ADVERTISEMENT

So, Otis, why are you so insane over trump?

""""Do you think Obama, Soros and Clinton are part of a conspiracy to ruin America and control the world?"""""""


I don't think there's any doubt that Davos man, the EU, Soros, Obama and the CLinton types (they are just shills) are hardcore leftists who believe in a new world order that can only be achieved by pretty much ending western civilization as we know it.

I mean you can't say out of one side of your mouth that jobs will go away in the near future do to robotics and then say out of the other side, 'We need millions more illegal Aliens to fill the jobs of the future."

Everything they say is a lie.

Look up the 'The Frankfort Institute", it was a think tank of sorts,not on google where they are whitewashed, read the other articles,(if you can still find them) that explain who and what they really are and were.

The recognized after WW1 that the only way to truly install communism/socialism would be through the destruction of western civilization, the factory workers were no longer buying in because life had improved and they decided they would use the teachings of Marx and Freud.to accomplish their goal.Guilt is a big weapon..

They ended up in Germany but eventually ran for their lives from Hitler, landed at Columbia University, invented Political correctness, started Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) exported their teachings to Berkeley, U Chicago, eventually spread to Harvard, Yale, Madison etc. etc and set upon a program to make sure their hand-picked STUDENTS became the professors of the future by mentoring them, giving them the best grades and putting them into good spots everywhere and they became the professors of today, though we're seeing 2nd and even third generations from them now.They then got control of EDUCATION and teachers schooling with those professors and we have today's LEFTIST run school systems.
They infiltrated ALL of the JournalIsm schools and begat LEFTIST Journalism students and professors and pretty much infiltrated every aspect of pop culture, MTV, Movies, TV, theatre etc through them.

If you call that a conspiracy, i guess so.

Here ya go:

The Origins of Political Correctness

February 5, 2000, Bill Lind, 145 Comments

An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind. Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA conferences including the 2000 Conservative University at American University

If you enjoy this speech, keep up with political correctness and how it continues to emerge on college campuses by following our Faculty Lounge blog.

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 1917, 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 throes 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.

Posted in Guest Articles.
 
Last edited:
Your the sickest human being that ever walked the earth. Get a life.
I have a very, very good life.
I’m worried that my grandchildren won’t have as good a life as mine is and has been.
Somebody needs to tell the truth, which is that people like you are so Indoctrinated , you can’t say anything except what you said or something like it, which by definition, means, you already lost the argument.
Sad, really, to go through life like that.
 
That is the biggest bunch of crap I have ever heard. Anytime I see a tea party person, I laugh at them. You don' care about anyone but yourself. You spit on the downtrodden. If they don' think like you, they are evil.
 
That is the biggest bunch of crap I have ever heard. Anytime I see a tea party person, I laugh at them. You don' care about anyone but yourself. You spit on the downtrodden. If they don' think like you, they are evil.
Actually, you are a simplistic person.
My version of economics makes the pie bigger for EVERYONE, especially the downtrodden, your version, shrinks the pie continuously until everyone gets crumbs, yes everyone gets EQUAL crumbs the same crumbs which is all you leftists care about.
The American dream was to come here "downtrodden" and have the opportunity to lift yourself up by your bootstraps and become anything you so desired.
The American dream guaranteed the opportunity, not the RESULT.
Sad you can't understand that, sad you can't see that every attempt at communism has ended in death and failure and that socialism MUST result in a communist dictatorship because eventually you run out of the Rich people's money..
When I go to a night center sports program for kids and adults, the Opera, LIncon Center, most College buildings, Hospitals , Parks, the venues don't say, "paid for by income redistribution", they say the names of those nasty old rich guys who donated huge amounts of their money for everyone's good and well being.
Wake up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 911sfan
Do you actually listen to yourself. You are from a time where there is a communist behind every tree. I'm a democrat, and your not a republican, but a stinking good for nothing tea party individual. They are the true traitors of the country.
 
What do you think a progressive is?of course it’s a socialist/ communist , one leads to the other there are no democrats, long gone, wake up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigEddySprings
""""Do you think Obama, Soros and Clinton are part of a conspiracy to ruin America and control the world?"""""""


I don't think there's any doubt that Davos man, the EU, Soros, Obama and the CLinton types (they are just shills) are hardcore leftists who believe in a new world order that can only be achieved by pretty much ending western civilization as we know it.

