+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: The Frankfurt School and the Destruction of Germanic Culture

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Aptrgangr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    2 Weeks Ago @ 08:14 PM
    Ethnicity
    -
    Ancestry
    Alemanni-Suebi/Irish
    Subrace
    Dalophælid-Nordid
    State
    Hessen-Darmstadt Hessen-Darmstadt
    Location
    Starkenburg
    Gender
    Family
    Hagestolz
    Politics
    reactionary ancap
    Posts
    1,008
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    102
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    168
    Thanked in
    77 Posts

    About the Frankfurt School

    By Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson CDR USN (Ret.) 1999


    If you have absorbed any of the background material presented in this series of essays on "'Cultural Marxism' at the U.S. Naval Academy," you should be quite concerned that our future naval officers are being subjected to psychic intimidation and indoctrination by behavioral psychologists and clinicians whose methods descend from Wilhelm Wundt [1]. The 'facilitators' and civilian professors in the 'Leadership and Ethics' program at the Academy are Wundtians all. The 'cultural Marxism' that has invaded our military academies and other military institutions is pervasive. As a result, these future naval officers will not have an understanding of the essence of what they are chosen to protect, that is, American civilization [2] -- the most vital and precious descendent of Western civilization.

    One must wonder who 'they' are. Who in America today is at work destroying our traditions, our family bonds, our religious beginnings, our reinforcing institutions, indeed, our entire culture? What is it that is changing our American civilization?

    Indeed, a thoughtful person should ask himself or herself whether or not all this 'change' from America's traditional culture is simply a random set of events played out by a random set of players, all independent of each other -- all disconnected from any central premise or guidance. It is entirely possible that chance is at work here and all of these 'threads' of American culture are the random workings of the human intellect (the pursuit of what is possible, vice what is appropriate) in a free, democratic society.

    But suppose you were to learn that nearly all of the observations made in this series of essays are completely consistent with a 'design' -- that is a concept, a way of thinking, and a process for bringing it about. And suppose one could identify a small core group of people who designed just such a concept and thought through the process of infusing it into a culture. Wouldn't you be interested in at least learning about such a core group? Wouldn't you want to know who they were, what they thought, and how they conjured up a process for bringing their thoughts into action?

    For Americans with even a smidgeon of curiosity, the answer should be a resounding yes! If such a core group could be found, then it would still depend on your personal 'world view' as to its significance. If you believe in the 'blind watchmaker,' that is, all cosmic and social events are random and guided only by the laws of nature, 'evolutionary' in the sense of competing with other random events for survival in a 'stochastic' world, you may choose to believe that such a core group was meaningless -- it may have existed but so what? It may have been only one of an uncountably large number of such 'groups' in the world's history. And you may believe that any particular group's 'window of opportunity' to influence future generations was passed by and did little to influence the course of America's history.

    If you believe, instead, that nature has a 'design,' and that all events can be connected and we humans can make sense out of many of them if we will only 'connect all of the dots,' then you may believe that this small core group has great influence, even today, in American Culture. If this is your world view, you may (but not necessarily) even believe in a 'conspiracy. and 'conspirators' which and who aim to alter our culture on a vast scale.

    It is clear, however, that irrespective of one's 'world view,' it is informative to at least know of such a core group (if it, indeed, existed), what it believed, what it set out to accomplish, and what methods it followed to take action on its beliefs.

    Just such a core group did, indeed, exist. That is, history identifies a small group of German intellectuals who devised concepts, processes, and action plans which conform very closely to what Americans presently observe every day in their culture. Observations, such as those made in this series of essays, can be directly traced to the work of this core group of intellectuals. They were members of the Frankfurt School, formed in Germany in 1923. They were the forebears of what some proclaim as 'cultural Marxism,' a radical social movement that has transformed American culture. It is more commonly known today as 'political correctness.'

    'Cultural Marxism' and 'critical theory' are concepts developed by a group of German intellectuals, who, in 1923 in Germany, founded the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University. The Institute, modeled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow, became known as the Frankfurt School [3]. In 1933, when the Nazis came to power in Germany, the members of the Frankfurt School fled to the United States. While here, they migrated to major U.S. universities (Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley). These intellectual Marxists included Herbert Marcuse, who coined the phrase, 'make love, not war,' during the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations.

    By promoting the dialectic of 'negative' criticism, that is, pointing out the rational contradictions in a society's belief system, the Frankfurt School 'revolutionaries' dreamed of a utopia where their rules governed [4]. "Their Critical Theory had to contain a strongly imaginative, even utopian strain, which transcends the limits of reality." Its tenets would never be subject to experimental evidence. The pure logic of their thoughts would be incontrovertible.

    As a precursor to today's 'postmodernism' in the intellectual academic community, [5] "...it recognized that disinterested scientific research was impossible in a society in which men were themselves not yet autonomous...the researcher was always part of the social object he was attempting to study." This, of course, is the concept which led to the current fetish for the rewriting of history, and the vogue for our universities' law, English literature, and humanities disciplines -- deconstruction.

    Critical theory rejected the ideal of Western Civilization in the age of modern science, that is, the verification or falsifying [6] of theory by experimental evidence. Only the superior mind was able to fashion the 'truths' from observation of the evidence. There would be no need to test these hypotheses against everyday experience.

    The Frankfurt school studied the 'authoritarian personality' which became synonymous with the male, the patriarchal head of the American family. A modern utopia would be constructed by these idealistic intellectuals by 'turning Western civilization' upside down. This utopia would be a product of their imagination, a product not susceptible to criticism on the basis of the examination of evidence.

