Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
"The United States has undergone a cultural, moral and religious revolution. A militant secularism has arisen in this country. It has always had a hold on the intellectual and academic elites, but in the 1960s it captured the young in the universities and the colleges.
"This is the basis of the great cultural war we're undergoing....We are two countries now. We are two countries morally, culturally, socially, and theologically. Cultural wars do not lend themselves to peaceful co-existence. One side prevails, or the other prevails.
"The truth is that while conservatives won the Cold War with political and economic Communism, we've lost the cultural war with cultural Marxism, which I think has prevailed pretty much in the United States. It is now the dominant culture. Whereas those of us who are traditionalists, we are, if you will, the counterculture."
So states Patrick J. Buchanan in the opening scenes of James Jaeger's new film, Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America. As always, Buchanan is outspoken and splendidly patriotic in his testimony on the present degeneration of our country. Many of us born before the 1960s and its shocking nihilism agree vehemently with him. We were raised in a land far removed philosophically from the America we are cursed with today, and this disturbing fact weighs heavily upon our hearts and minds.
America's Social Collapse
We, who were raised in pre-nihilist America, find most of today's movies, TV programs and literary works hideous and depressing. We cringe at the obsessive sexuality of Hollywood's cinematic pretensions, at its love affair with anti-heroes, and the reprehensible way it so cavalierly saturates its stories with over-the-top violence. We find ourselves aghast at how much boorish mediocrity and phantasmagoric ugliness pulsate through the commercial byways of modern America calling itself "cutting-edge art from the avant-garde." And we wonder what is it that has wrought such decadence -- where once righteous ideals and a heroic sense of life prevailed?
Is there a reason, we lament, why we must endure movies about sniveling Ratso Rizzos instead of dashing Rhett Butlers and plucky Gunga Dins? Why miasma and moroseness now dominate the social stream instead of the spirit of magnanimity and unbridled optimism of our ancestors? Why sweet drug poisons such as "crack " and "Methamphetamine" invade the lives of callow youths in ghetto and country club alike? Why middle class Americans (who once worshiped self-reliance) now shamefully demand more and more entitlement handouts from government? Why our elected leaders in Washington have become despicable quislings slithering around in Machiavellian muck? Why family life and marriage, the very founts of civilization, are treated so shabbily by psycho-babble experts? Why androgyny is so zealously promoted by liberals on every other television show and homosexuality is pawned off as a "Marlboro Cowboy life style?" Why tradition and honor are scorned by professorial elites pontificating endlessly about how America's original moral principles were repressive?
There is indeed a reason why this tragic disintegration of American life's value has swept over the country this past century. It is called "Cultural Marxism." It is not the only reason why our culture is collapsing into decadence, but it is perhaps the most important reason.
Cultures are vast mosaics of human aspirations, loves, needs and fears played out within the context of their time, their geography, their natural wealth, and the vision of their most brilliant thinkers. There are always numerous factors that move a culture toward truth and high-minded freedom or toward fallacy and the dust bin of history. But usually there are one or two of the reasons that are paramount while the others are secondary. In this case, the paramount reason is the deliberate ideology of "Cultural Marxism" that invaded our nation back in the 1930s.
What exactly is this horrific ideology that has brought our way of life to such a sorry denouement, and how did it originate? That is what Jaeger's film is all about; and he paints a riveting portrayal of a great country brought to ruin over an 80 year stretch by patiently sinister minds warped by a Mad Hatter's view of reality.
In 2007, William S. Lind, a brilliant conservative thinker affiliated with the Free Congress Foundation in Washington, wrote an article titled, "Who Stole Our Culture?" In it he outlined what Cultural Marxism was all about, hammering home for the first time to Americans in general what Cultural Marxism had done to America. The article was a political / sociological tour de force because of the exceptional clarity with which Lind explained the ominous goals of the Cultural Marxist theoreticians beginning in the aftermath of World War I in Europe, followed by exportation of their agenda to America in the 1930s.
