|January 25th, 2008||#1|
#1 Origins of Political Correctness Thread
Going to copy relevant part below
response to diggbnini: continuing the debate on the origins of Political Correctness
To me, this very interesting stuff. In fact, I think I'll make a subforum on P.C.
December 12, 2007 @ 9:38 pm · Edit
Actually, the term ‘racism’ was coined in ‘34 by a Jew, as one would expect you to expect — Magnus Hirschfeld, a pioneer in “sexology” and one of the co-founders of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft. The roots of political correctness lie directly in European Jewry; Lenin had nothing to do with it, he was not a Jew, and this “anti-communist” line you’ve taken up lately is, I should say, unworthy of your ability as a thinker. You should stop reading post-Soviet dissident literature. They know nothing of the “Jewish metanarrative” which was being crafted in Europe well before even the nineteenth century. Read any of the old anti-Semitic literature (France and Germany), read the Jewish literature, you’ll find all the same arguments and refutations and excuses and rebuttals as today. One can find it in Luther and all the way back in Chrysostom. The duel, the apparent logical stalemate, has been more or less the same for centuries and centuries. Political correctness was not invented, it developed and was perfected — but not really by Lenin, which is mere WN euhemerism, as is the drivel about Illumanti, Rousseau and the like.
It is true that Hirschfeld’s Rassismus was first translated and published in England by two Communist Party members, Eden and Cedar Paul. That much is true. ‘True’ also, as metaphor, as description, is it that Communist social engineering in China and Russia both hinged on the “inculcation of ‘correct political orientation’ ” — but this only as a metaphor for our own sociopolitical climate. The imposition of cultural and linguistic taboos, the climate/milieu is the same, but between the two examples lies the gulf of total state control (Bolshevism-Stalinism) and the Gramscian doctrine of cultural sabotage. The point is, there is no great genetic link between political correctness in the West and the necessity of political circumspection under the Soviet regime, though some Poles, Russians, Frenchmen and American conservatives are desperately pointing out the similarity as though analogy this proves ideological descent. It would be only slightly more ridiculous to point to 1984 as the blueprint or ‘Protocols’ of political correctness. What is the basic problem here? That WNs and “anti-Red” conservative Europeans are stuck on the need for an agent in the descent of political correctness upon us. The only real agents are Jews, but as I admitted above, the transmitters were often enough Western Communists. To prove that Political Correctness (capitals here) is a bona fide, patterned red diaper baby, it would have to be shown just which western intellectuals sat down and decided to construct a system of taboos designed to have the same effect as the political climate across the Iron Curtain — a formidable project considering that the specific psychological details of the latter were, back then, not nearly as popular as they are now, and Bruno Rizzi had trouble convincing even Trotskyites that the economy of the Soviet Union was corrupt. When was The Gulag Archipelago written? 1958-68. Published over here: 1973. This would mean that Adorno, Horkheimer, Arendt, Marcuse, the vicious gaggle of Jewish feminists, and handfuls of other Jewish cultural saboteurs from Washington to Berkeley and Montreal to Buenos Aires, on the airwaves (remember all that schmaltzy girl pop? they wrote that, too) and in the papers, in the colleges and in the theatres, back in the ’20s, ’30s, ’40s, ’50s and ’60s, were doing nothing of consequence — nothing, because these Soviet dissidents and their Western preachers assure us, it was Stalin and Communism which invented “political correctness” !
I am not Russian or Slavic, and have no latter-day romantic sympathy for the Soviet Union or Communism, historically or theoretically. This is simply a matter of mistaken beliefs and bad scholarship. To the extent that you, Alex, and VNN have inched closer to the simplistic view of modern history promoted by the Europeans and their Soviet dissident gurus, to that extent have you lost the track of a hard anti-Semitic science and, more than that, credibility in historical assignations. I swear these Russians, and russomania among white nationalists, and further euromania among American white nationalists, leads to this sort of error — fashionable errors of the moment, enthusiastic errors, mistakes made in the search for easy answers and the lack or breakdown of scholarly instinct. So my appeal here is for a more conscientious analysis on your part, if for nothing else than to better your own understanding. I realize that people like easily digestible answers, scapegoats, straw-men to burn and reburn, but it grieves me to see a mind I once earnestly respected descend to that level.
December 12, 2007 @ 10:20 pm · Edit
- Illuminati (or better: Weishaupt) for “Illumanti”, which sounds like one of those fake African names
- “as though analogy this proves”, remove “this”
- in “there is no great genetic link”, I meant to say genetic operational link, which, I think, puts a finer point on it: that there is only a very broad similarity of sociopolitical climate between the Kwa and the erstwhile Soviet regime — but in no appreciable respect is it genetic, that is to say copied or carried over from the Soviet regime in any detail, which would be, again, contrary to the very chronological development of these issues; the ascription of modern leftist terminology and its use to Lenin himself, or any Bolshevik or Soviet agent, is entirely simplistic and not supported by even the most in-depth reading of Lenin’s œuvre, nor his correspondence, both of which I have studied, nor does such a notion make sense from what one knows of his career; it also, in giving out false information, muddles the point against Jews, but that is another footnote…
December 12, 2007 @ 10:39 pm · Edit
And a short bibliography, if you care:
Hirschfeld, Racism, 1938 ed. (I will probably transcribe this in the near future.)
Jing Lin, Social Transformation and Private Education in China, 1999
Mao, The political thought of Mao Tse-tung, 1969
Lenin, Collected Works, 1960-70
Stalin, Stalin’s Letters to Molotov, 1996
Stalin, Dimitrov and Stalin, 1934-1943: Letters from the Soviet Archives, 2000
Steve B Said,
December 12, 2007 @ 11:17 pm · Edit
Hey fella, did you get the license plate number of that Linder truck that just ran over you?
twilight ex-pat Said,
December 13, 2007 @ 3:55 am · Edit
I have come to many of the positions being put forward by Alex only lately. While you may not like his tone, you’d be wrong to dismiss where he’s coming from. He’s a pretty logical thinker and makes a case– whether you agree with it or not, you should respect the power of his reasoning. It is consitent and backed by data– where you offer only personal anecdotes.
For the record, I am increasingly of late a separationist. I attended a well-known New England state university– no Harvard, but no CC either. I scored 1280 on my SATs (old school scoring). I graduated college cum laude. I have held a series of executive management positions working at some of the biggest global media companies. I have won a number of industry awards throughout my career. I have traveled extensively throughout Europe and Asia, haved lived in Australia and currently work in the Middle East.
One of the things I have come lately to appreciate recently is that the views of a blog like this are articulate. You’re not talking to some Central Casting character for Missisppi Burning here– Alex is pretty damn smart.
The presumption that you are more worldly and sophisticated than the folks you THINK you’re speaking to might just be misplaced.
December 13, 2007 @ 11:17 am · Edit
That was absolutely delicious to see this clown’s false and flawed world view utterly eviscerated. Thanks Alex!
Will Stuteley Said,
December 13, 2007 @ 2:34 pm · Edit
As the ChanFags would say…
December 13, 2007 @ 5:13 pm · Edit
I’m not sure how to respond to what you’ve said. I have always blamed the jew - for political correctness, for communism, for multiculturism, and for everything else for which the jew is directly responsible. However, as a matter of fact, the term racism was around before queer jew Hirschfeld, at least according to the . How you turn this into my exculpating the jews, or syncopating their responsibility - no way, man, no way. I blame the jews. First and more than anyone. As for your details, thanks for bringing them up. I urge all readers to make their own investigations. Essentially what you are are jews operating in a number of different contexts, but tied by mentality and hatred of goyim - ie., normal Whites of the type that founded Kirksville and your town, reader. The key, reader, the takeaway here, as they say, is that all the things you hate about our society and what our culture has become - these trace back to jews. If you hate rape, crime, communism, multiculturalism, political correctness, etc, you hate jews, whether you realize it or not.
Thanks for the comments, Diggbnini. I think you mischaracterize my position, but your elucidations, where they are factually correct, are much appreciated.
December 13, 2007 @ 5:17 pm · Edit
As for Lenin, he had one jew grandparent. Which would be enough to grant him Israeli citizenship, under their blood laws.
One of the main things to understand here, for the regular non-intellectual, is that every bad camp in the U.S. has a parallel in the old Weimar Republic and the USSR. Every failed policy here was first tested there. In fact, everywhere you go where jews obtain power, they practice the same sort of malevolence, and as the commenter says above, this goes back a lot longer than the 20th century. All the radical movements in the “West” were created by jews to undermine White Normality. The ultimate end of this radicalism is the campaign to “abolish Whites” as one jew prof has expressed it. If you want your kind to surive, White man, you have to defend it. That means naming and fighting back against the jew.
December 13, 2007 @ 5:29 pm · Edit
but in no appreciable respect is it genetic, that is to say copied or carried over from the Soviet regime in any detail, which would be, again, contrary to the very chronological development of these issues; the ascription of modern leftist terminology and its use to Lenin himself, or any Bolshevik or Soviet agent, is entirely simplistic and not supported by even the most in-depth reading of Lenin’s œuvre, nor his correspondence, both of which I have studied, nor does such a notion make sense from what one knows of his career; it also, in giving out false information, muddles the point against Jews, but that is another footnote…
I disagree, based on my reading of Frank Ellis’ “Marxism, Multiculturalism, and Free Speech” and E. Michael Jones’s work on the Enlightenment and radicalism over the last 300 years. The environment changes between the Soviet Union, Germany and the U.S. but the types and mentality are more similar than different.
Quoting Ellis: “…long before Marcuse and Derrida, and a host of other New Left and postmodernist writers were required reading on the campus, we fidn political correctness established as an ideological criterion of Marxism-Leninism. Official soviet sources clearly show that the term was in use as early as 1921 (Resheniya, 1967, 205). If one takes into account the role of Lenin as the architect of the Soviet Union, and his massive influence in shaping Soviet ideology, then a reasonable assumption is that it is to Lenin to whom we must turn in order to find the conceptual origins of political correctness and the term itself. Soviet sources support this assumption.
December 13, 2007 @ 5:32 pm · Edit
I find this via google:
According to the Oxford English Dictionary the term ‘racist’ was coined by Leon Davidovich Bronstein (Leon Trotsky). Anti-racism is a major focus of Cultural Marxism.”
I had heard it was coined by Lenin, a part-jew. Trotsky is Lev Bronstein is full jew. In either case, it is clear that the term was around well before the 1930s and queer jew Hirschfeld.
December 13, 2007 @ 5:44 pm · Edit
And a short bibliography, if you care:
Hirschfeld, Racism, 1938 ed. (I will probably transcribe this in the near future.)
Please do - and let us know, we’d love to post it.
Hirschfeld is someone very few Americans have heard of, but he’s an important figure in the history of normalizing sex perversion. He and his ilk were cashiered by Germany. Unfortunately cashiered does not mean put underground where they belong, rather flushed to the U.S. where they continued their dirty work. So when you go to TSU and see gay safe zone stickers, or you stroll through Wal-Mart and see the filthy Bratz dolls (created by Iranian JEW) tempting your daughter to sluthood, understand that you and Hitler are on the same side: you both reject the jewish culture of immortality, filthy and perversion.
December 13, 2007 @ 5:46 pm · Edit
Pardon the typos. Word press has a glitch that adds slashes if you try to edit a comment or post, so it’s easiest just to move along.
December 13, 2007 @ 5:48 pm · Edit
Twilight ex-pat -
thanks for the letter! Sounds like you’ve had a very successful career.
It is remarkable, isn’t it, how the TISSUES and prestigious-schoolers condescend, never realizing they’re spouting arrant bullshit brainwashed into them over their first 25 years. What really gets me is they’re so naive it never occurs to them that we’ve heard everything they have to say a 1,000x and have an answer for it.
December 13, 2007 @ 5:53 pm · Edit
You should stop reading post-Soviet dissident literature. They know nothing of the “Jewish metanarrative” which was being crafted in Europe well before even the nineteenth century. Read any of the old anti-Semitic literature (France and Germany), read the Jewish literature, you’ll find all the same arguments and refutations and excuses and rebuttals as today. One can find it in Luther and all the way back in Chrysostom.
I’m aware of this. I don’t knwo what post-Soviet dissident lit is, so I don’t think I’ve read much of it. I have not read 200 Years by Solzhenitsyn, which deals with relations between Russians and jews. I am familiar, altho not in scholarly depth, with the views of Luther and Chrysostom; both are covered in Macdonald, and of course Luther wrote directly on the kikes, advocating their extermination, essentially. Please remember: I’m not an academic, and I’m not writing for specialists. I’m writing for ordinary Whites, as for example the lower middle classes who inhabit Kirksville, and the thing they need to know is that all the things that threaten their family are caused by jews. Whether it’s the mexes let in by the no-borders kikes controlling immigration, the Bratz dolls created by jewish retailers, or illegal foreign wars started by neocons - the point is that ordinary White families are undre siege by jews.
That said, I and we welcome your scholarly eludications and corrections.
December 13, 2007 @ 6:02 pm · Edit
The point is, there is no great genetic link between political correctness in the West and the necessity of political circumspection under the Soviet regime, though some Poles, Russians, Frenchmen and American conservatives are desperately pointing out the similarity as though analogy this proves ideological descent.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. The bottom line to me is that if you try to speak against the System, the System will try to wipe you out, on a sliding scale from smears through employer-calls to execution. The left, which is a jewish production, does not sanction any departure from its Party Line. Be politically correct or get stomped into the ground. It will do whatever it can get away with to ensure conformity and uniformity. That’s my direct personal experience. It seems to me that while the distinctions between jews-producing-USSR, jews-producing-Weimar and jews-producing-AmerKwa are interesting, the common blood and mentality are essential. We may not know what form their evil will take, but since we know their drives and motivations, we know to look for something hostile wherever White-normal touches alien-jew.
December 13, 2007 @ 6:16 pm · Edit
The point is, there is no great genetic link between political correctness in the West and the necessity of political circumspection under the Soviet regime, though some Poles, Russians, Frenchmen and American conservatives are desperately pointing out the similarity as though analogy this proves ideological descent.
There’s obviously a genetic link when the global left, which is a jewish production, uses exactly the same words and frames and arguments. It’s a coordinated, global phenomenon, at least in 2007.
December 13, 2007 @ 9:45 pm · Edit
However, as a matter of fact, the term racism was around before queer jew Hirschfeld
Right, that I know — it was used in France and England as far back as the 1850s. But in its infancy it floated between the eugenic and mildly pejorative in meaning. As a full political pejorative, however, it came into its own with Hirschfeld.
How you turn this into my exculpating the jews, or syncopating their responsibility - no way, man, no way. I blame the jews.
Of course, I wouldn’t say otherwise. I have simply noticed that the rhetoric has slipped a little in the wrong direction, in this case Lenin. It is much more appropriate to blame Hirschfeld, who literally wrote the book on “racism”, than Lenin, even if one could find evidence in his works that he had the same idea — which I haven’t, for what it’s worth. And again, that would involve some slippery chronology. Hirschfeld and his British communist translators fits just right into the developmental timeline, and the geography, of this concept. My point, restated, is that WN is engaged in a sort of anti-Soviet revival, prompted by certain memoirs and historical accounts of the regime which, though apt analogically, do not point to any development link between Soviet practice and Western political correctness. My opinion is this is bad for WN — much as it was in the 50’s and thereafter, simply because it takes rhetoric in a mostly fruitless direction. One can point out these grim similarities only so much, after all. If we can introduce a new factor into the history of modern decline, trace back PC to its source, and that factor is a full-blown queer German-Jew, I think it should be done at the expense of anti-Communist rhetoric.
As for Lenin, he had one jew grandparent. Which would be enough to grant him Israeli citizenship, under their blood laws.
This is rather what I mean when I say “WN euhemerism”. If you’re concerned with facts, then there should be a pause here on the matter of Lenin’s alleged Jewish grandparent. We can all frankly confess that we have no access to any direct evidence that may exist. None of us can read Russian and even if we could, we wouldn’t know where to begin in determining whether Miss Blank was a Jew or, as is equally possible, a Volga German. In the spirit of taking Russian historians at their word, one could adduce the determination of Volkogonov that this Blank was German. You may recall the long, self-indulgent anecdote in Slezkine’s The Jewish Century claiming otherwise. I would say it is irrelevant — a possible Jewish grandparent, at least in this case, does not begin to exhaust Lenin as a mind and man, though clearly it would explain the Jewish mob atmosphere of the Bolshevik Party. It doesn’t, in any case, prove anything about political correctness.
is that every bad camp in the U.S. has a parallel in the old Weimar Republic and the USSR.
Yes, naturally, but the only direct, genetic link between political correctness, or sociopolitical discourse in the West today, and those two cultures lay in Weimar, not the USSR. A parallel, an analogy, but not the exact line of descent in rhetoric and practice. There is much more to be done in just piecing together the cultural sabotage wrought by German Ashkenazi “refugees” (vide - one of many - Permanent Exiles: Essays on the Intellectual Migration from Germany to America ) than in propping up the ghost of the USSR because before the Purge and in its primary thrust it was, as Céline might say, djibouk heaven. That is to say, the Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution and the Soviet state up to the Purge was not intellectually consequential — it was a political adventure, much like its failed sister revolution in Hungary. It is true that Western Jews who had supported the Soviet state and were disillusioned by the Purge laid the roots for modern neoconservatism, the other, though more explicitly political prong in the Jewish discursive fork. It is not true that this had anything to do with PC as we know it. Neither do anxious references to brainwashing and thought police in the Soviet state. The same can be said of East Germany, but this, again, had nothing to do with the poisoning of West Germany with “multicultural” programming. In sum: PC is an entirely “Western”, Jewish beast. It did not arise from, nor did it receive any noticeable impetus from, Leninism nor any other theoretician of Bolshevism. As a Jew might say, and I think Slezkine does say very well, political correctness reflects the (German-) Jewish experience in America.
Now, you quote Ellis:
“…we find political correctness established as an ideological criterion of Marxism-Leninism. Official soviet sources clearly show that the term was in use as early as 1921 (Resheniya, 1967, 205). If one takes into account the role of Lenin as the architect of the Soviet Union, and his massive influence in shaping Soviet ideology, then a reasonable assumption is that it is to Lenin to whom we must turn in order to find the conceptual origins of political correctness and the term itself.”
First, I should say that Ellis is, if you’ll pardon the expression, highly biased — he is writing from staunch ideological opposition to both Communism and PC, which may be flattering to us, but is not really helpful historically. I believe that he has taken these two phenomena - one starkly political, the other cultural - and simply latched them together, very visibly, the better to convince readers. He says “we find”, and yet I haven’t found, in my studies of Bolshevik-Stalinist-Soviet theory and planning, anything resembling what we call political correctness. The “doublespeak” of the Soviet state is very different from the euphemisms we are expected to use in the West to keep face. There was nothing like Affirmative Action, nor racial quotas. Sexual deviance was not enshrined in law and in social discourse. The family was not, as would be logical if they had followed Marxist doctrine, abolished by social engineering; in fact the birthrates in eastern Europe have fallen since the fall of the Union — since it’s come into contact with the leprous West, one might say. This is all to say that the cultural freedom enjoyed by Jews in the West, and specifically in America, as Gramsci and the Frankfurt Schulers understood very well, allowed them to worm their way into the fabric of our society and gradually eat away at it. There was plenty of precedent in many currents of American life — feminism, urbanization, racial tension, and so on. What these Ashkenazim did, then, without any need for cues from the writings of Lenin, was elaborate on all this material using the ideology they carried with them from Germany (pre-Weimar and during) — again, all the clichés about rights, liberation, equality, was already to hand, perfected in their hustling for rights in Germany. — Getting back to Ellis: he says “criterion”, and I have to ask what that means. This is why I say he has committed, or rather promoted, a false concatenation of unrelated phenomenon for the sake of propaganda. What we know as “political correctness” was not a feature of life in the early or even late Soviet Union. It was necessary to tow the party line, but that is just one aspect of “political correctness” — which did not arise from a political party, anyway. Political correctness in its essence is the establishment of certain taboos in the public mind, which becomes self-censoring and engages in “altruistic punishment” of those who fail to exhibit these tendencies: while this also describes, in a general way, the public mind in the Soviet state, the two are still widely different in detail. Yes, a citizen of the DDR might overhear a neighbor say something questionable and rat him out to the Stasi. But this is not what we experience, exactly. Before the respective threats of punishment, there is the psychological state of the two subject populations — the Soviet has been called a “culture of fear”, whereas here, in the West, people are actually very happy, with the exception of those who have realized what is going on, of course. So how is that the Soviet system inspired fear and suspicion, and the “system” (which is strictly a metaphor) here leaves most people blinking, breeding ignoramuses? why aren’t they responsive to our words? It is because, unlike in the Soviet state, they have been “chloformed by the fœtor judaicus” — educated, programmed, guided in manifold ways (school, tv, community, newspapers, books), but allowed to continue their material existence unchanged, whereas the Jewish construction of the Soviet state was not “cultural Marxism”, was hardly Marxism at all; there is a huge difference between a Jewish commissar shooting a dissident and a Jewish philosopher studying the “pathology” of all forms of traditional or conservative sentiment among whites; the two produce, in turn, completely different societies, and that is what I am trying to demonstrate. The Ashkenazim who reworked our society were psychologists, philosophers, litterateurs — the Jews who staged the Bolshevik Revolution were agitators. This is a crucial difference, and with it the whole analogy, the line drawn between Soviet censorship and PC falls. It is actually useless to keep reminding people that both were Jews, as though no morphology is permitted after one has noted that where Jews are found, there society is in trouble. Yes, obviously, but the nature of that trouble (or change, or revolution as they might say) is distinctly different and must not be confused for the illusory goal of more poignant propaganda, which is what Ellis, and the whole post-War anti-Communist line, amounts to. It is politically worthless to us, and historically incorrect. — Then Ellis mentions “Official soviet sources”, and gives a reference unknown to me. I would be willing to investigate, to the extent I am able, such sources. I like to think I have done a fair amount already on my initiative, but I would undertake more. However, the fact is that we are talking about Lenin, and if he can’t “show me the money” in books by or about Lenin qua theoretician, and then link this evidence to the actual Jews and shabbos goyim who acted on such in the United States in the development of political correctness, his vague nod to “official sources” is utterly without merit, as indeed we see from his all-too-facile joining of Lenin’s name to this “criterion” in the sentence. He couldn’t say why Lenin is responsible for this “criterion” noted by “official sources”, he can’t point to anything specific in the writings of Lenin (which he hasn’t studied), but he can simply skip from abstracting the concept of “political correctness” from its modern cultural context - which does injustice to the phenomenon itself and obscures it for us - into a Soviet device, and the non sequitur that Lenin, being the architect of the SU and one of its primary theoreticians, is therefore responsible for it. But this “it” has lost all coherence, because he has already taken the sociopolitical phenomenon we call “PC” from its cultural context and psychological definitions, and simply inserted it, as an analogical device, into a description of the Soviet system. So how is Lenin responsible for “it”? how can “it” be shown to have been a feature of the Soviet system? Typically, they quote a line or two from Was tun?, which of course has nothing at all to do with, again, the exact sociopolitical phenomenon we call “PC”, or even close. I believe the oft-quoted line is: “Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.” Ok, so what? was tun damit? I can’t see any great link between this piece of dogmatism and all the many, many texts of PC and modernism to which I have exposed myself. You see how ridiculous it is to isolate this one little line, and this one little piece on dogma, and hold it up as a “cause” of modern, Western political correctness. I could just as well open Mein Kampf, flip the pages, and place my finger quite at random on any number of statements which mirror and probably surpass Was tun? in dogmatic fervor. So fucking what, you know? It proves nothing. The whole point of the piece is that ideological cohesion is necessary for revolution. What has that to do with PC as a modern “doctrine”? does that mean, by extension, that any thinker or writer who has insisted on ideological cohesion is directly responsible for PC? does Lenin here seem more important, more consequential, historically and ideologically, than Hirschfeld’s book on RACISM? or Marcuse’s Eros and Civilization? or Adorno/Horkheimer’s The Authoritarian Personality? or Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism? The very titles of these books are more relevant than any single line in all forty-five volumes of Lenin’s collected works. No line in Stalin’s Fragen des Leninismus was of any consequence in the formation of political correctness by Jews in the West. The very phrases coined by Western Jews have been far more important than any quaint analogy with the USSR. From “racism” to “melting pot”, and all the other ones I can’t be bothered to think of right now, all were brainchildren of Western Jews without any prompting or model from Lenin.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary the term ‘racist’ was coined by Leon Davidovich Bronstein (Leon Trotsky)
Well, if you want to believe that, all right — but I would read Trotsky first. I’ve read all I can of that nauseating shit, autobiography, essays, letters and recollections of others, and nowhere did I find the word “racist”. I certainly have seen a few online rumors that Trotsky “coined” or “said” something about racism. Even if he did, what the hell does that prove? I am not claiming that Hirschfeld coined the term: I am asserting that only with Hirschfeld was the term set on its path to full sociopolitical importance, “reified”, as it were. For all that, I’m still not convinced Hirschfeld wasn’t literally the first to use it pejoratively — considering that the only other instance of the word I have found was in an old Calcutta newspaper from the 1850s, referring to an obscure eugenic society which used the term positively. So at this point it would be helpful, or at least telling, to ask that we bring to the table our respective proofs of usage of these terms, so we’re not just batting about some internet rumors like everyone else!
Hirschfeld is someone very few Americans have heard of, but he’s an important figure in the history of normalizing sex perversion.
I would say his example was more consequential than what he actually did, at least in America. Havelock Ellis, a disciple, and Freud were more detrimental to the Anglo-Saxon mind than Hirschfeld. But if you are willing to accept that Hirschfeld was an important figure in normalizing sex perversion, surely you can accept that he was all the more important in popularizing, if not coining, the terms racism/racist in the modern pejorative sense? It has even the Commie link, it’s perfect — and yet somehow it is more opportune to believe Trotsky or Lenin were responsible. I don’t know, I just think you guys have it backward these days. The whole anti-Communist thing is a fad that needs to go away, because it adds very little to the debate.
It seems to me that while the distinctions between jews-producing-USSR, jews-producing-Weimar and jews-producing-AmerKwa are interesting, the common blood and mentality are essential.
I agree that it is up to a point. One can only go so far, theoretically, in pointing out that Jews are basically responsible for all three societies. For the lay reader - and I note that you reminded me you’re writing for him - that is usually enough to get them to the point of realizing Jews are nefarious creatures. And I am not about to excuse Jews here for any one of these examples, but I believe it is necessary to distinguish between two that are quite closely related in form and one that is farther removed. I believe it is more fruitful for propaganda, and simply getting the record straight, to focus on the descent of political correctness from its obvious and only possible source, German Jews, rather than falsify the record (and thereby falsify political correctness itself) in trying to attach it to the Soviet system. I believe that the very fact WNs are still talking about the Soviet Union is a mere a fad, a kind of hand-me-down bone to pick, which has absolutely nothing to do with us beyond the fact that Jews were involved, and which fact is then misrepresented. It is true that a Jew killed the Tsar and his ministers, as the song goes. It is true that many of the commissars and so on were Jews. It is possible that Lenin’s one grandparent, Blank, was a Jewess, not that this really has anything to do with Lenin as a man. It is true that Communist agitators in Weimar Germany were Jews. It is not true that political correctness descends from Soviet practice: though it is true that they share some social and psychological similarities. But try to get what I’m saying here: this is very different from proving actual historical descent, which you also claim, as Ellis claims, and whomever Ellis copied claimed. I am challenging this notion that Lenin himself is “responsible” for “political correctness” as we know it. A line from his little economic-dogmatic screed does not prove anything, is my point.
There’s obviously a genetic link when the global left, which is a jewish production, uses exactly the same words and frames and arguments.
Again: I don’t see that they are using the same words, frames and arguments — as those of Lenin, Trotsky, et al. I have tried to distinguish between a group of eastern-European political agitators and theoreticians on the one hand, and a “cultural Marxist” group of intellectuals on the other, and demonstrate that the latter is responsible for the present socipolitical malaise, and not the Bolshevik Party. What I mean by “genetic link” is simply ideological inheritance: what the Jewish intellectuals and writers brought over from Germany has had much more influence on public discourse today than anything said or written by Trotsky or anyone else involved in the Soviet state. I don’t believe this is a wild assertion — but I do believe the converse is.
Anyway, thank you for responding to my criticisms. I’ll begin the transcription work on Racism this weekend, and maybe something else of note will turn up.
December 13, 2007 @ 10:40 pm · Edit
Well, one more thing — to clear up a major source of misunderstanding. It is necessary to recall that “political correctness”, the term, in modern usage dates to the ’70s. (One would not claim that Chisholm v. Georgia is responsible for that, though the wording is the same — unlike anything we find in Lenin, et al.) In its modern usage it has undergone “reification”, it is a concept, an abstract thing, rather than a mere turn of phrase (which is probably what gave rise to two occurrences of the phrase so widely removed in time); it has certain culture-specific referents which make it uniquely “modern” and even “American”. Ellis, and others, abstract this concept into an analogy based on certain similarities of procedure in the Soviet system and “politically correct” America. That is to say: it goes from turn of phrase, to a cultural concept, to a sociological concept — which it then becomes necessary to retroactively blame on the target, Bolshevism. There is no textual evidence for this whatsoever, though the field is replete with rumors and suggestions, based again on analogy — much as orderliness is casually referred to as being an “x-Nazi”, but in this case rather disastrously in political discourse: in other words, people have gone from noting that there is some similarity between political correctness and the phrase (only associated with Soviet Russia and China and nowhere demonstrated) of “towing the party line” or keeping the “correct line”, and from this actually trying to prove that political correctness descends from Soviet doctrine and practice — which it quite obviously cannot do without absurd leaps of logic and constant regurgitation of rumors. It is indeed a logical problem in that the nature of the concept changes — the “PC” I am discussing is literally not the “PC” Ellis is discussing: and that is, without meaning to sound solipsistic, precisely why Ellis is wrong about it. What’s more interesting to me is who first decided that political correctness was invented by the Soviets? who didn’t realize that it was a fad among American leftists, then a useful metaphor among American rightists, and isn’t an all-embracing term like “das System” is to the Germans? I have no doubt it was a European — I would guess an eastern one, but I can’t be sure. I am sure however that political correctness, both the “thing” and the cultural ramifications of Jewish social engineers it is meant to cover, have absolutely nothing to do with Soviet doctrine (the analogy with Soviet practice aside — also different, however): which is after all widely available on the web for anyone to examine. Trying to locate it in the Soviet canon is a total red herring, a false path, one politically determined by the purview of anti-Soviet dissidents living in Europe. The Bolsheviks weren’t Gramscians, one could say, and the failure of modern Western nationalism on this point results from the (deliberate) confusion of two very different species of “Marxism”. I realize “the point is” that Jews are responsible for both, but it just isn’t correct to say Lenin (or Trotsky, or Stalin, or Kamensky) coined, invented, theorized, developed, etc. “political correctness” as we know it. It is permissible and quite correct to say that Western Marxist theorists (mostly German Jews of course), like Bloch, Gumperz and Lukács, all assisted in creating the kind of society summarized by the phrase “politically correct”, on conjunction with God knows how many screenwriters, producers, talent scouts, psychiatrists, philosophers, parapoliticos, bankers, comptrollers, etc. ad naus. That much is very true.
Ok, now I’m done.
December 14, 2007 @ 8:36 pm · Edit
Are you using the term “genetic” as a DNA term, or a logic term? Jews - out of Germany or Russia - are genetically (i.e. racially, ethnically) related.
Forget borders. The international jew does. Whether it scratches in Cyrillic or not, it is scratch, scratch, scratching away at us everywhere and every time.
By the way, what’s wrong with anti-communism as such? Which species of Marxism is great? Since someone has deliberately confused us as to the “two very different species of ‘Marxism,’” please unconfuse us. Thanks.
December 16, 2007 @ 11:12 am · Edit
Logical term, obviously.
“By the way, what’s wrong with anti-communism as such?”
As such, it is more a fad than a worldview or anything like familiarity with some very important political events and theories spanning the 19th to 20th centuries. Needless to say, no one here has read Marx or Engels, Trotsky or Lenin, nor anyone else, and would never believe any of these men had anything of note to say. You don’t need to — because anticommunism in WN is meant to covertly symbolize opposition to Jewry and leftism generally. It’s a patch worn on your sleeve, nothing more. Same with skinheads and blight-wing music. It serves more to locate the faithful on one side than it clearly says something about the other side (outside of the anarchists with their “red” fad). All of this takes place well beneath actual political discussion. And it’s the same all the way up the line to 50’s fear of “the Reds” to modern WN’s stupid latter-day obsession with the advent of Russian involvement in the scene.
” Since someone has deliberately confused us as to the “two very different species of ‘Marxism,’” please unconfuse us.”
I don’t see the point in your tongue-in-cheek. There are a lot of things you don’t know and could stand to learn, and a lot of things people in WN, like Linder evidently, are inclined to obscure if not suppress for the sake of their own “party line” — any deviance in which they can’t suffer, because they imagine it hurts their case with “the masses”. They think anti-Communism, that precious Jewish link, is the golden ticket to showing up the Jews. Ah! Stalin and his Jewish henchmen killed ten-billion Ukrainskians! ah! — As your own sarcasm demonstrates, though, most discussions in WN are in extremely bad faith, to use a term once popular on the left. Another word is lying, or fudging, or obfuscating, or propagandizing. Also seen in Linder or whomever’s trotting out this Milano character to reassure the flock that political correctness really is Bolshevik (because Trotsky used the word “racists” in a book), and of course to capitalize on my introduction of Hirschfeld to the discussion. It’s dirty tactics, that’s all. And that’s why I’m not a “WN”.
For the record, here’s the passage from Trotsky:
“Slavophilism, the messianism of backwardness, has based its philosophy upon the assumption that the Russian people and their church are democratic through and through, whereas official Russia is a German bureaucracy imposed upon them by Peter the Great. Mark remarked upon this theme: “In the same way the Teutonic jackasses blamed the despotism of Frederick the Second upon the French, as though backward slaves were not always in need of civilised slaves to train them.” This brief comment completely finishes off not only the old philosophy of the Slavophiles, but also the latest revelations of the “Racists.” “
You are asked to believe, by Linder and the whole WN cadre of believers, that this one use of the term (which I admit I had forgotten), is the primary cause of its becoming a major political epithet in our time, and is directly responsible for what we call “political correctness”. Does this sound plausible to you? I could give a hundred analogies to this grandiose bit of nonsense, but it would serve no purpose, because the absurdity of it is plain enough already: the believe that PC arose from Bolshevism is an article of faith, not one of fact.
December 16, 2007 @ 11:14 am · Edit
December 16, 2007 @ 11:26 am · Edit
The Milano “piece” by the way is extraordinarily humorous, if you look at it right. Some people didn’t like that I was challenging the idea that PC = Bolshevism, so what gets slapped on the mainpage is this atrocious op-ed actually cobbling together the two opposing theories, the better to pull the wool over the eyes of the flock for the sake emphasizing, yet again, the precious “Jewish link”. That’s all that matters, doesn’t matter exactly what this link is, just that it’s there and needs to be constantly reinforced because that’s what Hitler and Goebbels said makes good propaganda — uniform statements constantly repeated, much like Lenin’s ideological cohesion, which really does point to the mob-mentality theory shared by Bolshevism and its nationalistic imitator, the NSDAP. But the same pigheadedness that forced Hitler to break the Pact and attack his one useful ally, the one ally of supreme historical importance, is what animates WNs in their pointless anti-Communist prattle.
December 18, 2007 @ 11:22 am · Edit
Thanks for the comments, I will respond later this week.
January 23, 2008 @ 3:11 pm · Edit
But the same pigheadedness that forced Hitler to break the Pact and attack his one useful ally, the one ally of supreme historical importance, is what animates WNs in their pointless anti-Communist prattle.
Hitler attacked because he was going to be attacked. The mistake Hitler made was not destroying the British at Dunkirk.
January 23, 2008 @ 6:00 pm · Edit
I apologize for the long delay in responding. I’m impressed by your knowledge, but I disagree with your arguments. I will respond to specific points below, but will sum up by saying that my basic view is that the jews are the main drivers behind communism, multiculturalism, political correctness (PC) and anti-racism. I see jews as mounting a global campaign against White culture. No matter where you go, the same terms and arguments are used. Jews vary their attacks over time, as they learn what is more effective, but, my main point, the antecedents of what we see today in America can, almost to a one, be traced back at least far as the Soviet Union, which was founded by jewish gangsters. I really don’t get what you mean with the metaphor and cultural vs genetic arguments. The point is, jews take power and establish a Party Line that you get fired, shot, or smeared for failing to toe. The difference is not in the jews or mentality, as you look from USSR to Weimar to AmeriKwa today, the difference is in emphasis. Jews will do whatever they think they can get away with. But always the same end is pursured: reducing the goyim in money and power, and pathologizing their norms, their everyday culture.
As a full political pejorative, however, it came into its own with Hirschfeld.
Agreed. I was concerned with who coined it. You say it was used in the 1850s, ok. I’ve never seen that, just talk about racism. It appears that Trotsky was if not the coiner, the first to make racism a smear, and that Hirschfeld launched it into the mainstream with his book.
Of course, I wouldn’t say otherwise. I have simply noticed that the rhetoric has slipped a little in the wrong direction, in this case Lenin. It is much more appropriate to blame Hirschfeld, who literally wrote the book on “racism”, than Lenin, even if one could find evidence in his works that he had the same idea — which I haven’t, for what it’s worth.
I thought I remembered having heard that Lenin coined racism, but apparently this is not the case. Lenin and his commies do seem to have been the originators of political correctness, again according to Prof. Ellis.
My point, restated, is that WN is engaged in a sort of anti-Soviet revival, prompted by certain memoirs and historical accounts of the regime which, though apt analogically, do not point to any development link between Soviet practice and Western political correctness.
The link is the mentality: crush all opposition. Do not argue with the opposition, destroy it. Stamp it out. The mentality of the Soviets is the same as the mentality of the campus left, Hillary Clinton, and the SPLC. No opposition to the party line will be tolerated. To me the connection is obvious: the same folks think the same way then as now: our opponents are evil, and every aspect of life must come under our control - “the personal is the political,” as the feminists said.
My opinion is this is bad for WN — much as it was in the 50’s and thereafter, simply because it takes rhetoric in a mostly fruitless direction. One can point out these grim similarities only so much, after all. If we can introduce a new factor into the history of modern decline, trace back PC to its source, and that factor is a full-blown queer German-Jew, I think it should be done at the expense of anti-Communist rhetoric.
The way I see it, people hate communism. All we have to do is show that what they really hate is jews, because communism = jews. So we meet them where they are, and we entice them in our direction by offering a deeper explanation of the thing they already don’t like. I don’t see why you see these as opposed. We’re not birchers. We’re not going after NWO and commies, yet kicking out people like Pierce and Rockwell who observe that the jews are the source of communism. We’re emphasizing the jewish roots of both the USSR and the cultural decay in Weimar.
None of us can read Russian and even if we could, we wouldn’t know where to begin in determining whether Miss Blank was a Jew or, as is equally possible, a Volga German. In the spirit of taking Russian historians at their word, one could adduce the determination of Volkogonov that this Blank was German.
Ok, fair enough. I do not mean to call jews those who are not. It was my understanding this was settled, but you may be right. However, let us at least note that while Lenin was the leader, even if he was 100% non-jewish, he was surrounded by jews, and I believe married to one as well. The USSR was neither conceivable nor possible without jews. It was created by jewish gangsters backed by jewish moneymen.
I haven’t found, in my studies of Bolshevik-Stalinist-Soviet theory and planning, anything resembling what we call political correctness. The “doublespeak” of the Soviet state is very different from the euphemisms we are expected to use in the West to keep face.
The only difference I see is in the penalty. Here you get fired rather than shot for breaking party taboos. The mentality of the enforcer is exactly the same.
There was nothing like Affirmative Action, nor racial quotas. Sexual deviance was not enshrined in law and in social discourse. The family was not, as would be logical if they had followed Marxist doctrine, abolished by social engineering
This is wrong. All these things were tried, in slightly different forms, and to different degrees. The similarities are far more significant than the differences. I guess we disagree on this. I don’t understand your view on this at all. For affirmative action, well, instead of simply discriminate against Whites, the USSR killed and starved off the brains of the Aryan population. It massacred priests and shuttered churches. It let in students from the third world as part of promoting global revolution. I think it is more a legacy of the need to preserve the revolution, resulting in totalitarian control, that made it impossible to shift peacefully to open, multicultural drip erosion program. The jew gangsters did what they had to do to win and keep their revolution. In America, the circumstances were different, so the SAME jew mindset and agenda found different ways to go after the same goal. In Russia the jews murdered the Czar and set up a dictatorship; in Weimar and America they bought up the papers and took over the professional schools. But exactly the same agenda was pursued in all three cases.
Sexual deviance was not enshrined in law and in social discourse. The family was not, as would be logical if they had followed Marxist doctrine, abolished by social engineering
This is factually incorrect. The Marxist very certainly tried to do away with the family. Now, so far as I know, the jews did not promote homosexuality under Lenin’s regime. But, it is an undeniable fact that they did promote free love and the entire freewheeling sexual circus we associate with the sixties in America. The reason I’ve been so slow in responding is I had to dig out the E. Michael Jones where he discusses this.
Remember, Lenin said sex is no more significant than drinking a glass of water. So when he took power, after making anti-semitism a capital offense, he put in easy divorce laws. This led to broken marriages, reckless free love, and the predictable plague of misery and STDs. Just as in economics, when his socialism and free-love policies failed, Lenin was forced to go back to traditional morals and economics, just to keep from losing the revolution.
Here’s EMJ on a woman named Kollontai, a non-jew, but typical USSR ideological communist.
“Life as a rootless, unmarried cosmopolite led inevitably to loneliness, which led to an affair, which led to an even greater sense of alienation after it was consummated, which led to desire to be free from the chains of love, which led to more work, which led to more loneliness. Kollontai’s new woman is a slave to her passions, a slavery which is all more effective because she can never identify its source, blaming instead “the slavery” of marriage, “bourgeois morality,” and the extant social order.”
So, Lenin appoints a woman like this to be “commissar of social welfare” right after the revolution, in October 1928.
“In December of 1917, the Bolsheviks legalized divorce. … [On the same day,” Kollontai announced that her commissariat would be reorganizing children’s homes to accommodate the 7 million homeless children that the revolution and subsequent civil war had created by 1921.”
“On November 16, 1918, Kollontai welcomed over 1,000 delegates to the First All-Russia Congress of Worker and Peasant Women. … Kollontai planned on 300 delegates and was stunned when four times that many showed up, hungry and cold, dressed in the sheepskins and traditional garb of the countryside. The purpose of the conference was evident in its slogan — “through practical participation in Soviet construction — to communism.” And it soon became apparent from the tenor of Kollontai’s opening address that she didn’t consider raising a family “participation in Soviet construction.” … She proposed in her speech destruction of the individual household and what amounted to taking away these women’s children to be educated in state schools. Kollontai asked the Russian peasant women to open themselves up to a life in which they would no longer be dependent on men.”
Again, this isn’t America in the 60s, or Germany in the 30s, this is Russia before 1920.
EXACTLY THE SAME THING. The same types, the same mindset, the nostrums, the same results - death and misery and mayhem.
Kollontai = Rosa Luxemburg = Hillary Clinton.
The Soviets wanted to do just what Meathead, a few years ago, and Hillary today want to do: institutionalize federal pre-kindergarten. The goal is to destroy the family by getting the kids away from the parents, so the state can brainwash them even before official brainwashing begins at 6-7 years old.
Here’s more proof that jews have had the same program of cultural degeneracy for at least 100 years.
“In 1920, the Bolsheviks decriminalized abortion…”
[All these quotations are from Libido Dominandi, part II, Chapter 8]
So, we have feminism, we have easy divorce, we have day care, we have abortion on demand, we have liberated women, we have - everything but gay-straight alliances.
I think it’s very clear that destroying the family and sexual morals was highly important to the Bolsheviks, as they put in their destructive policies practically from day one of their regime.
The irony of the matter is that the mostly or wholly non-jew Lenin was apparently LESS in favor of sexual revolution than the jews around him. When these kikes + Kollontai went nuts and introduced all the stuff America would suffer first in the sixties, Lenin actually put the brakes on - for pragmatic reasons, if nothing else. Consider this amazing quote, same source, page 237-9.
“You must be aware of the famous theory,” Lenin told [Klara] Zetkin, “that in communist society the satisfaction of sexual desires, of love, will be as simple and unimportant as drinking a glass of water. This glass-of-water theory has made our young people mad, quite mad. It has proved fatal to many young boys and girls. Its adherents maintain that it is Marxist. But it is completely un-Marxist. Of course, thirst must be satisfied. But will the normal man in normal circumstances lie down in the gutter and drink out of a puddle, or out of a glass with a rim greasy from many lips? But the social aspect is most important of all. Drinking water is of course an individual affair. But in love two lives are concerned, and a third, a new life arises. It is that which gives it its social interest, which gives rise to a duty towards the community.”
As EMJ says,
Lenin’s views on sex reflected his pragmatism on other political issues. Just as he was willing to grant a certain measure of entrepreneurship and ownership of property in order to pull the country out of the chaos caused by eight years of war and revolution, so he was also willing to tolerate a certain amount of sexual common sense for the same reason. Promiscuity was causing chaos, and chaos was threatening the very existence of the revolution.
- …veneral disease rates soared during the early ’20s to epidemic proportions…
Kollontai was blamed for a wave of brutal rapes that swept the country during 1925-26, which were precisely the years whenthe debate over the sexual revolution were taking place.
In Leningrad a girl was raped by fifteen students, who then tried to justify what they did by appealing to the withering away of family and morals that communism was supposed to bring about.
So, I don’t see how anybody can deny that in fact there was the same EXACT craziness pushed by the BOLSHY-JEWS in Russia as was pushed in Weimar and in America. The only difference was that the USSR didn’t formally promote homosexuality, as far as I know, but I suspect even that might not be true if one knew where to look.
all the clichés about rights, liberation, equality, was already to hand, perfected in their hustling for rights in Germany.
All this could be found in Eastern Europe and Russia before the revolution. Not just Germany. The split between east and west is not as strong as you make it seen. The whole point of jews is they are international in scope. Jew radicals across Europe were discussing things in the same terms for time immemorial. When they acceded to power in Russia and Germany, by different routes, they nevertheless advanced the same agenda.
…a false concatenation of unrelated phenomenon for the sake of propaganda. What we know as “political correctness” was not a feature of life in the early or even late Soviet Union. It was necessary to tow the party line, but that is just one aspect of “political correctness” — which did not arise from a political party, anyway.
PC was invented by Lenin’s party, and that party certainly did force people to follow its line. The similarities are far more significant than the differences.
Political correctness in its essence is the establishment of certain taboos in the public mind, which becomes self-censoring and engages in “altruistic punishment” of those who fail to exhibit these tendencies: while this also describes, in a general way, the public mind in the Soviet state, the two are still widely different in detail. Yes, a citizen of the DDR might overhear a neighbor say something questionable and rat him out to the Stasi. But this is not what we experience, exactly. Before the respective threats of punishment, there is the psychological state of the two subject populations — the Soviet has been called a “culture of fear”, whereas here, in the West, people are actually very happy, with the exception of those who have realized what is going on, of course.
There’s a difference between having material goods and being poor and hungry, that explains the difference in happiness. The difference in fear is the distance between fear of being shot and fear of being fired. The difference between the USSR and America today is that the jews have hit on better ways of achieving the same ends. Or, ways that do not bother the host population as much, and yet which are in many ways even more difficult to resist. There’s no change in the mentality of the jew behind the System. Just a change in tactics.
So how is that the Soviet system inspired fear and suspicion, and the “system” (which is strictly a metaphor) here leaves most people blinking, breeding ignoramuses?
The Soviet system was direct and brutal. You could get shot or sent to concentration camp for opposing the ruling jews. The System in America is more informal, but only because formality isn’t needed. Decades of dumbing down have produced brutes incapable of seeing the System, let alone rising against it. In Russia that was not the case. People remembered a time before, and they had seen the battles in the street. As a jew said, you only feel your chains when you move. AmeriKwa seems like a free country until you try to use that freedom. Then you realize our vaunted freedom is more like being stuck in a ziploc bag.
…there is a huge difference between a Jewish commissar shooting a dissident and a Jewish philosopher studying the “pathology” of all forms of traditional or conservative sentiment among whites; the two produce, in turn, completely different societies, and that is what I am trying to demonstrate.
You are trying, but as the Kollentai shows, it’s all there, however vestigially, back in Russia in 1920. The ashies in Germany may have done it better, and the New School more recently, but it’s the same thing. Traditional society, ways, mores are bad and must go, be replaced with the revolutionary new form, a jewish production. Same mentality, different terms and emphases, but same basic plan: destroy existing Russia/Germany/USA, and replace it with the new and improved Jewish Tyranny, a Politically Correct (Semitically Correct) joynt.
The Ashkenazim who reworked our society were psychologists, philosophers, litterateurs — the Jews who staged the Bolshevik Revolution were agitators. This is a crucial difference, and with it the whole analogy, the line drawn between Soviet censorship and PC falls.
Wrong. All those beasts were present among 19th and 20th century Russian (read: jewish) radicals. You’re pointing out differences that are largely a product of new times and technologies and techniques, but what matters is that the blood, the agents and the agendas are the same. I mean, today the kikes use TV because it reaches everybody. If TV had been around in their time, Lenin’s gang would have used it too. The similarities are 100x more signficant than the differences.
It is actually useless to keep reminding people that both were Jews, as though no morphology is permitted after one has noted that where Jews are found, there society is in trouble.
That’s the most important thing: where you find jews, you find a society on the road to destruction. The only thing more important is figuring out how to defeat the jewish peril.
Yes, obviously, but the nature of that trouble (or change, or revolution as they might say) is distinctly different and must not be confused for the illusory goal of more poignant propaganda, which is what Ellis, and the whole post-War anti-Communist line, amounts to.
I don’t agree at all. Ellis and Jones offer valuable help in seeing that we face the exact same problem as our European relatives and forbears. The key is knowing the what and why. Once you know those, it’s easy to realize that the tactics and techniques will change depending on the tools and times. People can see clearly enough what is being done, the hard part is to get them to understand the who and why. People see nigs commit crimes, they blame nigs. They don’t understand that nigs are a function of jews. jews loosed nigs under civil rights. Why did they do this? We know. We have to teach the others. That’s the harder part. The common thread in all these European countries is jews being radical agents of destruction. Our people must learn to identify these jews as hostile aliens and fight back.
It is politically worthless to us, and historically incorrect.
This is completely wrong. People HATE communism. But they’re told they should love jews. For once we have something we can work with - a legitimate hatred. Half our work is done. All we have to do is show people that communism is jewish. Once they get that, we can show them that the jews, who are blood and idea-related to the original commie gangsters, have a plan for America (or Germany or Australia) that is just as destructive.
I’m no expert on Lenin or his writings. My point is simply that Lenin or his guys apparently used a term that equates to PC to describe their line, and the need to crush any opposition to it. That’s all. I say what matters here is the mentality, and that what you find in Lenin you find in James Carville, Hillary Clinton, their jew moneybags, and the neocons on the other side. Academic distinctions are important to academics, but to people trying to grasp politics, what matters is the same type thinking the same thoughts leads to the same results. If we want change, we must cashier the jews.
does Lenin here seem more important, more consequential, historically and ideologically, than Hirschfeld’s book on RACISM? or Marcuse’s Eros and Civilization? or Adorno/Horkheimer’s The Authoritarian Personality? or Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism? The very titles of these books are more relevant than any single line in all forty-five volumes of Lenin’s collected works. No line in Stalin’s Fragen des Leninismus was of any consequence in the formation of political correctness by Jews in the West.
This is true, but not relevant. What’s relevant is the early Soviets were primarily jews, and among them were all the same nasty types and bloody nostrums as we saw in Weimar and see in America. And in fact, as EMJ shows with Kollontai, you can find all the same radical sex crap in 1920s Russia as in 2008 AmeriKwa. There is nothing new under the sun.
From “racism” to “melting pot”, and all the other ones I can’t be bothered to think of right now, all were brainchildren of Western Jews without any prompting or model from Lenin.
Except that racism came from the East - from Trotsky. Hirschfeld merely popularized it. And the term PC came from Lenin. So, the terms came from everywhere, east or west doesn’t matter. What matters is that the same agenda is pursued by the same type.
But if you are willing to accept that Hirschfeld was an important figure in normalizing sex perversion, surely you can accept that he was all the more important in popularizing, if not coining, the terms racism/racist in the modern pejorative sense?
I don’t think you’re wrong, I think you’re just making too much of small differences. The soviets don’t have AA precisely, but they do have class enemies,and they did essentially cut the heads off the captured White populations in Eastern Europe. And they did bring in nigs and vietnamese and other muds. Not the extent the jews did in America, but, you know, you can only deal with what you have at hand. I am sure that if the Soviets had ten million niggers at their disposal they would have done what their fellow jews did in the USA. In fact, Hitler in Mein Kampf talks about the French (ie jews) bringing in black francophone troops to mix and mess up the Ruhr. So, you are trying to make a western jew thing of what is simply a jew thing. There’s more than one way up Goy Mountain, and the jews know all the routes.
The whole anti-Communist thing is a fad that needs to go away
I’d rather blame jews for communism, show that communism, which people hate, was created and sustained by jews, would never have existed without them, and that multiculturalism is just a fancy name for communism in America.
I believe it is more fruitful for propaganda, and simply getting the record straight, to focus on the descent of political correctness from its obvious and only possible source, German Jews, rather than falsify the record (and thereby falsify political correctness itself) in trying to attach it to the Soviet system.
Well, we disagree here. I think I’ve demonstrated that PC does in fact predate Weimar, and that parallels can be drawn pretty much across the board, with the possible exception of the promotion of homosexuality. And I wouldnt bet on that - I’m not a scholar and must rely on the Jonese and Ellises to unearth the facts.
To the extent PC is recognized, the neocon writers blame it on leftists, liberals and “Germans” or “Continental European philosophers,” rather than German jews. I agree that we must always emphasize that these are NOT germans, these Adornos and Marcuses, they are jews. That is what the syndicated columnist will never mention, and it is the crucial fact. We must always point out to the average person that the Germans, commies and leftists the Limbaughs blame for political correctness are in fact jews.
…this is very different from proving actual historical descent, which you also claim, as Ellis claims, and whomever Ellis copied claimed. I am challenging this notion that Lenin himself is “responsible” for “political correctness” as we know it.
Well, I believe what Ellis said. I think the problem is that to you PC means something other than the English translation of the Russian term for the Party Line. As for historical descent, I can’t really respond to that. What I see is jews across the world pursuing the same agenda. And sharing with each other “best practices” for subduing the goyim. In an age of global media, and even in the 1920s there was global pollination, historical descent is the wrong way to conceive of the phenomenon. It’s just jews pursusing the same agenda in different times and places, and sharing the results through the mass media they control, and through their international gangster/political/academic milieus.
Again: I don’t see that they are using the same words, frames and arguments — as those of Lenin, Trotsky, et al. I have tried to distinguish between a group of eastern-European political agitators and theoreticians on the one hand, and a “cultural Marxist” group of intellectuals on the other, and demonstrate that the latter is responsible for the present socipolitical malaise, and not the Bolshevik Party.
Yes, I see what you are trying to prove. And I’m not versed in Lenin, Trotsky enough to talk much, but I observe that wherever you dip into Soviet practices, you find the same thing you do here. Class enemies, speech controls, hate objects/crimes, sexual perversion, economic controls, jews legally privileged, christians hated, traditional society attacked… To me, it is obvious that the differences pale beside the similarities. Regardless of who came up with the particular term, the crucial thing is that the terms then becomes used wherever Jewish Tyranny obtains. I have a box of East German books, and they are full of the same exact language that is used in the West - racisim, fascism, etc etc. I will take some photos and post them.
Anyway, thank you for responding to my criticisms. I’ll begin the transcription work on Racism this weekend, and maybe something else of note will turn up.
Sorry for the delay. There is so much interesting stuff in Jones that is pertinent to this discussion, I’ll post more here when I dig it up. There’s not one thing a Hillary Clinton administration will propose the Bolshy-kikes haven’t already tried.
|January 25th, 2008||#2|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Re: Origins of Political Correctness
I think that the argument that p.c. is not Bolshevik-originated, or not Lenin-originated, or whatever, is wrong. Why? Because communism evolved a little bit. For example, Stalinism wasn't Trotskyism. It was a little different. There are different "flavors" of communism.
My point? No matter how you look at it, p.c. came from Marxism/communism. It doesn't matter which "flavor" of Marxism it sprang from. Whether it came from Lukacs, Horkheimer, Lenin, or whomever, it is nonetheless rooted in Marxism. So, p.c. is Jewish. It's "cultural Marxism," as opposed to "economic Marxism." [The Jew named Georg Lukacs seems to be the first guy to actually use p.c. on a daily basis, circa 1919].
P.C. = communist doctrine which is rarely called "communist doctrine."
|January 25th, 2008||#3|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Re: Origins of Political Correctness
The term "Politically Correct" first appeared in the books of Anton Semionovich Makarenko, (jew) Vladimir Lenin's expert on Communist education.
|January 25th, 2008||#4|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Re: Origins of Political Correctness
Couldn't resist coming back to add a quick note on this topic.
FWIW, when I went to school in Manhattan in late '80s one of my jew professors used the term "politically correct" and I scratched my head, puzzled. The explanation was forthcoming: she then referred to her circle of "uptight Marxist boyfriends" who used the term.
It seems it's a Marxist term. Old books are nice for etymology, but look at who uses the terms in real-life. Serious Marxist yids in New York in the '80s, in my experience.
Did they get it from Weimar Germany? Nah. From Marx? I think so. Is the attitude of "toe the ideological line or you are inhuman and we will crush you" a communist attitude, or the attitude of a Social Democrat in 1920s Berlin? More of a commie attitude. Where did German communists get their living inspiration? Russia.
I can't think of "POLITICALLY incorrect" as a term of damnation without thinking of the Soviet show trials. "POLITICAL" rectitude, and "POLITICAL" (ideological) "crimes," are commie notions. Jew Ayn Rand who opposed Soviets railed against the idea of "political crimes," which came from Russia.
WHO but jews would persecute for "political incorrectness"? Maybe some Bible-beating Christians? Perhaps. Would National Socialists? But wouldn't they call it "RACIAL purity"? What about White commies? Okay, but commies started it, and the main impetus behind communism's acendancy in Russia was the :.
|January 25th, 2008||#5|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Re: Origins of Political Correctness
Great post. Yes, "political crimes" is such a Jewish, communist idea, born in the Jewish-built Soviet Union.
|January 26th, 2008||#6|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: In your head
Re: Origins of Political Correctness
diggbnini aka Mr. T.H. Outis aka Sudaka aka THamilton aka Anti-European aka Anti aka uppinatta aka etc.etc.
Why are you wasting time arguing etymology with this known Jewish troll?
|January 26th, 2008||#7|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Re: Origins of Political Correctness
The Origins of Political Correctness
An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind
Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American University
Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about this morning – the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it – where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.
We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come from? What is it?
We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.
If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.
First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.
Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole of the history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, "Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true," the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.
Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.
Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims," and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.
Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation. White owned companies don’t get a contract because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.
And finally, both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender. All of these texts simply become grist for the mill, which proves that "all history is about which groups have power over which other groups." So the parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that we’re familiar with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today as Political Correctness.
But the parallels are not accidents. The parallels did not come from nothing. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a small group of academics who have studied this. And the history goes back, as I said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.
Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their governments – the bourgeois governments – because the workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries than they had in common with the bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their own country. Well, 1914 came and it didn’t happen. Throughout Europe, workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to fight each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany and said there are no parties now, there are only Germans. And this happened in every country in Europe. So something was wrong.
Marxists knew by definition it couldn’t be the theory. In 1917, they finally got a Marxist coup in Russia and it looked like the theory was working, but it stalled again. It didn’t spread and when attempts were made to spread immediately after the war, with the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers didn’t support them.
So the Marxists’ had a problem. And two Marxist theorists went to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. Gramsci said the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian religion – that they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, "Who will save us from Western Civilization?" He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.
Lukacs gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government is established in Hungary in 1919, he becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did was introduce sex education into the Hungarian schools. This ensured that the workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian people looked at this aghast, workers as well as everyone else. But he had already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by, that we would consider the "latest thing."
In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.
And he says, "What we need is a think-tank." Washington is full of think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it’s a form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.
Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, "I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to Marxism." Well, he was successful. The first director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, "by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology." Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the Institute, and that never changed.
The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists. They’re still very much Marxist in their thinking, but they’re effectively run out of the party. Moscow looks at what they are doing and says, "Hey, this isn’t us, and we’re not going to bless this."
Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay writes, "If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic sub-structure," – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here – "in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory."
The stuff we’ve been hearing about this morning – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s.
Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that’s the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls for a society of "polymorphous perversity," that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity 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." Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.
Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism. "Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating attitude toward nature." That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in Materialismus und Moral. "The theme of man’s domination of nature," according to Jay, " was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years." "Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of labor, (here’s were they’re obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness." In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer "discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture." And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his "protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher morality."
How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.
These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed theory of some sort. They couldn’t just get out there and say, "Hell no we won’t go," they had to have some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student rebels come into Adorno’s classroom, he calls the police and has them arrested – Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United States.
One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person Freud describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of "polymorphous perversity," in which you can "do you own thing." And by the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They’re students, they’re baby-boomers, and they’ve grown up never having to worry about anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn’t require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, "Do your own thing," "If it feels good do it," and "You never have to go to work." By the way, Marcuse is also the man who creates the phrase, "Make love, not war." Coming back to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines "liberating tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes back to the 1930s.
In conclusion, America today is in the throws of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In "hate crimes" we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.
|January 26th, 2008||#8|
From the next paradigm
Join Date: Feb 2006
Re: Origins of Political Correctness
The man who believes that he has free will is more easily controlled since he will never think to look for the chains--Burrhus
The jews are a problem--not our ONLY or SOLE problem, not responsible for EVERY problem faced by gentiles, not some ALL-POWERFUL race that we shouldn't bother trying to resist, not an EXCUSE for avoiding responsibilty for problems of our own making --but nonetheless, A REAL, SERIOUS PROBLEM.--Burrhus
|May 10th, 2009||#9|
Jews Created, Spread Political Correctness to Destroy Western Civilization
[The following is an excellent article in every way but one: it doesn't explain to the reader that most of the bad guys mentioned are jews. The author is too scared to do this, and in his fear lies the very reason the Catholic West was so easily and quickly undermined. The irony of this article is that the faith the writer would defend is, by its very nature, incapable of naming and fighting the enemy destroying its civilization. To help the writer, we have taken the liberty of bolding the names of the jews he mentions. Political Correctness is JEWISH in orgin. Its mission is to destroy the white race. The way to fight it is to exterminate jews and sellout whiteskins who serve them, wherever they are encountered.]
The Frankfurt School: Conspiracy to corrupt
By Timothy Matthews
Issue: March 2009
Western civilization at the present day is passing through a crisis which is essentially different from anything that has been previously experienced. Other societies in the past have changed their social institutions or their religious beliefs under the influence of external forces or the slow development of internal growth. But none, like our own, has ever consciously faced the prospect of a fundamental alteration of the beliefs and institutions on which the whole fabric of social life rests ... Civilization is being uprooted from its foundations in nature and tradition and is being reconstituted in a new organisation which is as artificial and mechanical as a modern factory.
Christopher Dawson. Enquiries into Religion and Culture, p. 259.
Most of Satan’s work in the world he takes care to keep hidden. But two small shafts of light have been thrown onto his work for me just recently. The first, a short article in the Association of Catholic Women’s ACW Review; the second, a remark (which at first surprised me) from a priest in Russia who claimed that we now, in the West, live in a Communist society. These shafts of light help, especially, to explain the onslaught of officialdom which in many countries worldwide has so successfully been removing the rights of parents to be the primary educators and protectors of their children.
The ACW Review examined the corrosive work of the ‘Frankfurt School’ - a group of German-American scholars who developed highly provocative and original perspectives on contemporary society and culture, drawing on Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and Weber. Not that their idea of a ‘cultural revolution’ was particularly new. ‘Until now’, wrote Joseph, Comte de Maistre (1753-1821) who for fifteen years was a Freemason, ‘nations were killed by conquest, that is by invasion: But here an important question arises; can a nation not die on its own soil, without resettlement or invasion, by allowing the flies of decomposition to corrupt to the very core those original and constituent principles which make it what it is.'
What was the Frankfurt School? Well, in the days following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it was believed that workers’ revolution would sweep into Europe and, eventually, into the United States. But it did not do so. Towards the end of 1922 the Communist International (Comintern) began to consider what were the reasons. On Lenin’s (part jew) initiative a meeting was organised at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow.
The aim of the meeting was to clarify the concept of, and give concrete effect to, a Marxist cultural revolution. Amongst those present were Georg Lukacs (a Hungarian aristocrat, son of a banker, who had become a Communist during World War I ; a good Marxist theoretician he developed the idea of ‘Revolution and Eros’ - sexual instinct used as an instrument of destruction) and Willi Munzenberg (whose proposed solution was to ‘organise the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilisation stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat’) ‘It was’, said Ralph de Toledano (1916-2007) the conservative author and co-founder of the ‘National Review’, a meeting ‘perhaps more harmful to Western civilization than the Bolshevik Revolution itself.'
Lenin died in 1924. By this time, however, Stalin was beginning to look on Munzenberg, Lukacs and like-thinkers as ‘revisionists’. In June 1940, Münzenberg fled to the south of France where, on Stalin’s orders, a NKVD assassination squad caught up with him and hanged him from a tree.
In the summer of 1924, after being attacked for his writings by the 5th Comintern Congress, Lukacs moved to Germany, where he chaired the first meeting of a group of Communist-oriented sociologists, a gathering that was to lead to the foundation of the Frankfurt School.
This ‘School’ (designed to put flesh on their revolutionary programme) was started at the University of Frankfurt in the Institut für Sozialforschung. To begin with school and institute were indistinguishable. In 1923 the Institute was officially established, and funded by Felix Weil [unsure if Weil was a jew, but Weil is a common jewish name] (1898-1975). Weil was born in Argentina and at the age of nine was sent to attend school in Germany. He attended the universities in Tübingen and Frankfurt, where he graduated with a doctoral degree in political science. While at these universities he became increasingly interested in socialism and Marxism. According to the intellectual historian Martin Jay, the topic of his dissertation was ‘the practical problems of implementing socialism.'
Carl Grünberg, the Institute’s director from 1923-1929, was an avowed Marxist, although the Institute did not have any official party affiliations. But in 1930 Max Horkheimer assumed control and he believed that Marx’s theory should be the basis of the Institute’s research. When Hitler came to power, the Institut was closed and its members, by various routes, fled to the United States and migrated to major US universities—Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley.
The School included among its members the 1960s guru of the New Left Herbert Marcuse (denounced by Pope Paul VI for his theory of liberation which ‘opens the way for licence cloaked as liberty’), Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, the popular writer Erich Fromm, Leo Lowenthal, and Jurgen Habermas - possibly the School’s most influential representative.
Basically, the Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief - or even the hope of belief - that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus—‘continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means’ as one of their members noted.
To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution - but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future - the School recommended (among other things):
1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family
One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pansexualism’ - the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:
• attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
• abolish differences in the education of boys and girls
• abolish all forms of male dominance - hence the presence of women in the armed forces
• declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’
Munzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation thus: ‘We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.'
The School believed there were two types of revolution: (a) political and (b) cultural. Cultural revolution demolishes from within. ‘Modern forms of subjection are marked by mildness’. They saw it as a long-term project and kept their sights clearly focused on the family, education, media, sex and popular culture.
The School’s ‘Critical Theory’ preached that the ‘authoritarian personality’ is a product of the patriarchal family - an idea directly linked to Engels’ Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, which promoted matriarchy. Already Karl Marx had written, in the “Communist Manifesto”, about the radical notion of a ‘community of women’ and in The German Ideology of 1845, written disparagingly about the idea of the family as the basic unit of society. This was one of the basic tenets of the ‘Critical Theory’ : the necessity of breaking down the contemporary family. The Institute scholars preached that ‘Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change.’
Following Karl Marx, the School stressed how the ‘authoritarian personality’ is a product of the patriarchal family—it was Marx who wrote so disparagingly about the idea of the family being the basic unit of society. All this prepared the way for the warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Marcuse under the guise of ‘women’s liberation’ and by the New Left movement in the 1960s.
They proposed transforming our culture into a female-dominated one. In 1933, Wilhelm Reich, one of their members, wrote in The Mass Psychology of Fascism that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of ‘natural society.’ Eric Fromm was also an active advocate of matriarchal theory. Masculinity and femininity, he claimed, were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought but were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.’ His dogma was the precedent for the radical feminist pronouncements that, today, appear in nearly every major newspaper and television programme.
The revolutionaries knew exactly what they wanted to do and how to do it. They have succeeded.
Lord Bertrand Russell joined with the Frankfurt School in their effort at mass social engineering and spilled the beans in his 1951 book, The Impact of Science on Society. He wrote: ‘Physiology and psychology afford fields for scientific technique which still await development.' The importance of mass psychology ‘has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray . When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”
Writing in 1992 in Fidelio Magazine, [The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness] Michael Minnicino observed how the heirs of Marcuse and Adorno now completely dominate the universities, ‘teaching their own students to replace reason with ‘Politically Correct’ ritual exercises. There are very few theoretical books on arts, letters, or language published today in the United States or Europe which do not openly acknowledge their debt to the Frankfurt School. The witchhunt on today’s campuses is merely the implementation of Marcuse’s concept of ‘repressive toleration’-‘tolerance for movements from the left, but intolerance for movements from the right’-enforced by the students of the Frankfurt School’.
Dr. Timothy Leary gave us another glimpse into the mind of the Frankfurt School in his account of the work of the Harvard University Psychedelic Drug Project, ‘Flashback.' He quoted a conversation that he had with Aldous Huxley: “These brain drugs, mass produced in the laboratories, will bring about vast changes in society. This will happen with or without you or me. All we can do is spread the word. The obstacle to this evolution, Timothy, is the Bible’. Leary then went on: “We had run up against the Judeo-Christian commitment to one God, one religion, one reality, that has cursed Europe for centuries and America since our founding days. Drugs that open the mind to multiple realities inevitably lead to a polytheistic view of the universe. We sensed that the time for a new humanist religion based on intelligence, good-natured pluralism and scientific paganism had arrived.”
One of the directors of the Authoritarian Personality project, R. Nevitt Sanford [might be a jew, cannot establish at present], played a pivotal role in the usage of psychedelic drugs. In 1965, he wrote in a book issued by the publishing arm of the UK’s Tavistock Institute:‘The nation, seems to be fascinated by our 40,000 or so drug addicts who are seen as alarmingly wayward people who must be curbed at all costs by expensive police activity. Only an uneasy Puritanism could support the practice of focusing on the drug addicts (rather than our 5 million alcoholics) and treating them as a police problem instead of a medical one, while suppressing harmless drugs such as marijuana and peyote along with the dangerous ones.” The leading propagandists of today’s drug lobby base their argument for legalization on the same scientific quackery spelled out all those years ago by Dr. Sanford.
Such propagandists include the multi-billionaire atheist George Soros who chose, as one of his first domestic programs, to fund efforts to challenge the efficacy of America’s $37-billion-a-year war on drugs. The Soros-backed Lindesmith Center serves as a leading voice for Americans who want to decriminalize drug use. ‘Soros is the ‘Daddy Warbucks of drug legalization,’ claimed Joseph Califano Jr. of Columbia University’s National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse’ (The Nation, Sep 2, 1999).
Music, Television and Popular Culture
Adorno was to become head of a ‘music studies’ unit, where in his Theory of Modern Music he promoted the prospect of unleashing atonal and other popular music as a weapon to destroy society, degenerate forms of music to promote mental illness. He said the US could be brought to its knees by the use of radio and television to promote a culture of pessimism and despair - by the late 1930s he (together with Horkheimer) had migrated to Hollywood.
The expansion of violent video-games also well supported the School’s aims.
In his book The Closing of the American Mind, Alan Bloom observed how Marcuse appealed to university students in the sixties with a combination of Marx and Freud. In Eros and Civilization and One Dimensional Man Marcuse promised that the overcoming of capitalism and its false consciousness will result in a society where the greatest satisfactions are sexual. Rock music touches the same chord in the young. Free sexual expression, anarchism, mining of the irrational unconscious and giving it free rein are what they have in common.'
The modern media - not least Arthur ‘Punch’ Sulzberger Jnr., who took charge of the New York Times in 1992 - drew greatly on the Frankfurt School’s study The Authoritarian Personality. (New York: Harper, 1950). In his book Arrogance, (Warner Books, 1993) former CBS News reporter Bernard Goldberg noted of Sulzberger that he ‘still believes in all those old sixties notions about ‘liberation’ and ‘changing the world man’ . . . In fact, the Punch years have been a steady march down PC Boulevard, with a newsroom fiercely dedicated to every brand of diversity except the intellectual kind.'
In 1953 the Institute moved back to the University of Frankfurt. Adorno died in 1955 and Horkheimer in 1973. The Institute of Social Research continued, but what was known as the Frankfurt School did not. The ‘cultural Marxism’ that has since taken hold of our schools and universities - that ‘political correctness’, which has been destroying our family bonds, our religious tradition and our entire culture -sprang from the Frankfurt School.
It was these intellectual Marxists who, later, during the anti-Vietnam demonstrations, coined the phrase, ‘make love, not war’; it was these intellectuals who promoted the dialectic of ‘negative’ criticism; it was these theoreticians who dreamed of a utopia where their rules governed. It was their concept that led to the current fad for the rewriting of history, and to the vogue for ‘deconstruction’. Their mantras: ‘sexual differences are a contract; if it feels good, do it; do your own thing.'
In an address at the US Naval Academy in August 1999, Dr Gerald L. Atkinson, CDR USN (Ret), gave a background briefing on the Frankfurt School, reminding his audience that it was the ‘foot soldiers’ of the Frankfurt School who introduced the ‘sensitivity training’ techniques used in public schools over the past 30 years (and now employed by the US military to educate the troops about ‘sexual harassment’). During ‘sensitivity’ training teachers were told not to teach but to ‘facilitate.’ Classrooms became centres of self-examination where children talked about their own subjective feelings. This technique was designed to convince children they were the sole authority in their own lives.
Atkinson continued: ‘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.’
On April 17th, 1962, Maslow gave a lecture to a group of nuns at Sacred Heart, a Catholic women’s college in Massachusetts. He noted in a diary entry how the talk had been very ‘successful,’ but he found that very fact troubling. ‘They shouldn’t applaud me,’ he wrote, ‘they should attack. If they were fully aware of what I was doing, they would [attack]’ (Journals, p. 157).
In her booklet Sex & Social Engineering (Family Education Trust 1994) Valerie Riches observed how in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there were intensive parliamentary campaigns taking place emanating from a number of organisations in the field of birth control (i.e., contraception, abortion, sterilisation). ‘From an analysis of their annual reports, it became apparent that a comparatively small number of people were involved to a surprising degree in an array of pressure groups. This network was not only linked by personnel, but by funds, ideology and sometimes addresses: it was also backed by vested interests and supported by grants in some cases by government departments. At the heart of the network was the Family Planning Association (FPA) with its own collection of offshoots. What we unearthed was a power structure with enormous influence.
‘Deeper investigation revealed that the network, in fact extended further afield, into eugenics, population control, birth control, sexual and family law reforms, sex and health education. Its tentacles reached out to publishing houses, medical, educational and research establishments, women’s organisations and marriage guidance—anywhere where influence could be exerted. It appeared to have great influence over the media, and over permanent officials in relevant government departments, out of all proportion to the numbers involved.
‘During our investigations, a speaker at a Sex Education Symposium in Liverpool outlined tactics of sex education saying: ‘if we do not get into sex education, children will simply follow the mores of their parents’. The fact that sex education was to be the vehicle for peddlers of secular humanism soon became apparent.
‘However, at that time the power of the network and the full implications of its activities were not fully understood. It was thought that the situation was confined to Britain. The international implications had not been grasped.
‘Soon after, a little book was published with the intriguing title The Men Behind Hitler—A German Warning to the World. Its thesis was that the eugenics movement, which had gained popularity early in the twentieth century, had gone underground following the holocaust in Nazi Germany, but was still active and functioning through organizations promoting abortion, euthanasia, sterilization, mental health, etc. The author urged the reader to look at his home country and neighbouring countries, for he would surely find that members and committees of these organizations would cross-check to a remarkable extent.
‘Other books and papers from independent sources later confirmed this situation. . . . A remarkable book was also published in America which documented the activities of the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). It was entitled The SIECUS Circle A Humanist Revolution. SIECUS was set up in 1964 and lost no time in engaging in a programme of social engineering by means of sex education in the schools. Its first executive director was Mary Calderone, who was also closely linked to Planned Parenthood, the American equivalent of the British FPA. According to The SIECUS Circle, Calderone supported sentiments and theories put forward by Rudolph Dreikus, a humanist, such as:
· merging or reversing the sexes or sex roles;
· liberating children from their families;
· abolishing the family as we know it’
In their book Mind Siege, (Thomas Nelson, 2000) Tim LaHaye and David A. Noebel confirmed Riches’s findings of an international network. ‘The leading authorities of Secular Humanism may be pictured as the starting lineup of a baseball team: pitching is John Dewey; catching is Isaac Asimov; first base is Paul Kurtz [might be jew]; second base is Corliss Lamont; third base is Bertrand Russell; shortstop is Julian Huxley; left fielder is Richard Dawkins; center fielder is Margaret Sanger; right fielder is Carl Rogers; manager is ‘Christianity is for losers’ Ted Turner; designated hitter is Mary Calderone; utility players include the hundreds listed in the back of Humanist Manifesto I and II, including Eugenia C. Scott, Alfred Kinsey, Abraham Maslow, Erich Fromm, Rollo May, and Betty Friedan.
‘In the grandstands sit the sponsoring or sustaining organizations, such as the . . . the Frankfurt School; the left wing of the Democratic Party; the Democratic Socialists of America; Harvard University; Yale University; University of Minnesota; University of California (Berkeley); and two thousand other colleges and universities.’
A practical example of how the tidal wave of Maslow-think is engulfing English schools was revealed in an article in the British Nat assoc. of Catholic Families’ (NACF) Catholic Family newspaper (August 2000), where James Caffrey warned about the Citizenship (PSHE) programme which was shortly to be drafted into the National Curriculum. ‘We need to look carefully at the vocabulary used in this new subject’, he wrote, ‘and, more importantly, discover the philosophical basis on which it is founded. The clues to this can be found in the word ‘choice’ which occurs frequently in the Citizenship documentation and the great emphasis placed on pupils’ discussing and ‘clarifying’ their own views, values and choices about any given issue. This is nothing other than the concept known as ‘Values Clarification’ - a concept anathema to Catholicism, or indeed, to Judaism and Islam.
‘This concept was pioneered in California in the 1960’s by psychologists William Coulson, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. It was based on ‘humanistic’ psychology, in which patients were regarded as the sole judge of their actions and moral behaviour. Having pioneered the technique of Values Clarification the psychologists introduced it into schools and other institutions such as convents and seminaries - with disastrous results. Convents emptied, religious lost their vocations and there was wholesale loss of belief in God. Why? Because Catholic institutions are founded on absolute beliefs in, for example, the Creed and the Ten Commandments. Values Clarification supposes a moral relativism in which there is no absolute right or wrong and no dependence on God.
‘This same system is to be introduced to the vulnerable minds of infants, juniors and adolescents in the years 2000+. The underlying philosophy of Values Clarification holds that for teachers to promote virtues such as honesty, justice or chastity constitutes indoctrination of children and ‘violates’ their moral freedom. It is urged that children should be free to choose their own values; the teacher must merely ‘facilitate’ and must avoid all moralising or criticising. As a barrister commented recently on worrying trends in Australian education, ‘The core theme of values clarification is that there are no right or wrong values. Values education does not seek to identify and transmit ‘right’ values, teaching of the Church, especially the papal encyclical Evangelium Vitae.
‘In the absence of clear moral guidance, children naturally make choices based on feelings. Powerful peer pressure, freed from the values which stem from a divine source, ensure that ‘shared values’ sink to the lowest common denominator. References to environmental sustainability lead to a mindset where anti-life arguments for population control are present ed as being both responsible and desirable. Similarly, ‘informed choices’ about health and lifestyles are euphemisms for attitudes antithetical to Christian views on motherhood, fatherhood, the sacrament of marriage and family life. Values Clarification is covert and dangerous. It underpins the entire rationale of Citizenship (PSHE) and is to be introduced by statute into the UK soon. It will give young people secular values and imbue them with the attitude that they alone hold ultimate authority and judgement about their lives. No Catholic school can include this new subject as formulated in the Curriculum 2000 document within its current curriculum provision. Dr. William Coulson recognised the psychological damage Rogers’ technique inflicted on youngsters and rejected it, devoting his life to exposing its dangers.
Should those in authority in Catholic education not do likewise, as ‘Citizenship’ makes its deadly approach’?
If we allow their subversion of values and interests to continue, we will, in future generations, lose all that our ancestors suffered and died for. We are forewarned, says Atkinson. 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.
‘What we are at present experiencing,' writes Philip Trower in a letter to the author, ‘is a blend of two schools of thought; the Frankfurt School and the liberal tradition going back to the 18th century Enlightenment. The Frankfurt School has of course its remote origins in the 18th century Enlightenment. But like Lenin’s Marxism it is a breakaway movement. The immediate aims of both classical liberalism and the Frankfurt School have been in the main the same (vide your eleven points above) but the final end is different. For liberals they lead to ‘improving’ and ‘perfecting’ western culture, for the Frankfurt School they bring about its destruction.
‘Unlike hard-line Marxists, the Frankfurt School do not make any plans for the future. (But) the Frankfurt School seems to be more far-sighted that our classical liberals and secularists. At least they see the moral deviations they promote will in the end make social life impossible or intolerable. But this leaves a big question mark over what a future conducted by them would be like.'
Meanwhile, the Quiet Revolution rolls forward.
Timothy Matthews is the editor of the British, Catholic Family News. A news service of the National Association of Catholic Families, United Kingdom. The article appeared in the American Catholic weekly, The Wanderer, December 11, 2008. It is reprinted here with permission of the author.
|May 10th, 2009||#10|
Origins of Political Correctness
Frank Ellis monograph:
Marxism, Multiculturalism, and Free Speech (Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies Monograph Series, 31)
Amazon.com: Marxism, Multiculturalism, and Free Speech (Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies Monograph Series, 31): Frank Ellis: Books
Radio Istina #2
Radio Istina #3
|May 10th, 2009||#11|
Article on mind control, discussing various people and their ideas for mass brainwashing in the 20th century
|May 10th, 2009||#12|
Join Date: Jan 2004
It's only half true that Jews created, spread Political Correctness to destroy Western Civilization, although the Frankfurt School is certainly their partner in crime.
Political Correctness is nothing more than female orthodoxy. Listen to the language. Love those words "offensive" and "inappropriate". And that centuries old saxon word "cunt" is the worst swear word in the English language.
Furthermore, it was first employed by the "Right" or Conservatives to justify their Jew wars. The expression "Collateral Damage" being a classic case in point.
|May 11th, 2009||#13|
PC began as Lenin's term for that which no one must be allowed to deviate from, the settled party line. It's a communist concept, with roots in Russia and Mao's China. It signifies a totalitarian mindset combined with the proven willingness to do anything to destroy opposition, on a sliding scale from simple smearing to sanguinary slaughter.
The modern use of the term comes from Politically Correct Man, a character created by jew Jeff Shesol, a Brown University student who went on to serve as a Democratic operative in the Clinton years. His character became a byword on the right, which used PC for laughs, without EVER ONCE digging into the communist origins of concept. Because that would mean mentioning the jewish anti-White, anti-Western animus at its heart, and the whiteskin sellouts like Rush Limbaugh dare not do that lest they be taken off the airwaves.
|May 11th, 2009||#14|
VNNF thread in which the Matthews article in post #1 is discussed:
|May 11th, 2009||#15|
Join Date: Aug 2005
|May 11th, 2009||#16|
Join Date: Jan 2004
I agree with what you say. Very few women would ever describe themselves as politically correct either.
|July 10th, 2009||#17|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Yes. America is, in many ways, a Marxist country, despite "capitalism."
|August 30th, 2009||#19|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Blog Entries: 2
Frankfurt School On The Hudson
How the fathers of Critical Theory found their way to America
By Adam Kirsch | 7:00 am August 18, 2009
Max Horkheimer (left) and Theodor Adorno (right), with Jürgen Habermas and others in the background, right, in 1965 at Heidelberg.
It would be hard to overstate the importance of the Frankfurt School in recent American thought. Philosophers, psychologists, and sociologists like Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, and Max Horkheimer—to name just the best-known members of the group—helped to develop a subtle and powerful way of thinking about the problems of modern society. Critical Theory, as it is usually capitalized, adapted the revolutionary impulse of Marxism to 20th century conditions, in which mass culture and totalitarianism seemed to shut off any real possibility of social transformation. Especially appealing to academics is the way Critical Theory makes the analysis of culture feel like a revolutionary act in and of itself. Reading Adorno on modern music, or Benjamin on literature, it is momentarily possible to believe that criticism is a weapon of liberation, rather than simply a hermetic exercise for intellectuals.
No wonder that after the 1960s, as Thomas Wheatland writes in his impressive new study The Frankfurt School in Exile, “ambitious young sympathizers with the New Left” in the academy turned en masse to the Frankfurt School, a scholarly subject that they could explore “without having to disguise or hide their intellectual and political orientations.” It is strange that it took until the 1960s for the Frankfurters to make a major impact on America, however, since from 1934 to 1949 they were actually living in the United States. The Institute for Social Research—the institutional home of the Frankfurt School thinkers—had to uproot itself from Germany in 1933, following Hitler’s rise to power. After a brief period in Geneva, it relocated to Morningside Heights, where it formed an uneasy partnership with Columbia University.
From its headquarters at 428 West 117th Street, the Institute struggled with the intellectual and practical challenges involved in doing European-style Critical Theory in America. While the members of the Institute eventually scattered—Horkheimer and Adorno moved to Los Angeles, joining the German émigré colony there, while after Pearl Harbor Marcuse and others went to Washington, applying their skills to the war effort—New York remained the Institute’s official home until 1949, when Horkheimer moved it back to the University of Frankfurt.
In his book, an unusually thorough blend of intellectual and institutional history, Wheatland sheds new light on this phase of the Frankfurt School’s existence. Wheatland is interested in the ideas of the School, but he is also interested in the ways that less intellectual factors—like money, personality clashes, and opportunism—shaped those ideas’ development and reception. In a sense, Wheatland has subjected the Frankfurt School to a genuinely Marxist analysis—he shows how the group’s economic substructure affected its ideological superstructure. In the process, he brings these often idolized figures back to human scale, and offers an object lesson in the unedifying ways that intellectual careers are made.
The Jewish dimension to this story is only occasionally Wheatland’s explicit subject, but it is absolutely central nonetheless. After all, the reason the Institute had to leave Frankfurt in the first place was that, in addition to being radicals and Marxists, the members of the group were almost all Jewish. The Institut für Sozialforschung was created by Herman Weil, a German Jew who had made a fortune importing grain from Argentina, and his son Felix, who like many young men was radicalized after Germany’s defeat in World War I. In 1923, still in the early days of the Weimar Republic, the Weils created the Institute as an independent think tank with a lavish endowment. Their plan was to bring together scholars from different fields, who would work together to develop comprehensive new theories about how modern society functioned and how it might be transformed.
Not coincidentally, as Wheatland shows, almost all the Institute’s hires were, like the Weils, highly assimilated Jews from bourgeois families. Max Horkheimer, the philosopher who became head of the Institute in 1931 and guided it for the next several decades, was the son of a textile manufacturer from Stuttgart; his relationship with his father was destroyed when the son married the father’s Christian secretary. Theodor Wiesengrund-Adorno, the most brilliant thinker associated with the Institute, was the son of a Jewish wine merchant and a Catholic woman from Corsica. (He eventually dropped the Jewish half of his last name and went simply by Adorno.) Erich Fromm, a sociologist turned psychoanalyst, was unusual in being raised in an Orthodox family; he “maintained a strong religious identity into adulthood,” Wheatland writes. Similar stories could be told of most of the scholars who came to work at Frankfurt.
Among the tidal wave of academic refugees from Hitler’s Germany, the members of the Institute were actually very lucky. Horkheimer, with a prescience all too rare among German Jews, had already shifted the Institute’s endowment out of German banks and shipped its library out of the country. The scholars reassembled in Geneva, but this could only be a temporary respite, since most of them could not get permanent Swiss visas. As Wheatland shows in the first of the book’s four sections, Horkheimer embarked on a well-thought-out campaign to find a new home for the Institute in the United States, sending out a pamphlet with testimonials to sociology departments at American universities.
Wheatland makes clear just why Columbia took the bait. Robert MacIver, the head of Columbia’s sociology department, was looking for a way to establish a social research bureau, which would provide quantitative data to support the work of theorists. In 1929, MacIver had applied to the university for $50,000 to create such a bureau, writing in his proposal that “the situation with reference to research through quantitative measurement may really be described as a crisis. If this crisis is not met in a large way, achievement on the part of universities cannot be expected.” But the Depression made such an expensive program impossible. When the Institute for Social Research came calling—with its private endowment, and its experience doing field research and surveys—it seemed like a perfect match for Columbia’s needs.
In fact, as Wheatland goes on to show, the fit was not ideal, and grew even less so over time. The Institute did design and fund several important research projects, including a study of the effect of unemployment on family life in Newark, New Jersey, and a study of adolescent attitudes toward authority. But these studies were not really what Horkheimer cared about. Rather, he was interested in developing a total theory of late-capitalist society, which would encompass politics, economics, culture, and society. This would eventually bear fruit in Horkheimer and Adorno’s magnum opus, Dialectic of Enlightenment.
To keep the Institute running, however, Horkheimer needed American allies and funders, who were mainly interested in empirical problem-solving. This dilemma became acute in the later 1930s, when a series of bad investment decisions cost the Institute a large chunk of its endowment, and forced Horkheimer to lay off a number of associates. As Wheatland shows, this process was handled badly, with Horkheimer antagonizing Erich Fromm, the most popular member of the Institute among its American patrons. (Fromm would eventually go on to write bestselling psychology books like The Art of Loving.) In fact, Horkheimer comes across in Wheatland’s account as a ruthless academic infighter, not afraid to use his money and power to punish his enemies. The contrast between the Frankfurt School’s dreams of social liberation and its actual dependence on such all-too-human motives is a melancholy and ironic one.
In subsequent sections of The Frankfurt School in Exile, Wheatland shows how the Institute came into contact with two important segments of the American Jewish community. The first were the New York Intellectuals, who were in many ways the perfect American counterpart to the Frankfurters: Jewish radical intellectuals with an interest in politics and culture. While the two groups never engaged as deeply as they might have—in part, Wheatland shows, due to the Frankfurters’ policy of staying aloof from American politics—some relationships did form, and New Yorkers like Daniel Bell, Irving Howe, and Nathan Glazer became aware of Critical Theory.
More unlikely, on its surface, was the bond the Institute formed with the establishment American Jewish Committee, which turned out to be the patron the struggling exiles badly needed. In 1943, the Committee gave the Institute a $10,000 grant to produce a report on the causes of anti-Semitism. This eventually grew into the landmark five-volume report Studies in Prejudice, published in 1950, which brought the Institute its first real mainstream recognition. Wheatland notes the irony that it should be a specifically, not to say parochially, Jewish project that made the Institute’s name in America.
After all, it is possible to see the whole endeavor of Critical Theory as being a way for these brilliant German Jews, assimilated to German culture yet rejected by Germany itself, to imagine a place for themselves outside of Jewishness and Germanness. Yet “the anti-Semitism project,” as Wheatland writes, “suggested an abandonment of revolutionary utopianism and the temporary adoption of American liberalism.” His important book ought to bring new attention to this highly suggestive part of the Frankfurt School’s story.
Adam Kirsch is a contributing editor to Tablet Magazine and the author of Benjamin Disraeli, a biography in the Nextbook Press Jewish Encounters book series.
|September 14th, 2011||#20|
Bread and Circuses
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Blog Entries: 1