    This 'revolution' would be accomplished by fomenting a very quiet, subtle and slowly spreading 'cultural Marxism' which would apply to culture the principles of Karl Marx bolstered by the modern psychological tools of Sigmund Freud. Thus, 'cultural Marxism' became a marriage of Marx and Freud aimed at producing a 'quiet' revolution in the United States of America. This 'quiet' revolution has occurred in America over the past 30 years. While America slept!

    What is 'cultural Marxism?' Why should it even be considered when the world's vast experiment with the economic theory of Karl Marx has recently gone down to defeat with the disintegration of Soviet communism? Didn't America win the Cold War against the spread of communism? The answer is a resounding 'yes, BUT. We won the 55-year Cold War but, while winning it abroad, we have failed to understand that an intellectual elite has subtly but systematically and surely converted the economic theory of Marx to culture in American society. And they did it while we were busy winning the Cold War abroad. They introduced 'cultural Marxism' into the mainstream of American life over a period of thirty years, while our attention was diverted elsewhere.

    The vehicle for this introduction was the idealistic Boomer elite, those young middle-class and well-to-do college students who became the vanguard of America's counter-culture revolution of the mid-1960s -- those draft-dodging, pot-smoking, hippies who demonstrated against the Vietnam War and who fomented the destructive (to women) 'women's liberation' movement. These New Totalitarians [7] are now in power as they have come to middle-age and control every public institution in our nation. But that is getting ahead of the story.

    The cauldron for implementing this witches brew were the elites of the Boomer generation. They are the current 'foot soldiers' of the original Frankfurt School gurus. The counter-culture revolution of the 1960s was set in motion and guided intellectually by the 'cultural Marxists' of the Frankfurt School -- Herbert Marcuse, Eric Fromm, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Wilhelm Reich, and others [8,9]., Its influence is now felt in nearly every institution in the United States. The elite Boomers, throwbacks to the dangerous idealist Transcendental generation of the mid-1800s, are the 'agents of change,' who have introduced 'cultural Marxism' into American life.

    William S. Lind relates [10] that 'cultural Marxism' is an ideology with deep roots. It did not begin with the counter-culture revolution in the mid-1960s. Its roots go back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci [11]. These roots, over time, spread to the writings of Herbert Marcuse.

    Herbert Marcuse was one of the most prominent Frankfurt School promoters of Critical Theory's social revolution among college and university students in the 1960s. It is instructive to review what he has written on the subject:

    "One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the
    whole cultural establishment, including the morality of existing society ...
    there is one thing we can say with complete assurance. The traditional idea of revolution
    and the traditional strategy of revolution have ended. These ideas are old-fashioned ...
    what we must undertake is a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system."

    This sentiment was first expressed by the early 20th century Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci.

    Gramsci, a young communist who died in one of Mussolini's prisons in 1937 at the age of 46, conjured up the notion of a 'quiet' revolution that could be diffused throughout a culture -- over a period of time -- to destroy it from within. He was the first to suggest that the application of psychology to break the traditions, beliefs, morals, and will of a people could be accomplished quietly and without the possibility of resistance. He deduced that "The civilized world had been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2,000 years..." and a culture based on this religion could only be captured from within.

    Gramsci insisted that alliances with non-Communist leftist groups would be essential to Communist victory. In our time, these would include radical feminist groups, extremist environmental organizations, so-called civil rights movements, anti-police associations, internationalist-minded groups, liberal church denominations, and others. Working together, these groups could create a united front working for the destructive transformation of the old Judeo-Christian culture of the West.

    By winning 'cultural hegemony,' Gramsci pointed out that they could control the deepest wellsprings of human thought -- through the medium of mass psychology. Indeed, men could be made to 'love their servitude.' In terms of the gospel of the Frankfurt School, resistance to 'cultural Marxism' could be completely negated by placing the resister in a psychic 'iron cage.' The tools of mass psychology could be applied to produce this result.

    The essential nature of Antonio Gramsci's revolutionary strategy is reflected in a 1990s book [12] by the American Boomer author, Charles A. Reich, 'The Greening of America.' "There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual and the culture, and it will change the political structure as its final act. It will not require violence to succeed, and it cannot be successfully resisted by violence. This is the revolution of the New Generation." Of course this New Generation would be Reich's elite Boomer generation. And the mantra for these New Age 'foot soldiers' of the Frankfurt School prophets, would be 'have the courage to change [13].'

    The Frankfurt School theorized that the 'authoritarian personality' is a product of the patriarchal family. This idea is in turn directly connected to Frederich Engels' 'The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State,' which promotes matriarchy. Furthermore, it was Karl Marx who wrote about the radical notion of a 'community of women' in the Communist manifesto. And it was Karl Marx who wrote disparagingly about the idea that the family was the basic unit of society in 'The German Ideology' of 1845.

    'The Authoritarian personality,' studied by the Frankfurt School in the 1940s and 1950s in America, prepared the way for the subsequent warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Herbert Marcuse and his band of social revolutionaries under the guise of 'women's liberation' and the New Left movement in the 1960s. The evidence that psychological techniques for changing personality is intended to mean emasculation of the American male is provided by Abraham Maslow, founder of Third Force Humanist Psychology and a promoter of the psychotherapeutic classroom, who wrote that, '...the next step in personal evolution is a transcendence of both masculinity and femininity to general humanness.' The Marxist revolutionaries knew exactly what they wanted to do and how to do it. They have succeeded in accomplishing much of their agenda.

    But how can we claim the 'causes' of the breakdown of our schools, our universities, indeed, the very fiber of our culture were a product of a tiny group of intellectuals who immigrated from Germany in 1933? Given all of the special-interest groups involved in these activities, how can we trace these 'causes' to the Frankfurt school? Look at some of the evidence.