James Jaeger's film duplicates the brilliance and lucidity of Lind, only with the visual imagery of film. It gives Americans a perceptive explanation as to why our nation is committing insidious suicide under the guise of erecting the false ideal of social egalitarianism.
Americans are being dumbed down to a vulgarian's existence with Orwell's famous reversal of definitions ("Ignorance is Strength, Slavery is Freedom") infecting everything in which we partake. Jaeger's film exposes in spades this heartbreaking destruction of the Republic. The film's power lies in its haunting imagery and conceptual resonance. Thus it offers a wonderful educational tool to spread the word to the populace about how and why we as a people are so apathetically condoning enslavement and decadence. Our most treasured values have been turned upside down in a diabolical, "behind-the-curtain," Marxist orchestration that has taken over our schools, churches, movies, publishers and media in the way gangrene spreads its pustules up the length of a man's legs to invade his body's core where the lungs and heart reside.
Cultural Marxism's Beginning
It all began in the aftermath of World War I. The original theme of Karl Marx in the 19th century was that capitalism had to be destroyed. It was tyrannical and exploitative in nature. Under the guidance of Marxist revolutionaries, the workers of the world could eventually be made to realize this and rise up in revolt. A "collectivist" and "classless" society would then commence in which men and women no longer strived for personal profit, but for communal contribution, out of which they all would receive equal compensation. "From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs" was the mantra that promised the ushering in of a utopia for mankind. Naturally what man's needs constituted were to be determined by the superior thinkers and organizers of society. But the important goal was all-pervasive egalitarianism to be imposed by Marxist theory and the rising up of the workers of the world to confiscate the factors of production, i.e., all property that the capitalists had created.
Unfortunately the only country where this new ideology was able to take hold was in Russia, and there only by means of the most brutal dictatorial methods. Marxism failed to spread to the rest of Europe and the world. The hoped for supporters of the revolution, the allegedly "exploited workers" of the capitalist countries, remained largely indifferent and refused to support the Marxist revolutionaries.
It was at this time around 1920 that several socialist intellectuals in Europe began to rework the theoretical basics of Marx. Naturally they couldn't come to grips with the fact that Marx might have been grossly wrong in his worldview. There had to be some other reason why the revolution had not occurred. That reason was supposedly found by two brilliant Marxist theoreticians, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. They posited that Western civilization, built as it was on the Judeo-Christian religion, had instilled evil values into man -- values of individualism, personal industry, family solidarity, monogamy, private property, patriotism, belief in a Creator God, etc. These values had brainwashed the workers of the world, which kept them from realizing their true destiny, which was to revolt and usher in a classless society. Gramsci and Lukacs insisted that the glorious socialist revolution would be impossible until these Judeo-Christian values had been destroyed. Then the workers would rise up and complete the vision of Marx.
The Frankfurt School
Thus began what Gramsci and Lukacs termed the "long march through the institutions." This meant the institutions of culture (schools, churches, movies, media, etc.), and it meant taking them over with socialist thinkers and sympathizers. Once taken over, they could then impart "true socialist values" to the people and raise new generations to give their loyalties not to God, country, and individualism, but to the State and collectivism. To implement this new direction in Marxism, they established the Frankfurt School in Frankfurt, Germany and benignly named it the Institute for Social Research.
This school of thought grew rapidly amidst the intellectual left, attracting such thinkers as Max Horkeimer, Theodor Adorno, Eric Fromm, Wilhelm Reich, and Herbert Marcuse to advocate its vision. They all offered different slants on just how to promote Gramsci's and Lukacs' goal of a new "cultural Marxism" replacing the old "economic Marxism." But they all basically agreed that the emphasis should not be on galvanizing workers into revolt as the older Leninist revolutionaries had concentrated on. The new emphasis would be on liberating all men and women from the "evil repression" and "tyrannical values" of Judeo-Christian civilization. To bring this about, they designed numerous strategies to discredit and smear the values that had forged and sustained the West for 2,000 years.
