academiccompositionab
Empowerment Equalizer
SSaragian
Antony Sammeroff
Ann Sterzinger
Rodney
RJ
busterjames
cainusmaxus
Craig FitzGerald
David Heleniak
Caity & Dan Greene
keirmartland
Keith Preston
Bill the Butcher
ljp711
MRDA
Jack Donovan
Rachel Haywire
comrade hermit
Michael
Vince
robertstark2014
Noonan
S E Pearson
Rachel Haywire
Nexus X HumectressIs PC the fault of the Frankfurt School, or capitalism?
Common Ruin
Across the paleoconservative blogosphere, on every “libertarian” forum and racist webpage, a strange concept is faulted for the turmoil witnessed in North America and Europe today, as well as for the alleged breakdown of Western social mores. ‘Cultural Marxism’ is the name these courageous right-wing dissidents have assigned this corrosive force.
So what exactly is cultural Marxism? And how is it that so many ostensibly capitalist societies haven fallen victim to it? The narrative varies depending on the political leaning of the individual disseminating it, but its standard rendition is as follows: a sect of European intellectuals, disillusioned by the failure of orthodox Marxist parties to mobilize the proletariat into conflict with the bourgeoisie, came to the conclusion that the original Marxist formulation was incorrect. Western workers possessed too conservative a disposition for communism’s egalitarian rhetoric to appeal to them. Karl Marx’s and Friedrich Engels’s dialectical theory of capitalism’s internal contradictions generating its opposite—communism—was flawed. The solution these thinkers arrived at was to replace class as the locus of struggle with culture.[1] In other words, the traditional Marxist Klassenkampf was to be entirely replaced by a neo-Marxist Kulturkampf.[2]
These men, many of whom were psychoanalysts of Jewish descent (a fact of particular interest to fascists), came to be known as the Frankfurt school—due to their affiliation with the Institute of Social Research at Goethe University, located in Frankfurt, Germany. The subversive ideas this faction of assorted academicians and literati conjured up had a profound effect on Western intellectuals and eventually infected the minds of North America’s and Europe’s cultural elite via university indoctrination, the story goes on, thereby leading to the liberal social movements and various projects of social engineering observed today, e.g., feminism, LGBTQ rights, multiculturalism, and general political correctness. To quote the late conservative political commentator Andrew Breitbart:
We can call it cultural Marxism, but at the end of the day, we experience it on a day to day basis. By that I mean, a minute by minute, second by second basis. It’s political correctness and it’s multiculturalism.[3]
But how well does this chilling tale conform to reality? Not very. However, before describing the actual causes of the social maladies certain conservatives impute to ‘cultural Marxism,’ I believe it would be instructive to trace the origins of this conspiracy theory; for, in so doing, we shall discover that it is little more than the latest iteration of the right-wing’s ceaseless Red Scare effort.
Let us begin at the beginning, with Karl Marx himself. Marx’s influential critique of religion and his Jewish heritage caused a great deal of suspicion among the pious gentiles of his age and proved valuable facts for reactionary propagandists to later manipulate for counterrevolutionary purposes. One would think that Marx’s own criticisms of Judaism[4] and occasional regressions into antisemitism[5] would be sufficient enough to inoculate him from being the object of antisemitic conspiracy theories, but, alas, they were not. Indeed, antisemitism was so ubiquitous at the time that even fellow communists found the notion of Marx harboring ill intent for gentile workers, as a consequence of his ancestry, irrepressible. Mikhail Bakunin, for example, felt that Marx’s Jewish lineage was cause to be skeptical of the sincerity of his political philosophy and accounted for Marx’s relatively statist conception of revolution.[6] In the following passage, he even endeavors to draw a link between the Rothschild banking dynasty and Marx:
This whole Jewish world which constitutes a single exploiting sect, a sort of bloodsucker people, a collective parasite, voracious, organised itself, not only across frontiers of states but even across all the differences of political opinion—this world is presently, at least in great part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand and of the Rothschilds on the other. I know that the Rothschilds, reactionaries as they are and should be, highly appreciate the merits of the communist Marx; and that in his turn the communist Marx feels irresistibly drawn, by instinctive attraction and respectful admiration, to the financial genius of Rothschild. Jewish solidarity, that powerful solidarity that has maintained itself through all history, united them.[7]
Another contemporaneous and influential communist, Eugen Dühring (the target of Engels’s 1878 broadside, Anti-Dühring), considered Marx the “scientific portrait of misery.”[8] Like Bakunin, he suspected Jewish involvement in the labor movement to be motivated by a selfish desire to position themselves as the managerial elite of the emerging cooperative commonwealth:
In that Jewish kingdom which calls itself communist, the members of the chosen people are liable to be in future managers of the common treasuries of the nations and to oversee their gold, their silver and their clothes, as they have done since their first social undertaking in Egypt.[9]
In addition to this theme being perpetuated by antisemitic conservatives and fascists to this very day,[10] Marx has since been accused of everything from being a satanist[11] to an agent of Freemasonry.[12] Generally ignored by those who subscribe to the antisemitic view is the fact that Marx’s closest collaborator—without whom Marxism as a distinct school of thought would never have materialized—Friedrich Engels, was a German gentile. On the rare occasions Engels is acknowledged, his role in the development of Marxism is either minimized or he is accused of being a Jew himself (albeit of the crypto variety). Another disregarded fact is that Marx married, and fathered children with, a German gentile—Jenny von Westphalen. Perplexing behavior for a supposed ‘Jewish supremacist.’
Pushing ahead in history, reactionaries devised new methods to taint communism’s reputation among workers. In Russia, Tsar Nicholas II’s administration found the notorious antisemitic hoax The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion to be an especially invaluable document for the task of associating communism with a Jewish plot for world domination. The Nazis later emulated this effective strategy in their propaganda concerning ‘Jewish Bolshevism.’ For instance, in an attempt to posture themselves as the only legitimately socialist party in Germany, the Nazis would often defame their opponents in the German Social Democratic and Communist parties by accusing them of being unwittingly controlled by Jewish plutocrats.[13]
The majority of German workers were not persuaded by these vacuous pronouncements, but, unfortunately, enough were that it contributed to the Nazis electoral victory in 1933. The tragedy which followed is unnecessary to detail here, as its history is well known to all.
Unlike its European counterpart, the Red Scare in the United States was not as overtly antisemitic. What was stressed in its stead were communism’s atheistic and anti-patriotic components, as well as its claimed hostility to the family unit. All of these features of the doctrine were obviously exaggerated, in an attempt to frighten religious and/or nationalistic workers, and purposely omitted was the fact that communists have never possessed a unified stance on the national question, the family, or religion. Thus, while communists like Antonio Gramsci opined that monogamy would vanish upon the abolition of capitalism,[14] one can just as soon find Marxist theoreticians like James Connolly arguing that communism will, on the contrary, perfect the institution of monogamous marriage.[15] Likewise, while some communists believed that nations were destined to dissolve following the global ascent of socialism,[16] others held that national identity would be reinforced.[17] With respect to religion, the United States has been home to literally hundreds of religious communities which were internally organized more collectively than any Marxist has ever conceived of.[18] What is more, the vast preponderance of pre-Marxist communists were explicitly influenced by the gospels (e.g., Wilhelm Weitling, Étienne Cabet, and Karl Schapper). As for Marx’s own view on the matter, he was undoubtedly an atheist, but nowhere did he propose that communists eliminate religion by fiat. In fact, his major point of contention with the Young Hegelians concerned their idealistic view that mankind could transcend religious faith without first overcoming the conditions which gave rise to it, e.g., precarity and privation.[19] To the extent self-identified Marxist parties have attacked religion historically, they acted in defiance of the historical materialism that represents the very core of Marxist theory.
By the end of the First World War, the communist movement in the United States had been virtually obliterated. Leading labor organizers and leftist politicians had been imprisoned or deported on charges of sedition and/or violating the Espionage Act of 1917. American capitalism was soon to enter a period of prolonged economic crisis, however, which precipitated a revival in radicalism. And although New Deal legislation succeeded in significantly curtailing communist activities in the country,[20] the bourgeoisie were well aware of the dangers this newly class conscious proletariat posed. Enter Joseph McCarthy and the second American Red Scare. As always, fear was the strategy. This time, the ‘Godless Soviets’ were rapidly developing their economy and nuclear capacity and communist revolutions were igniting throughout the Third World. The United States was quickly becoming encircled by its enemies, secret operatives were subverting our democratic institutions domestically, and our lavish standard of living—never honestly communicated as having been achieved as a consequence of the United States becoming the leading manufacturing base following the Second World War, and secured by one of the most violent labor histories in the developed world—was being threatened by these hostile forces. The ensuing blacklists and mindless jingoism were enough to cause immeasurable harm to American socialism.
Given what a remarkable success of these Red Scares were, one cannot help but wonder why contemporary reactionary ideologues have decided that the cultural Marxist myth is necessary today. I suspect the impetus may be that many of them are concerned about the fading memory of past Red Scare campaigns[21] and they are becoming anxious about the growing instability of capitalism itself. The right-wing are also eager to attribute the increasingly vulgar and raunchy elements of our culture to something other than the mode of production they so cherish—lest they alienate their culturally conservative, working class electoral base—and who better to fault than their old foe Marxism?
Let us now return to the Frankfurt school. Was their influence significant enough to lend the cultural Marxist myth a modicum of credibility? First, it is important to note that what truly inspired figures like Theodor Adorno’s, Walter Benjamin’s, and Herbert Marcuse’s work was not a disillusionment with traditional Marxism’s failure to accurately predict the overthrow capitalism as much as it was an attempt to comprehend why authoritarianism in general, and fascism in particular, succeeded in gaining mass support in 20th century Europe. Their analysis, tainted as it was by fringe psychoanalytic concepts, was faulty, but certainly not baleful. With respect to its influence, it is difficult to gauge. Marcuse enjoyed some popularity for a time, and his writings influenced certain segments of the New Left in the 1960s. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that university professors continue to disseminate theories originating from Frankfurt school intellectuals. In my experience, professors in the humanities tend to be left-of-center social democrats with little interest in subverting the established order, cultural or economic, save for perhaps proposing futile reforms such as a universal basic income. (This is, admittedly, anecdotal, but, to my knowledge, no study exists quantifying the precise degree to which academicians espouse views derived from the Frankfurt school.)
But what of the Kulturkampf? From whence does political correctness and multiculturalism come, if not cultural Marxism? Why are television shows and mainstream music so raunchy? The answer to those questions is relatively simple: capitalism. Multiculturalism is the inevitable result of the domestic bourgeoisie demanding a flexible labor market—that is to say, having access to cheap labor imported from the Third World—and political correctness is a necessary condition for capitalism’s ideological self-justification to be adequately internalized by the masses. After all, if individuals continued to be discriminated against on the basis of their race or gender, the proletariat could not easily be deluded into believing that capitalism possesses a meritocratic class structure.[22] My stance on this issue will surely outrage many of my comrades because they are wedded to the erroneous view that capitalism is inherently racist and sexist. I encourage them to challenge that common misconception by considering the following statement by Noam Chomsky on the subject:
See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist—it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn’t built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super-exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist—just because it’s anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic—there’s no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all of the junk that’s produced—that’s their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance.[23]
Regarding the abundance of vulgar song lyrics, hypersexualized films and television programs, and YouTube videos of adolescent girls twerking, again, look no further than capitalism. Interestingly, Freudianism does bear some culpability in this development, though definitely not in its quasi-Marxian, Frankfurt school manifestation. No, instead the source can be traced to Sigmund Freud’s nephew, the elitist, so-called “father of public relations,” Edward Bernays. Bernays was hired by several large corporations during his lifetime to consult on ad campaigns, and one of his main contributions was to recommend that these companies appeal to mankind’s baser instincts in order to more effectively instill in the public a desire for their frivolous commodities.[24] His advice resulted in greater sales, and since then sexual themes have become one of the cornerstones of the capitalist marketing effort.[25]
By now Christian fundamentalist readers are likely wondering about what they perceive to be an intensifying assault on religion—perhaps being committed at the behest of cultural Marxist social engineers—but what is, in actuality, nothing more than the state enforcing its Constitutional mandate[26] to maintain secular public institutions. It is true that church membership is declining throughout the Western world, but a more plausible explanation for this phenomenon is what Marx predicted would occur in the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1843), i.e., that an increase in material security is the source behind the surge of secularism among the masses.[27] That is not to say that people have become less spiritual in recent decades, though. Belief in some sort of deity remains quite high, and I conjecture that it will remain so for the simple reason that faith in an afterlife (irrational as it is) is an effective means of coping with our awareness of mortality. What people are finished with is the rampant corruption found in religious institutions and authority figures attempting to micromanage their personal lives.
So much for cultural Marxism. But let us, for the sake of argument, suppose that the conspiracy theory is true. How have the Frankfurt school’s nefarious efforts fared? Well, if their goal was to undermine the hegemonic culture in order to usher in an era of communism, as the theory suggests (the ‘Marxist’ element of the myth would not make sense were the goal anything else), then it has been an abject failure. Far from the means of production being collectivized and welfare provisions expanded in tandem with cultural degradation, we have witnessed the exact converse over the last 30 years in Europe and North America. The inspiration for the few progressive movements that manifested in recent years demanding that income inequality be reduced and student debt eliminated (e.g., the Indignados in Spain and Occupy Wall Street in the United States) was the Great Recession—and the attendant austerity measures the state imposed in response. In orthodox Marxist fashion, economics was the catalyst. Thus we are forced to either accept the materialist explanation for ‘political correctness,’ unbridled hedonism, and multiculturalism outlined above; or search for another idealist offender—perhaps Rawlsianism. One’s choice will inevitably depend on their ability, or lack thereof, to think critically.
While it is amusing to ridicule those who adhere to this puerile myth, I implore those on the Left to refrain from trivializing the effects an espousal of the cultural Marxism myth can have as one would UFO, or other inane yet harmless, conspiracy theories. Recall that the Norwegian mass murderer, Anders Behring Breivik, believed that by massacring children at a Labour Party youth camp in 2011, he was preventing a new generation of “cultural Marxists” from undermining the values of his beloved fatherland. Numerous fascist organizations and reactionary militias feel their acts of terrorism are justifiable for similar reasons. It must be emphasized that Marxism is not a doctrine of authoritarian social engineering, but is rather a conceptual framework developed for the purpose of understanding history and political economy, which is additionally committed to realizing an egalitarian society wherein exploitation and oppression have been eliminated from human social relations in a democratic fashion. Furthermore, we must be clear that when we discuss issues such as what family life or nationality may be like after capitalism, we are merely speculating on the manner by which behavior might alter as a result of the substructure of society being transformed. Marxists are most decidedly not drawing blueprints for how governments should coercively mold their citizenry.
NOTES:
[1] The patently un-Marxist lapse into idealism this entails never phases the purveyors of the conspiracy theory.
[2] Exponents of this legend frequently cite Antonio Gramsci as the progenitor of the Frankfurt school’s revisionism, but their only basis for the claim is a quote misattributed to Gramsci wherein he speaks of a “long march through the institutions of civil society” undertaken to subvert the status quo and therewith achieve communism.
[3] 18 December 2009, Hannity, New York City: Fox News Channel.
[4] In “On the Jewish Question” (1844) Marx infamously described Judaism as a religion of “Practical needs, egoism. . . . [and] huckstering.” Its secular God was but “money,” thus by transcending capitalism humanity would simultaneously be emancipating itself from Judaism.
[5] Though dismissive of racial theories of behavior, Marx often wrote of Jewish physical and psychological characteristics in unflattering terms. A striking example of this is found in his article, “The Russian Loan” (New York Tribune, January 4, 1856) in Eleanor Marx Aveling (ed.), The Eastern Question: A Reprint of Letters Written 1853-1856 Dealing with the Events of the Crimean War (London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1897), wherein he writes: “Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every Pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets. . . . The Hopes lend only the prestige of their name; the real work is done by Jews, and can only be done by them, as they monopolize the machinery of the loan-mongering mysteries by concentrating their energies upon the barter-trade in securities, and the changing of money and negotiating of bills in a great measure arising therefrom. . . . Here and there and everywhere that a little capital courts investment, there is ever one of these little Jews ready to make a little suggestion or place a little bit of a loan. The smartest highwayman in the Abruzzi is not better posted up about the locale of the hard cash in a traveler’s valise or pocket than those Jews about any loose capital in the hands of a trader. . . . Thus do these loans, which are a curse to the people, a ruin to the holders, and a danger to the Governments, become a blessing to the houses of the children of Judah. This Jew organization of loan-mongers is as dangerous to the people as the aristocratic organization of landowners.”
[6] Julius Carlebach, Karl Marx and the Radical Critique of Judaism (London: Routledge, 1978), p. 312.
[7] Bakunin quoted in Hal Draper, Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution, Vol. IV: Critique of Other Socialisms (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1989), p. 296.
[8] Dühring quoted in Rolf Hosfeld, Karl Marx: An Intellectual Biography (Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2013), p. 162.
[9] Dühring quoted in Shmuel Ettinger, “The Origins of Modern Anti-Semitism,” in Michael R. Marrus (ed.), The Nazi Holocaust, Part 2: The Origins of the Holocaust (Munich: K. G. Saur Verlag, 1989), p. 226.
[10] David Duke’s Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question (Mandeville: Free Speech Press, 2003), for example, devotes a considerable amount of space to promulgating this asinine myth by way of quotes taken out of context, dubious source material, guilt by association, and blatant fabrications.
[11] Such is the thesis of Richard Wurmbrand’s transparently absurd book Was Karl Marx a Satanist? (Darby: Diane Publishing Company, 1976).
[12] On p. 20, fn 10 of So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics?: A Text on Elementary Mathematical Economics (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House Publishing Company, 1984), prominent cult leader Lyndon Larouche concocts a narrative wherein both Marx’s and Engels’s work was funded and orchestrated by the villainous Freemason Lord Palmerston.
[13] An early example of this can be observed in the founder of the German Workers’ Party (later renamed the National Socialist German Workers’ Party), Anton Drexler’s, autobiography My Political Awakening: From the Journal of a German Socialist Worker (Fairbury: Third Reich Books, 2010)—which Adolf Hitler cited as his chief motivation for joining the party in 1921. On page 51, Drexler criticizes the Social Democrats’ administration of the German economy by highlighting their failure to address the problem of finance capital. He proceeds to suggest it was because the party was controlled by Jews: “Amidst all the shouting ‘Down with capitalism,’ not a single black curly hair of stock market and loan capital has been harmed. Should one not come up with the idea that the curly-haired and their ‘German’ helpers meant by the slogan: ‘Down with the capitalism!,’ namely the German, English, Russian, French, American, and Italian capitalism and up with international Jewish capitalism?” Ironically, the Social Democrats had in fact nationalized several banks during their period in government which the Nazis later privatized—see Germà Bel, “Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany,” The Economic History Review, Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 34-55 (2010).
[14] “It seems clear that the new industrialism wants monogamy: it wants the man as worker not to squander his nervous energies in the disorderly and stimulating pursuit of occasional sexual satisfaction. The employee who goes to work after a night of ‘excess’ is no good for work. The exaltation of passion cannot be reconciled with the timed movements of productive motions connected with the most perfected automatism.” Gramsci quoted in Michael Ekers, “Gramsci and the Erotics of Labor: More Notes on ‘The Sexual Question,’” in Ekers, Hart, Kipfer, and Loftus (eds.), Gramsci: Space, Nature, Politics (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2013), p. 222.
[15] See Austen Morgan’s James Connolly: A Political Biography (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988), pp. 55-56.
[16] Such was Rosa Luxemburg’s position. See Horace B. Davis (ed.), The National Question: Selected Writings by Rosa Luxemburg (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1976).
[17] The nationalist Marxist theorist Otto Bauer went so far as to hypothesize that “socialism will make the nation autonomous, will make its destiny a product of the nation’s conscious will, will result in an increasing differentiation between the nations of the socialist society, a clearer expression of their specificities, a clearer distinction between their respective characters. . . . Drawing the people as a whole into the national community of culture, achieving full self-determination by the nation, growing intellectual differentiation between the nations—this is what socialism means. The community of culture encompassing all members of the people, as it existed in the time of the communism of the clans, will be brought to life again by the communism of the great nations following the end of centuries of class division, the division between the members and the mere tenants of the nation.” The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), pp. 96, 98.
[18] Charles Nordhoff’s The Communistic Societies of the United States; From Personal Visit and Observation (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1875) is a fascinating empirical study of many of those early American religious communes.
[19] David Schweickart comments on the inaccurate characterization of Marx as an idealistic atheist in “But What is Your Alternative?: Reflections on Having a ‘Plan’” in Schmitt and Anton (ed.) Taking Socialism Seriously (Plymouth: Lexington Books, 2012).
[20] In Nothing to Fear: FDR’s Inner Circle and the Hundred Days that Created Modern America (New York: Penguin Books, 2010), Adam Cohen documents the profound extent to which the depression radicalized ordinary American workers and the role the New Deal played in extinguishing those sentiments.
[21] One cause for alarm is a recent survey that found that Americans aged 18-29 have a more favorable reaction to the term “socialism” than they do to “capitalism” by a margin of 49 to 43 percent. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2010, May 4), “‘Socialism’ Not So Negative, ‘Capitalism’ Not So Positive: A Political Rhetoric Test.” Retrieved February 2, 2014, from http://www.people-press.org/2010/05/04/socialism-not-so-negative-capitalism-not-so-positive/
[22] Walter Benn Michaels does a superb job documenting this development in capitalism in The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006).
[23] John Schoeffel (ed.), Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky (New York: The New Press, 2002), p. 176.[24] Frederick F. Wherry, The Culture of Markets (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2012), pp. 31-32.
[25] To see the deleterious effects this has had on children, I recommend viewing the 2008 Media Education Foundation documentary film Consuming Kids: The Commercialization of Childhood. Online: http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=134
[26] The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is unambiguous: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
[27] Rates of participation in organized religion being the highest in economically deprived American communities, e.g., the Southeastern region and African American neighborhoods, supports Marx’s hypothesis.
Now you have to explain why Japan -unlke North America and Western Europe-has not signed on for racial self-destruction. It suffers from nearly all the other major ills of advanced capitalist countries in late modernity ( it *also* has a total absence of urban “no-go” areas) but it still refuses to import alien replacement populations to promote multiculturalism and make up for low native fertility rates.
An adult discusion of the issue of “cultural Marxism” can be found in Paul Gottfried’s book, The Strange Death of Marxism.
No matter Japan opted out of the multicultural cult right from the start of the game, its society suffers at an even far greater degree from the very same defects generally ascribed in the West to multiculturalism and race-mixing. Especially as regards the destruction of family by extreme individualism, the disappearance of traditional social solidarities, the contempt for values inherited from former generation nationalist thought, and the general absence of collective ideal of any sort. It seems that multiculturalism and massive immigration have been used or tolerated by the system as a better than nothing mean to delay as long as possible the fatal tendency of all industrial societies to turn into the self-destructing suicide-inspiring social machines they are bound to generate, by the constant introjection of new subjects coming from further and further in Empire’s hinterland still functioning along inherited traditional values. Massive immigration from the third world is just the sequel to rural exodus as the domestic countryside has also turned into an industrial backyard, by resorting to countries still having real rural regions and real non-school-and-media-based cultures. Another example is Nazi Germany, which became both arch-individualistic at grassroots level and dictatorial at the state level not because of Germanic traditional peasant culture, as most academics are wont to indicate, but precisely because it had become the first country in the world to function in a modern, factory-like way down to the tiniest village, and to have a culture entirely produced by the media and the school system, the best of the world at that time. Another proof of what I say is that the newcomers in a country are generally more akin to the host country’s founding patriotic values, than the oldest citizens who have turned into mere projections of television and internet consumption, having nothing but contempt for all what their ancestors bequeathed to them.
re ” the destruction of family by extreme individualism, the disappearance of traditional social solidarities, the contempt for values inherited from former generation nationalist thought, and the general absence of collective ideal of any sort”
In Japan? I live and work in Japan. With youths. They possess a strong racial and national identity and admirable sense of unity and community. They uphold traditional rituals and beliefs engaging in prayer and practice in shrines in their immediate neighbourhoods. They do not believe it strange to conceive of someone or something as possessing divinity. They have a respect for their educators and elders, their parents, the property of others, et cetera, a west in decline could only hope for.
You’re comparing apples to oranges, fnn. North America was a fairly desolate land when European colonists arrived. The indigenous populations proved unreliable in terms of slave labor, for a variety of reasons (including disease and genocide), so slaves had to be imported—and their descendants are the individuals who populate those “urban no-go areas” of which you speak. The United States also borders a Latin American country (Mexico), which provides the domestic bourgeoisie with relatively easy access cheap labor. Japan, by contrast, is a geographically isolated island with a qualitatively different history of imperialism from that of North America and Europe.
Who exactly do you think has been drafting immigration policy for the past 150 years? The labor movement was largely opposed to liberal immigration laws because they recognized that the enthocultural heterogeneity which would obtain as a consequence would hinder organizing efforts, and they understood the increase in labor would put downward pressure on wages.
I remember Jonathan Bowden saying that Wyndham Lewis identified capitalism as the main force behind egalitarianism.
*By Japan being “geographically isolated,” I meant it in a relative sense. In other words, unlike the North America and Europe, it neighbors no countries with easily accessible cheap labor.
“red scare”
Yeah and Klaus Fuchs, Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White were not soviet double agents. Whatever.
This entire article is completely puerile it contains no arguments, merely assertions and betrays a gross ignorance of history.
If you had actually read history you would know that the Roosevelt Regime was riddled with communists see:
Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath
by Herbert Hoover
and
Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies
by M Stanton Evans
Yes there were soviet spies and yes they sold state secrets and yes the helped lose the war in China. Among other things White’s sabotage of Gold Shipments to the Nationalist Chinese: “We have stalled as much as we have dared and have succeeded in limiting gold shipments to $26 million during the past year. We think it would be a serious mistake to permit further large shipments at this time.”
David Rees, Harry Dexter White; a Study in Paradox, pg. 326.
No cultural marxist? Then where did this crap come from: “To paraphrase Sylvia Plath, today is the day in which every son and daughter adores a fascist.”
http://c4ss.org/content/21136
Oh yes Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality. The stuff in that book is every where in popular cultural, admittedly in a vulgarized form, but anything that goes popular is vulgarized. Which by the way was funded and printed by the Jewish American Committee, which is almost certainly of no consequence.
“These men, many of whom were psychoanalysts of Jewish descent (a fact of particular interest to fascists)”
You realize that an ad homenim is a logical fallacy and only highlights your ignorance and incompetence as an interlocutor. You guys are worse than Captain Ahab. Do you dream about fascists? Can you commies, anarchists or whatever you call yourselves even construct on syllogism in your arguments? Is it that to much to ask? In stead of arguments we get a superficially cited screed which is a classic example of how not to make an argument.
If Bill Lind is a fascist you must be a closet mass murdering communist psychopath how did you ignore 1991?
-Lewis: “This entire article is completely puerile it contains no arguments, merely assertions and betrays a gross ignorance of history.”
*Me: In my post I present sensible reasons why people should be skeptical of the cultural Marxism narrative and propose an alternative, materialist explanation for the cultural phenomenon conspiracy theorists are wont attribute to the Frankfurt school. Since this subject cannot be settled empirically—scholars have yet to thoroughly research the origins of the specific theories academicians disseminate today—the best anyone can do is propose hypotheses. I happen to think Lind, et al. are peddling self-serving idealist bullshit, and people like you are credulous enough to accept it.
-Lewis: “If you had actually read history you would know that the Roosevelt Regime was riddled with communists see:
Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath
by Herbert Hoover
and
Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies
by M Stanton Evans”
*Me: Because Herbet Hoover and M. Stanton Evans were clearly impartial historians, interested in presenting an objective account of the Roosevelt administration, right?
Anyway, I don’t doubt for a moment that there were individuals working in the Roosevelt administration who were enamored with étatisme (socialists and fascists alike), and I’m even prepared to entertain the notion a few Soviet operatives made there way into Roosevelt’s circle of associates, as it were. That is not the point. The practical outcome of the New Deal, and post-war economic growth, was the eradication of the radical (i.e., anti-capitalist) sentiments the American proletariat developed in response to the Great Depression.
Furthermore, the primary objective of the First and Second Red Scares was not to uncover Soviet espionage; it was to systematically dismantle socialist, communist, and anarchist institutions and sympathies in the United States of America. This was accomplished ideologically, via various propaganda techniques, and coercively, via deportations, incarcerations, and so forth. That is what I highlighted in my post in order to provide readers with a sense of where the notion of “cultural Marxism” came from. It didn’t originate with Lind, Gottfried, and co., it emerged far earlier than their scribblings. Marxism being wrongly associated with sexual permissiveness, militant atheism, mass immigration, radical LGBTQ causes, Jewish supremacism, miscegenation, cosmopolitanism, and hatred of Santa Claus can be traced as far back as the paranoid delusions of Marx’s rivals in the First International, and this conspiracy theory has been utilized and modified by reactionary forces ever since. It’s analogous to antisemitic conspiracy theories.
To clarify, that doesn’t mean there weren’t certain segments of the Marxist milieu who subscribed to fringe views—there have been anarchist and capitalist ideologues who have done so as well. There were also relatively powerful Jews involved in finance throughout the ages. But the state intentionally fixated on precisely those tendencies which espoused the most inane theories in order to discredit the entire communist movement, just as antisemites invoke(d) the Rothschilds in order to sow racial animus.
-Lewis: “No cultural marxist? Then where did this crap come from: “To paraphrase Sylvia Plath, today is the day in which every son and daughter adores a fascist.”
*Me: Maybe it came from Sylvia Plath, or Bob Altemeyer, or Philip Zimbardo, or maybe even (*gasp*) Theodor Adorno. It doesn’t matter. You’re quoting an article published by the fucking Center for a Stateless Society, an ‘institution’ that exists on the fringes of the fringe, my friend. It was written by a self-described “escort,” captivated by post-modern garbage, who no one has ever heard of. How many individuals in the United States actually believe their father is a “fascist” figure? If the best “cultural Marxism” has been able to do is convince a few social misfits online that their mommy and daddy are authoritarian bullies, I’m not impressed.
When there is a TED talk given by some publicly acclaimed, highly influential Harvard Professor disseminating anything like what Alice Raizel wrote, then I’ll be interested. Not because I think our social relations emerge as a result of popular ideas developed ex nihilo, but rather because it would be interesting to uncover why such a notion gaining wide acceptance would be of utility to the process of capital accumulation. I think you find, however, that TED prefers to keep their social commentary conducted by nice little Fukuyamists, like Steven Pinker.
-Lewis: “You realize that an ad homenim is a logical fallacy and only highlights your ignorance and incompetence as an interlocutor. You guys are worse than Captain Ahab. Do you dream about fascists?”
*Me: I merely mentioned fascists because they are often exponents of the conspiracy theory, and it’s primarily because most of the Frankfurt school intellectuals were of Jewish descent.
-Lewis: “If Bill Lind is a fascist you must be a closet mass murdering communist psychopath how did you ignore 1991?”
*Me: I never claimed Lind is a fascist, nor have I suggested that all of the individuals who believe in cultural Marxism are fascists. They are virtually always right-wing, though.
“In my post I present sensible reasons why people”
If reasonable means Marxist moron.
“I happen to think Lind, et al. are peddling self-serving idealist bullshit, and people like you are credulous enough to accept it.”
I happen to think Socialists/Marxists, et al. are peddling self-serving idealist bullshit, and people like you are credulous enough to accept it.
What you think is irrelevant, I might think there is a pink elephant outside. Facts are all that matters and facts are what you are short on.
“Furthermore, the primary objective of the First and Second Red Scares was not to uncover Soviet espionage; it was to systematically dismantle socialist, communist, and anarchist institutions and sympathies in the United States of America.”
No proof to this claim, just more Marxist BS.
Given that there were soviet revolutions in Germany and Hungary and other places in Europe, all of which failed accept for the one in Russia, the fear of Soviet sedition was very real in the 1920s. Yeah I’m sure the Red Scare had nothing to do with Lenin’s speeches demanding that the Red Army conquer first Europe and then the world.
“Me: Because Herbet Hoover and M. Stanton Evans were clearly impartial historians, interested in presenting an objective account of the Roosevelt administration, right?”
Ad hominem another logical fallacy. You comment is totally irrelevant.
And your clearly a communist mass murderer right? Resort to facts not communist BS.
“Marxism being wrongly associated with sexual permissiveness, militant atheism, mass immigration, radical LGBTQ causes,”
MMMM. Read Wilhelm Reichs’ “Mass Psychology of Fascism”.
Read every damn socialist writer today they are always harping on Longboat and Women’s lib and abortion on demand. Modern socialism has totally accepted the work of Marcus and Reich.
“I merely mentioned fascists because they are often exponents of the conspiracy theory, and it’s primarily because most of the Frankfurt school intellectuals were of Jewish descent.”
Yes you merely were committing a logical fallacy because you knowing you could not win a rational argument; thereby obfuscating the facts.
Again you have absolutely no evident to support your position and your adherence to a genocidal ideology of gulags and death camps shows you are just an inhuman psychopath.
Lets look at real socialism USSR 60 million dead, PRC 70 million dead, North Korea 5 million dead, etc. International communism/socialism has killed over 150 million people. This is real socialism. This high sounding BS is just that BS. It has never existed for any length of time thus far and is not likely to in the future. Humanitarian socialists are just the useful idiots of the Lenin’s and Mao’s of the world.
“In my post I present sensible reasons why people”
If reasonable means Marxist moron.
“I happen to think Lind, et al. are peddling self-serving idealist bullshit, and people like you are credulous enough to accept it.”
I happen to think Socialists/Marxists, et al. are peddling self-serving idealist bullshit, and people like you are credulous enough to accept it.
What you think is irrelevant, I might think there is a pink elephant outside. Facts are all that matters and facts are what you are short on.
“Furthermore, the primary objective of the First and Second Red Scares was not to uncover Soviet espionage; it was to systematically dismantle socialist, communist, and anarchist institutions and sympathies in the United States of America.”
No proof to this claim, just more Marxist BS.
Given that there were soviet revolutions in Germany and Hungary and other places in Europe, all of which failed accept for the one in Russia, the fear of Soviet sedition was very real in the 1920s. Yeah I’m sure the Red Scare had nothing to do with Lenin’s speeches demanding that the Red Army conquer first Europe and then the world.
“Me: Because Herbet Hoover and M. Stanton Evans were clearly impartial historians, interested in presenting an objective account of the Roosevelt administration, right?”
Ad hominem another logical fallacy. You comment is totally irrelevant.
And your clearly a communist mass murderer right? Resort to facts not communist BS.
“Marxism being wrongly associated with sexual permissiveness, militant atheism, mass immigration, radical LGBTQ causes,”
MMMM. Read Wilhelm Reichs’ “Mass Psychology of Fascism”.
Read every damn socialist writer today they are always harping on Longboat and Women’s lib and abortion on demand. Modern socialism has totally accepted the work of Marcus and Reich.
“I merely mentioned fascists because they are often exponents of the conspiracy theory, and it’s primarily because most of the Frankfurt school intellectuals were of Jewish descent.”
Yes you merely were committing a logical fallacy because you knowing you could not win a rational argument; thereby obfuscating the facts.
Again you have absolutely no evident to support your position and your adherence to a genocidal ideology of gulags and death camps shows you are just an inhuman psychopath.
Lets look at real socialism USSR 60 million dead, PRC 70 million dead, North Korea 5 million dead, etc. International communism/socialism has killed over 150 million people. This is real socialism. This high sounding BS is just that BS. It has never existed for any length of time thus far and is not likely to in the future. Humanitarian socialists are just the useful idiots of the Lenin’s and Mao’s of the world.
-Lewis: “If reasonable means Marxist moron.”
*Me: You’re a riot, Todd. You must be the funniest guy on the compound.
-Lewis: “I happen to think Socialists/Marxists, et al. are peddling self-serving idealist bullshit, and people like you are credulous enough to accept it.”
*Me: I see what you did there. You’re a clever one.
-Lewis: “What you think is irrelevant, I might think there is a pink elephant outside. Facts are all that matters and facts are what you are short on.”
*Me: Au contraire, it is you that has done no more than toss out the names of a couple of transparently biased texts and offer up your idealist speculations as supporting evidence of the “cultural Marxist” bugaboo. I mean, seriously, Herbert Hoover and M. Stanton Evans? That’s akin a Stalinist referring people to the work of John Reed and Sidney Webb on the early history of the USSR.
-Lewis: “No proof to this claim, just more Marxist BS.”
*Me: A comment section is hardly the appropriate medium for listing citations. Here’s an idea, though: write a formal reply to my blog post and I’ll be more than happy to respond in kind.
-Lewis: “Given that there were soviet revolutions in Germany and Hungary and other places in Europe, all of which failed accept for the one in Russia, the fear of Soviet sedition was very real in the 1920s. Yeah I’m sure the Red Scare had nothing to do with Lenin’s speeches demanding that the Red Army conquer first Europe and then the world.”
*Me: The fear of revolution was legitimate, I never argued otherwise. But the Soviet Union was hardly in a position to provide significant aid to movements abroad in 1919 – which is one of the many reasons why the Bavarian and Hungarian Soviets were overthrown so rapidly. As for government of the United States, it sought to dismantle domestic radical institutions which were founded well *before* the Bolshevik Revolution, and succeeded in doing precisely that under the pretenses of combating Bolshevism. Being that you’re a reactionary git, it comes as no surprise that you find those actions defensible. I’m not interested in convincing conservatives that the Red Scare was lamentable.
-Lewis: “Ad hominem another logical fallacy. You comment is totally irrelevant.
And your clearly a communist mass murderer right? Resort to facts not communist BS.”
*Me: Sorry, but you’re utilizing dubious source material. Of course, I can’t definitively say their work is impeachable, as I have yet to delve into it. But being that both men had a clear ideological axe to grind, I will probably forgo investing too much time toward that end and stick to more disinterested accounts of the period in question.
-Lewis: “MMMM. Read Wilhelm Reichs’ “Mass Psychology of Fascism”.
Read every damn socialist writer today they are always harping on Longboat and Women’s lib and abortion on demand. Modern socialism has totally accepted the work of Marcus and Reich.”
One doesn’t need Marcuse or Reich to support women’s liberation or “abortion on demand.” You can arrive at the similar conclusions with Sanger and Goldman, maybe even Chomsky (to cite a more contemporary example) – who detests psychoanalysis, incidentally. That’s what you proponents of “cultural Marxism” fail to realize. As for whether you can get there with Marx and Engels, the answer is no, because such causes go beyond the scope of what they concerned themselves with (which, by and large, was the law of value and the materialist conception of history). That’s why the Frankfurt school needed to supplement (to be charitable; another way of phrasing it would be ‘abandon’) Marx with their idiosyncratic reading of Freud in order to arrive at the conclusions they did.
But recall that the myth of cultural Marxism isn’t invoked to explain the ideology of the New Left, it’s used to explain why *mainstream* cultural is in the state we find it in today.
-Lewis: “Yes you merely were committing a logical fallacy because you knowing you could not win a rational argument; thereby obfuscating the facts.”
*Me: It’s an undeniable fact that fascists are frequent proponents of the myth, and I conjecture it’s because the Frankfurt school intellectuals were of Jewish descent. I never claimed that cultural Marxism is a myth *because* fascists and assorted antisemites disseminate it, ergo I committed no logical fallacy.
-Lewis: “Again you have absolutely no evident to support your position and your adherence to a genocidal ideology of gulags and death camps shows you are just an inhuman psychopath.”
*Me: I provided ample evidence in the sections of my post which are open to empirical validation. However, as you well know, the question as to the relative impact the Frankfurt school has had on academia, and the role such ideas have on shaping our cultural mores, cannot be settled because no empirical studies have been conducted on the matter. You can dance around this inconvenience all you want, but it’s not going to render your idealist twaddle any more valid than my materialist hypothesis.
-Lewis: “Lets look at real socialism USSR 60 million dead, PRC 70 million dead, North Korea 5 million dead, etc. International communism/socialism has killed over 150 million people. This is real socialism. This high sounding BS is just that BS. It has never existed for any length of time thus far and is not likely to in the future. Humanitarian socialists are just the useful idiots of the Lenin’s and Mao’s of the world.”
*Me: Citing the (grossly inflated) figures of deaths associated with Stalinist regimes to a revolutionary syndicalist like me is tantamount to Richard Dawkins blaming whatever Christian sect you belong to for Torquemada’s inquisitions. Not very impressive.
We can have the grand “human nature” debate over the feasibility of communism another day.
” Citing the (grossly inflated) figures of deaths associated with Stalinist regimes to a revolutionary syndicalist like me is tantamount to Richard Dawkins blaming whatever Christian sect you belong to for Torquemada’s inquisitions. Not very impressive.”
Says the genocidal socialist. Very credible source. Says the idiot who believes calls people he does not like fascists. Not very impressive.
“. You can dance around this inconvenience all you want, but it’s not going to render your idealist twaddle any more valid than my materialist hypothesis.”
Yeah you mean you dancing around the inconvenience that socialism never works in real life and leads to about 100 million dead. Yeah dance around that.
“Au contraire, it is you that has done no more than toss out the names of a couple of transparently biased texts and offer up your idealist speculations as supporting evidence of the “cultural Marxist” bugaboo.”
Says the guy who calls, in his article, people who disagree with him fascists.
“I mean, seriously, Herbert Hoover and M. Stanton Evans? That’s akin a Stalinist referring people to the work of John Reed and Sidney Webb on the early history of the USSR.”
Fallacy of ad hominem, as if you don’t use transparently biased texts. Or you using Adam Cohen or Walter Benn Michaels.
“I provided ample evidence in the sections of my post which are open to empirical validation. ”
No you did not and did I and you don’t deal with it. Like the intellectual coward you are.
Clearly you are an intellectual hack that only knows how to butcher the English language.
“We can have the grand “human nature” debate over the feasibility of communism another day.”
Hmmm. 1939, 1978 or 1991, all show that socialism fails.
“Because Herbet Hoover and M. Stanton Evans were clearly impartial historians, interested in presenting an objective account of the Roosevelt administration, right?”
Hmmm. No, because both British, US and Soviet intelligence confirms it.
You’ve exhausted my patience, Lewis. I see no reason to engage any further with a hysterical, religious zealot like yourself. Your long-distance relationship with reason is apparent to all.
“You’ve exhausted my patience”
Fine then leave me alone, I did not ask for your bull crap.
“I see no reason to engage any further with a hysterical, religious zealot like yourself. ”
I see no reason to engage with lying, idiot, moron, communist genocidal lunatic. So yeah bug off.
“Your long-distance relationship with reason is apparent to all.”
Says the idiot who relies on ad hominems and doesn’t even know what the world fascism means. Yeah Homer Simpson what ever you say.
Just using leftists ideology against itself I guess you to stupid to have heard of the reductio ad absurdum. So much for your non-existent relationship with reason.
What do you have my name tagged? Are you here to torment me?
Bug off.
Also thank your socialists/communists for f*cking up the global economy at Bretton Woods. Given that Harry Dexter White was a soviet double agent and John Maynard Keynes who brainwashed by the Fabian socialists at the London School of Economics.
Can you do better than that, sounds like a middle schooler that lost a game of kickball.
Just get over the fact that you guys lost in with the collapse of the USSR. Did you not get the memo in 1991?
derp
moron
My God. I just stumbled upon this article. If one wanted to consider the myth, might one not have considered giving some detailed consideration to firstly what the definition for CM might be or the accusations by some of the better writers on the subject, such as Gottfried from an opposing point of view or even Scruton, or even writers such as Dworkin (see Google Scholar) from a left-wing / inside perspective? To then delineate the developments in standard Marxism as an intellectual history exercise and decide whether there’s a commonality there that did move from economic issues and historical materialism towards focusing more on the superstructure as the means of achieving change as opposed to the base. Or even a look at currents in said Marxism from instrumentalist, structuralist and humanitarian POV. No, instead we have to read in over long prose about red scares, anti-Semitism and personal experience of university lecturers..Très intéressant.
My intention was to refute the myth as it’s commonly presented online, and I feel I largely succeeded in that aim. As I’ve said elsewhere, Gottfried and Scruton’s renditions of the conspiracy are more sophisticated and nuanced than what one typically encounters on lowbrow, right-wing forums, but the dimensions of the it aren’t that different. As for Dworkin’s work, I’m in no need of any introductory texts on Marxism’s application to cultural studies. I fully concede that self-identified Marxists have conducted numerous cultural analyses over the years; that’s not the issue. The cultural Marxist conspiracy suggests that covert Marxist agents infiltrated institutions of higher learning throughout Europe and North America, thereupon brainwashing their students into transforming Western culture in a destructive manner. And this is supposed to explain gay marriage, affirmative action, increasingly secular attitudes among the populace, and basically everything else cultural conservatives dislike.
I admit that my blog post may have oversimplified matters somewhat, and it was a tad polemical, but all of that has since been remedied in my paper on the subject, entitled “The Origins and Ideological Function of Cultural Marxism.” Google it.
” No, instead we have to read in over long prose about red scares, anti-Semitism and personal experience of university lecturers..Très intéressant.”
Totally agree, just more mentally ill and laziness from the left.
I don’t know, Todd. He has laid out some very convincing reasons why capitalism benefits from a multicultural world. It seems to me that you’re just as paranoid about the marixists under your bed as the left is of the facsists.
“These men, many of whom were psychoanalysts of Jewish descent (a fact of particular interest to fascists)”
Given that some people are mentally damaged and dyslexic lets settle the fascism and race question.
”
“But if |iationalism be independent of forms of
government, and also of questions of class, then it
must also be independent of questions of race.
Do you really believe, as some ethnologists con-
tend, that there are still pure races in Europe? Do
you believe that racial unity is a requisite guarantee
for vigorous nationalist aspirations? Are you not
exposed to the danger that the apologists of Fascism
will (like Professor Blank) talk the same nonsense
about the Latin races as northern pedants have
talked about the “noble blonds/ and thereby in-
crease rival pugnacities?”
Mussolini grew animated, for this is a matter
upon which, owing no doubt to the exaggeration
of some of the Fascists, he feels that he is likely to
be misunderstood.
“Of course there are no pure races left; not even the Jews have kept their blood unmingled. Successful crossings have often promoted the energy and the beauty of a nation. Race! It is a feeling, not
a reality; ninety-five per cent.* at least, is a feeling.”
TALKS WITH MUSSOLINI (1933) page 68-69 and http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm
https://archive.org/details/talkswithmussoli006557mbp
There were many Italian Jews who were fascists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Fascism#Jews_in_Italian_Fascism
Mussolini had numerous affairs with prominent Jewes Margherita Sarfatti.
So only for the sake of poisoning the well and an exhibition of leftist mental retardation is fascism liked with (1) anti-semitism and (2) conservative theories on cultural Marxism.”
“I don’t know, Todd. He has laid out some very convincing reasons why capitalism benefits from a multicultural world.”
I already admitted as much in my very first interview with Keith Preston. Many of these multinational corporations also supported the USSR as can be seen in people like Armand Hammer and Archer Daniels Midlands. They often work hand and glove, a thing I have never denied. The fact the David Rockeffeller benifits from Kinesey’s pseudo-science of sexology, while I never denied, in know way shows that there is not Marxists conspiracy which exists. Often times they work in concernt, at least in the cultural sphere. The fact that you identify one partner in crime does not absovle the other partner of guilt.
“It seems to me that you’re just as paranoid about the marxists under your bed as the left is of the facsists.”
Well given that Marxists are still murding thousands of people in North Korea and China thats not really a paranoia is it and the last Fascist was Mussolini and he died in 1945 which is paranoia.
“These men, many of whom were psychoanalysts of Jewish descent (a fact of particular interest to fascists)”
So according to our resident Einstein I guess it is a facists conseradtion that the pseudo-scientific work “The Authoritarian Personality” was funded by the American Jewish Committee.
http://www.ajcarchives.org/main.php?GroupingId=6490
Which is the source of this US conservatives are fascist nonsense.
“the pseudo-scientific work “The Authoritarian Personality” was funded by the American Jewish Committee.
http://www.ajcarchives.org/main.php?GroupingId=6490
Which is the source of this US conservatives are fascist nonsense.”
Of course their is no conflict of interest in that is there?
You will go straight into the lake of fire if you keep talking shit about my people and my mother.
“You will go straight into the lake of fire if you keep talking shit about my people and my mother.”
Funny joke.
Joseph McCarthy already pointed out in the ’50s how Marxists were subverting American culture with Marxist ideology. Almost no one believed him back then, but the decades that followed have only proved him right.
Especially since the culture wars of the late ’60s, Western society has become so saturated with Marxist ideology – a form of Marxism going back to the Frankfurt School – it requires one to be either very ignorant or very biased to not recognize this obvious fact.