Cultural Frankfurt?

UpandComer

Roland Joffe’s ‘the Killing Fields’ is a better source for Communist creativity and empowerment of the proletariat.

Jung Chung’s Mao The Untold Story gives a great gestalt of the madness of the fat little pervert and what he did to China. If only the nationalists had murdered the little prick when they had the chance.

The real threat of communism now is cultural marxism.

The Guardian will tell you that it’s all an alt-right conspiracy. But you can test the ideas against reality and decide.

“Identity shall be morality” – Max Horkheimer.

“Logic is not independent of content” – in other words, 2 + 2 = red, according to it’s own ‘new’ internal logic – Max Horkheimer

“Repressive Tolerance” – by Herbert Marcuse is a hand-book and instruction manual of new-speak that every modern left thinker is the product of, whether they know it or not.

Repressive Tolerance and Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, plus Derrida and Noam Chomsky is the modern left. That is, the intelligent minority.

Herbert Marcuse wrote ‘Eros and Civilization”. It’s the fore-runner of queer theory. The thesis is that what used to be western civilization represses the sexual self because it favors progress over sexual fulfillment.

Marcuse favoured “polymorphous perversity” – all sexual relations except for heterosexual monogamy should be favoured and propagated in order to destroy the nuclear family which he describes as that ‘perverse, fundamentally capitalist weapon of the oppressors of the self and society”.

Georgy Lukaj was minister of culture in Hungary in 1918. As a Bolshevik, he sought to debase the culture such that economic communism would seem viable. He instituted a policy he called ‘cultural terrorism’.

Children were presented with graphic sexual content in schools and taught a purely materialist and hedonistic sexual morality. At that time the people were outraged. When Romania invaded in 1919, Lukaj fled. If only he’d been shot. Of course, nowadays his ideas are firmly shielded behind feminism and the homosexual movement. Lukaj is the inspiration for SAFE schools and the idea that hypergamy is empowerment.

Antonio Gramsci died in a prison in 1937 in Mussolini’s Italy. Mussolini literally did nothing wrong up until the point he declared war. If he’d shot dead all the Frankfurt School founders along with the mafia it would have been an enormous service to humanity. It’s such a shame Pinochet didn’t control Italy at the time.

Max Horkheimer created ‘Critical theory’ at Columbia in 1934. In short, all art, literature and science is reduced to ‘race and phallus’.

All human endeavour is a political manifestation of power relations. Every action, every omission.

Theodore Adorno wrote ‘The Authoritarian Personality’. It said Americans were implicitly as bad as the Nazis. He set the groundwork for the ideas of ‘unconscious bias’ and ‘implicit racism’ which are scientifically invalid and false and don’t exist.

Adorno the donkey says that traditional gender roles aren’t a natural manifestation of biology – they are of course a construct. But more particularly, a construct which is the primary component in the formation of Nazi parties.

Additionally, the Frankfurt school like a virus is responsible for the propagation of the Miletian philosophy of:

Subjectivism and Relativism: truth is relative and subjective.

There are competing philosophies which are more compelling. Most notably Aristotle as presented in Thomism.

All of the foundations of the old classical liberal education – metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, logic, rhetoric, are grounded in objective, non-relative principles.

All of this has been replaced by critical theory and the idea that “Logic is not independent of content”.

One could go on and on.

But basically all of the cultural artifacts prevalent today are the result of the Frankfurt School.

Cultural Marxism is utterly ascendant. The coming civil war in the United States is in large part caused by their ideas. Ted Kennedy defended the 1965 Immigration Bill by using the language of the Frankfurt School.

It’s okay to be white.

Ardern of course is not of the likes of the men described. But her “Intention is Reality” utterance, could only come in a cultural marxist culture. Such a statement in 1912 would have been regarded as retarded. Now, it’s meh

-------------

"the words of an old survivor from the Hungarian uprising telling me many years ago…

Such a society was not based on the rule of law and the making of mutually agreed agreements between parties for mutual benefit (based on trust), which is the base rock of Capitalism.

“Under Communism, it was every man for himself,” he told me."

-----------------

Or as Denis Glover put it:

“Little for the many, much for the some
Ev’ry ones biting
Ev’ry ones bum”

--------------

Does this come from Marx?

