The moral and intellectual fabric of Western society has been disintegrating for some time. To a large extent the destruction can be blamed on Marxism. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Marxism never had much luck in intellectual contests among Westerners, so it had to burrow underground as "cultural Marxism" (Lukács, Gramsci, Marcuse), eroding the foundations of modern society and leaving most people in a state of perpetual self-doubt and abnegation.
In France long ago, the terms "left" and "right" had a precise meaning, based on where one was actually sitting in the Estates General, indicating one's attitude toward the Revolution. But what does "left wing" mean nowadays? Perhaps it means big government, and big spending by that government, but above all it seems to mean supporting the "poor" rather than the "rich." In reality the poor have little to gain by the modern, perverted forms of "left-wing" government.
Arguments about fundamental political principles are often impossible to resolve, for the same reason that religious arguments cannot be resolved. It is often assumed that the difference between "left wing" and "right wing" is an intellectual (cognitive) matter. As is the case with religion, however, the difference is really a matter of fundamental pre-cognitive personality.
People who identify with the "underdogs" are more likely to become "left wing." For example, women are mothers and care-givers, and therefore women are perhaps more likely to be "left wing." Right-wingers, on the other hand, would have their own arguments in favor of "over-dogs." An obvious case of an "over-dog" argument would be that against "home rule" for countries that used to be part of European empires -- to a large extent, independence just meant tribal warfare.
"Left wing" and "liberal" are roughly identical terms. The word "liberal," derived from the Latin word liber, "free," goes back in the political sense over about three centuries. Since the end of the Second World War or thereabouts, however, the use of word "liberal" has been distorted to such an extent that it now refers roughly to the opposite of its original meaning. This new, occult form of Marxism uses the perverted sense of the word "liberal" to gain converts.
As cultural Marxism spread, any form of "nationalism," any statement of pride in one’s country, was discredited. Furthermore, any specific form of ethnicity or religion was downplayed. Western culture in general was denigrated, and Westerners were largely associated with colonialism. Reversing colonialism meant celebrating non-Western cultures. The new attitude was that "all cultures are equal." Instead of saying to Westerners, "You gave such-and-such to us," non-Westerners could now say, "You took such-and-such from us."
All these accusations against Westerners go in the face of the historical facts. Westerners have given a great deal to the rest of the world and have much to be proud of. The great majority of scientists and discoverers were Westerners; it was Westerners who gave the world such inventions as electricity, modern transportation, and modern medicine.
Cultural Marxism, by propagating its "underdog" mentality, has encouraged the nanny state, with people living in perpetual imbecility and irresponsibility. Cultural Marxism creates a strong sense of "wrong," but especially when these victims look at themselves. They hate their own culture and their own heritage. They live with a sense of guilt and shame, they suffer from self-loathing. They feel a need for self-abasement. They have low self-confidence, low self-assurance, low self-esteem.
Confirmed underdogs have self-destructive attitudes about sexuality, marriage, and the family. To them, a stable marriage, heterosexual and monogamous, is anathema. What better way to prevent the growth of what used to be called a "real man" than to suggest to a young boy that, deep down, he might not be a boy but a girl? (The same in reverse would apply to girls.) And so we create (or imagine) multiple "genders," "bi-" this and "poly-" that, psychologically disturbed mutations who have no chance of standing up against the totalitarian state. (How odd that no other species of mammal has more than two genders!)
Once that sense of low self-esteem has become fixed, all else follows. One must believe, for example, that a simplistic program of "sharing the wealth" would be of more value than reducing the problems of overpopulation and excessive resource-consumption, although such "sharing" would only create universal poverty.
But above all, one must believe that one's own culture is guilty of some nameless crime, making it necessary to give preferential treatment to any and all other cultures. Of course, that is a belief with which those "other cultures" are always happy to agree. And once that "guilt" has become established as "fact," every piece of writing that appears in public must emphasize "multiculturalism" at all costs.
There are corollaries to all the above. The victims of cultural Marxism must believe in prohibiting the ownership of guns, for example. If people believe they are inferior beings, they must also believe they have no right to defend themselves. Only grown-ups should have guns, and the victims of cultural Marxism know they are not grown-ups.
Most of those who are blinded by cultural Marxism believe that all cultures are, in some inexplicable way, equal. In their naivety, they cannot believe that many cultures are cruel and intolerant, locked in the pre-literate mentality of a thousand years ago. In reality, even in most cultures of the present day the average person can barely read or write, contrary to the official figures on literacy. There are, at the same time, many petty tribes each of which regards itself as "God's chosen people."
Most Westerners today cannot understand that there can be such vast differences between the mentality of one culture and another. The mainstream news-media foster this misunderstanding by failing to report the shocking statistics of rape, mutilation, murder, and other barbarisms that go on in this world.
Cultural Marxism is also an effective means of rationalizing the quest for "the ethnic vote." The cultural-Marxist dogma plays into an alleged economic need: to increase immigration and thereby sustain a "growing economy." Yet massive immigration really has little or no benefit to the country, and in fact leads to overcrowding, unemployment, and other social ills. For the rich, on the other hand, massive immigration means more buyers, more workers, and more investors. For politicians, more people means more votes. For religious groups, larger numbers of the "faithful" means a greater chance of pushing out competitors. Yet none of these groups has the overall good of the country in mind.