"Critical Theory," the brain-child of Max Horkeimer, was the first and most important of these strategies. Under its auspices, every tradition of Western life was to be redefined as "prejudice" and "perversion." And these redefinitions were to be instilled into the social stream via devastating, scholarly criticisms of all values such as the family, marriage, property, individualism, faith in God, etc. These criticisms proved to be quite successful in the aftermath of the world's collapse into the Great Depression, which brought about widespread disillusionment with the traditional capitalist society that had evolved in the West since the Renaissance and discovery of the New World.
The strategic criticisms were soon expanded by demarcating society's members as either "victims" or "oppressors." All who were economically successful were defined as oppressors, and all who were not successful were termed victims. Religious authorities became "witch-doctors." Advocates of different social roles for men and women became "fascists." Corporate heads became "exploiters." Fathers became "patriarchal tyrants." Families became "primitive clans." The stream of criticism was relentless and extremely sophisticated in an intellectual sense. Thus it mesmerized the pundit class who then disseminated the criticisms' fundamental content to the populace at large.
The New Marxism Comes to America
In the 1930s Hitler's rise caused the Frankfurt School to shift its base temporarily from Germany to the United States, where it settled in at Columbia University in New York City. From there it established a coven of collectivists that was to eventually spread its tentacles out to the entire American heartland. After World War II and the defeat of Hitler, most of the Frankfurt School intellectuals returned to Germany, but they left behind a large faction of sympathizers who furthered their strategies in the U.S. throughout the 1950s and into the '60s and '70s. One of the most important of these was philosopher Herbert Marcuse whose 1955 book, Eros and Civilization, promised a new paradise for man when all the trappings of capitalism and traditionalism had been rooted out of society.
Marcuse's next big tome in 1964, One-Dimensional Man, led to the New Left Hippie revolution of the 1960s. The famous Chicago Seven protesters in 1968 (Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, et al), along with radical feminist Angela Davis, were greatly influenced by the vitriol toward American capitalism found in Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man. Yale professor Charles Reich's The Greening of America in 1970 extended the New Left revolt. And earlier lethal contributions, such as Theodor Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality (1950) and Eric Fromm's Escape from Freedom (1941) continued to further seduce Americans into believing that everything they had formerly held to be true about life, morality and justice was terribly wrong.
Thus from the Frankfurt School's acolytes came a vast inundation of viciously destructive intellectual works, that eventually permeated every avenue of our culture to affect all Americans. Bevies of articles in the popular magazines attacked the traditions of American society year after year from 1935 to 1975. Subtly degenerate films such as The Wild Ones, Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice, Midnight Cowboy, Easy Rider, etc. invaded the traditional world of "straight Americans" to introduce them to the alluring joys of violence, mind-bending drugs, wife-swapping, secularism, materialism, relativism, and other new "liberating life choices." College courses proliferated about the "vast injustices" of capitalism and the "aristocratic inhumanity" of the Founding Fathers.
Herbert Marcuse heaped malevolent diatribes relentlessly upon the 1960s youth: "The West," he railed, "is guilty of genocidal crimes against every civilization and culture it has encountered. American and Western Civilization are the world's greatest repositories of racism, sexism, nativism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, fascism, and narcissism. American society is oppressive, evil, and undeserving of loyalty."
George Lukacs announced to gullible minds everywhere: "I see the revolution and destruction of society as the only solution. A world-wide overturning of values cannot take place without annihilation of the old values and a creation of new ones."
Did all this "critical devastation" come about conspiratorially? In a sense, yes, because it was behind-the-curtain so to speak. It was orchestrated from a small but fervent coterie of revolutionaries that lived in the thinker / writer world, the world of the Ivory Tower. But it was not precisely (or truly) conspiratorial because the term "conspiracy" means something secret and illegal; and the revolutionary goals of the Cultural Marxists were not exactly secret. They openly published books that furthered their goals. Yet their goals of destruction were secret in the sense that they were not divulged in full to the reading audience that flocked to their books. Were their goals illegal? Not in the sense of official law in the courts of mankind, but such goals were certainly illicit in the sense of natural law fashioned by Nature's God and decipherable by reason. So I think it is fair to say that the advocates of Cultural Marxism were engaging conspiratorially, just not the kind of conspiracy that prosecutors challenge in a courtroom.