--------------------

UpandComer

In a secondary manner. I’m not an expert.

Cultural marxists are economic marxists. I should have stated that all of the figures I’ve specified above, Mercuse, Adorno, Horkheimer, Lukaj, I should have mentioned also Max Field, all were actually members of the German or Hungarian communist party or Bolsheviks.

They were from a range of Eurpean states, but congregated in the Weimar period in 1923 in the University of Frankfurt. The movement originally sought to facilitate Communist economic ascendancy by erosion of competing western institutions.

Horkheimer left Germany in 1933, and was granted his own school at the University of Columbia in New York in 1934. He sold himself as a persecuted liberal intellectual seeking asylum. He was a cultural terrorist. I mean just the titles of the works these guys wrote should give off warning bells. His most famous work was called ‘Eclipse of Reason’ in 1947. Because reason is separate from content, and transcends identity. So it must be replaced.

Horkheimer and Frederich Pollock created critical theory which has destroyed the liberal arts and was the foundation of identity politics. If you wonder why kids can study English at university for 5 years and leave without being able to read, it’s because of the Frankfurt School.

Khrushchev gave a secret speech in 1956 that revealed formerly unknown data about Stalin’s economic, military and civic leadership in the 20th Communist party congress. It got smuggled out and reported in the Observer. That event, and the fall of the Berlin Wall and reports from escapees utterly discredited economic marxism.

So the individuals in the Frankfurt school, who completely destroyed the academy and media in the 1960’s pivoted. They replaced the oppression by the Bourgeoisie of the proletariat two things.

1) With the oppression of everyone by Western Society, adopting Freud.

One aspect was sexual: That’s what I was describing in Mercuse’s works, which inspired third wave feminism and Queer theory.

The other aspect was cultural: He also promoted books by Horkheimer saying that Western society was culturally conformist – one I think was called the “dialectic of Enlightenment”.

2) The oppression by a majority in control of institutions (white males) of every other possible facet of society.

So the mass importation of the third world. The propaganda every white child faces from the moment they exist that white identity, culture, history, personality, art, and ideas are evil and bad and wrong. The destruction of the academy. The erosion of all institutions. The balkanisation of society. The debasement of sexual discourse. The permanent victim mentality. The mestatisation of the welfare state. The debasement of religion – many of the Priests who committed sexual misdemeanours were adherents to the school who infiltrated the church. The debasement of architecture. The fetishization of the infantile. The fetishization of dindus and the third world. Identity politics. Third wave feminism.

All of these things were propagated, promoted, and facilitated by the Frankfurt School as it existed in New York.

It can’t be emphasised enough how systematic and how damaging the worm-tonguing has been.

I would argue mental health, obesity, childlessness, domestic violence, so much phenomena is connected with the ideas of the Frankfurt school. All of which are debased. It’s actually hilarious when the Guardian and Salon and Slate say it’s a conspiracy. These are the people who had to delete all their articles saying Pedophiles and kiddie fucking isn’t so bad, and why don’t we just give them a chance, it’s just another stop on the lane of sexual liberation and expression and fulfilment.

Western universities are uniformly cultural marxist. It’s so engrained in our discourse and ideas we don’t even notice it. The more they say it doesn’t exist, the more you know it does. Go and read this material for yourselves and then see if my observations have empirical validity or not

------------

Sources of toxic progressivism: 1. French revolution, and their obsession with equality, and murdering everyone who is unequal. 2. Carl Marx, and his systematic resentment of successful people and agitation for murdering them. 3. Franz Boas and his false anthropology based on the lie that all races are equally abled for goodness and prosperity. 4. Frankfurt school, their method of long march through the institutions and demonization of their opponents. 5. French post-modernist philosophers, their obsession with inverting all value and power/hierarchy structures. 6. American inter-sectional feminism, gender studies and critical race theory, the practical implementation of the previous points.

-----------------------

Anton on November 14, 2017 at 6:19 am said:

I should say I do not like racism myself. But the ongoing fight against racism has turned into a fight against common sense. In fact, it often takes the form of fighting against reality. The same goes for feminism. It has reached a stage at which it can no longer be satirised – it is too absurd for satire.

This is a logical result of utopianism. Those who believe in a possibility of building a perfect society based on an intellectual model – be it Marxist, Nazi or the fashionable Multicaltural+Feminist+LGBT Friendly+Secular Democratic (but Islam and Sharia Friendly) one (perhaps, the silliest of them all) – have a simplified and distorted idea of man and the world.

And they try to force the real people and the real world to conform to their simplified and distorted picture. When people and the world do not live up to their expectations, the utopians are surprised and angry. They use persuasion and when that does not work, resort to violence, sometimes of most horrible sort.

The worst example I know is Kampuchea under the Khmer Rouge. But the supposedly “great” French Revolution of 1789 was pretty bad too and it set the pattern for subsequent utopian revolutions. It was French revolutionaries who put “enemies of the people” on barges and sunk them. This method of mass murder was successfully used by Stalin (it seems he knew his history well). It was also French revolutionaries who declared a war on the Catholic Church and tried to establish a neo-pagan cult of the “goddess of reason”. Lenin and Stalin waged an even more ruthless war on the Orthodox Church, though without the “goddess of reason” cult, which they rightfully deemed too ridiculous.

Thus, although different utopians have different utopias and sometimes have bitter fights among themselves, they have the same objects of hatred: traditional religion, traditional family, traditional morals, traditional culture, traditional art – in a word, all things which are real and which have stood the test of time.

They see the flaws of all those things, which exist in reality, and want to destroy them in order to turn the world into a paradise, which exists only in their minds. Whatever this paradise might look in theory, in practice it usually resembles a vision of hell. But utopians are blind fanatics and they try hard to believe that the hell of their making is heaven on earth and throw a tantrum every time somebody disagrees.

Thus, the prospects of the modern Western world are rather frightening. Its political system, mainstream media, education, culture and even many supposedly Christian denominations have been hijacked by politically correct utopians who, with fanatical fervour, destroy the very foundations of European civilisation. They have good intentions, which will make an excellent pavement for the coming hell on earth.

And there seems to be no force that would be capable to stop them.
-------------

(Apr 18, 2018 at 2:34 pm) that there seems to be a hidden layer of government at work in Britain. I’d venture to suggest that the hidden layer is Common Purpose. Their job is to install Cultural Marxism a la Frankfurt School.

For this particular incident see 8 below:

… the Frankfurt School recommended (among other things):

1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family

[from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2216734/posts ]

How not to be moved by "sjwarriors"

How To Stamp Out Cultural Marxism In A Single Generation

Friday, 23 October 2015 02:30 Brandon Smith

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2721-how-to-stamp-out-cultural-marxism-in-a-single-generation

There are very few legitimate cultural divisions in the world. Most of them are arbitrarily created, not only by political and financial elites, but also by the useful idiots and mindless acolytes infesting the sullied halls of academia.

It is perhaps no mistake that cultural Marxists in the form of "social justice warriors", PC busybodies and feminists tend to create artificial divisions between people and “classes” while attacking and homogenizing very real and natural divisions between individuals based on biological reality and inherent genetic and psychological ability. This is what cultural Marxists do: divide and conquer or homogenize and conquer, whatever the situation happens to call for.

They do this most commonly by designated arbitrary "victim status" to various classes, thus dividing them from each other based on how "oppressed" they supposedly are.  The less statistically prominent a particular group is (less represented in a job field, media, education, population, etc.) in any western society based on their color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, etc., generally the more victim group status is afforded to them by social justice gatekeepers.  Whites and males (straight males) are of course far at the bottom of their list of people who have reason to complain and we are repeatedly targeted by SJW organizations and web mobs as purveyors of some absurd theory called "the patriarchy".

Although cultural marxism does indeed target every individual and harm every individual in the long run, my list of personal solutions outlined in this article will be directed in large part at the categories of people most attacked by the social justice cult today.

I do not write often about PC cultism and social justice because the movement is only a symptom of a greater problem, namely the problem of collectivism. The only true and concrete social (group) division is the division between collectivists and individualists: between those who believe the individual should be subservient to the group mind and those who believe the group is meaningless without the individual mind.