I mean you can't say out of one side of your mouth that joba will go away in the near future do to robotics and then say out of the other side, 'We need millions more illegal Aliens to fill the jobs of the future."

Everything they say is a lie.

Look up the 'The Frankfort Institute", it was a think tank of sorts,not on google where they are whitewashed, read the other articles,(if you can still find them) that explain who and what they really are and were.

The recognized after WW1 that the only way to truly install communism/socialism would be through the destruction of western civilization, the factory workers were no longer buying in because life had improved and they decided they would use the teachings of Marx and Freud.to accomplish their goal.Guilt is a big weapon..

They ended up in Germany but eventually ran for their lives from Hitler, landed at Columbia University, invented Political correctness, started Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) exported their teachings to Berkeley, U Chicago, eventually spread to Harvard, Yale, Madison etc. etc and set upon a program to make sure their hand-picked STUDENTS became the professors of the future by mentoring them, giving them the best grades and putting them into good spots everywhere and they became the professors of today, though we're seeing 2nd and even third generations from them now.They then got control of EDUCATION and teachers schooling with those professors and we have today's LEFTIST run school systems.
They infiltrated ALL of the JournalIsm schools and begat LEFTIST Journalism students and professors and pretty much infiltrated every aspect of pop culture, MTV, Movies, TV, theatre etc through them.

If you call that a conspiracy, i guess so.

Here ya go:

The Origins of Political Correctness

February 5, 2000, Bill Lind, 145 Comments

An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind. Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA conferences including the 2000 Conservative University at American University

If you enjoy this speech, keep up with political correctness and how it continues to emerge on college campuses by following our Faculty Lounge blog.

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 1917, 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 throes 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.

Posted in Guest Articles.

That last paragraph is so laughable it hurts. I am against hate crime legislation but people don't go to prison for political thought they go to prison for additional time for crimes deemed to be driven by hate.

I can see this article being written numerous times throughout the history of the USA. Equality of races? Conspiracy to ruin America. Equality of sexes? Conspiracy to ruin America.

I always love the idea that the government is worst the thing ever and liberals are so dumb yet they are behind the greatest and longest conspiracy in the history of the Western World.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkoch95
You addressed none of the important issues, which are among them the fact that the Frankfort Institutes goal was the destruction of western civilization and they weaponized the school system and universities to achieve their goals . They’ve gained control of every journalism school and all cinema schools.
They now control all of pop culture.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BigEddySprings
Today, Trump again stands up for the American people and puts a tariff on Steel and Aluminum..

Yes, my extensive stock portfolio will be damaged short term but anything the ENTIRE swamp is against, the SWAMP Republicans in Congress are against, the Koch brothers are against and the Leftists are against , i am sure is good for the AMerican people.

If we have to depend on China for our steel and aluminum, we are in big trouble.

SOmething has been afoot with the CHinese for awhile now.
They have stopped allowing Chinese investment overseas, in America.
They are building their military at an unbelievable rate and employing their influence in Africa and South America and you can guarantee their game plan doesn't include anything good for America.

Additionally, we have an $800,000,000,000 per year drain of our economy in trade every year , as the rest of the world sets up roadblocks for AMerican companies while we allow them to dump and kill our jobs and steal our wealth.

For dumb people or agenda driven people this seems like a bad idea, a trade war, LOL, if you are already losing, how can a trade WAR be bad for you?
It's bad for china who's American exports is 57% of it's total exports, most of it's economy.
Personally, i would rather pay an extra nickle for a can of beer or soda and force the countries cheating us to play fair.
We cannot keep importing more than we export in trade forever, it's a wealth drain and yes, the Chinese are our enemies.
Trump , again is being courageous and going against the flow, against his GLOBALIST advisors, against DAVOS man and standing up for the American worker and all of us in the end.
Good for him, if we stand behind him as a country, we'll get better trade deals from everyone, we have to really, we can't get worse ones.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BigEddySprings
Here's the Radical left's future for your children.
  • The University of Minnesota has invited a professor dedicated to “dismantling whiteness” to speak next week on how whiteness is an “existential threat” to the United States.
  • Lisa Anderson-Levy believes that "teaching is a political act," and will discuss ways to "decenter whiteness" at academic institutions.
ScaryWhiteMan.jpg

The University of Minnesota has invited a professor dedicated to “dismantling whiteness” to speak next week on how whiteness is an “existential threat” to the United States.

The Elephant in the Room: A ‘Grown Up’ Conversation about Whiteness” will be presented by Lisa Anderson-Levy, an Anthropology professor at Beloit College whose teaching philosophy is predicated on the belief that “teaching is a political act.”

"She argues that whiteness poses an existential threat to social, political, and economic life in the U.S." Tweet This



[RELATED: Prof pledges to ‘deconstruct whiteness’ in all her courses]

During her lecture, Anderson-Levy is slated to speak on a number of issues, including “the violence of whiteness” and how colleges and universities in the United States may be complicit in perpetuating this violence.

“This presentation explores the ubiquity and violence of whiteness and the ways in which academic institutions are poised to either reproduce or interrupt these discourses,” writes Anderson-Levy, referring to herself in the third person.

“She argues that whiteness poses an existential threat to social, political, and economic life in the U.S. and proposes that decentering whiteness is one of the most urgent social dilemmas of our time and demands our immediate attention,” the abstract adds.

Anderson-Levy will also speak on how college administrators can “decenter whiteness” at their institutions, “including in our budgets, our curricula, our disciplinary genealogies, our interactions with students, and our relationships with each other as colleagues.”

[RELATED: Meritocracy is a ‘tool of whiteness,’ claims math professor]

Though the lecture appears geared towards college administrators, students are welcome to attend, and UNM spokeswoman Emmalynn Bauer confirmed to Campus Reform that the university is indeed sponsoring the lecture.

“The ICGC Alumni Lecture Series is an opportunity to highlight successful alumni and allow current students to engage with them,” Bauer said in a statement.

Campus Reform reached out to Anderson-Levy multiple times for comment, but did not receive a response in time for publication. In her post at nearby Beloit College, her academic interests include “feminist anthropology” and “activist anthropology.”

She is also the co-leader on a $600,000 project to foster “diversity, inclusivity, and equity” at Beloit College, which was funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.
 
Liberals hate Trump because they are afraid they will lose welfare. A liberal's worst nightmares are a job and hearing Maury Povitch say, "You ARE the father.
 
The mental illness of the Left on full display here.
Wow, they figured it out, they might not be the ones deciding what HATE Speech is.
Guess what ? Hate speech is protected, you imbeciles.
The ACLU ( before it became a corrupt tool of the left) fought to allow Nazi’s to march in Skokie, like it or not, that is America. The Nazis were shown to be idiots and then we all moved on, proud of our system and country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/opinion/if-we-silence-hate-speech-will-we-silence-resistance.html
 
So the Left keeps telling us Alt Right, the Nazis are a main player, yet in their biggest rally in years in Washington last week they had like 25 goofs, nothing, nobody.Another Leftist charade comes to an end, no , it’s Antifa and the hardcore leftists in the universities that are the threat to our Democracy, our Republic, not a few sad Racists at a gathering in Washington, no more than the Nazis who marched at Skokie years ago, we laughed at them too.
It’s the Left who wants to end America and Western Civilization, the Soros crowd, supported by Davos Man and the EU bigwigs who want to retain ALL the power long term.
 
Last edited:
So the Left keeps telling us Alt Right, the Nazis are a main player, yet in their biggest rally in years in Washington last week they had like 25 goofs, nothing, nobody.Another Leftist charade comes to an end, no , it’s Antifa and the hardcore leftists in the universities that are the threat to our Democracy, our Republic, not a few sad Racists at a gathering in Washington, no more than the Nazis who marched at Skokie years ago, we laughed at them too.
It’s the Left who wants to end America and Western Civilization, the Soros crowd, supported by Davos Man and the EU bigwigs who want to retain ALL the power long term.

If you don't it like, leave.
 
LL, are you a believer in QAnon?
Are you a believer of the Vast right wing conspiracy Hillary spoke of?
There are idiots on both sides, sadly your sides entire platform is idiotic and doomed to failure and destruction all due to your sad Self-hatred.
 
Are you a believer of the Vast right wing conspiracy Hillary spoke of?
There are idiots on both sides, sadly your sides entire platform is idiotic and doomed to failure and destruction all due to your sad Self-hatred.

I wasn't a believer in the vast right wing conspiracy. They made a lot of their own problems. The right is better at being hard-nosed and petty. While I was against not voting on Merrick Garland, not doing so was smart and it worked. The right is better at politics.

Do you believe in QAnon?
 
""""Do you think Obama, Soros and Clinton are part of a conspiracy to ruin America and control the world?"""""""