User Friendly Marxism
The end result of all this is that from 1920 to 1960, the revolution of Karl Marx was thoroughly redesigned and re-launched. As Jaeger's film puts it, the Frankfurt School revolutionaries have given us "user friendly Marxism" instead of the draconian Gulag version of the USSR. This new user friendly version took over the intellectual youth of the 1960s and turned them upside down value-wise. These intellectuals now control and administer our schools, media, courts, and legislatures. The cultural Marxists adopted Nietzsche's "transvaluation of all values," in which the Mad Hatter's world is instituted. Everything that previously was an evil now becomes a virtue while all the old virtues become evils. Individualism, self-reliance, property, profit, family, traditional marriage, fidelity to spouse, strength of will, personal honor, rising through merit -- all these integral pillars of our civilization become distinctive evils that oppress us as humans. They must be rooted out of our existence.
This was the purpose of the ideology of Cultural Marxism -- to root out the fundamentals of Judeo-Christian civilization and the splendid Camelot of Freedom it had created in America from 1776 to 1913. What is horrifying is that it has been triumphant. Marx has not buried us in an economic sense as Khrushchev boasted he would; but Marx has buried us in a cultural sense as Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs planned over 80 years ago. James Jaeger's film demonstrates this in lucid fashion that is at once fascinating and abhorrent.
Can the traditional, Americanist vision that the Founding Fathers forged from the works of Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, and Jefferson be saved? If it is to be saved, a very valuable tool for such salvation will be this elucidative film. It is a marvelous instrument to put into the hands of a teenager just entering college, or to show to apathetic neighbors who just can't seem to understand why modernity is in such shambles. It is the kind of film that shakes one up. It sends lightning bolts of insight into the viewer's mind.
In addition to Patrick Buchanan, also featured are other conservative / libertarian stalwarts of the socio-political scene in America such as Congressman Ron Paul, G. Edward Griffin, Edwin Vieira, and Ted Baehr. You can buy the video at: http://www.CulturalMarxism.org. James Jaeger's Matrixx Entertainment Corp., the producer of the film, has been engaged in fighting collectivism in America for many years now by taking on the liberals in Hollywood, in Washington, and on Wall Street.
The struggle patriots now face is titanic. It will require a Herculean effort to win, and the struggle is not relegated solely to Americans. All those throughout the West who love freedom and the resplendent values upon which it stands are inescapably drawn into this conflict whether they realize it or not. We are, all of us, confronted with a dreadful future because of the immense evil and falsity of past thinkers such as Marx, Lenin, Gramsci, and Lukacs. The only alternative to engaging their progeny in battle is to let these destroyers of our culture win by default -- which is utterly unacceptable.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America is a powerful arrow in the quiver of liberty. It needs to be viewed by patriots everywhere and then shared with friends and neighbors throughout one's circle of influence.
Posted by JWatkins on 02/18/13 08:10 PM
Here's an outstanding resource on Cultural Marxism:
Click to view link
Probably the best on the net!
Posted by vinadam on 09/25/12 11:12 AM
Where in the UK can I buy a copy of the 98 minute director's cut dvd called 'Culltural Marxism: The Corruption of America'?
I've tried Amazon but they don't have it.
Anyone have any suggestions?
Posted by oldman67 on 12/20/11 01:34 AM
CULTURAL MARXISM-THE CORRUPTION Aug.30 2011 Excellent 98 minute video on youtube. You may just have to google the above. A must see.
Posted by Draiman Yj on 04/11/11 10:30 PM
Moral and ethical bankruptcy
Americans are finding a grotesque echo in the moral ‒ ethical bankruptcy and worse of a substantial sector of American society.
The "moral depravity" of "the Arabs" who kill innocent civilians. It is more than moral depravity. It is a culture that teaches, educates and breeds hate toward other societies that are not like them as they say "infidels".
There is no way this situation should be handled with kid gloves ‒ when a poison strikes your body, you remove it and destroy it completely, leaving no trace of such poison.