I have already spoken on the root dangers and logical inconsistencies of the social justice cult in articles such as ‘The Twisted Motives Behind Political Correctness' and 'The Future Costs Of Politically Correct Cultism.'

There are many intelligent commentators on the Web who have consistently demolished the PC mob with reason and logic, and I leave that battle to them. In this article I would like to continue my examination but with the goal of presenting some real and tangible solutions. And like most solutions to most problems, it is the individual who is required to draw the line in the sand and change the way he approaches the realm of cultural Marxism. It is not up to groups, organizations or governments.

First, let’s be clear, cultural Marxism has already done most of the damage it can possibly do to our way of life. And by damage, I mean the end of long-standing foundational pillars of society that provide stability and prosperity, including traditional marriage (not government-licensed marriage), family, gender “roles,” etc. (which cultural Marxists openly boast about tearing down).

In Western nations male suicide rates are way up. Women’s proclaimed levels of happiness and contentment are way down, despite the fact that they have had wage equality for decades (yes, the wage gap is a perpetually pontificated Lochness monster-sized myth that was debunked years ago by economists like Thomas Sowell), despite the fact that they have surpassed men in educational participation and despite the fact that they have total control over family planning.

An old vision with warnings

 It seems like Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech although given (written?) in 1944 by an American Samuel Barret Pettengill U. S. Congressman 1886-1974 and appropriate here:
*****
In 1944, Democratic U.S. Congressman Samuel Pettengill warned America that socialists would endeavor to have the U.S. spend itself into bankruptcy, with a view to making citizens totally dependent on a centralized government.

Pettengill detailed TEN POINTS of the socialist manifesto that would destroy free government. Almost 50 years later it is disturbing to reflect on Pettengill’s 10 points.

1) People must be made to feel their utter helplessness and their inability to solve their own problems. While in this state of mind, there is held up before them a benign and all-wise leader to whom they MUST look to the cure for all their ills.

2) The principle of local self-government must be WIPED OUT, so that this leader or group in control can have all the political power readily at hand.

3) Constitutional guarantees must be swept aside. This accomplished in part by RIDICULING them as outmoded and an obstruction to progress.
.
4) Public faith in the legal profession and respect for the courts must be undermined. The law making body must be intimidated and from time to time rebuked, so as to prevent the development of public confidence in it.

5) Economically, the people must be ground down by high taxes, which under one pretext or another they are called upon to pay. Thus they are brought to a common level and all income above a meager living is taken from them. In this manner, economic independence is kept to a minimum.

6) A great public debt must be built so the citizens can never escape its burden, making government the virtual receiver for the entire nation.
.
7) A general distrust of private business and industry must be kept alive so the public may not begin to rely on its own resources.
.
8) Government bureaus are set up to control practically every phase of the citizen’s lives.

9) The education of the youth of the nation is taken under CONTROL so that all may be indoctrinated at an early age with a spirit of submission to the system.
.
10) To supplement and fortify all the foregoing, there is kept up a steady stream of GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA designed to extol all who bow the knee and to vilify those who dare raise a voice of dissent.

Samuel Barret Pettengill U. S. Congressman 1886-1974 Reprinted from an article in Ken Hamblin ‘Talks with America’ News letter Feb. 19. 1996
P.O.. Box 562 Castle Rock, CO 80104

Is this happening today?  Has it always been the same through history?

Meritocracy vs ........+ language twist

"A meritocracy is a social system in which people are allowed to prove themselves; to be all they can be, with everyone given a fair shot at success. The government does not aid or hinder them. Those who succeed either work harder or are more talented than those who don’t.

Your race doesn’t help you (as it might in an ethno-nationalist society). Your disability or poverty won’t promote you (as they might in an egalitarian welfare state). Your sex won’t aid you (as it might in a feminist or Islamic state). Your class won’t limit you (as it might in a Caste-based social system). Showy virtue, or memorising the Qur’an won’t aid you either (as it might Iran). In a meritocracy, you are not helped or hindered by the point you start from."