I don't think there's any doubt that Davos man, the EU, Soros, Obama and the CLinton types (they are just shills) are hardcore leftists who believe in a new world order that can only be achieved by pretty much ending western civilization as we know it.

I mean you can't say out of one side of your mouth that jobs will go away in the near future do to robotics and then say out of the other side, 'We need millions more illegal Aliens to fill the jobs of the future."

Everything they say is a lie.

Look up the 'The Frankfort Institute", it was a think tank of sorts,not on google where they are whitewashed, read the other articles,(if you can still find them) that explain who and what they really are and were.

The recognized after WW1 that the only way to truly install communism/socialism would be through the destruction of western civilization, the factory workers were no longer buying in because life had improved and they decided they would use the teachings of Marx and Freud.to accomplish their goal.Guilt is a big weapon..

They ended up in Germany but eventually ran for their lives from Hitler, landed at Columbia University, invented Political correctness, started Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) exported their teachings to Berkeley, U Chicago, eventually spread to Harvard, Yale, Madison etc. etc and set upon a program to make sure their hand-picked STUDENTS became the professors of the future by mentoring them, giving them the best grades and putting them into good spots everywhere and they became the professors of today, though we're seeing 2nd and even third generations from them now.They then got control of EDUCATION and teachers schooling with those professors and we have today's LEFTIST run school systems.
They infiltrated ALL of the JournalIsm schools and begat LEFTIST Journalism students and professors and pretty much infiltrated every aspect of pop culture, MTV, Movies, TV, theatre etc through them.

If you call that a conspiracy, i guess so.

Here ya go:

The Origins of Political Correctness

February 5, 2000, Bill Lind, 145 Comments

An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind. Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA conferences including the 2000 Conservative University at American University

If you enjoy this speech, keep up with political correctness and how it continues to emerge on college campuses by following our Faculty Lounge blog.

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 1917, 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 throes 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.

Posted in Guest Articles.

There was a time when our children stood at attention, put their hand on their heart, and in one UNITED voice, recited the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

There was a time when STRENGTH and HONOR meant something.

There was a time when standing for our FLAG meant something.

There was a time when our history (heritage) was taught with PRIDE and RESPECT.

There was a time when respect was given to those who serve(d), bled, and died to protect and defend our GOD GIVEN FREEDOM.

There was a time when we were GRATEFUL.

There was a time when these UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, was UNITED.

There was a time when these UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, was UNITED UNDER ONE FLAG.

There was a time when, WE, THE PEOPLE, decided our future.

There was a time when, WE, THE PEOPLE, had a voice.

There was a time when, WE, THE PEOPLE, were UNITED and STRONG.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."  

"You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance."

"We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."

-Ronald Reagan

It is time, WE, THE PEOPLE, reclaim what is rightfully ours.

Will you answer the call?

Your Country needs you.

Your VOTE matters!

WE STAND TOGETHER.

"Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong."

– 1 Corinthians 16:13

Q
 
I wasn't a believer in the vast right wing conspiracy. They made a lot of their own problems. The right is better at being hard-nosed and petty. While I was against not voting on Merrick Garland, not doing so was smart and it worked. The right is better at politics.

Do you believe in QAnon?

Ny5DIhL.gif


It is time, WE, THE PEOPLE, reclaim what is rightfully ours.
MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA AND ALL THOSE WHO DEFEND AND PROTECT HER AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.
WE STAND TOGETHER AS PATRIOTS.
WHERE WE GO ONE, WE GO ALL.
HOME OF THE BRAVE.
Q+
 
POTUS: "This can never be allowed to happen again (in our Country or to another President)."

How do you deter & prevent this from happening again?

Simply by terminating employment of those responsible?

Simply by conducting a few 'non-threatening' investigations?

Or by:

Prosecuting those responsible to the fullest extent of the law?

Setting up new checks & balances and oversight designed to increase transparency?

Provide OIG office(s) w/ funding inc (size) ++ authority?

Provide select committees w/ access and in-house viewing of non NAT SEC CLAS material?

Provide a check on Directors/Dep Directors/Asst Directors of all such ABC agencies?

Establish 'financial checks/reviews' of those in senior (critical) positions (audits) + direct family (close proximity)?

Transparency and Prosecution is the only way forward to save our Republic and safeguard such criminal and treasonous acts from occurring again.

While some want to quietly remove those responsible and go about our business (save face on the World Stage), those in control, understand, this band-aid will simply not work.

Nobody should be above the law (no matter how massive the spider-web is (entangled)).

This will never happen again.

TRUTH WORKS.

FACTS MATTER.

Q
 
How can an entity known only as 'Q' (face-less, name-less, fame-less, etc.) begin to ask questions on 4ch (now 8ch) and build something of this magnitude?

How can this same 'Q' entity garner such a massive amount of WW MSM [FAKE NEWS] attention [attacks]?

How is it possible this 'Q' entity can 'forecast' future events or 'know' when the POTUS is about to Tweet?

How is it possible 'FUTURE PROVES PAST' re: information provided?

How is it possible this 'Q' entity, an entity who began by merely asking questions on 4ch/8ch, was able to ………(fill in the blank).

Think logically.

People are craving TRUTH.

People are craving TRANSPARENCY.

People are craving EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW.

People are craving GOOD.

People are craving RIGHT.

People are craving TRUE FREEDOM.

People are craving SAFETY & SECURITY.

People are craving ………..(fill in the blank).

PROOFS NEGATE FALSEHOOD/CONSPIRACY ATTACKS.

Those who attack have an agenda or remain plugged into the biggest disinformation campaign to be ever witnessed.

———————————-

Ask yourself, why are 'Liberals' always angry?

Why do they curse?

Why do they slander (push fake labels > racist, sexist, …ist etc.)?

Why do they create 'emotional outbursts' when challenged?

Why are they violent?

Why do they form mobs (packs)?

Why are they incapable of listening to the other side (fascist)?

When you don't have facts to support your arguments (present logical reasoning), you must resort to the above tactics.

The NARRATIVE is designed to keep people in a constant state of 'FEAR' thereby forcing 'ANGER', 'RAGE', 'VIOLENCE'.

Emotionally unstable people are easier to CONTROL.

They want you DIVIDED.

DIVIDED BY RACE.

DIVIDED BY CLASS.

DIVIDED BY RELIGION.

DIVIDED BY POLITICAL AFFILIATION.

DIVIDED AS HUMAN BEINGS.

DIVIDED you are WEAK.

TOGETHER you are STRONG.

WHEN YOU ARE STRONG YOU THINK FOR YOURSELF.

WHEN YOU ARE STRONG YOU CHALLENGE WHAT YOU ARE TOLD TO BELIEVE.

WHEN YOU ARE STRONG YOU ARE AWAKE.

WHEN YOU ARE STRONG YOU ARE NO LONGER CONTROLLED.

……………………

TRUST YOURSELF.

TRUST THAT YOU ARE NOT ALONE.

TRUST THAT THERE ARE GOOD PEOPLE RIGHT BESIDE YOU FIGHTING FOR WHAT WE KNOW TO BE RIGHT.

GOD BLESS YOU ALL.

WHERE WE GO ONE, WE GO ALL!

Q

WKDI25X.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Q_iUW.yye1fxo
Gee, Trump has a close-knit family of kids and grandkids from three different wives and they ALL seem to get along.
Guy can't be too bad to have accomplished just that!
That many people from different moms , with different spouses, with different agendas and yet they all support their DAD.
Doesn't that say something?
Go to Florida and stay at TRump Doral there.
His Hispanic employees , by in large love him and are proud of him.
NYTIMES/CNN/MSNBC types try to say he's anti-semitic but his daughter married an orthodox JEW and she converted to Judaism and she's his favorite child and her Husband is a close adviser.
How does that make him even a little anti-semitic? Sounds like it's exactly the opposite, not to mention he's been honored at a million Jewish events here in NY over the years.
I think you need to rethink your irrational hatred.

Because liberal policies fail. MLK did not dream about welfare or working at Mcdonalds for higher minimum.

Why do affluent Dems avoid the policies they support for the masses? Why is there no public housing in Hillary's neighborhood? Is there a Dem running for President who supports higher taxes on themselves?

Why do the poor fail with EVERY President and every system? Can you tell us any system with ANY leader where bottom 1% will be successful and wont turn the neighborhoods into ghettos?
 
I have a very, very good life.
I’m worried that my grandchildren won’t have as good a life as mine is and has been.
Somebody needs to tell the truth, which is that people like you are so Indoctrinated , you can’t say anything except what you said or something like it, which by definition, means, you already lost the argument.
Sad, really, to go through life like that.
Bull shit, If you cared about the country and your grand kids you wouldn't be defending a lying crooked, pos Filthy Don 24-7. Have a great day !
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Susan and jkoch95
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT