Titus Livius
The state is suffering from two opposite vices, avarice and luxury; two plagues which...have been the ruin of every empire
Chinese Proverb
Enjoy yourself. It's later than you think.
Who Stole our Culture?
by Paul Eisen
Friday, July 13th, 2012
This column is an excerpt from Dr. Ted Baehr and Pat Boone’s new book “The Culture-wise Family: Upholding Christian Values in a Mass Media World.” In the book, entertainment expert Dr. Ted Baehr and legendary musician Pat Boone urge people to make wise choices for themselves and their families so they can protect their children from toxic messages in the culture.
The following is Chapter 10, written by historian Williams S. Lind.
Sometime during the last half-century, someone stole our culture. Just 50 years ago, in the 1950s, America was a great place. It was safe. It was decent. Children got good educations in the public schools. Even blue-collar fathers brought home middle-class incomes, so moms could stay home with the kids. Television shows reflected sound, traditional values.
Where did it all go? How did that America become the sleazy, decadent place we live in today – so different that those who grew up prior to the ’60s feel like it’s a foreign country? Did it just “happen”?
It didn’t just “happen.” In fact, a deliberate agenda was followed to steal our culture and leave a new and very different one in its place. The story of how and why is one of the most important parts of our nation’s history – and it is a story almost no one knows. The people behind it wanted it that way.
What happened, in short, is that America’s traditional culture, which had grown up over generations from our Western, Judeo-Christian roots, was swept aside by an ideology. We know that ideology best as “political correctness” or “multi-culturalism.” It really is cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms in an effort that goes back not to the 1960s, but to World War I. Incredible as it may seem, just as the old economic Marxism of the Soviet Union has faded away, a new cultural Marxism has become the ruling ideology of America’s elites. The No. 1 goal of that cultural Marxism, since its creation, has been the destruction of Western culture and the Christian religion.
To understand anything, we have to know its history. To understand who stole our culture, we need to take a look at the history of “political correctness.”
Early Marxist theory
Before World War I, Marxist theory said that if Europe ever erupted in war, the working classes in every European country would rise in revolt, overthrow their governments and create a new Communist Europe. But when war broke out in the summer of 1914, that didn’t happen. Instead, the workers in every European country lined up by the millions to fight their country’s enemies. Finally, in 1917, a Communist revolution did occur, in Russia. But attempts to spread that revolution to other countries failed because the workers did not support it.
After World War I ended in 1918, Marxist theorists had to ask themselves the question: What went wrong? As good Marxists, they could not admit Marxist theory had been incorrect. Instead, two leading Marxist intellectuals, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary (Lukacs was considered the most brilliant Marxist thinker since Marx himself) independently came up with the same answer. They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interests, that a Communist revolution was impossible in the West, until both could be destroyed. That objective, established as cultural Marxism’s goal right at the beginning, has never changed.
A new strategy
Gramsci famously laid out a strategy for destroying Christianity and Western culture, one that has proven all too successful. Instead of calling for a Communist revolution up front, as in Russia, he said Marxists in the West should take political power last, after a “long march through the institutions” – the schools, the media, even the churches, every institution that could influence the culture. That “long march through the institutions” is what America has experienced, especially since the 1960s. Fortunately, Mussolini recognized the danger Gramsci posed and jailed him. His influence remained small until the 1960s, when his works, especially the “Prison Notebooks,” were rediscovered.
Georg Lukacs proved more influential. In 1918, he became deputy commissar for culture in the short-lived Bela Kun Bolshevik regime in Hungary. There, asking, “Who will save us from Western civilization?” he instituted what he called “cultural terrorism.” One of its main components was introducing sex education into Hungarian schools. Lukacs realized that if he could destroy the country’s traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying its traditional culture and Christian faith.
Far from rallying to Lukacs’ “cultural terrorism,” the Hungarian working class was so outraged by it that when Romania invaded Hungary, the workers would not fight for the Bela Kun government, and it fell. Lukacs disappeared, but not for long. In 1923, he turned up at a “Marxist Study Week” in Germany, a program sponsored by a young Marxist named Felix Weil who had inherited millions. Weil and the others who attended that study week were fascinated by Lukacs’ cultural perspective on Marxism.
