Read the first part of this series.

At least five decades ago, one of the dazzling stars in the galaxy of Kannada literature, Kuvempu wrote the following in a different context:

One can wrestle with a wrestler who steps into the arena wearing at least his loin-cloth. How does one fight a wrestler who enters the ring bereft of even that? [Paraphrased]    

This is perhaps the most accurate diagnosis of the nature of what masquerades as “discourse” by the Leftists. Built into its innately nihilistic nature is an uncompromising repudiation of timeless, basic human values because it seeks to annihilate them: gratitude, thrift, human bonding, emotional negotiation in relationships, the sanctity of man-woman relationship, delayed gratification, a sense of accountability towards posterity, and in fact, nature itself.

And so, as I asked in the previous part of this series, how does one even begin to fight this battle where there are no lines that the Left will not cross? Put another way, you need to shed every known notion of decency to fight the Left but taking care not to lose your own soul in the process.

It’s the loin-clothless fight.  

Intellectual AIDS

As the seven decades of recent history have shown, Leftism is intellectual AIDS. Once injected, there’s no cure. Just the postponement of the inevitable unless we actively monitor and stem it at every step. It overwhelms the immune system of the society: the immune system of family values, hard work, self-restraint, study, savings, patience, and obedience to the unenforceable. The proof of this is the fact that today, these terms have become objects of ridicule and obscenities even.

How do you explain the fact that nobody bats an eyelid today when in urban coffee shops it’s common to hear a teenage girl proclaim to her friends’ group with casual insouciance that “my mom, the slut…” and variants thereof? This is a facet of Urban Naxalism that’s both gender-neutral and genderless, and defies definition as we shall see. And neither is it restricted to India—in fact, it’s the irreversible consequence of a noxious imported product.

So, how have we created such a global urban societal stratum that not only tolerates this but actively endorses it in the name of the “growing up experience,” “giving freedom for the youth to ‘discover’ their individuality,” and similar irresponsible but “logical” justifications?

We’ve created this stratum by allowing toxic and pathological individuals who acquired meaningless degrees and went on to occupy influential positions in the academia. And from those pulpits, they began spewing out the “untreated sewage odours of a century of revolutionary rhetoric” in Saul Bellow’s memorable words.

This wasn’t accidental.

Enter the Frankfurt School

Wo! Oh-oh-oh!
(We don't need) we don't need no, no more trouble!
We don't need no trouble!

Make love and not war!
'Cause we don't need no trouble
What we need is love (love)
To guide and protect us on (on)
If you hope good down from above (love)
Help the weak if you are strong now (strong)

Remember this 1973 Bob Marley blockbuster song?

Remember Make love not war?

In the US, this phrase became a sort of a social anthem of the 1960s and defined at least two or three generations, and continues to inform much of the Left-Liberal sewage-rhetoric today. Make love not war is one of those catchphrases designed to dull and numb one’s critical faculties. Even at the level of linguistics, how does one even “make” war?

In any case, the phrase is widely attributed to a Far Left intellectual pervert named Herbert Marcuse who along with Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Eric Fromm, Antonio Gramsci, Georg Lukacs and others inseminated what would eventually lead to the epidemic of group-based agitations across democratic societies. Together, these Marxist society-wreckers founded and propagated what’s now infamous as the Frankfurt School, the originator of toxic cults like Cultural Marxism, Multiculturalism, Pluralism and the rest.

Unless we understand and keep in our active memory the genesis of these cults, we will fail to evolve cogent, long-term and decisive responses to phenomena like Urban Naxalism.  

The same William Lind wonderfully exposits on the origins, ideological moorings and modus operandi of the Frankfurt School:

Cultural Marxism is a branch of western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as “multiculturalism” or, less formally, Political Correctness. From its beginning, the promoters of cultural Marxism have known they could be more effective if they concealed the Marxist nature of their work, hence the use of terms such as “multiculturalism.”


Independently, two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, came to the same answer: Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interest that Communism was impossible in the West until both could be destroyed…In 1919, Lukacs [as] Deputy Commissar for Culture [in Bolshevik Hungary]…introduce[d] sex education into Hungary’s public schools. He knew that if he could destroy the West’s traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying Western culture itself.

In 1923, inspired in part by Lukacs, a group of German Marxists established a think tank at Frankfurt University in Germany called the Institute for Social Research. This institute, soon known simply as the Frankfurt School, would become the creator of cultural Marxism.


They also said that the working class would not lead a Marxist revolution, because it was becoming part of the middle class, the hated bourgeoisie.

Who would? In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question: a coalition of blacks, students, feminist women and homosexuals. [Emphasis added]

This list has today expanded to the notorious LGBT acronym to which “Q” has been recently added.

Marcuse and company migrated to America following Hitler’s takeover of Germany. Lind recounts what happened next when the Frankfurt School shifted its focus to

destroying traditional Western culture…in America. To do so, it invented “Critical Theory.” What is the theory? To criticize every traditional institution, starting with the family, brutally and unremittingly, in order to bring them down. It wrote a series of “studies in prejudice,” which said that anyone who believes in traditional Western culture is prejudiced, a “racist” or “sexist” of “fascist” -- and is also mentally ill.


