Conservatism dead - never to be reborn?  If so, how can Conservatism fight back?

I suppose I should have waited to see what posters have to say, maybe they will enlighten me, I notice this article is nearly ten years old, has anything demonstrably changed since then?

I hope people can penetrate my muddled thinking.


4

Posted by Bill on Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:21 | #

“why did the old right go along with it?” Bill above.

I do not think I’m correct in saying this.  The old label Right were noblesse oblige and were given the order of the boot after the end of WWII.  This new lot, (modern Right ) is global Corporatism - not the same thing at all.

This clearly explains “Was it the profits stupid?”


5

Posted by The Narrator... on Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:34 | #

“why did the old right go along with it?  - Was it the profits stupid?”
-Posted by Bill on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 10:50 PM | #

Perhaps up high, but the middle and upper-middle class Whites were (and still are) politically naive in regards to the tactics and goals of their adversaries.

For example, I’ve lately come across several under-35 Whites, who, upon seeing All in the Family reruns, view Archie Bunker as some sort of ‘working class hero’, saying, ‘You couldn’t get buy with that on TV today!’

It never really occurred to them that Archie Bunker is the Jewish idea of them and that he was set up in effigy for the purpose of pouring scorn and derision upon them.

Television today is nothing but one ‘All in the Family’ type of show after another.

Traditional conservative Whites have the admirable quality of ‘saying what they do and doing what they say’, but it is a quality that becomes a tremendous Achilles’ Heel when it is projected onto those who do not share it and wish them ill.

This is why Sixty-Eighters were allowed to continue their rampage, with some of them taking the reigns of the Republican Party itself as born again neo-cons…


6

Posted by GT on Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:24 | #

It never really occurred to them that Archie Bunker is the Jewish idea of them and that he was set up in effigy for the purpose of pouring scorn and derision upon them.

Today’s “conservatives” are in love with King of the Hill and that cartoon about the baby with the big head, snob accent, MILF mother, and fat, stupid father.


7

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:02 | #

Im prepared to give King of the Hill a pass. Hank is portrayed as honest, polite & loyal though is he a character anyone actually aspires to be? We so often see white men portrayed as evil or stupid (or both!). The asian neighbor is portrayed as sneering & nasty and its not even Hank’s fault somehow, how rare is that?

Archie Bunker has been discussed here before as has Alf Garnett the British TV character he was based on, you’ll have to search…


8

Posted by torgrim on Sat, 07 Jun 2008 03:53 | #

Lurker said,

“I’m prepared to give “King of the Hill” a pass…

Same for me….I saw an episode that caused me to take notice….It was about Hank, literally kicking another character in the backside over and over, because this miscreant had caused harm to Hank’s son.
Imagine, a white man taking charge and getting immediate, results, and no he was not arrested, or had to go to therapy for anger management, or ask the “authorities” for help. Just swift judgement and action.


9

Posted by Bill on Sat, 07 Jun 2008 08:24 | #

(1)  “It never really occurred to them that Archie Bunker is the Jewish idea of them and that he was set up in effigy for the purpose of pouring scorn and derision upon them.”

(2) “Television today is nothing but one ‘All in the Family’ type of show after another”

    Posted by The Narrator… on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 12:34 PM | #

1st. observation - was me 30? something years ago.  I just just saw it as funny and at the same time, agreed with all Alf Garnett said, not realising of course, it was me who was the target of derision.

2nd.observation, how right you are, the only television I watch is the BBC news and their flagship Newsnight.  My computer is in an adjacent room to the television (which my better half is in thrall) and I can see through an open sliding door which often makes me a passive viewer, I cringe at what is deluging our homes.

There is no doubt in my mind, television is the most powerful weapon at the disposal of the architects.

How much longer can this Marxist Corporate alliance continue?  There are so many constraints being placed upon big business, (affirmative action, health and safety etc) that are a direct affront to the corporate’s bottom line, and this can only get worse.  I suppose the answer is, when the bosses consider it’s more trouble than it’s worth then they’ll just pull out.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Minor Victory With Washington State’s Republican Party
Previous entry: 1968 - a revolution delayed

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Al Ross commented in entry 'Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:50. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:44. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'On Spengler and the inevitable' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:55. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:26. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:58. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 20:49. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:00. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 16:22. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 16:03. (View)

James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:44. (View)

James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:35. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:33. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:06. (View)

shoney commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:14. (View)

Vought commented in entry 'Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 03:43. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert' on Mon, 15 Apr 2024 20:56. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert' on Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:10. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:22. (View)

James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 15:33. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 07:06. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:28. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:12. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:09. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:15. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:13. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:05. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:28. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:48. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 09 Apr 2024 10:46. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 09 Apr 2024 09:27. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 05:48. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 05:01. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 04:50. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 17:49. (View)

affection-tone