The Frankfurt School
Weil responded by using some of his money to set up a new think tank at Frankfurt University in Frankfurt, Germany. Originally it was to be called the “Institute for Marxism.” But the cultural Marxists realized they could be far more effective if they concealed their real nature and objectives. They convinced Weil to give the new institute a neutral-sounding name, the “Institute for Social Research.” Soon known simply as the “Frankfurt School,” the Institute for Social Research would become the place where political correctness, as we now know it, was developed. The basic answer to the question “Who stole our culture?” is the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School.
At first, the Institute worked mainly on conventional Marxist issues such as the labor movement. But in 1930, that changed dramatically. That year, the Institute was taken over by a new director, a brilliant young Marxist intellectual named Max Horkheimer. Horkheimer had been strongly influenced by Georg Lukacs. He immediately set to work to turn the Frankfurt School into the place where Lukacs’ pioneering work on cultural Marxism could be developed further into a full-blown ideology.
To that end, he brought some new members into the Frankfurt School. Perhaps the most important was Theodor Adorno, who would become Horkheimer’s most creative collaborator. Other new members included two psychologists, Eric Fromm and Wilhelm Reich, who were noted promoters of feminism and matriarchy, and a young graduate student named Herbert Marcuse.
Advances in cultural Marxism
With the help of this new blood, Horkheimer made three major advances in the development of cultural Marxism. First, he broke with Marx’s view that culture was merely part of society’s “superstructure,” which was determined by economic factors. He said that on the contrary, culture was an independent and very important factor in shaping a society.
Second, again contrary to Marx, he announced that in the future, the working class would not be the agent of revolution. He left open the question of who would play that role – a question Marcuse answered in the 1950s.
Third, Horkheimer and the other Frankfurt School members decided that the key to destroying Western culture was to cross Marx with Freud. They argued that just as workers were oppressed under capitalism, so under Western culture, everyone lived in a constant state of psychological repression. “Liberating” everyone from that repression became one of cultural Marxism’s main goals. Even more important, they realized that psychology offered them a far more powerful tool than philosophy for destroying Western culture: psychological conditioning.
Today, when Hollywood’s cultural Marxists want to “normalize” something like homosexuality (thus “liberating” us from “repression”), they put on television show after television show where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual. That is how psychological conditioning works; people absorb the lessons the cultural Marxists want them to learn without even knowing they are being taught.
The Frankfurt School was well on the way to creating political correctness. Then suddenly, fate intervened. In 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power in Germany, where the Frankfurt School was located. Since the Frankfurt School was Marxist, and the Nazis hated Marxism, and since almost all its members were Jewish, it decided to leave Germany. In 1934, the Frankfurt School, including its leading members from Germany, was re-established in New York City with help from Columbia University. Soon, its focus shifted from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to doing so in the United States. It would prove all too successful.
New developments
Taking advantage of American hospitality, the Frankfurt School soon resumed its intellectual work to create cultural Marxism. To its earlier achievements in Germany, it added these new developments.
Critical Theory
To serve its purpose of “negating” Western culture, the Frankfurt School developed a powerful tool it called “Critical Theory.” What was the theory? The theory was to criticize. By subjecting every traditional institution, starting with family, to endless, unremitting criticism (the Frankfurt School was careful never to define what it was for, only what it was against), it hoped to bring them down. Critical Theory is the basis for the “studies” departments that now inhabit American colleges and universities. Not surprisingly, those departments are the home turf of academic political correctness.
Studies in prejudice
The Frankfurt School sought to define traditional attitudes on every issue as “prejudice” in a series of academic studies that culminated in Adorno’s immensely influential book, “The Authoritarian Personality,” published in 1950. They invented a bogus “F-scale” that purported to tie traditional beliefs on sexual morals, relations between men and women and questions touching on the family to support for fascism. Today, the favorite term the politically correct use for anyone who disagrees with them is “fascist.”
Domination
The Frankfurt School again departed from orthodox Marxism, which argued that all of history was determined by who owned the means of production. Instead, they said history was determined by which groups, defined as men, women, races, religions, etc., had power or “dominance” over other groups. Certain groups, especially white males, were labeled “oppressors,” while other groups were defined as “victims.” Victims were automatically good, oppressors bad, just by what group they came from, regardless of individual behavior.