Herbert Marcuse…in his book “Eros and Civilisation” argued that by freeing sex from any restraints, we could elevate the pleasure principle over the reality principle and create a society with no work, only play (Marcuse coined the phrase, “Make love, not war”). Marcuse also argued for what he called “liberating tolerance,” which he defined as tolerance for all ideas coming from the Left and intolerance for any ideas coming from the Right. [Emphasis added]


The Indian Inheritors of the Frankfurt School

Most societal epidemics that the Deracinated Generation of India (defined and populated by luminaries such as Romila Thapar and company) imported from the west initially began flowing in small trickles. The first of these was feminism. Today it’s a tidal deluge. How many of these sound familiar?

  • The fake intolerance brouhaha? Check.
  • The so-called rape culture? Check.
  • Pervasive patriarchy? Check.
  • Breathe in and you only inhale sexism? Check.
  • Marriage and traditional family as an oppressive and misogynistic institutions? Check.

As an addendum to William Lind, I highly recommend reading David Horowitz’s excellent book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. This is a devastatingly accurate documentation of the academic heirs of various hues of the Frankfurt School. All of these professors share the common characteristics of being doggedly loyal to Marxism, are apologists for Islamic terrorism, are America-haters and Hindu-haters, and in general, have been at the forefront of the whole slew of LGBT and other “movements.”

Here’s an excerpt from the book:

…the faculty radicals described in The Professors have taken the position that political activism should be an integral part of university curricula…these radicals have exerted a disturbingly large influence over liberal arts studies. Entire academic programs—Women’s Studies and Peace Studies are prime examples—require students to subscribe to a left-wing ideology in order to qualify as good students and receive good grades.


Two professors (Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn) are described as terrorists… tenured professors who are crude racists and anti-Semites… convicted torturers (Ron Karenga); supporters of Islamic terrorism (Shahid Alam and others)…

As in the West so in India, the Humanities arena has morphed into a vast swamp of indoctrinating malcontents accountable to none. These are the people who’ve taught at least three generations of our children.

One significant real-life culmination of this sort of educational pollution is the fact that today, micro-causes can be manufactured at will (as we saw in the previous part of this series)—sexual harassment, domestic violence, slut walk, blank noise…the list is endless. The weapons and the tactics are standard: massive attention from a friendly media and avenues of public discourse, personal slander of their chosen target, and in general, spit and run. There’s little by way of what used to be known as justice because justice in itself a patriarchal and privileged construct.

You simply cannot win this.

This alarming state of affairs was also brought about by an equally powerful ammunition: a near-total obliteration of standards in almost every field. Which touched its logical end: a near-total obliteration of long-held and time-tested social values. Here are some random instances:

  • How do you talk sense to a generation that blindly supports a hardcore, violent Naxal like Gauri Lankesh?
  • Why does a subterranean radical Marxist like Ramachandra Guha immediately jump to defend declared nation-wreckers like Kanhaiya Kumar and Gauri Lankesh?
  • How do you convince the ghastly reality of Pakistan to someone like Gurmehar Kaur?
  • What informs the sensibility of a Swara Bhaskar who thinks it’s fine to be raped and sexually enslaved?
  • And how do you even explain something like a Meena Kandasamy?

Oh, the latest invention in the infinite arsenal of Urban Naxalism is something called The Feminist Letters, promoted fittingly by the Scroll. “Feminist Letters” is supposed to be a typeface

created to amplify calls for gender equality…For instance, C is for campus assault and safety laws, R is for religious rights, X is for x chromosomes and K is for keep your hands off.

Even the Master, George Orwell for all his creative genius, was unable to come up with something like this…and this this is real, it’s not a scene in a novel.

All of these eruptions, “movements,” etc combined is perhaps the most dangerous facet of Urban Naxalism: an altered sense of reality among the youth.

And the folks mentioned above: Kanhaiya Kumar, Swara Bhaskar, Gurmehar Kaur and countless such youth are also the children of their parents. On objective assessment, a lot of these folks didn’t actively seek to become the creatures that they’ve become. Think about what that means.

From this perspective, Urban Naxalism is an incessant, ongoing civil war within the minds of teenage India onwards.

Concluding Remarks

It’s a mistake to think that Urban Naxalism is a purely political problem that can be solved politically. It’s a multi-pronged, multidirectional and multifaceted war against the Indian state and the psyche of Indians. It has to be fought on its own turf.

It’s worth quoting Ajit Doval again:

One cannot win unless one fights and one cannot fight till one is able to define the enemy – boldly and bluntly. One major reason why we, as a state, have often gone wrong in our responses and not derived full value out of our efforts and sacrifices is our fear to face the hard realities…notwithstanding the compelling evidence.

This enemy is the selfsame invisible political and ideological class that more or less remains completely stable despite the current Government, which it viciously hates. As we’ve seen in this two-part essay, this class is an expert practitioner of Lind’s Fourth Generation Warfare-(4GW).

One way to begin combatting it begins at the level of strengthening the family unit. Unlike the West, the family unit has more or less remained strong at least in the smaller towns and villages. And we have the additional benefit of a vast body of guidance in the form of thousands of elevating tenets and practices in the lore of Dharmashastras and in the lived experience of our ancestors. There’s also the temple culture which can be revived and reinvigorated.

The second is to inculcate a culture of helping our children to unlearn toxic material taught right at the primary school level. Another option is to opt for home schooling. When enough numbers take this route, sheer monetary pressure will force the corporate school/college mafia to reform from within. Indeed, an objective analysis of the state of education in India shows that it’s broken beyond fixing. Changing history textbooks, etc is only bandage-like fix. The response to this should ideally come from an informed community like in the past.

While these suggestions might sound farfetched, absurd even, remember that the loin-clothless opponent began and continues to wage a generational war. The response should be in kindred fashion.

There won’t be a fifth generational war.