History has shown that these types of atrocities and acts of barbarism have increased in the past half a century and getting worse by the day.
With today's advancement in technology and telecommunications, the world has shrunk, events on the other side of the world affect everybody (like the Japanese Nuclear reactor fallout etc.) it affects our health our economy, brings fear and uncertainty to our lives.
The financial crisis we are facing today is the price we pay for years of neglect and government abuse of power.
Is today's society heading toward annihilation, you be the judge?
The Qur'an 17:104 – states the land belongs to the Jewish people
Every time there is a terrorist act, Israel should vacate an Arab village and raze it.
In most lives, I suppose there comes a time when one has to make a supreme effort that calls for every morsel of more and more endeavor and more than not that effort has to be sustained.
The Truth Is Incendiary
The Truth Is Hotter Than A Pile Of Hot Coals
Posted by Jesse Rice on 01/21/11 01:50 AM
I was Just asking myself these similar questions. More or Less about Americas whereabouts. We are weak, we are fragile.... the only question is when will we break?
Posted by Richard on 08/14/10 03:27 PM
The Poles that survived it call Cultural Marxism and its antecedents by its true name: Zydokomuna ...
Posted by Mike on 08/06/10 12:32 AM
I should have read farther before posting. One question though. If the Rothschilds are not Jewish how come they have put billions into the creation of a Jewish state with their family symbol as it's flag?
Didn't they just fund a huge government complex in Israel a decade or so ago? But no, not Jewish, just bad guys whose banking friends all are 90% Jewish. Did you even read the names of all the people behind our economic collapse? Reads like a Bar Mitzvah guest book.
Posted by Mike on 08/06/10 12:16 AM
I know where they got their funding for all of this and I'm pretty sure the author knows the real forces behind this mess and knows he can't state who they are. Neither can I if I want this comment to be posted.
Posted by Coconut on 08/02/10 09:33 AM
very enlightening article and makes sense, hope there is a follow-up article how to unwind or reverse what the marxist have done.
Posted by Leonardo Pisano on 08/01/10 05:59 PM
@ Peter J. Ritter
"Would you care to give an example of feedback that has absolutely nothing to do with the article contents. Are you talking in general or specifically regarding this topic here? "
Sorry for my late response. I was commenting on the comments, not on the topic directly. Indeed talking in general; I felt the urge to support Newbman as I understand (and endorse) his point. Just want the DB to grow in readers as their voice is imho essential for a freer world and to warn against the manipulative PE. A critical mass is what we need to be able to change something " hopefully. Newbman responded to Lila in a way I couldn't say better myself. I trust I didn't sound as someone in favor of censoring/editing comments.
Posted by Bill Maniaci on 07/31/10 11:04 PM
In response to: James Finsterwald on 7/27/2010 10:40:11 PM
What kind of a name is "FINSTERWALD"???
If you add an "E" to the end, it becomes Finsterwalde. It is obviously an Americanized German surname. The only thing of note that comes to mind when I hear the name Finsterwalde is the Finsterwalde (Germany) Concentration Camp where the Nazis exterminated political prisoners (mostly Polish and Polish Jews) during WWII.
What I hear when I read James Finsterwalds comments regarding Jews is the bombastic ranting of a closet Nazi whose unabashed hatred of the Jewish people remains steadfast and loyal to Adolph Hitler. Of course, he dare not say such a thing because he would undoubtedly be removed from this forum.
Mister Finsterwaldes subtly disguised diatribe in support of Nazi ideology...i.e. "...they are all Jews, no matter how they disguise themselves" (a Jew is a Jew is a Jew! It is as simple as that).
Finsterwalde would have us believe that all Jews are to blame for everything that has gone wrong in the world past, present and future. Sounds just like Paul Joseph Goebbels speaking " doesn't it? All too subtle propaganda but dangerous propaganda just the same. You know the drill...If you repeat it often enough, people will believe anything. That is what the closet Jew haters are hoping to accomplish. After all, it has been tried and been successful against us for thousands of years.
Finsterwalde said "The super rich Jews and their minions are the problem, and they alone." What about the super rich Catholics...the Catholic Church; The Ted Turners, but wait, let's get down to facts. I suggest that everyone read this book: The Jewish Phenomenon: Seven Keys to the Enduring Wealth of a People by Steven Silbiger, 2000. You can find an excellent review and condensation written by Matthew Nuenke at this URL: Click to view link~neoeugenics/poj.htm.
Look at the condensation for a better understanding of what Mr. Finsterwalde and his ilk are attempting to accomplish with their thinly veiled poisonous prose.
Before you blame the Jews for being who we are, why not look at who the real movers and shakers in this World of ours really are? We Jews comprise about 35% " of the richest individuals on our Planet. What say you about the influence of the other 65%...Good or Evildoers? Who influences our daily lives in a positive and in a negative way? Is BP a Jewish consortium? What about our friends the Saudi Royal Family...Our friends ' good for America?
On the other hand, Mr. Finsterwalde, you are most likely a proponent of the material published in a web site entitled "Wake Up America...Jews, Judaism and America" which may be found here: Click to view link
If you love conspiracy theories and love to blame someone else for your woes then the last referenced site is just your cup of tea. You can extrapolate what you can gleefully call the "Jewish Conspiracy". You might even want to call it "The Jewish Problem" like the Nazis did when they needed a scapegoat to blame and a group upon which they build nationalism by hate.
One last thought...Since Europe either killed off or exiled 98% of its Jewish population, where is Europe today? Who are their Doctors, Economists, Professors, and Scientists? By contrast, look at Israel. Israel is an oasis in the desert, a vibrant, self-sufficient Jewish State that since its creation has been recognized for more advances and discoveries in medicine, science, and agriculture, than the rest of the world combined.
Here are a few statistics for you to chew on:
Nobel Prize Winners worldwide between 1901 and 2009
At least 180 Jews and persons of half- or three-quarters-Jewish ancestry have been awarded the Nobel Prize accounting for 22% of all individual recipients worldwide between 1901 and 2009, and constituting 36% of all US recipients during the same period. In the research fields of Chemistry, Economics, Physics, and Physiology/Medicine, the corresponding world and U.S. percentages are 27% and 39%, respectively. Among women laureates in the four research fields, the Jewish percentages (world and US) are 38% and 50%, respectively (Jews currently make up approximately 0.25% of the world's population and 2% of the US population.)
Chemistry (31 prize winners, 20% of world total, 28% of US total)
Economics (27 prize winners, 42% of world total, 56% of US total)
Literature (13 prize winners, 12% of world total, 27% of US total)
Peace (9 prize winners, 9% of world total, 10% of US total)4
Physics (47 prize winners, 25% of world total, 36% of US total)
Physiology or Medicine (53 prize winners, 27% of world total, 40% of US total)
See also data on "other Nobels":
Jewish Recipients of the Kyoto Prize (25% of recipients)
Jewish Recipients of the Wolf Foundation Prize (34% of recipients)
Jewish Recipients of the US National Medal of Science (38% of recipients)
(Above information available at: Click to view link
In closing, I want to say that I am proud to be Jewish. I am not a rich man, just a middle class citizen who worked all of my life to support my Family. I spent fourteen years active duty in the United States Army and am a retired police officer. I am tired of being categorized because I am a Jew. If nothing else, I am pragmatic and as such, have schooled my children to expect to face hatred in this world just because they are Jewish. People like you perpetuate the bias and hatred. It is also because of you that we must excel at everything we do. So you see, if we really are as rich and influential as you say we are, you have yourself to blame.
Posted by PHC on 07/31/10 07:46 AM
All basically true, but incomplete. Mostly, the author forgets to include the actions of the financial elite, creation of the FED just before WW1, and on goes the rest of the story.
When you steal people's effort and just reward (how else can you call the debasing of the US Dollar which is now worth 3% of what it was worth a century ago) then of course the setting is good for a cultural revolution based on abandoning all that was good up to now and replacing it by its opposite.