Though Marxists, the members of the Frankfurt School also drew from Nietzsche (someone else they admired for his defiance of traditional morals was the Marquis de Sade). They incorporated into their cultural Marxism what Nietzsche called the “transvaluation of all values.” What that means, in plain English, is that all the old sins become virtues, and all the old virtues become sins. Homosexuality is a fine and good thing, but anyone who thinks men and women should have different social roles is an evil “fascist.” That is what political correctness now teaches children in public schools all across America. (The Frankfurt School wrote about American public education. It said it did not matter if school children learned any skills or any facts. All that mattered was that they graduate from the schools with the right “attitudes” on certain questions.)
Media and entertainment
Led by Adorno, the Frankfurt School initially opposed the culture industry, which they thought “commodified” culture. Then, they started to listen to Walter Benjamin, a close friend of Horkheimer and Adorno, who argued that cultural Marxism could make powerful use of tools like radio, film and later television to psychologically condition the public. Benjamin’s view prevailed, and Horkheimer and Adorno spent the World War II years in Hollywood. It is no accident that the entertainment industry is now cultural Marxism’s most powerful weapon.
The growth of Marxism in the United States
After World War II and the defeat of the Nazis, Horkheimer, Adorno and most of the other members of the Frankfurt School returned to Germany, where the Institute re-established itself in Frankfurt with the help of the American occupation authorities. Cultural Marxism in time became the unofficial but all-pervasive ideology of the Federal Republic of Germany.
But hell had not forgotten the United States. Herbert Marcuse remained here, and he set about translating the very difficult academic writings of other members of the Frankfurt School into simpler terms Americans could easily grasp. His book “Eros and Civilization” used the Frankfurt School’s crossing of Marx with Freud to argue that if we would only “liberate non-procreative eros” through “polymorphous perversity,” we could create a new paradise where there would be only play and no work. “Eros and Civilization” became one of the main texts of the New Left in the 1960s.
Marcuse also widened the Frankfurt School’s intellectual work. In the early 1930s, Horkheimer had left open the question of who would replace the working class as the agent of Marxist revolution. In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question, saying it would be a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women and homosexuals – the core of the student rebellion of the 1960s, and the sacred “victims groups” of political correctness today. Marcuse further took one of political correctness’s favorite words, “tolerance,” and gave it a new meaning. He defined “liberating tolerance” as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the left, and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the right. When you hear the cultural Marxists today call for “tolerance,” they mean Marcuse’s “liberating tolerance” (just as when they call for “diversity,” they mean uniformity of belief in their ideology).
The student rebellion of the 1960s, driven largely by opposition to the draft for the Vietnam War, gave Marcuse a historic opportunity. As perhaps its most famous “guru,” he injected the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation. Of course, they did not understand what it really was. As was true from the Institute’s beginning, Marcuse and the few other people “in the know” did not advertise that political correctness and multi-culturalism were a form of Marxism. But the effect was devastating: a whole generation of Americans, especially the university-educated elite, absorbed cultural Marxism as their own, accepting a poisonous ideology that sought to destroy America’s traditional culture and Christian faith. That generation, which runs every elite institution in America, now wages a ceaseless war on all traditional beliefs and institutions. They have largely won that war. Most of America’s traditional culture lies in ruins.
A counter-strategy
Now you know who stole our culture. The question is, what are we, as Christians and as cultural conservatives, going to do about it?
We can choose between two strategies. The first is to try to retake the existing institutions – the public schools, the universities, the media, the entertainment industry and most of the mainline churches – from the cultural Marxists. They expect us to try to do that, they are ready for it, and we would find ourselves, with but small voice and few resources compared to theirs, making a frontal assault against prepared defensive positions. Any soldier can tell you what that almost always leads to: defeat.
There is another, more promising strategy. We can separate ourselves and our families from the institutions the cultural Marxists control and build new institutions for ourselves, institutions that reflect and will help us recover our traditional Western culture.
Several years ago, my colleague Paul Weyrich wrote an open letter to the conservative movement suggesting this strategy. While most other conservative (really Republican) leaders demurred, his letter resonated powerfully with grass-roots conservatives. Many of them are already part of a movement to secede from the corrupt, dominant culture and create parallel institutions: the homeschooling movement. Similar movements are beginning to offer sound alternatives in other aspects of life, including movements to promote small, often organic family farms and to develop community markets for those farms’ products. If Brave New World’s motto is “Think globally, act locally,” ours should be “Think locally, act locally.”
Thus, our strategy for undoing what cultural Marxism has done to America has a certain parallel to its own strategy, as Gramsci laid it out so long ago. Gramsci called for Marxists to undertake a “long march through the institutions.” Our counter-strategy would be a long march to create our own institutions. It will not happen quickly, or easily. It will be the work of generations – as was theirs. They were patient, because they knew the “inevitable forces of history” were on their side. Can we not be equally patient, and persevering, knowing that the Maker of history is on ours?
——————————————————————————–
William S. Lind has a B.A. in History from Dartmouth College and an M.A., also in History, from Princeton University. He serves as director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism of the Free Congress Foundation in Washington, D.C., and as a vestryman at St. James Anglican Church in his hometown of Cleveland, Ohio.
Posted by Paul Eisen
on July 13, 2012. Filed under Culture,Ideology.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
48 Responses to Who Stole our Culture?
You must be logged in to post a comment Login
Blake
July 13, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Mirroring Germany in the 30′s. History repeating.
Paul Eisen
July 13, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Absolutely. And Spain in the 15C and England in the 14C and Russia in the 19C and on and on and on…
pgg804
July 13, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Very interesting article Paul.
Ariadna Theokopoulos
July 13, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Very interesting post indeed. Thanks, Paul.
The 50s in the US were indeed golden years. Washing machines were available already. Pat Boon still had a good head of hair and was croning seductively but decorously (he is a devout Christian!). The GI Bill had allowed more Americans to go to college than ever before: a middle class was rising and growing. It was good to be American: you were clean, good looking, better educated. And moral too.
Blacks (not really American if you sop to think about it) knew their place and behaved properly and they were also extremely useful for science (see the Tuskegee experiments in Alabama).
It was not just good to be American, it was noble because our culture had not been corrupted. We still held high those judeo-christian values, which is why we tried to help other nations as much as possible to adopt them as well:
–Eisenhower ordered Operation Ajax to topple Mossadegh and correct the diastrous misperception of Iranians of what democracy is all about
– We sided with Israel, holder of the same values–Israel had just been created and was constantly threatened by terrorists all over its historical land, as you saw yourself when you visited, Paul (Deir Yassin)
– We tried to help the Koreans (war) at great loss to ourselves (and a few million Koreans) to stop the advance of godless communism
– Tried to help Egypt (coup d’etat)
– Same as above for Guatemala
–Same for Haiti, Panama, Honduras, the Dominican Republic
–Same for Laos
Yes, the 50s were good, moral and luminous years and busy, very busy.
What happened? Who stole our culture?
Paul Eisen
July 13, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Traditional values don’t have to be associated with racism etc., do they?
Could not America have retained some of the values to which the author referred and still corrected those things to which you refer?
Ariadna Theokopoulos
July 13, 2012 at 5:46 pm
I can’t answer that, Paul, until you name those values.
I scrolled back and found: “safe,” “decent” and “mom stayed home with the kids”
Is that what you mean?
Paul Eisen
July 13, 2012 at 6:04 pm
Yes, thngs like that though it could well be “Mom or dad stayed home with the kids”
Ariadna Theokopoulos
July 13, 2012 at 6:21 pm
I am not bothered at all by mom staying home, except that now she can’t afford to, even if dad is still working.
Paul Eisen
July 13, 2012 at 7:11 pm
That’s certainly true
pgg804
July 14, 2012 at 8:29 am
I agree. Traditional values don’t have to be associated with racism, etc. Going to church for Easter or saying “Merry Christmas” to your neighbor in December didn’t cause racism, but those traditions have been purposefully eliminated from life. In the case of saying “Merry Christmas”, we are told its offensive to some people. Personally, I find AIPAC offensive, but theirs nothing I’ve been able to do about it so far.
Although I’m not religious (or Catholic), I used to associate the Christian Church with doing good and helping those that need help (I still do), but our media has done its best to portray the church as immoral and corrupt. From the pope who was friendly with the NAZIS to perverted priests, we are constantly told how bad the Catholic church is. But Judaism’s reputation doesn’t seem to have suffered at all, despite the fact the “Jewish state” tortures and murders people on such a large scale.
The USA was the envy of the world in the 1950′s and 1960′s. My parents came here from Europe. One was expelled from her home and the other was looking for a place with more opportunities. They came to the right place. Europe had lay in ruin and was only beginning to recover. The USA had no competition at the time. In the 1960′s our doctor came to our home to treat me when I was ill (my parents had medical care), now I know many people from the middle class (college degree) that like myself don’t even have medical care. Rather than life becoming better for future generations, its becoming worse for many people.
It appears the USA is only capable of allowing talented immigrants into the country (Europeans before and after the war and Asians since the 1980′s), but can’t develop its own talent.
Ariadna Theokopoulos
July 13, 2012 at 3:34 pm
These authors are pessimists. Nobody stole our culture–on the contrary, it was only helped to reach pinnacles of morality it may not have been able to achieve on its own, by people who are “smarter and better at it”
Blake
July 13, 2012 at 4:27 pm
I think all western society’s culture has been stolen. Only America has it far worst then the others.
Blake
July 13, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Oops typo. Worse*, not worst.
Blake
July 13, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Dumbing down of America:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/07/09/pride-in-america-the-stupid/
Jonathon Blakeley
July 13, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Great thought provoking. Cultural Marxism
Jonathon Blakeley
July 13, 2012 at 5:43 pm
The real enemy is not the right as they would like us to believe it is the cultural left, the BBC and their cohorts then.
Ariadna Theokopoulos
July 13, 2012 at 6:12 pm
Paul, I will take a bold leap of imagination and without a shred of evidence, on intuition alone, say that you are possibly suffering from a incurable nostalgia for your lost childhood: secure, surrounded by loving, wise and kind of people who would not hurt a fly. And they were jews.
The world was a wonderful place, full of promise, even the distant lands, like admirable and funny, gimmick-loving America, and certainly Israel, where brave and brawny young pioneers were confronting harsh natural conditions and occasionally hostile ‘neighbors’ to build the land of their millenary dreams. They were brave and beautiful. And they were jews.
Why can’t that world come back? It is real. George Berkeley be damned.
Apologies for any unintentional impertinence
Paul Eisen
July 13, 2012 at 6:16 pm
You may well be right but you still haven’t really addressed the questions posed by the article.
Ariadna Theokopoulos
July 13, 2012 at 6:29 pm
The questions are false. I cannot answer the question “where have all the unicorns gone.”
As an example, just because Doris Day could not be shown in bed with Rock Hudson unless he had one foot on the floor does not mean the 50s had higher/better values or “decency.” The only difference I see is not in the content of those “values” but in their being better dissimulated and behaviors being less “in your face.” There may be something to say in favor of all and I would agree but I would not say it addresses “values”–only their dissimulation.
Paul Eisen
July 13, 2012 at 6:37 pm
You see all the ‘values’ referred to as ‘unicorns’,they never existed, they’re simply day-dreams about things that never were?
Again, is it not possible for good child-care to exist without ridiculous censorship (that is, of course, if it is so ridiculous)?
Ariadna Theokopoulos
July 13, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Not the values, they indeed never existed, but the comfortable life-style that pretended to be based on them did exist for a certain class.
I say “pretended” because that class took no responsibility for the cost associated with it and charged to the rest of society and indeed to other nations, in fact preferred to remain blind to it.
That life-style still exists but, times being what they are, and wealth having been extracted on a monumental scale, its size has been woefully diminished and the members of that class could not progress into the upper crust where those ‘values’ are played behind the secure walls of gated communities, just as the “good public education” is now available only in expensive private schools.
Just as dim echoes of the unwashed with no values who lived in black ghettos penetrated to the former middle class, now the misery and awfulness of the life without ‘values’ of the majority of society is dimly heard by those in clubs where membership costs in excess of $1 mil/year.
Sure there is good child care. All you need is lots of money.
Ariadna Theokopoulos
July 13, 2012 at 6:37 pm
The authors themselves have not even touched the issue of whether a society that condones and even approves the slaughter of millions of Koreans (plus all those in the countries I listed), forbids blacks the use of “white” public facilities, kills them for attempting to vote (as they did in the South all the way to the mid60s) has the right to the incredibly blind effrontery of whining about the beautiful values of the 50s.
And you, Paul, by saying “yes, ok, but aside from racism, couldn’t they have retained some of those traditional values?” are really asking the proverbial question:
“Ok, Mrs Lincoln, but aside from “that,” how did you enjoy the play?”
Paul Eisen
July 13, 2012 at 6:42 pm
So you don’t think good things about the past can be preserved while discarding the bad?
Are you saying that the times under discussion were so generally ‘bad’ that the little bits of good that we may find in them are so relatively inconsequential that they’re not really worth thinking about.
Have I understood you?
Ariadna Theokopoulos
July 13, 2012 at 7:00 pm
No, you have not understood me at all.
But if you talk vaguely about “bits” and “things” and not the “va;ues” that were the subject, I cannpt clarify.
There were good “bits” about the 50s. I just don’t happen to believe they were moral values.
Good bits included the post-war prosperity that provided a higher standard of living for Americans and yes, mom could even stay home, and education to many more Americans than any other time (certainly than now). They are not inconsequential at all. It js is not what the authors are talking about.
Ariadna Theokopoulos
July 13, 2012 at 7:03 pm
“So you don’t think good things about the past can be preserved while discarding the bad?”
When the core values are rotten, there are no patch jobs that can fix the problem. It is true of Israel as it is of the US.
Paul Eisen
July 13, 2012 at 7:07 pm
So, you’re saying that the ‘core values’ of those times were rotten. Is that it?
And now? What do you think of the ‘core values’ now? Are they generally better?
who_me
July 13, 2012 at 7:16 pm
“What do you think of the ‘core values’ now? Are they generally better?”
they are the same sort manufactured mentality as before, but applied to slightly soul nullifying different goals. instead of the gods of church, company and state, it’s now caste, company and state.
who_me
July 13, 2012 at 7:17 pm
“but applied to slightly soul nullifying different goals.”
but applied to slightly different, but similarly soul nullifying goals.
happeh
July 13, 2012 at 6:37 pm
This is a typical propaganda article. It starts out with truth:
Sometime during the last half-century, someone stole our culture
Then tells a lie:
“We know that ideology best as “political correctness” or “multi-culturalism.”
Last time I looked, there aren’t a race of human beings called “multiculturalists”.
On the other hand, when I look at my TV, I look at corporate leaders, and I look at politicians, I see a race of people who call themselves “Israelis”.
It is very cute to blame a concept “multiculturalism” for the destruction of American culture, when any person who spends one day reading some history will discover that Israelis are behind “multiculturalism”.
So you are telling the truth in a way. Multiculturalism is one of the reasons for the destruction of American culture. You just conveniently forgot to name the people behind multiculturalism in The United States Of America.
The Israelis.
Paul Eisen
July 13, 2012 at 6:44 pm
It’s not the Israelis who are behind multi-culturalism. If anybody, it’s generally been Jews who have promoted it
Ariadna Theokopoulos
July 13, 2012 at 6:55 pm
The woman we saw in that video not so long ago, who went to preach it in Norway (or Sweden?) was an Israeli.
Yes, a jewish woman, not an “Arab Israeli.” No, she did not try to sell it in Israel, supposedly because Israel is already a flourishing example of multiculturalism: they have Russian jews, American Jews, South African jews… etc
Since Israel is the State for Jews, why is the distinction important in this particular case?
Paul Eisen
July 13, 2012 at 7:00 pm
It’s important, least because at the time when these alleged ‘values’ were being allegedly eroded, there was no Israel – but there were plenty of Jews (usually secular) who took a leading role in promoting what the author calls ‘Cultural Marxism’.
Ariadna Theokopoulos
July 13, 2012 at 7:07 pm
The judaization was a qualitative leap but it couldn’t have happened to a more suitable nation.
Paul Eisen
July 13, 2012 at 7:09 pm
Can you expand on that?
Ariadna Theokopoulos
July 13, 2012 at 7:09 pm
in the sense that no other nation has the American version–admittedly Goyishly naive and unformed by comparison with the jewish one–of supremacists beliefs of “manifest destiny.”
A marriage made in hell
Paul Eisen
July 13, 2012 at 7:14 pm
I’ll buy that.
But you said that “it couldn’t have happened to a more suitable nation’. What’s the ‘it’. What happened?
happeh
July 14, 2012 at 6:36 pm
I have been perusing your comments Mr Eisen. You sound like you could be the source of some fun because you are a pedant who nit picks at truths that cannot be refuted.
“The Kadima party platform calls for “maximum security and assuring that Israel be a Jewish national home ”
“Netanyahu’s demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a “Jewish state”
who_me
July 13, 2012 at 7:09 pm
never being a christian, nobody stole my culture, they never let it develop. they killed it off with their genocide of the native inhabitants of the usa. anyway, the way blacks were treated in the usa prior to the civil rights (human rights) movement shows how “The Culture-wise Family: Upholding Christian Values” operated in the usa. not really too much different from “the culture-wise family: upholding jewish values” does in israel. each has its indoctrinated in-group and “less than human” out-group. one can see those superior judeo-christian values of 1950′s america quite eloquently in the persons of, and in the personal and political behaviour of americans like j edgar and joseph mccarthy. pat robertson is good modern example of the thing.
the changes in the usa have nothing to do with some invented propaganda chimera called cultural marxism. one might as well argue for a master race, for that is what is at root of these sorts of phoney sociological constructs. “cultural marxism” is lowest common denominator “jay knottish political theory”
applied to describe social interactions, for the consumption of impressionable minds who need an authority to think for them.
the cultural changes happening in capitalist, hierarchical societies actually have to do with changing a previously indoctrinated, white supremacist paleo-con society into one of indoctrinated worker bees more fit to run the machinery of modern fascism. the white supremacism and religion are no longer really needed by the few to control the many, and become total acceptance of one’s place in the hierarchical machine and unquestioning obedience to those occupying higher rungs. this is what the few are working towards. divide and conquer, like with the creation of bogus “enemies” for the many to fight among themselves over, is how the few stay in power and neuter the many.
inventing a sociological marxist boogeyman is the same thing as creating a political marxist boogeyman. it’s a way to get people hating themselves instead of focusing on those who actually run things and control these societies.
Ariadna Theokopoulos
July 13, 2012 at 7:12 pm
“pat robertson”
Hasn’t he died? Or am I confusing him with the obese one with huge jowls?
who_me
July 13, 2012 at 7:20 pm
he’s got jowls, and probably is an example of “the undead” but officially, he’s still “alive”.
Paul Eisen
July 13, 2012 at 7:26 pm
Perhaps we’re confusing the awful people who now make a living harking back to those days, with the actual people of those days?
Or perhaps you’re all buying into a Jewish myth about ‘progress’ and about ‘the bad old days’.
Perhaps you’re just reacting exactly how they want you to react.
Hmmm….
who_me
July 13, 2012 at 7:49 pm
“Perhaps you’re just reacting exactly how they want you to react.”
well, how should one react to those who insist that the geocentric model of the universe is something still worth “harking back to”?
the article is rubbish, it describes things that never existed, and then claims these non-existant things have changed.
they are arguing over what sort of “mother ships” the ufos visiting earth use.
“Or perhaps you’re all buying into a Jewish myth about ‘progress’ and about ‘the bad old days’.”
perhaps you are more interested in inventing what i wrote so you could dismiss it, rather than actually addressing what i wrote instead.
Paul Eisen
July 13, 2012 at 7:51 pm
I’m sorry. I was trying to be funny.
fool me once...
July 13, 2012 at 8:02 pm
Paul, the rose tinted myth of the all encompassing solid American christian culture is perhaps a result of a post war Cultural Psyops by Edward Bernays and the like. The examples of Korea, South America, the treatment of Blacks in the 1950′s etc that AT mentioned also sprang to mind when I read in the article of the milk and honey times of the fifties.
)
You can’t ignore the plight of large swathes of the population just to prop up your jewtopian reminiscing. (no offence intended – < do I need to write that?!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prTarrgvkjo
Paul Eisen
July 14, 2012 at 7:26 am
Do you need to write what? ‘Jewtopian’ or ‘no offence intended’? In either case, in my opinion the answer is no.
But what really interests me is why you see your proposed nostalgia for the past as Jewish-inspired. I always thought that it was the destruction of ‘old values’ and the worship of ‘modernity’ that was more the work of Jews.
etominusipi
July 14, 2012 at 8:43 am
great thread, many issues and perspectives intertwined. since Ariadna and Happeh have skilfully dissected the bogus sociology, may i give a more rambling response – adopt a more rhizomatic prose style, one recently classified by the 18th Century Marxist historian Edward Gibbon as ‘an incoherent babble of declassed intellectuals with hangovers’. the edge of my wit is more than somewhat dulled, but my heart is filled with a sudden, irrational optimism, albeit one provoked only by birdsong a on lovely, bright morning, and not by the harsh realities of the unjust society we inhabit? (to remind us of the latter, G_d created the race of Crows).
thank you.
i am grateful that Paul has posted this because it has resolved a great mystery for me, the mystery of the meaning of the term ‘marxism’ to the average modern brain-dead American. i have seen this term used time and again in contexts which made clear i had failed to attain a total overlap in semantic fields with my cousins ‘across the Pond’. my ‘Marxism’ was based on the socioeconomic philosophy of Karl Marx, whereas the Frankfurt school can still be described by Professor Lind despite his pointing out that they abandoned all the main propositions out of which Marx’s view of history was adumbrated. a puzzle. fortunately now resolved for me.
in fact what Pat Boone means by ‘marxism’ was always talked about in our family – in hushed tones, let me say, for Their eyes and ears were everywhere during the paranoid and hysterical atmosphere of my postwar childhood – under a different name: Pondism.
Pondism, i later discovered, is merely one department, a large one, admittedly, with a budget of trillions, of the ideological wing of a sinister entity which is referred to (by the few remaining loyalists in our security services) only by its initials, _ _ _.
to prove my point i need only mention the sinister neologism transponder which has slid from less-than-nothingness to hyperubiquity in less than the time it would take to boil a janissary and serve him on a table to the waiting wedding guests. a glorious intellectual rags-to-riches story, which it is rumoured will soon be the theme of a forthcoming Steve Spielberg cartoon blockbuster.
anyone remember Pond beauty products? anyone heard of a tiny little multinational du Pont? (dont be fooled by the switch to the unvoiced form of the terminal dental consonant).
ever wondered why every little French kindergarten indoctrinates its innocent charges with the ‘song’
sur le pont
d’Avignon
probably you haven’t. until now. more experienced readers will recognise Avignon as a codename for the mediaeval Pondites, who were attempting (and in some cases succeeded) to produce replica Popes from, old your breath, antimatter. i hardly need tell you that their intention was to blow up the entire earth, in order to assume total control.
fortunately a brave Italian soldier of fortune named Manco Frussolini (lit.=lacking the little flowers of pasta) came along, seized power, and locked them up. that is the best and only way to halt the advance of pernicious ideas, ideas so terrifyingly corrosive that it is quite impossibe to combat them merely by rational discussion on the plane of intellectuality.
when the nest of this den of vipers was analysed back at Langley, it was found that the Pondists had back-engineered a time-travel machine fron the remains of an alien spaceship which crashed into the roof of Roslyn Chapel seven centuries later. hence their mastery of twentieth century electronic technology. this helped them fund their pernicious enterprise since they were willing to loan aspects of this technology to governments. the extrememly high prices they charged could easily be met from the spoils of conquest. the Varangians, the Vikings and the Mongol hordes were amongst the more primitive tribes who thus rose to an unlikely eminence, throwing up names like Genghis Khan, or Eric the Red.
footnotes:
1. it is a little known fact that Eric the Red actually founded the USA in 1214. the ‘Red’ is a giveaway, since red was ever the emblem of the Pondists, the colour of freshly spilled blood.
2. good American citizens in the 1950′s protected their healthy, clean-toothed toddlers with the mantra Red’s under the bed!!
3. i go into more details of the back-engineered technology in mty recent book Ritual Satanic Abuse on Alien Motherships
4. _ _ _ = de-encrypts as WKA, ʎɔuǝpuǝɔsɐ ɹǝzzɐɥʞ ǝǝqɐuuɐʍ
who_me
July 14, 2012 at 1:15 pm
etominusipi
very nice.
etominusipi
July 14, 2012 at 3:12 pm