+ one comment on language

http://defendthemodernworld.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/meritocracy-the-social-ideal/

Astute Observersaid:

August 31, 2014 at 2:17 am

The left has successfully cultivated a language that supports their worldview. We don’t give handouts to the undeserving, we “invest in people”. We don’t sink into debt, we “stimulate the economy”. We don’t acquiesce to thugs and tyrants, we seek “dialogue for peace”.

Until the right retakes the linguistic high ground, we’re “quite simply fucked.”

Charity attack dogs formula

The love song of Saul Alinsky

by JAMES DELINGPOLE

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/09/Saul-Alinsky-is-alive-and-well-and-working-in-Britain-s-thriving-fake-charities-sector

Conservative MP Brooks Newmark has got himself into trouble with the leftist political activists who dominate Britain's charities sector by telling them to "stick to their knitting" and stay out of politics.
Problem is, in the case of many charities these days, political meddling is their knitting. Hence, for example, this email from former CND agitator Liz Hutchins who is currently working for the Political and Legal Unit of Friends Of The Earth - as leaked via Guido.
In it, Hutchins writes to various fellow left-wing charity bods suggesting various ways they can punish Newmark.
These vary from the template for a suggested letter...
Dear Minister/ Dear editor,
It was very ill-considered for you/the Minister for Civil Society to tell charities to “stick to their knitting”.We are pleased that you have/ he has clarified your/his view that “charities absolutely have the right to campaign but should stay out of the realm of party politics”.
Charities, by law, cannot and do not take part in party politics and it is misleading to suggest this is a problem that needs to be tackled. We are proud to be party politically independent and to speak truth to power – even if that is uncomfortable for politicians.
The Lobbying Act, coming in to force on 19 September, was opposed by over 150 charities and campaign groups – from Cancer UK to the Quakers, Water Aid to WWF. We are concerned that it contains provisions that may well limit the ability of charities and other organisations to speak out on some of the most important policy issues facing the country and the planet.
From women’s suffrage to stopping the sell-off of our forests, campaigning on politically contentious issues is vital to democracy and to Governments making the right decisions. No ill-considered new laws or comments by ministers should stop charities and campaign groups from this important work.
Signed lots of NGOs..
...to some suggested ways to harass Newmark on social media.
If you can take a photo of yourself knitting that would be great. (We actually have a box of knitting in the Edinburgh office. It turns out charities really do like knitting!) If you can’t get hold of any knitting a text tweet will do! Just remember the hashtag! Some examples:
In between knitting, I like to help solve youth unemployment in Scotland. #stickingtomyknitting
After a hard day’s knitting, I like nothing better than to help get disempowered people get online #stickingtomyknitting
European Funding Policy is fun and all, but I’d rather be knitting! #stickingtomyknitting
These techniques are, of course, classic Saul Alinsky. ("Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it"). Newmark is being singled out here for an orchestrated bullying campaign (masquerading as an authentic, unprompted, grassroots response) designed both to intimidate him and ridicule him as well as to act as a shot across the bows of any fellow politician tempted to take his side.

Are We Just a little bit Ruled

December 10, 2012
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vernon/121210

Orwell's world in the 21st century?

By Wes Vernon

Americans may think that in casting their ballots, as millions of us did last month, they have given the winning candidates policy directions that will be respected. Maybe.

John Fonte, a noted author with a world history PHD, outlines in remarkable detail the powerful forces at work to render our Constitution meaningless as we become just another of many nations on a planet under the thumb of the tight control of a global authority.

The pressure

The forces nudging us in that direction include Western universities, Nongovernmental Organizations (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc.), American Foundations (Rockefeller, Ford, etc.), International organizations (UN, International Court of Justice, etc.), and global corporations.

Dr. Fonte covers in detail this entire picture in Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or be Ruled by Others? The author wears his scholar's hat all the way. No hyperbole is necessary. The facts he lays out are scary enough. That may be why he eschews the term "world government," let alone "world dictatorship." The reader surely may be forgiven for interpreting the author's scenario as accurately reflecting a possible future that fits either description.

Why?

The effort to morph America into a mere appendage to a global authority is engineered piecemeal by some people who believe they have decent and harmless motives.

Many others (both here and abroad) know exactly what they're doing, including those who think America is too rich, too powerful, and needs to be brought down a few pegs.

For others, it is corporate interest, as per the chairman of Colgate Palmolive, quoted as saying the United States does not have first call on his company's resources. Many of the 20th century U.S.-based corporations considered their first loyalty to their home country. Not necessarily so in the 21st Century.

Beyond the money motives and misplaced "compassion," external and internal forces pressuring the U.S. to abandon its sovereignty (again not overnight), have little use for this country's laws, its Constitution, its traditions, its entrepreneurial spirit, its holidays.

They believe passionately in global governance of some kind. Author John Fonte cites Harold Koh, Legal Adviser to the State Department, as writing favorably of "law that is 'downloaded' from international law into domestic law."

Of course, we are reminded inSovereignty or Oppression that American law is supposed to be made by the elected representatives of the people in Congress, signed by the president, and that it must comport with the Constitution. That is Civics 101, but the global authority movement, alas, has helped lead to the de-emphasizing or elimination of American history/civics in our schools. What else does one expect when a member of the Communist Party USA — the late Howard Zinn — authored much of the history taught in American schools (kindergarten through higher ed) for generations?

"Respectable" lawyers

The targeting of America's sovereignty has also cast a troubling pall over much of America's legal profession. More than a few American judges, including justices of the Supreme Court, have taken to citing foreign laws and overseas judicial interpretations as a rationale for decisions in American courts. Judicial "downloading?" Yes, and "respectable" pressure leans on our judges to get with it.

Illegal immigration

The agenda toward a global authority, of course, includes (but is not restricted to) the "open borders" movement. Included on its agenda are voting in foreign languages in U.S. elections; dual citizenship; multicultural education favoring ethnic identity over American citizenship; and affirmative action (reverse discrimination).

To quote Dr. Fonte: "All these measures work against the formation of an American national identity in newcomers as envisioned by American leaders from George Washington to Theodore Roosevelt and supported by Latino leaders like Juan Rangel in Chicago. Instead they promote [the kind of] ethnic group consciousness that tends to view the American mainstream in an adversarial way."

Assimilation

That latter example (viewing the American mainstream "in an adversarial way") prompted author John Fonte to sum up in one simple paragraph what this column has attempted to convey in thousands of words:

"Anti-Islamist American Muslims point out that most of the average Mosque-going Muslims in the United States are not Islamists and are uncomfortable with the Islamist propaganda and pressure tactics. But this 'silent majority' of American Muslims is unorganized and lacks the media savvy, political skills, resources (Saudi funding) and intensity of the Islamists who dominate Muslim institutions in America. Thus forging an anti-Islamist American Islam will be extremely difficult."

That goes to the issue of "assimilation" which — along with other forms of patriotism and love of country — will be emphatically discouraged by any global authority.

Every move you make...

There is no end to the drumbeat amongst international elites to delve deeply into personal behavior and family life issues, all under positive-sounding labels that ignore unintended consequences:

...America is asked to drop its "reservation [the First Amendment]" and outlaw "hate speech" as defined by an international committee.

...Such internationalists — under UN rubric — have demanded that Germany explain why fathers are so reluctant to take parental leave.

...They have called out the U.S. because 90% of its telephone operators are women and (gasp!) 99% of auto mechanics are men. Personal choices? That would reinforce old stereotypes.

...Slovenia was cited for this "shortcoming": only 30% its children were in daycare centers. Too many (ready for this?) were being raised by their parents (scandalous!). But their parents wanted to raise their own children? Poor excuse. Reinforces old stereotypes.

...The UN bodies have a list of exactly how family responsibilities are to be divided within the home.

Recent example

The U.S. has refused to sign on to some of this intrusion, though the pressure never stops. The U.S. Senate has just defeated an attempt to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CPRD). It would have negated state laws on the subject and required federal law be revised to conform to the treaty.

CPRD would have enshrined abortion; denied parents healthcare and education choices for their special needs children; and required all homeowners to make their own private homes accessible to the disabled. The measure was endorsed by 61 senators (short of the required two-thirds majority), 38 senators voting it down.

Co-existence

Fonte reminds us the late Walter Cronkite proposed a world government, with an executive, legislature, and judiciary. The author also quotes political philosopher Leo Strauss as arguing that such a supposedly "homogenous world state" would ultimately end up in a "a reign of tyranny," whose "Final Tyrant" would be forced to suppress every activity that throws his legitimacy into doubt. "The political refugee would have nowhere to go."

The author neglects to mention by name George Soros, a powerful "one-worlder" to the core, or the 2006 proposed (U.S.-Canada-Mexico) "NAFTA highway," with some issues resembling those of the European Union (EU) viewed as a model for a future global authority.

Reservations aside, the book is a must for Americans who want America to be America for their children and grandchildren.

© Wes Vernon

Agenda from the left?

Some times I wander, can this be the agenda, or is this just a reaction to the many fast moving changes in our culture. Many of the changes do seem akin to chucking out the baby with the bath water.
CULTURAL MARXISM FOR DUMMIES

by James Jaeger

http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/articles/dummies.htm

When the Lenin Marxists could NOT get the workers of the world to unite, Marxism fell apart until a spinner group formed. That spinner group was initiated by Antonio Gramsci and his book, The Prison Notebooks.

In this book, Gramsci outlined the plan for destroying the capitalist society and bringing in first socialism, and later the communism Lenin dreamed of. Gramsci's "genius" was that he realized the reason the workers of the world wouldn't unite: they were held together by their respective CULTURES more firmly than their desire to unite as WORKERS. Thus Gramsci realized that, in order to destroy the capitalist society, it had to first be penetrated through its culture and then that culture corrupted and destroyed from within. This he called "the long march through the institutions." In the March, various social-engineering technologies were developed and used by Gramsci and his colleagues, later known as the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School developed the technologies known as "critical theory," "cultural pessimism" and "androgyny." "Critical theory" is a technology whereby "experts" question every single element and premise of a culture possible. But the goal of such inquiry is not deeper understanding, it's to throw unsubstantiated disrepute upon the subject culture.

Here's an example of "critical theory" in every-day use in the cultural Marxist-infested mainstream media.

What the media does is pose questions. You see this ALL the time. For instance, let's say I'm a Marxist executive at an MSNBC-type network and I want to destroy REDquist's reputation. I simply put out a "news" story with the following headline: IS REDQUIST A CLOSET GAY? Or IS REDQUIST AN ANTI-SEMITE? Note, I am NOT claiming REDquist is a gay or anti, I am simply asking an "innocent" question. Everyone can question, no? What's wrong with a few "innocent" questions: all of SCIENCE and HUMAN CIVILIZATION is built upon QUESTIONS, no? So I ask the simple "innocent" question BUT it puts a CRITICAL IDEA in everyone's mind. Even so, since there is no law against asking questions, I, as the executive at an MSNBC, doesn't get sued for slander or libel BUT even still REDquist's reputation is compromised. Now, every time his name comes up (in the media or anywhere) he's associated with that CRITICAL question implying the THEORY that he's gay or anti-Semitic. That's why it's called CRITICAL THEORY social-engineering technology: you wantonly launch endless THEORIES that are of a highly CRITICAL nature regardless of the damage they do to society. Welcome to the mainstream media in its daily activity.

And so implanted into our "politically correct," socially-engineered society are these technologies, someone at the MIND-X (the source of this post-inspired essay) used this very technology on REDquist earlier by asking an "innocent" question implying he is gay. THIS simple act thus deflected the entire conversation OFF of REDquist's sound and reasonable argument and ON TO a frivolous and pointless diatribe. If you go to the FIRM site (at (www.FilmReform.org) and look through the hundreds of hours of argument there, you will see this happening all the time, engineered by the Hollywood apologists.

But as a CNN- or FOX-type executive -- or a Hollywood movie mogul -- I could just as easily have asked the question: ARE MOTHERS AND FATHERS REALLY NECESSARY? Or the question, IS THE NUCLEAR FAMILY ARCHAIC? Or the question, IS GOD DEAD? -- an actual critical theory question posed on the very cover of the Marxist-inclined magazine, TIME, in the 1960s. See CULTURAL MARXISM -- The Corruption of America at www.CulturalMarxism.org

So, the prime social-engineering technology developed by the Frankfurt School, right on the campus of Columbia University in Marxist-leaning New York City -- CRITICAL THEORY -- is diabolical "genius."

So, what the Cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School did was publish endless books throughout the 1960s and 1970s aimed at the impressionable, drugged-out BabyBoom Generation. And "critical theory" was not just used in books, it was used in ALL the cultural institutions: music, painting, photography, literature, TV shows, commercials, magazines, feature films, theater, rock concerts and even the clergy and institutions of higher learning. This is why the colleges are so liberal and why schools were able to be invaded by Engle v. Vitale which removed religious ethics from the school system.

But I mentioned there were other technologies than "critical theory," that of "cultural pessimism" and "androgyny." Due to time, I will skip over "cultural pessimism" and go to "androgyny." You can watch the film and it will go into "cultural pessimism" as well as the other technologies.

"Androgyny" is basically the social-engineering technology of turning men into women, and women into men.

Remember, the goal of the Marxist is to destroy the capitalist society and free-enterprise. The Middle Class is the engine of the capitalist society and the Family Unit is the basic building block of the Middle Class. Thus, if the Family Unit can be destroyed, this will undermine the Middle Class. The capitalist society would thus fall into the Marxist's laps "like ripened fruit," as one of the Frankfurt School leaders, Max Horkheimer, actually put it in writing. So, "androgyny" is the technology of essentially confusing the youth about sexuality and family values.

For instance, if ostensibly, no single model can be presented or agreed upon -- such as the male-female nuclear family -- the youth are easily confused because they have little or no idea what has been established and viable for thousands of years. This is because the "norm" is diluted and biased by models that were largely rejected by civilization thousands of years ago. Again, the youth has little or no idea of this, being young and not-yet-educated. The cultural Marxist thus prays on this by representing every type of "family unit" as being "normal," equal and/or workable -- when in fact this has not been found to be empirically true. Again, only one configuration has actual long-term viability and this is the model that has sustained and grown civilization for millennia. This model must be re-instated if we are to become a space-faring, Type II Kardashevian Civilization because we can not populate a new branch of Humanity using the one-world-centric, limited view of reality that the cultural Marxist offers. So the idea that a population going gay is nature's way of slowing down the birth rate on an over-populated planet is ridiculous. Nature never intended for the Human race to live on just one planet. Only people with limited intelligence think this way.

Thus, the REASON the toilet-humor-obsessed Hollywood studios -- and other "cultural" institutions -- push the "gay agenda" is NOT because they give a darn about gays or gay rights: all they really care about is USING innocent gays to toss confusion into the family structure, hence the very fabric of Middle Class society.

People of any sexual orientation should be able to go about their business without being used, harmed or preferred by either government OR movie studios.

But, for the Cultural Marxists, the exploitation of homosexuals dovetails perfectly with their agenda of destroying other people's sexual and traditional values through the social-engineering technology of "androgyny." I am sure gays and lesbians, left to their own peaceful existence, NEVER planned to do this or ever had anything to do with the attempt to weaken or destroy the basic one-man, one-woman nuclear family. But this is an unwanted consequence, for the youth are presented not with one model, but many conflicting models and the skyrocketed divorce rate has made society so complex -- well IT'S COMPLICATED -- as one of the studio pictures goes on to incestuously exploit even Hollywood's own demented creations.

Again, Hollywood seeks to make men into women and women into men, thus men, being "women" can "marry" men; and women, being "men" can "marry" women and all this is "normal." It's just "complicated." This is why every Hollywood movie is tacitly REQUIRED to have at least one (1) woman beating the hell out of a man (as this is supposed to be manly), and a man who wishes he had a vagina (as this is supposed to be all that defines a woman). It's probably even in the studio, writer-for-hire contracts as every major Hollywood motion picture is green-lit by the same 21 politically liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage who police the screenplays to make sure "androgyny" and "critical theory" are properly implanted in the writing. All the research on the demographics of the studio control group is done (and never challenged) and is at www.FilmReform.org/bginfo.htm and all the research on how the Frankfurt School is operating is embodied in the movie CULTURAL MARXISM at http://youtu.be/gIdBuK7_g3M

Either you get it or you don't . . . or you'll confront it or you won't.

05 August 2012