The bankers are the ones which brought us a century of blood sweat and tears through the financing of countless wars, with the corrupt help of the politicians in power. On a turf like that, it is easy to implement the destructive values of feminism, with innumerable consequences that are flourishing before our eyes. In the end, the strategy is two-fold, cultural AND financial/economical.
In that sense, I believe that we are facing something that was well planned and can be loosely called a conspiracy.
Posted by John Danforth on 07/30/10 08:21 AM
I liked Frank Nova's second point, above.
Most people are not taught to double-check their premises whenever an argument that appeals to emotion is presented. Those who seek to inculcate values into others know full well that an emotional appeal will short-circuit logic in the vast majority of their audience, if the material is artfully presented. This is how people are duped into supporting morally perverted absurdities. What's interesting about this is that people become convinced by some powerful propaganda, then begin using their reasoning faculty to justify the contradictions that arise. They accept a faulty premise, then go from there. This is reinforced from birth by the people and culture around them. Like a fish born into water, they are raised in an environment where all the respectable people compartmentalize their thinking, so that perhaps physical laws might rule how their plumbing works, but some other-worldly being has magical powers over everything else. The inclination to swim upstream against powerful, widely accepted memes is therefore automatically restricted to a few, who can be easily dealt with or simply ignored.
Frank's third point is well stated and seductive, however I think perhaps the phenomenon he illustrates might be more related to the proclivity of people to try to chain Those Who Know More than they do. The Machiavellian Princes have always capitalized on the fear and distrust of the common man towards those who have mastery over the mysteries of the universe, furnishing them with an endless stream of justifications for why they should be controlled with every kind of device they can imagine. Thus it has always been true that it is not mastery over nature that allows one to live a life of leisure and ease, but mastery over the men who do know the secrets of nature. It is much easier to learn the latter, and it comes naturally to those who are not overly concerned with matters of morality and justice, except when it is necessary to undermine them for their followers (and victims!) in pursuit of their goal.
I believe this is more fundamental, and I say this because modern technology is actually easier to learn than the hard-won early advances in technology. Those first locomotives that seem easy to understand once built were easily conceived centuries earlier, but were only a pipe dream until the magic of metallurgy was teased out of nature, a monumental advance in alchemy consisting of subtleties in arcane recipes. A tablet computer is possible because of the simplification in circuit design and miniaturization made possible by solid state electronics. Anyone who has ever tried to design a radio using tubes knows a deep respect for those who mastered the mathematics and paved the way for those who followed. A tube circuit never operates on first approximations, second and third-order effects always foil the first attempt at a design because everything affects everything else in ways unimagined in the first attempt. My point is, technology was harder and more expensive in the old days, both to learn and to practice.
I think the more fundamental point is that even then, people were more likely to try to pass regulations on TV repairmen than they were to leap into the business and reap some of the obscene profits they imagined him to be extorting from them. Because it's just simpler to come up with a justification for using the force of the mob than it is to learn the hard math.
Posted by Peter J. Ritter on 07/28/10 11:20 PM
There will always be split opinions about all topics "Jewish". That is somewhat strange, because one can freely discuss what other religions/races do or don't do. But Jews, having a disproportionately large influence in the media, have succeded in making discussions about the topic almost taboo and certainly politically incorrect.
However, should that propel an open-minded forum to impose censorship? If other religions/races can be freely discussed, why not Jews? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And since they are at the center of some controversy, it seems justified to explore the topic, as long as open vitriol or incitement to violence are avoided.
Those who claim irrelevance of the Jewish issue in the Frankfurt School topic (certain others as well) should be reminded of what a witty reader said: leaving the Jewish identity issue out of the topic is like telling the story of Black Beauty without saying that he is a horse.
If censorship or filtering are employed, there is always the possibility that a site deteriorates into a politically correct Milquetoast forum, bereft of ability to pry loose secrets that certain people in power would rather keep hidden. Holier than thou calls of those supporting censorship/filtering therefore may contain an element/possibility of being self-serving or partisan.
But since we live in the information age and not in the age of absolutist rulers, the correct path for a site appears to be very clear.
Posted by Lila Rajiva on 07/28/10 06:16 PM
Well, I see your point. Maybe DB could create a filter that would send all posts and comments dealing with this subject to a different thread... Hmmm Maybe I should try that with a couple of commenters I've had. Thanks
Posted by Clayton on 07/28/10 04:51 PM
This post is my attempt to implement the instructions from Jeannnie and Brrrrt to post using MS Word.
Posted by Black Eagle on 07/28/10 02:10 PM
While the general thrust of this article is valid, there are smaller errors of fact within it that should be addressed. For example, Wilhelm Reich was a Marxist only until around 1932, when his book "Mass Psychology of Fascism" criticized both the Nazis as "black fascist" and Communists as "red fascist" -- he declared both were dangerous power-mongers. This got him on the death lists of both, and he fled to the USA where he was well-known for being a vocal anti-communist.
He was viciously attacked in the left-wing press while in the USA. He was never associated with the Frankfurt School in any manner whatsoever, and had no theoretical or practical agreements with the ideas of Marcuse or Fromm.
He was from a Jewish background, and while basically secular in outlook wrote a book titled "The Murder of Christ". He was highly critical of what he called phoney liberalism. And so on.
Posted by Newbman on 07/28/10 12:28 PM
Leonardo hit on what I was talking about. I am not afraid of nuttiness or discussing the roles of religious values/traditions in society, I am concerned that dignifying nuttiness like "Oh come on, you are just avoiding the fact that all the people who cause these problems are Jews" allows such garbage and subsequent rebuttal to overwhelm the discussion.
There is only so much time in the day and people have only so much attention to give to these issues " it would be in all our best interest if such demonstrably bigoted and off-topic discussion were not allowed to overwhelm and dilute the comments section into pointlessness.
One system that would be very helpful though perhaps difficult to implement is a "adds/detracts to/from discussion" flagging system with a threshold so "it's all the Jews fault" posts could be greyed out unless people actually want to read them.
I don't worry that the people here will be convinced by the bigots and nutballs, I worry that the smart people here will waste their time refuting arguments that should get no attention in the first place.
Don't tell me you spend your day seriously debating crazy street preachers. Also I worry that people I send here to read the articles and comments will think I meant to recommend a site that takes seriously some sort of Zionist/Satanic conspiracy to rule the world, and think I may be some secret Nazi.
If that makes me fearful, so be it. I think it is detrimental to the cause of helping spread knowledge to have this site and/or myself associated with such views.
Much like, as perhaps has been noted here before, Austrian economic discussion is often written off because it appears on sites that give the same attention to aliens/UFOs/chemtrails/colloidal silver generators/Israel did 9/11/etc... you all know the list of the various conspiracy theories that are deliberately associated with truth to conflate and discredit them in the eyes of the casual interested party.
Posted by Peter J. Ritter on 07/28/10 08:43 AM
To Leonardo Pisano
Would you care to give an example of feedback that has absolutely nothing to do with the article contents. Are you talking in general or specifically regarding this topic here?
Posted by Leonardo Pisano on 07/28/10 08:23 AM
I probably didn't express myself well. What you say is obvious to me, and I guess to anyone. The point is whether to allow as administrator discussions that have absolutely nothing to do with the article contents. As a "laissez faire" advocate I am not easily bothered, but in these crazy times of needing 25 hours/day to-the-point and relevant posts help to maintain focus and acquire a large community of readers. Ultimately, we want people to resist the manipulations by the PE and act. For this we need a critical mass of readers and anything that hampers this goal deserves some thinking.
I full acknowledge that by removing posts the DB would enter slippery ground, but sometimes the higher goal is more important. Hence my suggestion to add something to the "rules" " how appalling rules may be for most libertarians. Something like (behind "... or be removed."): "To remain focus feedbackers are encouraged to post comments relevant to the article contents at hand. In extreme cases off-topic feedback may be removed, or moved to another discussion thead." [Needs editing by a native English speaker]
But let's not waste our breath over this too much. If the DB doesn't change what they do now, I will keep coming. However, should cluttering by off-topic comments intensively increase, something like the suggested text might be appropriate imho.