    As an example, postmodern reconstruction of the history of Western Civilization (now prevalent in our universities) has its roots in the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School. This rewriting of history by the postmodern scholars in America has only recently come under attack. Keith Windschuttle, in his book, 'Killing of History,' has severely criticized the rush to 'relativism' by historiographers.

    What is truly astonishing, however, is that 'relativism' has largely supplanted the pursuit of truth as a goal in historical study [14]. George G. Iggers' recently published book, 'Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge,' reminds us of the now famous line by Hayden White, a postmodernist, "Historical narratives...are verbal fictions, the contents of which are more invented than found." He quotes other postmodernists, mostly non- historians, who [15] "...reinforce the proposition that truth and reality are primarily authoritarian weapons of our times." We now recognize the source of this postmodern assault -- the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School who became experts in criticizing the 'authoritarian personality' in American culture.

    Herbert London refutes White's proposition by observing, "...if history is largely invention, who can say with authority that the American Revolution came before the French Revolution?" He observes that evidence has taken a back seat to inventiveness. He thus cuts right to the chase -- the inventions of postmodernism, which are cutting successive generations of Americans off from their culture and their history, evolved directly from the 'cultural Marxist' scholars of the Frankfurt School.

    How did this situation come about in America's universities? Gertrude Himmelfarb has observed [16] that it slipped past those traditional academics almost unobserved until it was too late. It occurred so 'quietly' that when they 'looked up,' postmodernism was upon them with a vengeance. "They were surrounded by a tidal wave of faddish multicultural subjects such as radical feminism, deconstructed relativism as history and other courses" which undermine the perpetuation of Western Civilization. Indeed, this tidal wave slipped by just as Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School had envisioned -- a 'quiet' revolution. A revolution that could not be resisted by force.

    It is of interest to note that the 'sensitivity training' techniques used in our public schools over the past 30 years and which are now employed by the U.S. military to educate the troops about 'sexual harassment' were developed during World War II and thereafter by Kurt Lewin [17] and his proteges. One of them, Abraham Maslow, was a member of the Frankfurt school and the author [18] of 'The Art of Facilitation' which is a manual used during such 'sensitivity' training.

    Thereby teachers were indoctrinated not to teach but to 'facilitate.' This manual describes the techniques developed by Kurt Lewin and others to change a person's world view via participation in small-group encounter sessions. Teachers were to become amateur group therapists. The classroom became the center of self-examination, therapeutic circles where children (and later on, military [19] personnel) talked about their own subjective feelings. This technique was designed to convince children they were the sole authority in their own lives.

    It is important to realize that this movement, 'cultural Marxism,' exists, understand where it came from, and what its objectives were -- the complete destruction of Western Civilization in America. That is, these 'cultural Marxists' aimed to destroy, slowly but surely from the bottom up, the entire fabric of American Civilization.
    By the end of World War II, almost all the original Frankfurt School members had become American citizens. This meant the beginning of a new English-speaking audience for the school. Now the focus was on American forms of authoritarianism. With this shift in subject matter came a subtle change in the center of the Institute's work.

    In America, authoritarianism appeared in different forms than its European counterpart. Instead of terror or coercion, more gentle forms of enforced conformism had been developed. According to Martin Jay, [20] "Perhaps the most effective of these were to be found in the cultural field. American mass culture thus became one of the central concerns of the Frankfurt School in the 1940s."

    Since the 1940s, subtle changes appeared in the Frankfurt School's descriptions of their work. For example, the opposite of the 'authoritarian personality' was no longer the 'revolutionary,' as it had been in previous studies aimed at Europeans. In America, it was now the 'democratic' who opposed the 'authoritarian personality.' Thus, their language matched more closely the liberal [21] "...New Deal rather than Marxist or radical.." language. Education for tolerance, rather than praxis for revolutionary change, was the ostensible goal of their research. They were cleverly merging their language with the mainstream of liberal left thought in America while maintaining their 'cultural Marxist' objectives.

    Toleration had never been an end in itself for the Frankfurt School, and yet the non-authoritarian (utopian) personality, insofar as it was defined, was posited as a person with a non-dogmatic tolerance for diversity [22]. This thought is dominant in today's power elite of the Boomer generation, the New Totalitarians.

    One of the basic tenets of Critical Theory was the necessity to break down the contemporary family. The Institute scholars preached that [23] "...Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change." The 'generation gap' of the 1960s and the 'gender gap' of the 1990s are two aspects of the attempt by the elite Boomers (taking a page out of 'cultural Marxism') to transform American culture into their 'Marxist' utopia.

    The transformation of American culture envisioned by the 'cultural Marxists' is based on matriarchal theory. That is, they propose transforming American culture into a female-dominated one. This is a direct throwback to Wilhelm Reich, a Frankfurt School member who considered matriarchal theory in psychoanalytic terms. In 1933, he wrote in The Mass Psychology of Fascism that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of 'natural society.'

    Eric Fromm, another charter member of the Institute, was also one of the most active advocates of matriarchal theory. Fromm was especially taken with the idea that all love and altruistic feelings were ultimately derived from the maternal love necessitated by the extended period of human pregnancy and postnatal care. "Love was thus not dependent on sexuality, as Freud had supposed. In fact, sex was more often tied to hatred and destruction. Masculinity and femininity [24] were not reflections of 'essential' sexual differences, as the romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined."

    This dogma was the precedent for today's radical feminist pronouncements appearing in nearly every major newspaper and TV program, including the television newscasts. For these current day radicals, male and female roles result from cultural indoctrination in America -- an indoctrination carried out by the male patriarchy to the detriment of women. Nature plays no role in this matter.

    But in terms of destruction and disintegration, Critical Theory absorbed by the 'change agents' and other social revolutionaries has led them to declare their intent to restructure America. As they proclaim, this means their activities have been directed toward the disintegration of the traditional white male power structure. As anyone with eyes to view present-day television and motion pictures can confirm, this has been largely achieved. In other words, Critical Theory, as applied mass psychology, brought forth a 'quiet' psychic revolution which facilitated an actual physical revolution that has become visible everywhere in the United States of America.

    It was the destructive criticism of the primary elements of American culture that inspired the 1960s counter-culture revolution. As the name implies, this false 'spiritual awakening' by the idealist Boomers in their coming-of-age years was an effort to transform the prevailing culture into an inverted or opposite kind of culture that is a necessary prelude to social revolution. Now that these elite Boomers are in positions of power in the United States, they are completing their work of destroying every institution that has been built up over 200 years of American history. Their aim is to destroy any vestige of the Anglo-American path [25] taken by Western Civilization in forming the unique American culture.

    Most Americans do not yet realize that they are being led by social revolutionaries who think in terms of the destruction of the existing social order in order to create a new social order in the world. These revolutionaries are the New Age elite Boomers, the New Totalitarians [26]. They now control every public institution in the United States of America. Their 'quiet' revolution, beginning with the counter-culture revolution of their youth, is nearly complete. It was based on the intellectual foundation of the 'cultural Marxists' of the Frankfurt School. Its completion depends on keeping the American male in his psychic 'iron cage.'

    The confluence of radical feminism and 'cultural Marxism' within the span of a single generation, that of the elite Boomers (possibly the most dangerous [27] generation in America's history), has imposed this yoke on the American male. It remains to be seen whether or not he will continue his 'voluntary submission' to a future of slavery in a new American matriarchy, the precursor to a state of complete anarchy.

    If we allow this subversion of American values and interests to continue, we will (in future generations) lose all that our ancestors suffered and died for. We are forewarned. A reading of history -- it is all in mainstream historical accounts -- tells us that we are about to lose the most precious thing we have -- our individual freedoms.


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

    Footnotes:

    1) Lionni, Paolo, "Leipzig Connection," Heron Books, 1993. Wundt, in the 1870s, advanced the then-radical notion of man as an 'animal,' not accountable for his conduct, which was said to be caused entirely by forces beyond his control. According to Wundt's thinking, in a human being there is nothing there to begin with but a body, a brain, and a nervous system. Therefore, teachers must try to educate a person by inducing sensations in that nervous system. Through these experiences, the individual will learn to respond to any given stimulus, with the 'correct' response. Thus, a child's actions are thought to be preconditioned and beyond his control, because he is simply a stimulus-response mechanism.

    2) Vazsonyi, Balint, "America's 30 Years War: Who is Winning?,' Regnery, 1998.

    3) Raehn, Raymond V., "The Historical Roots of 'Political Correctness,'" Free Congress Foundation, Number 44, June 1997.

    4) Jay, Martin, "The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950," pp. 77, University of California Press, 1973.

    5) Ibid, pp. 81.

    6) Ibid, pp. 82.

    7) Atkinson, Gerald L., "The New Totalitarians: Bosnia as a Mirror of America's Future," Atkinson Associates Press, 1996.

    8) Jay, Martin, "The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950," University of California Press, 1973.

    9) Wiggershaus, Rolf, "The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance," The MIT Press, 1994.

    10) Lind, William S., "What is 'Political Correctness?," Essays on our Times, Free Congress Foundation, Number 43, March 1997.

    11) Ibid.

    12) Reich, Charles A., "The Greening of America," Crown Trade Paperbacks, 1995.

    13) A phrase commonly heard during the 1992 Presidential campaign.

    14) London, Herbert, "Discipline of history under assault," The Washington Times, 26 October 1997.

    15) Ibid.

    16) Himmelfarb, Gertrude, Panel on 'Academic Reform: Internal Sources,' National Association of Scholars, NAS Sixth General Conference, 3-5 May 1996.

    17) Marrow, Alfred Jay, "The Practical Theorist: The Life and Work of Kurt Lewin," Teachers College Press, new York, 1977. Kurt Lewin was a primary figure in the wartime research that was later translated into the techniques used today in 'sensitivity training.'

    18) Raehn, Raymond V., "Critical Theory: A Special Research Report, 1 April 1996.

    19) Editorial, "The crying of the admirals," The Washington Times, 3 November 1995. The U.S. Naval Academy has added female 'role models' to the faculty. In August 1994, the Academy placed a new emphasis on conflict resolution and consciousness-raising. "As 'Lean On Me' started playing, Master Chief Liz Johns gave the plebes her final orders: stand in a circle, sway to the music, sing along, and hug. From the circle came the sharp sniffle of sobs. The future admirals of America were crying."

    20) Ibid, Jay, Martin, pp. 172.
    21) Ibid, Jay, Martin, pp. 227.
    22) Ibid, Jay, Martin, pp. 248.
    23) Ibid, Jay, Martin, pp. 135.
    24) Ibid, Jay, Martin, pp. 95.

    25) Vazsonyi, Balint, "America's Thirty Years War: Who is Winning?," Regnery, 1998.

    26) Ibid, Atkinson, Gerald L.

    27) Strauss, William and Howe, Neil, "Generations: The History of America's Future -- 1584 to 2069," pp. 382, William Morrow & Company, 1991. "We can foresee a full range of possible outcomes, from stirring achievement to apocalyptic tragedy...Boomers can best serve civilization by restraining themselves (or by letting themselves be restrained by others) until their twilight years, when their spiritual energy would find expression not in midlife leadership [for which they are not equipped], but in elder stewardship."


    Frankfurt School

    The Influence of the \'Frankfurt School\' on Modern Liberal Thought
    When men cease to fight — they cease to be — Men.
    “Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves.” Brendan Behan

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    SineNomine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 9th, 2008 @ 05:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Mediterranid
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Nord du pays
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    MYOB
    Posts
    2,131
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Re: About the Frankfurt School

    This seems to be an outgrowth of dialectical materialism/historicism in general. A pathetic theory, refuted by Karl Popper in its entirety, just like von Bohm-Bawerk crushed Marxian "economics" in Karl Marx and the Close of his system. The funniest thing is that historicism contradicts itself to begin with - in asserting historical/economic events are subjectively understood rather than observed events that are not governed by constant, time-invariant relations, its assertion becomes meaningless. The statement, by its own standard, is nothing but a contingent, fleeting wish. In other words, nonsense. Logic 1, Historicism 0.

    I can see how such a philosophy has infiltrated the US though. Postmodernism-relativism-nihilism are based on precisely these principles; that there is no truth, that logic is arbitrary, that all morals are relative etc. It disarms its opponents completely, should they accept its ridiculous ideas (and then anything postmodernists proclaim becomes the "truth", as if by magic). Ayn Rand had attacked this cult most harshly of all in her works - she termed it the "cult of moral grayness", and showed what a fraud Fromm was. It's clever in how it obfuscates and inculcates, but once people start yearning for something more steady, postmodernism will collapse.
    Last edited by SineNomine; Tuesday, March 6th, 2007 at 05:29 AM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Horagalles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 01:53 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    mainly UP
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    Gender
    Politics
    Natural Order
    Posts
    1,376
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Re: About the Frankfurt School

    While classical Marxism attacked the economic and political order of the day. Cultural Marxism goes for the underlying structures and institutions. It is an attack on the social order also at the micro levels like gender relations or generational relations. I was familiar with the article presented and what Atkinson wrote shows how society and its norms are changed by using methods derived from social psychology. If we want to turn the table on its feet, we ought to do similar studies as well and develop our own strategies.
    "And God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which they should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race. They should observe what elements mingle in their offspring;..." Plato Politeia

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Nelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 27th, 2007 @ 08:52 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Religion
    Germanic Paganism
    Posts
    32
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: About the Frankfurt School

    American chauvenism:


    Without sounding too critical (the rest of the article was fascinating): I want to point out two chauvenistic aspects of "traditional America" that I believe are destructive and ignorant - and plainly evident from this article.

    National arrogance:
    "... American civilization [2] -- the most vital and precious descendent of Western civilization."
    In a word - 'Chutzpah!' (irony intended).

    Wrong priorities:
    "... we are about to lose the most precious thing we have -- our individual freedoms."
    This is ignorance: the most precious thing we have is the collective good of the Race - not narrow-minded individual 'freedom'.

    ...

    These two aspects of "traditional America" aren't noble - I personally find them noxious.

    To quote from the greatest European of all time:

    "There is more culture in cities such as Munich or Florence, than there is in all of North America."
    Last edited by Nelson; Wednesday, March 7th, 2007 at 10:22 PM. Reason: addition

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Psychonaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Wednesday, May 18th, 2016 @ 01:34 AM
    Ethnicity
    Acadian
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Politics
    Old Stock Nativism
    Religion
    Heathen Theosophy
    Posts
    927
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10
    Thanked in
    10 Posts
    Kevin MacDonald gives a really insightful and thoroughly documented exposition on the Frankfurt School in The Culture of Critique

    "Ocean is more ancient than the mountains, and freighted with the memories and the dreams of Time."
    -H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Soten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Sunday, August 19th, 2012 @ 11:39 PM
    Ethnicity
    American
    Ancestry
    English (50%), German (20%), Irish (12.5%), Lithuanian (12.5%), Scottish, Dutch, French
    Gender
    Religion
    Woden, Thunor, Frīg
    Posts
    1,120
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    38
    Thanked in
    38 Posts
    Hopefully, we will bury these men and women of the "Boomer" generation with our own hands within the next decade or so. And with any luck we will have buried their ideologies with them, so long as the new generation is not too perverted.

  7. #7

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Loddfafner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, March 26th, 2018 @ 11:59 PM
    Ethnicity
    European Blood, American Soil
    Ancestry
    English, Swedish, Scottish, Irish, German, Welsh
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Location
    New Sweden
    Gender
    Politics
    Beyond left and right
    Religion
    Odin/Thor/Freyr
    Posts
    947
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    The Frankfurt School and Gramsci were influential in the late 1960s but their influence faded by the end of the 1970s. Their hybrid of Freud and Marx came unraveled and among intellectuals was replaced by a fetish for the French poststructuralists and deconstructionists such as Lacan, Foucault, and Derrida.

    Conspiracy theories involving the Frankfurt School started popping up at exactly the time that the neo cons were at the peak of their power grabbing. For Gramsci especially, it was no longer enough for the proletariat to control the factory, they had to control the sites where minds are shaped such as the home, the school, the church. My suspicion is that the neocons were using Gramsci as a blueprint for their own powergrab in that they were going after exactly those institutions in order to build a solid wall of support for Bush. Evangelists were attacking mainline protestant churches while Horowitz was using resentment against politically correct professors as a pretext for government intervention in universities.
    The sitters in the hall seldom know
    The kin of the new-comer:
    The best man is marred by faults,
    The worst is not without worth.
    -- The Havamal, #133 (trans. Auden and Taylor)

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    SwordOfTheVistula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 1st, 2012 @ 12:21 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    50% German, 25% English, 25% Irish
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Virginia Virginia
    Location
    Washington DC
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Construction, writer/editor
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    2,990
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    44
    Thanked in
    44 Posts
    The neo-conservatives began life as Trotskyites, then switched to 'the right' based on their support for an aggressive foreign policy and large military, while maintaining most of their leftist attitudes.

    If you look at the domestic policies of the neo-conservatives, they remain about the same as their leftist beliefs in the 60s, they have just succeeded in shifting 'public discourse' to the left so that what was considered 'conservative' prior to the 60s is now considered 'fringe', and ideas considered left wing at that time are considered 'mainstream'. You won't find 'conservatives' today criticizing integrated schools, or interracial marriage, only the rare one suggests a rollback of legal immigration. Even support of racial profiling or opposition to foreign aid is rare to be seen.

    These radical leftists never changed, they just changed their names and costumes.


    http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html


    Neocon 101
    Some basic questions answered.
    What do neoconservatives believe?

    "Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.

    Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.

    Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.
    What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?

    The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.

    Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.

    What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?

    Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored détente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s.

    Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences.

    How have neoconservatives influenced US foreign policy?

    Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s.

    But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill.

    Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration.

    The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." AEI – the de facto headquarters for neconservative policy – had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.

    What does a neoconservative dream world look like?

    Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.

    Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary.
    Contact Congress on immigration
    Contact Congress to reject banker bailout
    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Ben Franklin

  10. #10

    Frankfurt School Death of the West Pat Buchanan



    Frankfurt School and Critical Theory / Death of the West Buchanan.



    Book - The Death of the West / by Pat Buchanan.



    When Cornwallis’s army marched out of Yorktown, the fife and drums played “The world turned upside down.” Now our world has been turned upside down. What was right and true yesterday is wrong and false today. What was immoral and shameful – promiscuity, abortion, euthanasia, suicide – has become progressive and praiseworthy. Nietzche called it the transvaluation of all values; the old virtues become sins, and the old sins become virtues. p5.


    About the same time, music critic Theodor Adorno, psychologist Erich Fromm, and sociologist Wilhelm Reich joined the Frankfurt School. But in 1933 history rudely intruded. Adolf Hitler ascended to power in Berlin, and as the leading lights of the Frankfurt School were Jewish and Marxist, they were not a good fit for the Third Reich. The Frankfurt School packed its ideology and fled to America.


    Among the new weapons of cultural conflict the Frankfurt School developed was Critical Theory. The name sound benign enough, but it stands for a practice that is anything but benign. One student of Critical Theory defined it as the “essentially destructive criticism of all the main elements of Western Culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism.”


    Using Critical Theory, for example, the cultural Marxist repeats and repeats the charge that the West is guilty of genocidal crimes against every civilization and culture it has encountered. Under Critical Theory, one repeats and repeats that Western societies are history’s greatest repositories of racism, sexism, nativism, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-semitism, fascism and Nazism. Under Critical Theory, the crime of the West, flow from the character of the West, as shaped by Christianity. One modern example is “attack politics,” where “surrogates” and “spin doctors” never defend their own candidate, but attack and attack the opposition. Another example of Critical Theory is the relentless assault on Pius XII as complicit in the holocaust, no matter the volumes of evidence that show that accusation to be a lie.


    Critical Theory eventually induces “cultural pessimism,” a sense of alienation, of hopelessness, of despair where, even though prosperous and free, a people come to see its society and country as oppressive, evil and unworthy of its loyalty and love. The new Marxist considered cultural pessimism a necessary pre condition of revolutionary change. Under the impact of Critical Theory, many of the sixties generation, the most privileged in history, convinced themselves that they were living in an intolerable hell.


    Erich Fromm’s Escape from Freedom and Wilhelm Reich’s The Mass Psychology of Fascism and The Sexual Revolution reflect Critical Theory. But the most influential book the Franfurt ever published was The Authoritian Personality. In this alterpiece of the Frankfurt School, Karl Marx’s economic determinism is replaced with cultural determinism. If a family is deeply Christian and capitalist, ruled by an authoritian father, you may expect the children to grow up racist and fascist. Charles Sykes, senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Centre, describes The Authoritarian Personality as “an uncompromising indictment of bourgeois civilization, with the twist that what was considered merely old-fashioned by previous critics was now declared both fascistic and psychologically warped.” Where Marx criminalised the capitalist class, the Frankfurt school criminalised the middle class. That the middle class had given birth to democracy and that middle class Britain had been fighting Hitler when the comrades of the Frankfurt School in Moscow were cohabiting with him did not matter. Nor did it matter that middle-class America had given Adorno and his colleagues a sanctuary when they had fled the Nazis. The truth did not matter, for these were Marxists ideologues, and they alone defined the truth.


    Having discovered fascism’s nesting ground in patriarchal families, Adorno now identified its natural habitat: traditional culture: “It is a well known hypothesis that susceptibility to fascism is most characteristically a middle class phenomenon, that ’it is the culture ‘ and hence, that those that conform the most to this culture will be the most prejudiced.”


    Edmund Burke once wrote, “I would not know how to draw up an indictment against a whole people.” Adorno and the Frankfurt School, however, had just done exactly that. They flatly asserted that individuals raised in families dominated by the father, who are flag waving patriots and follow the old time religion, are incipient fascists and potential Nazis. As a conservative culture breeds fascism, those deeply immersed in such a culture must be closely watched for fascist tendencies.


    These ideas have been internalised by the Left. As early as the mid sixties, conservatives and authority figures who denounced or opposed the campus revolution were routinely branded “fascists.” Baby boomers were unknowingly following a script that ran parallel to the party line laid down by the Moscow Central Committee in 1943: Members and front organisations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascists, or Nazis or anti-semitic… The association will after enough repetition, become “fact” in the public mind.


    Since the 1960s, branding opponents as haters or mentally sick has been the most effective weapon in the arsenal of the Left. Here is the “secret formula” as described by psychologist and author Thomas Szasz: “If you want to debase what a person is doing …. call him mentally ill.” Behind it all is a political agenda. Our sick society is in need of therapy to heal itself of its innate prejudice. Assessing the Frankfurt School’s Studies in Prejudice, of which The Authoritian Personality was best known, Christopher Lasch wrote: the purpose and design of Studies in Prejudice dictated the conclusion that prejudice, a psychological disorder rooted in the “authoritian personality structure, could be eradicated only by subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective psychotherapy – by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum.” This is the root of the “therapeutic state” a regime where sin is refined as sickness, crime becomes antisocial behaviour, and the psychologist replaces the priest.


    ANOTHER OF THE insights of Horkheimer and Adorno was to realize that the road to cultural hegemony was through psychological conditioning, not philosophical argument. America’s children should be conditioned at school to reject their parents’ social and moral beliefs as racist, sexist , and homophobic, and conditioned to embrace a new morality. Though the Frankfurt School remains unfamiliar to most Americans, its ideas are well known at the Teacher’s Colleges back in the 1940s and 1950s. The school openly stated that whether children learned facts or skills at school was less important than that they graduate conditioned to display the right attitudes. When Alan Bloom wrote in The Closing of the American Mind that “American high school graduates are among the most sensitive illiterates in the world,” with some of the lowest scores on earth in comparative exams, but the highest scores for sensitivity to issues like the environment, Bloom was testifying to the success of the Frankfurt School. Parents may consider today’s public schools costly failures where children no longer learn. To the Frankfurt School, they are a success; for the children coming out of them exhibit all the right attitudes. On entering college, these students now go through orientation sessions, where they are instructed in the new values that obtain in college campuses – to get their minds right, as the warden said in Cool Hand Luke.


    America’s mass media have become the siege guns in the culture war and a vast Skinner Box for conditioning America’s young. p 80 – 85


    Writing in the Spectator Eleanor Mills is an authentic voice of her generation: “The fact is that girls like me – i.e., healthy, hearty, middle class women in their 20’s – are just not breeding.” Why not? Because she writes “my generation’s twin preoccupations are, unfortunately, looks and money.”


    Political correctness is cultural Marxism, a regime to punish dissent and to stigmatize social hersey as the Inquisition punished religious hersey. Its trademark is intolerance. By classifying its adversaries as haters, or mentally ill, writes journalist Peter Hitchens in his lament for his country, The Abolition of Britain, the new regime imitates the methods of the Soviet Union’s Serbsky Institute, which used to classify political dissidents as insane before locking them up in a psychiatric hospital. “What Americans describe with the “casual phrase … political correctness,” says Hitchens is “the most intolerant system of thought to dominate the British Isles since the Reformation.” As it is in the United States. Scholar and author Paul Gottfried calls it “the dehumanization of dissent.” Words are weapons, said Orwell. By calling an enemy a racist or fascist, you no longer need to answer his arguments. He must defend his character. In a court of law, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. But if the charge is racism, homophobia, or sexism there is today the presumption of guilt. Innocence must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


    Orwell heard the word fascist used so often he assumed that, if Jones called Smith a fascist, Jones meant, “I hate Smith!” But if Jones had said “I hate Smith,” he would be confessing to unchristian hatred. By calling Smith a fascist, he need not explain why he hates Smith or cannot best Smith in debate; he has forced Smith to prove that he is not a closet admirer of Adolf Hitler. Huey Long was right.” When fascist comes to America it will come in the name of antifascism.” p 89 & 90.


    Seventy years ago , the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci ( 1891 – 1937 ) wrote the most important mission for socialism was to “capture the culture.” By the end of World War II, the liberal Left had managed to capture not only the arts, theatre, literature, music, and ballet, but also motion picture, photography, education and media. Through its control of the culture, the Left dictates not only the answers, but the questions asked. In short, it controls the cosmological apparatus by which most Americans comprehend the meaning of events. This cosmology is based on two great axioms: the first is there are no absolute values in the universe, no standards of beauty and ugliness, good and evil. The second axiom is – in a Godless universe – the Left holds moral superiority as the final arbiter of man’s activities. p 95 .


    “ A statesman must take the long view.” Richard Nixon. p 122.


    “ Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, gather the crops and not to foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent.” Slogan “For our race, everything. For those outside our race, nothing.” p 130.


    “To destroy a people you must first sever their roots.” Alexander Solzhenitzyn. p 147.


    CULTURAL MARXISTS UNDERSTOOD this. Their Critical Theory was a prototype of the politics of personal destruction. What the latter does to popular leaders, Critical Theory does to an entire nation through repeated assaults on its past. It is the moral equivalent of vandalizing the graves and desecrating the corpses of its ancestors. Many of the institutions that now have custody of America’s past operate on the principles of Big Brother’s Ministry of Truth: drop down “the memory hole” the patriotic stories of America’s greatness and glory, and produce new “warts and all” histories that play up her crimes and sins, revealing that we have loved to be loathsome and those that we have revered to be disreputable even despicable. Many old heroes have not survived the killing fields of the New History. Ultimate goal: Destroy patriotism, kill the love of country, demoralize the people, deconstruct America. History will no longer unite and inspire us, but depress and divide us into the children of victims and the children of villains of America’s past. p 148.


    In the dismantling of America, Arthur Schlesinger cites a character out of Milan Kundera’s The book of laughter and forgetting: “The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have someone write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new culture, invent a new history. Before long the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was.” p 152.


    In our Orwellian world of Newspeak, diversity means conformity. In the name of diversity, every military school must look alike. None may be all male, even if that is what those to whom the school belongs desire. Is this freedom/ Is this democracy? No. Orwell got it right.”One makes the revolution …. To establish the dictatorship.” The French, and Russian and Maoist and Khmer Rouge and Taliban revolutions all dethroned the old gods and desecrated their temples. So it is with our cultural revolution. It cannot abide dissent. Only after Senator McCain apologized for not having denounced the Confederate flag over the South Carolina capitol, and confessed to opportunism and weakness was he restored to the good graces of the revolution.
    But the cultural revolution is purging the history “of those illustrious heroes and statesmen”from public schools to prepare a new curriculum to separate children from parents in their beliefs, and to cut the children off from their heritage. Said Solzhenitzyn: “To destroy a people you must first sever their roots.” To create a “new people” the agents of our cultural revolution must first create a new history; and that project is well advanced. p 173.


    THE WAR ON America’s past and the dumbing down of American children – to make their minds empty vessels into which the New History may be poured – is succeeding. p 174.


    But secular humanism is a faith, the faith of America’s elite, and it is being imposed by the Supreme Court. Perhaps the greatest success of Christianity’s greatest rival is to have convinced Christians it is not a rival, just ideas reached by reason alone. p187.


    Seeing Americans bow to its will, the Supreme Court became supremely confident in its coup. In the Richmond Newspapers decision ( 1980 ) , Justice William J Brennan described the new order. Judges he wrote, “are not mere umpires, but in their own sphere, lawmakers.” In 1985 he told Georgetown Law School, “Majoritarian process has appeal under some circumstances, but I think ultimately it will not do.” It is the court’s role “to declare certain values transcendent, beyond the reach of temporary majotities.” What Justice Brennan meant was that his personal values were transcendent, the will of the American majority notwithstanding. p 189.


    The revolution will coexist until it attains hegemony. Then it will dictate. p196.


    Sam Francis, the syndicated columnist and author of Revolution from the Middle, “is that we are not fighting to conserve something, we are fighting to overthrow something.” We must understand clearly and firmly that the dominant authorities in … the major foundations, the media, the schools, the universities, and most of the system of organised culture, including the arts and entertainment – not only do nothing to conserve what most of us regard as our traditional way of life, but actually seek its destruction or are indifferent to its survival. If our culture is going to be conserved, then we need to dethrone the dominant authorities that threaten it.” p 215.


    In its agenda for world community, the Humanist manifesto of 1973 was prophetic. Americans, it declared must “transcend the limits of national sovereignty and .. move towards the building of a world community … We look to …. A world order based on transnational federal government.” In words that echo Gramsci and The Greening of America, the manifesto rhapsodized: the true revolution is occurring … At the present juncture of history, commitment to all humankind is the highest commitment of which we are capable; it transcends the narrow allegiances of church, state, party, class, or race in moving towards a wider vision … What more daring a goal for humankind than for each person to become, in ideal as well as practice, a citizen of the world community.


    This ideal of an end of nations and the creation of a world government, has been a dream of intellectuals since Kant. Though utopian, it occurs in every generation. It is a Christian heresy. When the philosophies of the Enlightenment repudiated the church, they needed a substitute for the church’s promise and vision of heaven. So they created a new vision of all mankind labouring together to create heaven here on earth. The trading away of the hereafter for the here and now is the bargain. And the children of the enlightenment are now far along with their project. As Christianity dies in the West, the foundation and first floor of a world government are already in place. The UN is to be its parliament with the Security Council its upper chamber ( the veto is to be abolished ), and the general assembly its lower house. The International Criminal Court, the World Court, and the World Trade Organisation would constitute its judicial branches. The IMF is its Federal Reserve. The World Bank and its sister development banks are the foreign aid agencies. The UN Food and Agricultural Organisation and theWorld Health Organisation are among its welfare agencies. The model and forerunner is the EU. Clinton’s roommate at Oxford and architect of his Russian policy in a column a decade ago in the Time described the regime that will rule in the closing decades of the twenty first century: All countries are basically social arrangements …. No matter how permanent and even sacred they may seem at one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary … within the next hundred years … nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single global authority. A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid-20th century – “citizen of the world” – will have assumed real meaning by the end of the 21st.


    In Talbott’s vision, the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank are the “proto-ministries of trade, finance and development for a united world.


    Today the people of Europe are being told that decency, justice and rightful restitution for their past sins require that they throw open their doors and share their national homes with the descendants of those their fathers misruled and persecuted, however many wish to come. Can the nations of Europe resist the nonnegotiable demands of the cultural Marxists? For what is being demanded of them is nothing less than demographic, national, and cultural suicide of their countries - for the good of mankind. p 236 239.


    In November of 1996, Fr Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things conducted a symposium, “The End of Democracy? The Judicial Usurpation of Politics.” Born out of angry and frustration with recent court rulings, the symposium was based on this proposition: The Government of the United States of America no longer governs by the consent of the governed … The question here explored is whether we have reached or are reaching the point where conscientious citizens can no longer give moral assent to the existing regime.” p 253.



    taken from the book.


    All jews.



    A few notes from the Frankfurt School:




+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Germanic Studies in School or University
    By Rodskarl Dubhgall in forum Education & Schooling
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Saturday, February 1st, 2020, 05:00 PM
  2. Replies: 272
    Last Post: Thursday, May 16th, 2019, 05:37 AM
  3. We Should Be Able to Celebrate Our Germanic Culture
    By Albie in forum Questions About Germanics
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: Thursday, July 21st, 2011, 08:26 AM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: Saturday, March 12th, 2011, 12:40 AM
  5. The Frankfurt School & Cultural Marxism
    By Old Winter in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, October 31st, 2010, 10:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •