The Frankfurt School and “political correctness”: Conspiracy to Corrupt


Note: Much good stuff here. As libertarians, of course, we are in favour of many of the “corruptions” listed – so far as they approved of them, the lefties weren’t all bad. Also, I don’t believe they were ever so well organised as is claimed. However, it’s an interesting read. SIG

The Frankfurt School: Conspiracy to Corrupt

Timothy Matthews – Catholic Insight March 2009

Western civilization at the present day is passing through a crisis which is essentially different from anything that has been previously experienced. Other societies in the past have changed their social institutions or their religious beliefs under the influence of external forces or the slow development of internal growth. But none, like our own, has ever consciously faced the prospect of a fundamental alteration of the beliefs and institutions on which the whole fabric of social life rests … Civilization is being uprooted from its foundations in nature and tradition and is being reconstituted in a new organisation which is as artificial and mechanical as a modern factory.

Christopher Dawson. Enquiries into Religion and Culture, p. 259.

Most of Satan’s work in the world he takes care to keep hidden. But two small shafts of light have been thrown onto his work for me just recently. The first, a short article in the Association of Catholic Women’s ACW Review; the second, a remark (which at first surprised me) from a priest in Russia who claimed that we now, in the West, live in a Communist society. These shafts of light help, especially, to explain the onslaught of officialdom which in many countries worldwide has so successfully been removing the rights of parents to be the primary educators and protectors of their children.

The ACW Review examined the corrosive work of the ‘Frankfurt School’ – a group of German-American scholars who developed highly provocative and original perspectives on contemporary society and culture, drawing on Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and Weber. Not that their idea of a ‘cultural revolution’ was particularly new. ‘Until now’, wrote Joseph, Comte de Maistre (1753-1821) who for fifteen years was a Freemason, ‘nations were killed by conquest, that is by invasion: But here an important question arises; can a nation not die on its own soil, without resettlement or invasion, by allowing the flies of decomposition to corrupt to the very core those original and constituent principles which make it what it is.’

What was the Frankfurt School? Well, in the days following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it was believed that workers’ revolution would sweep into Europe and, eventually, into the United States. But it did not do so. Towards the end of 1922 the Communist International (Comintern) began to consider what were the reasons. On Lenin’s initiative a meeting was organised at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow.

The aim of the meeting was to clarify the concept of, and give concrete effect to, a Marxist cultural revolution. Amongst those present were Georg Lukacs (a Hungarian aristocrat, son of a banker, who had become a Communist during World War I ; a good Marxist theoretician he developed the idea of ‘Revolution and Eros’ – sexual instinct used as an instrument of destruction) and Willi Munzenberg (whose proposed solution was to ‘organise the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilisation stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat’) ‘It was’, said Ralph de Toledano (1916-2007) the conservative author and co-founder of the ‘National Review’, a meeting ‘perhaps more harmful to Western civilization than the Bolshevik Revolution itself.’

Lenin died in 1924. By this time, however, Stalin was beginning to look on Munzenberg, Lukacs and like-thinkers as ‘revisionists’. In June 1940, Münzenberg fled to the south of France where, on Stalin’s orders, a NKVD assassination squad caught up with him and hanged him from a tree.

In the summer of 1924, after being attacked for his writings by the 5th Comintern Congress, Lukacs moved to Germany, where he chaired the first meeting of a group of Communist-oriented sociologists, a gathering that was to lead to the foundation of the Frankfurt School.

This ‘School’ (designed to put flesh on their revolutionary programme) was started at the University of Frankfurt in the Institut für Sozialforschung. To begin with school and institute were indistinguishable. In 1923 the Institute was officially established, and funded by Felix Weil (1898-1975). Weil was born in Argentina and at the age of nine was sent to attend school in Germany. He attended the universities in Tübingen and Frankfurt, where he graduated with a doctoral degree in political science. While at these universities he became increasingly interested in socialism and Marxism. According to the intellectual historian Martin Jay, the topic of his dissertation was ‘the practical problems of implementing socialism.’

Carl Grünberg, the Institute’s director from 1923-1929, was an avowed Marxist, although the Institute did not have any official party affiliations. But in 1930 Max Horkheimer assumed control and he believed that Marx’s theory should be the basis of the Institute’s research. When Hitler came to power, the Institut was closed and its members, by various routes, fled to the United States and migrated to major US universities—Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley.

The School included among its members the 1960s guru of the New Left Herbert Marcuse (denounced by Pope Paul VI for his theory of liberation which ‘opens the way for licence cloaked as liberty’), Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, the popular writer Erich Fromm, Leo Lowenthal, and Jurgen Habermas – possibly the School’s most influential representative.

Basically, the Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief – or even the hope of belief – that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus—‘continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means’ as one of their members noted.

To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution – but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future – the School recommended (among other things):

1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family

One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pansexualism’ – the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:

• attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
• abolish differences in the education of boys and girls
• abolish all forms of male dominance – hence the presence of women in the armed forces
• declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’
Munzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation thus: ‘We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.’

The School believed there were two types of revolution: (a) political and (b) cultural. Cultural revolution demolishes from within. ‘Modern forms of subjection are marked by mildness’. They saw it as a long-term project and kept their sights clearly focused on the family, education, media, sex and popular culture.

The Family

The School’s ‘Critical Theory’ preached that the ‘authoritarian personality’ is a product of the patriarchal family – an idea directly linked to Engels’ Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, which promoted matriarchy. Already Karl Marx had written, in the “Communist Manifesto”, about the radical notion of a ‘community of women’ and in The German Ideology of 1845, written disparagingly about the idea of the family as the basic unit of society. This was one of the basic tenets of the ‘Critical Theory’ : the necessity of breaking down the contemporary family. The Institute scholars preached that ‘Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change.’

Following Karl Marx, the School stressed how the ‘authoritarian personality’ is a product of the patriarchal family—it was Marx who wrote so disparagingly about the idea of the family being the basic unit of society. All this prepared the way for the warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Marcuse under the guise of ‘women’s liberation’ and by the New Left movement in the 1960s.

They proposed transforming our culture into a female-dominated one. In 1933, Wilhelm Reich, one of their members, wrote in The Mass Psychology of Fascism that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of ‘natural society.’ Eric Fromm was also an active advocate of matriarchal theory. Masculinity and femininity, he claimed, were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought but were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.’ His dogma was the precedent for the radical feminist pronouncements that, today, appear in nearly every major newspaper and television programme.

The revolutionaries knew exactly what they wanted to do and how to do it. They have succeeded.


Lord Bertrand Russell joined with the Frankfurt School in their effort at mass social engineering and spilled the beans in his 1951 book, The Impact of Science on Society. He wrote: ‘Physiology and psychology afford fields for scientific technique which still await development.’ The importance of mass psychology ‘has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray . When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”

Writing in 1992 in Fidelio Magazine, [The Frankfurt School and Political
Correctness] Michael Minnicino observed how the heirs of Marcuse and Adorno now completely dominate the universities, ‘teaching their own students to replace reason with ‘Politically Correct’ ritual exercises. There are very few theoretical books on arts, letters, or language published today in the United States or Europe which do not openly acknowledge their debt to the Frankfurt School. The witchhunt on today’s campuses is merely the implementation of Marcuse’s concept of ‘repressive toleration’-‘tolerance for movements from the left, but intolerance for movements from the right’-enforced by the students of the Frankfurt School’.


Dr. Timothy Leary gave us another glimpse into the mind of the Frankfurt School in his account of the work of the Harvard University Psychedelic Drug Project, ‘Flashback.’ He quoted a conversation that he had with Aldous Huxley: “These brain drugs, mass produced in the laboratories, will bring about vast changes in society. This will happen with or without you or me. All we can do is spread the word. The obstacle to this evolution, Timothy, is the Bible’. Leary then went on: “We had run up against the Judeo-Christian commitment to one God, one religion, one reality, that has cursed Europe for centuries and America since our founding days. Drugs that open the mind to multiple realities inevitably lead to a polytheistic view of the universe. We sensed that the time for a new humanist religion based on intelligence, good-natured pluralism and scientific paganism had arrived.”

One of the directors of the Authoritarian Personality project, R. Nevitt Sanford, played a pivotal role in the usage of psychedelic drugs. In 1965, he wrote in a book issued by the publishing arm of the UK’s Tavistock Institute:‘The nation, seems to be fascinated by our 40,000 or so drug addicts who are seen as alarmingly wayward people who must be curbed at all costs by expensive police activity. Only an uneasy Puritanism could support the practice of focusing on the drug addicts (rather than our 5 million alcoholics) and treating them as a police problem instead of a medical one, while suppressing harmless drugs such as marijuana and peyote along with the dangerous ones.” The leading propagandists of today’s drug lobby base their argument for legalization on the same scientific quackery spelled out all those years ago by Dr. Sanford.

Such propagandists include the multi-billionaire atheist George Soros who chose, as one of his first domestic programs, to fund efforts to challenge the efficacy of America’s $37-billion-a-year war on drugs. The Soros-backed Lindesmith Center serves as a leading voice for Americans who want to decriminalize drug use. ‘Soros is the ‘Daddy Warbucks of drug legalization,’ claimed Joseph Califano Jr. of Columbia University’s National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse’ (The Nation, Sep 2, 1999).

Music, Television and Popular Culture

Adorno was to become head of a ‘music studies’ unit, where in his Theory of Modern Music he promoted the prospect of unleashing atonal and other popular music as a weapon to destroy society, degenerate forms of music to promote mental illness. He said the US could be brought to its knees by the use of radio and television to promote a culture of pessimism and despair – by the late 1930s he (together with Horkheimer) had migrated to Hollywood.

The expansion of violent video-games also well supported the School’s aims.


In his book The Closing of the American Mind, Alan Bloom observed how Marcuse appealed to university students in the sixties with a combination of Marx and Freud. In Eros and Civilization and One Dimensional Man Marcuse promised that the overcoming of capitalism and its false consciousness will result in a society where the greatest satisfactions are sexual. Rock music touches the same chord in the young. Free sexual expression, anarchism, mining of the irrational unconscious and giving it free rein are what they have in common.’

The Media

The modern media – not least Arthur ‘Punch’ Sulzberger Jnr., who took charge of the New York Times in 1992 – drew greatly on the Frankfurt School’s study The Authoritarian Personality. (New York: Harper, 1950). In his book Arrogance, (Warner Books, 1993) former CBS News reporter Bernard Goldberg noted of Sulzberger that he ‘still believes in all those old sixties notions about ‘liberation’ and ‘changing the world man’ . . . In fact, the Punch years have been a steady march down PC Boulevard, with a newsroom fiercely dedicated to every brand of diversity except the intellectual kind.’

In 1953 the Institute moved back to the University of Frankfurt. Adorno died in 1955 and Horkheimer in 1973. The Institute of Social Research continued, but what was known as the Frankfurt School did not. The ‘cultural Marxism’ that has since taken hold of our schools and universities – that ‘political correctness’, which has been destroying our family bonds, our religious tradition and our entire culture -sprang from the Frankfurt School.

It was these intellectual Marxists who, later, during the anti-Vietnam demonstrations, coined the phrase, ‘make love, not war’; it was these intellectuals who promoted the dialectic of ‘negative’ criticism; it was these theoreticians who dreamed of a utopia where their rules governed. It was their concept that led to the current fad for the rewriting of history, and to the vogue for ‘deconstruction’. Their mantras: ‘sexual differences are a contract; if it feels good, do it; do your own thing.’

In an address at the US Naval Academy in August 1999, Dr Gerald L. Atkinson, CDR USN (Ret), gave a background briefing on the Frankfurt School, reminding his audience that it was the ‘foot soldiers’ of the Frankfurt School who introduced the ‘sensitivity training’ techniques used in public schools over the past 30 years (and now employed by the US military to educate the troops about ‘sexual harassment’). During ‘sensitivity’ training teachers were told not to teach but to ‘facilitate.’ Classrooms became centres of self-examination where children talked about their own subjective feelings. This technique was designed to convince children they were the sole authority in their own lives.

Atkinson continued: ‘The Authoritarian personality,’ studied by the Frankfurt School in the 1940s and 1950s in America, prepared the way for the subsequent warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Herbert Marcuse and his band of social revolutionaries under the guise of ‘women’s liberation’ and the New Left movement in the 1960s. The evidence that psychological techniques for changing personality is intended to mean emasculation of the American male is provided by Abraham Maslow, founder of Third Force Humanist Psychology and a promoter of the psychotherapeutic classroom, who wrote that, ‘… the next step in personal evolution is a transcendence of both masculinity and femininity to general humanness.’

On April 17th, 1962, Maslow gave a lecture to a group of nuns at Sacred Heart, a Catholic women’s college in Massachusetts. He noted in a diary entry how the talk had been very ‘successful,’ but he found that very fact troubling. ‘They shouldn’t applaud me,’ he wrote, ‘they should attack. If they were fully aware of what I was doing, they would [attack]’ (Journals, p. 157).

The Network

In her booklet Sex & Social Engineering (Family Education Trust 1994) Valerie Riches observed how in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there were intensive parliamentary campaigns taking place emanating from a number of organisations in the field of birth control (i.e., contraception, abortion, sterilisation). ‘From an analysis of their annual reports, it became apparent that a comparatively small number of people were involved to a surprising degree in an array of pressure groups. This network was not only linked by personnel, but by funds, ideology and sometimes addresses: it was also backed by vested interests and supported by grants in some cases by government departments. At the heart of the network was the Family Planning Association (FPA) with its own collection of offshoots. What we unearthed was a power structure with enormous influence.

‘Deeper investigation revealed that the network, in fact extended further afield, into eugenics, population control, birth control, sexual and family law reforms, sex and health education. Its tentacles reached out to publishing houses, medical, educational and research establishments, women’s organisations and marriage guidance—anywhere where influence could be exerted. It appeared to have great influence over the media, and over permanent officials in relevant government departments, out of all proportion to the numbers involved.

‘During our investigations, a speaker at a Sex Education Symposium in Liverpool outlined tactics of sex education saying: ‘if we do not get into sex education, children will simply follow the mores of their parents’. The fact that sex education was to be the vehicle for peddlers of secular humanism soon became apparent.

‘However, at that time the power of the network and the full implications of its activities were not fully understood. It was thought that the situation was confined to Britain. The international implications had not been grasped.

‘Soon after, a little book was published with the intriguing title The Men Behind Hitler—A German Warning to the World. Its thesis was that the eugenics movement, which had gained popularity early in the twentieth century, had gone underground following the holocaust in Nazi Germany, but was still active and functioning through organizations promoting abortion, euthanasia, sterilization, mental health, etc. The author urged the reader to look at his home country and neighbouring countries, for he would surely find that members and committees of these organizations would cross-check to a remarkable extent.

‘Other books and papers from independent sources later confirmed this situation. . . . A remarkable book was also published in America which documented the activities of the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). It was entitled The SIECUS Circle A Humanist Revolution. SIECUS was set up in 1964 and lost no time in engaging in a programme of social engineering by means of sex education in the schools. Its first executive director was Mary Calderone, who was also closely linked to Planned Parenthood, the American equivalent of the British FPA. According to The SIECUS Circle, Calderone supported sentiments and theories put forward by Rudolph Dreikus, a humanist, such as:

· merging or reversing the sexes or sex roles;
· liberating children from their families;
· abolishing the family as we know it’

In their book Mind Siege, (Thomas Nelson, 2000) Tim LaHaye and David A. Noebel confirmed Riches’s findings of an international network. ‘The leading authorities of Secular Humanism may be pictured as the starting lineup of a baseball team: pitching is John Dewey; catching is Isaac Asimov; first base is Paul Kurtz; second base is Corliss Lamont; third base is Bertrand Russell; shortstop is Julian Huxley; left fielder is Richard Dawkins; center fielder is Margaret Sanger; right fielder is Carl Rogers; manager is ‘Christianity is for losers’ Ted Turner; designated hitter is Mary Calderone; utility players include the hundreds listed in the back of Humanist Manifesto I and II, including Eugenia C. Scott, Alfred Kinsey, Abraham Maslow, Erich Fromm, Rollo May, and Betty Friedan.

‘In the grandstands sit the sponsoring or sustaining organizations, such as the . . . the Frankfurt School; the left wing of the Democratic Party; the Democratic Socialists of America; Harvard University; Yale University; University of Minnesota; University of California (Berkeley); and two thousand other colleges and universities.’

A practical example of how the tidal wave of Maslow-think is engulfing English schools was revealed in an article in the British Nat assoc. of Catholic Families’ (NACF) Catholic Family newspaper (August 2000), where James Caffrey warned about the Citizenship (PSHE) programme which was shortly to be drafted into the National Curriculum. ‘We need to look carefully at the vocabulary used in this new subject’, he wrote, ‘and, more importantly, discover the philosophical basis on which it is founded. The clues to this can be found in the word ‘choice’ which occurs frequently in the Citizenship documentation and the great emphasis placed on pupils’ discussing and ‘clarifying’ their own views, values and choices about any given issue. This is nothing other than the concept known as ‘Values Clarification’ – a concept anathema to Catholicism, or indeed, to Judaism and Islam.

‘This concept was pioneered in California in the 1960’s by psychologists William Coulson, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. It was based on ‘humanistic’ psychology, in which patients were regarded as the sole judge of their actions and moral behaviour. Having pioneered the technique of Values Clarification the psychologists introduced it into schools and other institutions such as convents and seminaries – with disastrous results. Convents emptied, religious lost their vocations and there was wholesale loss of belief in God. Why? Because Catholic institutions are founded on absolute beliefs in, for example, the Creed and the Ten Commandments. Values Clarification supposes a moral relativism in which there is no absolute right or wrong and no dependence on God.

‘This same system is to be introduced to the vulnerable minds of infants, juniors and adolescents in the years 2000+. The underlying philosophy of Values Clarification holds that for teachers to promote virtues such as honesty, justice or chastity constitutes indoctrination of children and ‘violates’ their moral freedom. It is urged that children should be free to choose their own values; the teacher must merely ‘facilitate’ and must avoid all moralising or criticising. As a barrister commented recently on worrying trends in Australian education, ‘The core theme of values clarification is that there are no right or wrong values. Values education does not seek to identify and transmit ‘right’ values, teaching of the Church, especially the papal encyclical Evangelium Vitae.

‘In the absence of clear moral guidance, children naturally make choices based on feelings. Powerful peer pressure, freed from the values which stem from a divine source, ensure that ‘shared values’ sink to the lowest common denominator. References to environmental sustainability lead to a mindset where anti-life arguments for population control are present ed as being both responsible and desirable. Similarly, ‘informed choices’ about health and lifestyles are euphemisms for attitudes antithetical to Christian views on motherhood, fatherhood, the sacrament of marriage and family life. Values Clarification is covert and dangerous. It underpins the entire rationale of Citizenship (PSHE) and is to be introduced by statute into the UK soon. It will give young people secular values and imbue them with the attitude that they alone hold ultimate authority and judgement about their lives. No Catholic school can include this new subject as formulated in the Curriculum 2000 document within its current curriculum provision. Dr. William Coulson recognised the psychological damage Rogers’ technique inflicted on youngsters and rejected it, devoting his life to exposing its dangers.

Should those in authority in Catholic education not do likewise, as ‘Citizenship’ makes its deadly approach’?

If we allow their subversion of values and interests to continue, we will, in future generations, lose all that our ancestors suffered and died for. We are forewarned, says Atkinson. A reading of history (it is all in mainstream historical accounts) tells us that we are about to lose the most precious thing we have—our individual freedoms.

‘What we are at present experiencing,’ writes Philip Trower in a letter to the author, ‘is a blend of two schools of thought; the Frankfurt School and the liberal tradition going back to the 18th century Enlightenment. The Frankfurt School has of course its remote origins in the 18th century Enlightenment. But like Lenin’s Marxism it is a breakaway movement. The immediate aims of both classical liberalism and the Frankfurt School have been in the main the same (vide your eleven points above) but the final end is different. For liberals they lead to ‘improving’ and ‘perfecting’ western culture, for the Frankfurt School they bring about its destruction.

‘Unlike hard-line Marxists, the Frankfurt School do not make any plans for the future. (But) the Frankfurt School seems to be more far-sighted that our classical liberals and secularists. At least they see the moral deviations they promote will in the end make social life impossible or intolerable. But this leaves a big question mark over what a future conducted by them would be like.’

Meanwhile, the Quiet Revolution rolls forward.


  1. When I am War Secretary, all the fellas and bastards implicit, even peripherally, in the Frankfurt School programme – which is to say: the GramscoFabiaNazis – will have to go. I can’t say on here how this will happen to them, for i don’t know yet, nor do they or their “goers”, and also this is a public blog and we might get in trouble.

  2. The Frankfurt School of “cultural Marxism” did indeed invent “Political Correctness”, “idenity politics” (and so on) and invented them as weapons against civil society – against “capitalism”.

    Industrial workers had “failed” Marxism (by not supporting total revolution in Germany after the First World War) so new groups “had to be” found to replace the workers as the shock troops of the fundemental transformation of society. That this ditched any “scientific” element in Marxism (which was supposed to be an economic theory of how wages were forced down over time by…..) did not bother the Frankfurt School theorists (any more, to be fair, than I think it would have bothered Karl Marx himself – after all his youthful philosophical writings show him to be a revolutionary egalitarian long before he had any “scientific” theory to try justfy this position with).

    Whether one thinks it is the work of Satan depends on whether one believes that the Devil actually exists. However, even if it is nothing whatever to do with the Devil it is certainly evil movement – and a very influential one.

    For example, new people comming to join a society can be highly beneficial – but not if they are carefully taught that they should be the enemies of the country they are arriving in, that their poverty is casued by its culture which them must destroy…… (and on and on).

    Who would celebrate rising poverty, indeed actually try and produce it?

    Classical Marxism predicts rising poverty – but it does not try and produce it. On the contrary, it claims it is a natural economic process under “capitalism”……

    But Frankfurt School thinkers (for example Cloward and his wife Francis Fox Piven – hence “Cloward and Piven”) not only understood the way in which welfare schemes could create even more dependents (thus anticipating “Losing Ground” by decades) they celebrated and worked for this result.

    Whether the “Minority Report” (demanding the creation of various welfare schemes in the place of the Poor Law, schemes that almost appear designed to over time increase the number of dependents,,,,) of the Fabians (and their pets) in the early 1900s really had the same intention is something I will not deal with here. Now will I go into the cultural work of the Bloomsbury set and others.

    However, certainly the 1960s “Great Society” schemes in the United States (and other such schemes in other countries) were influenced by people whose deliberate intention was to increase the number of dependents over time.

    Both to undermine “capitalism” economically – and to do undermine its MORAL BASIS.

    The whole idea of independence, of family, business, voluntary associations (apart from those under “Progressive” control) was attacked (as was traditional religion) as a way of undermining “capitalism”.

    Ethnic minorities were (and are) particularly targeted – as human beings who can be taught hated of the society around them. People who can be “alienated” from that society because they are visibly different (in a direct physical way).

    It is no accident that black businessmen were targeted in American city riots – assimilated black people were a direct threat to the process of increasing dependancy and pushing alienation.

    It should also be noted that the process of civilisational attack carries on to this day – and has spread (as it was always intended to do so).

    For example, 36% of American “white” (well actually pinkish gray – but the word “white” is normally used) babies are now born out of wedlock (most with the GOVERNMENT as de facto breadwinner). In 1965 25% of black babies were born out of wedlock and it was considered a terrible danger (and so it was – and showed a sad decline over the position in say 1955).

    Now about 75% of black babies are born out of wedlock (and again this is NOT a matter of “free” women – as they are mostly women dependent on government welfare) – the black areas of cities such as Detroit and Chicago are now nightmares. And this is nothing much to do with DNA – genetics (as a glace at the same black areas 50 or 60 years ago shows). But it is not an accident either.

    This has been a carefully worked for result – created both by the Great Society schemes (and by previous schemes going back before this time in cities such as New York) and by a massive CULTURAL attack.

    Thrift, hard work and self denial – endlessly attacked. In schools, universities and the media (especially the entertainment media).

    Any black person (increasingly any person – of any “race”) who seeks to better themselves by productive work – savagely attacked as an “Uncle Tom” (and so on).

    The endless work to create an dependent and alienated mass of people – without family, church or productive occupation. In order to “organise” this mass to “fundementally transform” society – and not just in the United States.

    Of course there are black academic Marxists (after all a student of Cloward and Piven is one of them – and he is President of the United States) but like Cloward and Piven themsleves most of the Frankfurt School were and are white.

    This is also, of course, true in Europe – where similar plans have been made and followed (with adaptations for the different objective conditions) .

    Short Version….

    Western Civilisation is not dying a natural death – it is being murdered.

    Murdered by people who are either directly or indirectly influenced by Frankfurt School ideas (under such modern names as “Critical Theory”) who work to increase welfare dependency and cultural alienation – particularly concentrating on minority groups, especially ones with an obvious physical difference from the wider population.

    A difference that may be as unimportant as skin colour – but which can be made hugely important if constantly worked upon (if people can be turned against each other).

    In most Western nations about half the population now either works for the government (for example in the vast administrative structure of the “public services”) or is dependent upon benefits.

    This is both economically and CULTURALLY unsustainable.

    And it is intended to be so.

    This modern system was never intended (other that by politicians such as President Johnson – and other total idiots) to last.

    It was designed (designed by the “academic experts”) with the deliberate intention that it would be unsustainable.

    And that it would take down civil society (“capitalism”) in its death agony.

  3. I know I have not covered the Frankfurt School links with feminism (the “majority minority”), what parts of this movement have been influenced by the Frankfurt School and what parts are quite different from it….

    I have not covered a thousand things – the subject is just too big.

    It really needs another Gibbon – writing a multi volume work on the “Decline and Fall….”

    • You “people” around here… you are really, really unintelligent. I think any member of the Arthropoda superphylum would easily grasp Critical Theory much better than you could ever possibly dream to do… That little list above, with all the McEvil things that the villains from Frankfurt invented to undermine the glorious catholic order of capitalism is the fattest joke I’ve read in years. I’ve heard of how ignorant the little men and women of the upper hemisphere could be, but I would never, in my wildest delusions, think you could all go this far… Lukács talking about “Eros and revolution”? No, no, no, that never happened… You see, you were try to talk about – I mean, to lie about – Marcuse. But I think distinguishing such similar sounding names as Lukács and Marcuse must be a pretty difficult task for the likes of you boys and girls, right? Where else could I go to read such vile, child-like ociosities? Only this very well-informed blog could contain such a vivid distortion of the history of ideas!
      The saddest, most blatant fact, crystalline for anyone in the possession of a relatively functional brain, is that you all KNOW you’re just inventing all this “Satan” verborragy about intelectualls with the sole purpose of justifying your own endless stupidity, and the fact that you’d rather contribute to the maintenance of the current status of the beautiful world we live in, where you happen to get the best piece of the pie, right? Shame on you, girls, shame on you. You are the Mussolinis and Hitlers of my time, and I despise your kind.

  4. Obviously from the wrtings on the Frankfurt school their “masterplan” had some effect and impact, look for instance of the state of the U.K. public office, not only does it stink of corruption, it is putrified. Of course in truth, the statements of 50% being in overpaid state employement, and 50% being on benefits, is a good analogy of the current situation, but I beg to differ on the figures, of course those in the state sector, are quite happy with this situation and have come to reply on this as an Amen, forever and ever state of economic existance, the reality is, the titantic is long sunk, but nobody can give an explination of why she still stay’s afloat, the cuts being made are no more than some pathetic attempt to pump out water, but without real cuts to the real problem, ie, overpayed state workers, and overmodest pensions, no such economic policy could ever succeed, the hits on the poor, are having a reverse effect, high crime, massive increase in poverty related motoring offences, debt, huge mental health bills, eviction and bankrupcy,to name just
    a few, a policy of economic suicide, only briefly reading the article, on the Frankfurt club, they appear to have had some impact on society to say the very least. lets blame it all on them, and the failed ideologies of maxism now there’s a real pissing post for our current crisis!

  5. Sean suggests libertarians are in favour of certain “corruptions”, I would suggest that is incorrect.

    I think people should be at liberty do do as they wish, but don’t ask me to fund their ‘life style choice’.

    If that ‘choice’ has a negative impact on my ‘choice’ don’t expect me to sympathise and accept it.

    Any behavioural choice that has a negative impact is, in my eyes, from Satan.

    • Rob – I think the author of the article would argue that being in favour of the right to do certain things amounts to the promotion of those things.

      And, speaking personally, the loss of much of the guilt and hypocrisy and outright legal direction that surrounded the sexual act before about 1960 has not been unwelcome. The close regulation of sex before then was not immemorial. It emerged in England and America after about 1820, and replaced far more relaxed attitudes. It may be that the lefties promoted sexual openness as part of their attack on the established order. But denouncing sexual openness for that reason is of the same kind as denouncing motorways because Hitler found them useful.

  6. Reading all that about the ‘Frankfurt School’ makes me wonder if there really was more than a little truth in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion’. It all seems to have come to pass.

    • Chris – The problem with anti-semitic conspiracy theories is that they involve continuous selection. Jews tend to be opinionated and vociferous. Therefore, you take the fact that Karl Marx was a socialist, and overlook that he was a racist and cultural conservative. You take the fact that Mahler was a musical revolutionary, and overlook that he was a German nationalist. You wholly overlook people like Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises. You also overlook how many poisonous lefties there seem to be in Israel, calling for open borders and the demotion of Jewish symbols. There are Jews arguing fluently on each side of every argument. You can put together a very convincing theory of Jewish subversion by selecting certain opinions of certain Jews, and ascribing these to all or most Jews. You are left with a composite Jew that may exist in a few instances, but is not representative.

      The truth is that we’ve messed our civilisation up by ourselves, and would have got where we now are even if every Jew in the world had fallen dead c1870.

      However, this is an announcement, not an invitation to debate. I don’t wish to hear any more on this subject.

  7. During the 19th Century we had a mass movement of people from the land to the cities causing over crowding and insanitary conditions leading to killer diseases.
    The Victorians tried to combat the problems with all the means at their disposal. One of which was public toilets to try and stop people just doing it anywhere.
    One of the consequences of building and maintaining the toilets was men using the facilities for sex with each other. Laws were passed to try to stop this sort of behaviour otherwise people would go elsewhere.
    Venereal disease was also a problems. Without the to be discovered/invented drugs the only way to stop its spread was to try and alter individual behaviour.
    The Victorians considered people responsible for their own actions and behaviour, which an individual could changed with their own free will.
    The Frankfurt School recognised this free will and their whole movement is basically getting people to act against their own best interests.

  8. Ah, the good old Frankfurters. But be careful what you say.

    Chris – The problem with anti-semitic conspiracy theories…

    Is that they are very, very bad for your career.

    Jews tend to be opinionated and vociferous.

    Top marks for spotting that. As it were.

    You also overlook how many poisonous lefties there seem to be in Israel, calling for open borders and the demotion of Jewish symbols. There are Jews arguing fluently on each side of every argument.

    Those poisonous lefties in Israel. How much success have they had to date with opening the borders and removing symbols?

    Israel’s refugee hypocrisy

    Right now, new refugees aren’t arriving in Tel Aviv. The flow across the violence-ridden Sinai has dropped, but that’s just a piece of the reason. Under the draconian Infiltration Law, enacted last January, those who do make it to Israel are detained in camps—really open-air prisons—in southern Israel, to be held for three years or more. Worse yet, Interior Minister Eli Yishai has ordered immigration police to begin arresting all Sudanese “infiltrators” and sending them to the camps on October 15, to be held until they can be sent home. That might not be in their lifetime.


    The fluent argument on both sides in the West, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to have resulted in draconian Infiltration Laws. Quite the reverse.

    Btw, I notice that on the thread about That Quote, the wretch Gabb points out that Paul is a Tory councillor in Kettering.


    I presume that public fantasies about throat-cutting have done Paul no harm as a Tory. But if he expressed the mildest public doubts about the intellectual, moral and civilizational capacities of certain melanin-enriched newcomers to these shores, his feet wouldn’t touch the floor. It is worth wondering why this discrepancy exists. England doesn’t have a long history of obsessively policing ideas about human biological difference.

    • Voldemorte – Please look at the ex cathedra statement on the front page of this blog. Your opinions about the Jews are beside the point if you wish to comment here on other issues, or if they are tangential to your comments. But this is not the place for discussing Jewish issues.

      I do ask you to bear this in mind.

  9. It should be remembered that at first (in the 1920s) immigration was not a big thing for the Frankfurt School – it was really as late as the 1960s that the generation of Frankfurt School thinkers that was still about really grasped how they could use it fully.

    On Israel – the revolting practice of moveing human beings over the border for imoral purposes (to be blunt sexual slavery) had to be stopped by building a physical wall (much to the anger of the desert nomads who controlled the trade). What decades of terrorist raids had failed to produce the modern slave trade did produce.

    And I fully support the building of the wall – even though that contradicts a pure free migration position.

    Indeed I have rather “feudal” notions on immigration generally – i.e. (to me) it is a about political loyality (a free but severe choice).

    For example, I have no objection to people with brown skin comming over the border between Mexico and the United States (as they always have) as long as they get no “free stuff” such as free health care (the ER Act of the 1980s) and free education (the Supreme Court judgement of 1982) BUT there must be a sincere choice of political loyality.

    The hispanics who died defending the Alamo in 1836 were as Texan as anyone else (fighting against the government of Mexico), but someone who waves the Mexican flag and announces that the land really belongs to Mexico is NOT Texan – or American.

    If that sounds like Norman T’s “cricket test” so be it.. And I have exactly the same view in regards to Israel.

    For example,a Christian Copt under threat of death from President Morsi’s administration who sincerely says “I wish to plege my loyality to Israel” should be welcomed.. Whereas a member of the Muslim Brotherhood (presently engaged in an effort to destroy the Kingdom of TransJordan) should be kept out.

    Of course other people might disagree with me – fearing a Christian majority in Israel (as the rest of the Middle East falls under Islamist rule), as someone who followed his mother’s religion (not his father’s) I am not an objective observer (if there can be such a thing).

  10. “Jews tend to be opinionated and vociferous.” Well, everybody knows that whenever you get two Jews together you will have at least three opinions!

  11. Firstly, concerning the comments on victorian england, there was not much
    freedom or social justice for the ordinary, masses during that period, I did
    some research on social conditions at the time, it gives one the conclusion
    the state was a despotic colonial dictatorship, where only a minority shared
    the countires new found wealth, one might say why did it take so long to
    catch JackThe Ripper, when officers spent so much time in legal opium
    den’s around the east end of London, the victorian era only served to the
    benefit of the minority and not the majority,one would not want to live through
    that period if you family had little money, and many today remain trapped
    in bad social conditions and poor education as a result of the victorian
    hand me down! Regarding the aleged conspiracy by Jews, these arguments
    have no merit, if you research our political system, it would be a rediculous
    allegation to say they control policy, banking, and such other big cogs in
    state control, there are many poor Jews in england, I have worked with
    them and lived in areas where jews live, some are very poor indeed and
    suffer in the main as the english are at the moment, there does appear to
    a great deal of hatred against jews, but the reality is they are no worse
    than anyone else. Of course any responsible state must have immigraton
    policies, we indeed in the UK have none,It’s good to see criminals comming
    into the country with false documents and qualifications so the government
    tell us, you poor victim, let’s just get you a council house, £500.00 per
    week in benefits, and fix you up with a Job in the NHS, and yes Nick Griffin
    the Holocast did really happen!

    • The worst thing about the Victorians was that they were less advanced than we are in the progress that began c1700. I’d rather be poor in England in 1870 than poor in England in 1670. Of course, it’s better to be poor in England now. But it will probably be better still a hundred years from now.

      As for the police, they’ve always been useless. But I don’t think anyone complained at the time that they were too knocked out on opium to catch Jack the Ripper.

  12. “However, this is an announcement, not an invitation to debate. I don’t wish to hear any more on this subject.”

    Those few words, and the ones preceding them, say so much more about Sean Gabb than most of us ever realised before. Not a pleasing revelation.

  13. No you are right sean, opium dens were indeed legal at that time. many in
    the east end of london, some of the buildings still remain, mind you, I doubt
    the tax payers would tolerate paying scotland yard 60 grand a year to crash
    out in opium dens these day’s, hope you’re predictions are right, they are
    indeed historically correct to say the least.

  14. One thing for sure old jack’s surgical skills showed he did not spend as much
    time puffing opium as the peelers did!

  15. I think he was beyond discription in that context, I have my own opinions
    on him, that suggest he may have come from upper classes, I think he saw
    no value in lower class people or unfortunates, many people were treated
    as lower than human during that period, and subject to terrible injustice
    of some of the investigations at the time provide clues to this. The police
    at that time would not have considered themselves with sociology factors
    as much with as much weight as today, profiling did not exist! Clearly
    void of any human conscience for sure towards the poorer breathen at the

  16. … and back to the Frankfurters.
    Starting in the 1960s the BBC and its fellow travellers were in the vanguard in undermining the values of the majority of people. We had satire/comedy programmes like That Was The Week That Was, Monty Pythons, Until Death Do Us Depart which ripped into the churches, politics and most importantly of all the family and marriage.
    The defence was lead by people like Mrs Mary Whitehouse who was mocked and ridiculed by the media. The defence was overwhelmed, and we have what we have today. A country that is financially bankrupt due to the above.
    The greatest irony of all is the campaign for same sex marriage. After decades of ridicule it is now the greatest institution of all time and all must share in it.

  17. Yes that is odd Ron.

    The same people who have mocked marriage for 50 years (indeed longer – the followers of Kinsey with his rigged “research” in the United States) are now saying that marriage is a central cultural institution and they must be part of it.

    Of course as a ice hearted reactionary I do not even really hold with the 1836 Birth, Marriages and Deaths (Registration) Act. So if some man wants to “marry” another man (or two women – or a blue whale, or….) and comes to the state, my reply would be “the state does not do marriages – nothing to do with the state”. And whether private people and organizations want to “recognise” such unions should be up to them.

    Hugo – elections on Tuesday, your comment is very true.

  18. On poverty – Sean Gabb is quite correct.

    What was wrong with Victorian London (or Victorian anywhere) was not that their policy was worse than ours (on the contrary – it was better than ours), it was that their TECHNOLOGY was worse than ours.

    If the Victorians had our level of technology, but their level of taxation government spending and regulations, poverty would have been far less (less – not more) than it is now.

    And if we only had Victorian technology (even that of 1901 – not 1837), but our level of taxation, government spending and regulations – then we would have mass starvation on the streets of every city and town.

    As for a century from now…..

    Sean Gabb may be correct again.

    The present Welfare State, credit bubble finance, countries will collapse – but that is over the next few years (not a century).

    I do not think that technology will be forgotten (although there is always a chance of that), so if better (more Victorian?) policies are followed, then poverty will be far less in hundred years time than it is now.

    Of one thing I am certain – the Frankfurt School will lose.

    The may well destroy the West (i.e. help bankrupt it – economically and culturally), but they will NOT get the society they want.

    Indeed they have fallen into the old Marxist trap of not even seriously thinking about how the egalitarian and collectivist society they want would work – Karl Marx actually forbad serious discussion of this subject as “unscientific” indeed “utopian socialism”. Instead, after the destruction of “capitalism”, the wonderful new society is just supposed to appear – and “society organizes production” (how? shut up – that is a forbidden question).

    At a tactical level the Frankfurt School (and other Marxists) are often genius level – with intelligence of truly the highest order.

    But strategically they are terrible (just terrible), with a grasp on reality of a lower (wildly lower) level than the ordinary people they despise.

    Their minds are totally devoted to destruction (the destruction of civil society), it is as if they just do not have any part of their minds left over for constructive things.

  19. They could certainly do with some basic lessons in economics that for
    sure, as for Mary Whitehouse, well can’t say I miss her, beg to differ on the
    causes of current crisis, but the bankrupcy we are facing has nothing to
    do with her or Monty Python, but rather the plunder with have witnessed
    by the state sector and negligent bankers, not forgetting the tories attempts
    to resolve it, which mathmatically can not succeed, as confirmed by the
    rises in other areas of the buget due to the causation of thier imcompetence!

  20. By the way Ron, most university graduates these day’s make comparison with your anology on economics, that I know, but when we analyse such matters, we have to use the prinicples of numerology, and science, like all things material we should think of in terms of mass, when a mass moves in one given direction, it causes simple imbalance, when things become subject to imbalance they fall, or more precise difination collaspe, with regards to people with the name Mary, I often wonder are they all mad, I let you into my littel secret, I used to call her Mary Shitehouse!

  21. Karl – remember that Gordon Brown (and Chairman Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama) pushed those banking antics every step of the way (and the Central Bank monetary expansion – without which the commercial bankers could have done only a small fraction of they did) was in the hope of TAX REVENUE.

    The sums of the Welfare States do not add up. The only way to make them add up is money-from-outside. And the “financial services boom” seemed like such a pot of gold (accept without the gold).

    Again and again House Committee Chairman Barney Frank denounced anyone who questioned the housing boom. As did Senate Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd and young Senator Barack Obama. The monetary expansion described in Thomas Woods “Meltdown” and the ‘”affordable housing policy” described in Thomas Sowell’s “Housing: Boom and Bust” was sacred to them.

    This was not just because the bankers paid them a lot of money directly (although they did – Dodd, Frank and Obama are the three politicians to whom the bankers paid the most money from 2004 onwards), it was because they NEEDED the boom to pay for the government spending that they (and the useless waste-of-space RINO George Walker Bush) so loved.

    What is called the “Chicago Way” is not just ordinary corruption – the politicians and administrators involved believe themselves to have noble objectives. the money they are paid, see such books as “The Culture of Corruption” “Bought And Paid For” – is just a nice add on. A way of paying for the standard of living they are entitled to – having produced such wonderful social reforms….

    Gordon Brown was not paid such “campaign contributions” and he followed the same policy for the same basic reason – he needed the tax revenue from the “boom”, from the credit bubble.

    Of course young Barack Obama is a slightly different case – as with his life long Marxist training (directly from Cloward and Piven in his case – amongst others) he understood that the whole thing was doomed to collapse.

    Indeed he counted upon a crises.

    How else would someone who had not even served one term in the Senate become President of the United States?

    Without a crises even the support of the media would not have been enough.

    Of course, as Greece and Spain and Italy and …. as well as the United States and Britain are finding, the financial boom turns to bust – and was already unaffordable (the various spending promises made by governments becomes even more unaffordable).

    I sometimes concentrate on Britain and America too much.

    Have a look at the labour codes of Greece, Italy and Spain.

    These countries have mass unemployment (especially Greece and Spain) with these labour codes (the regulations) it is impossible for them not to have mass unemployment.

    These labour codes did not always exist – they were created.

    Who created them?

    University trained leftists.

    How were these policies justified?

    By a vast tidal wave of propaganda – CULTURAL propaganda.

    Attacking traditional work, attacking property, attacking such cultural institutions as the family (and so on).

    The state would take case of everyone – from the cradle to the gave.

    There would be no more need for productive work.

    And no more need for such institutions as families, or churches, or…..

  22. That’s good reading, but I already was aware of much of this, of course letting university graduates take control of the country was one of the
    biggest mistakes in history, they delude themslves in thinking a university
    education will make all things possible, particularly the lefties, I alway’s
    love listening to their political crap trap, they are alway’s first in line for
    high pay pensions, as part of their new masterplans, not much good at the
    basic principles of maths though. Of course Gordon Brown, he was the
    mastermind who gave all britains gold away for a song! What a gifted man,
    what economic foresight, did that man have. As I already said,
    regarding europe the EU empire has started to break up, fragmentation
    has taken hold, of course there is much debate about membership of
    europe, but perhaps we should not concern ourselves to much, history
    tells us even the greatest of empires eventually falls, ask Glycerius
    (AD 437 to 474)

  23. Oh, I’m sure that you will recover from my comments, Sean, but recovering from the obvious deceit of your own may not be quite as easy. And you may not realise it, but your clear dread of any adverse comments about Jews completely destroys the entire purpose of your little puff piece on anti-Semitism.

  24. Sean Gabb wrote:

    I do ask you to bear this in mind.

    In the immortal words of Maggie: “You’re frit.” Which is perfectly understandable. Whether it will seem perfectly excusable, in the fullness of time, is another matter. But at least, before time fulfils itself, you’ll get to condemn loudly and often the disappearance of free speech.

    Paul Marks wrote:

    For example, I have no objection to people with brown skin comming over the border between Mexico and the United States (as they always have)…

    Of course not. After all, “D.N.A.” and “race” don’t matter, do they?

    as long as they get no “free stuff” such as free health care (the ER Act of the 1980s) and free education (the Supreme Court judgement of 1982)

    So at the moment you are against that movement across the border, because that act and that judgment are still active. And you’ve said so loudly and often. Haven’t you?

    Anyway, to summarize what we’ve learned from the eminently sane and honest Mr Marks:

    1. “D.N.A.” (Divauxhall Nougat Anthill) is of no importance: itz all kultcha innit.
    2. Before the welfare state, the American Black Community was inventing electricity, splitting the atom and landing on the moon AT EVEN HIGHER RATES THAN WHITES.
    3. But after the welfare state, the American Black Community stopped inventing electricity, splitting the atom, etc.
    4. The welfare state was invented by whites.
    5. Therefore, whites are responsible for all social pathologies.
    6. See also the Frankfurt School (who were all white).

    Paul, given that you think physical differences between “races” are so easily exploited by the malevolent left, even tho’ “D.N.A.” is, of course, of no significance, this seems to follow:

    It is a bad idea to allow physically different groups to enter the US and UK while the malevolent left still have such power to exploit them. Indeed, the more immigrants, the greater the power of the malevolent left.

    But I’ve not seen you call for immigration to be stopped. Instead, you’ve waffled and wittered about culture and laws being the problem and never objected while the “cultural” problem caused by immigration has got worse and worse. If one didn’t know better, one might conclude you are in fact on the side of the malevolent left.

    Speaking of malevolence:

    Given your utter cowardice in dealing with me – it seems rather unlikely that you are going to go and kill Kevin Carson. And I am certainly not going to do it for you.

    “Voldemort” you seem unwilling even to try and kill me. Let alone Kevin.

    I’m gratified to have established that. I’m also gratified that you’re not going to murder Mr Carson on my behalf. Or anyone else’s, I hope.

    But I’m dragged back to That Quote. There are entire literary oeuvres less rewarding of analysis:

    “It would, of course, be emotionally satisfying to cut Kevin Carson’s Black Flagger (Black Flaggers like Carson will side with the Red Flagger Marxists – indeed they already are and have for years) throat, or blow his head off with a bullet (although he would be more likely to do those things to me) – but it is the job of politics to AVOID THAT SITUATION.”

    I’d like to draw the attention of the tribunal to the excursion Paul undertakes between the genitive (Kevin Carson’s) and the noun governed by it (throat). The image of jugulation might be thought worthy of concentrating even a psychopath’s attention — but no, it bubbles up so casually in Paul’s mind and affects him so little that he can set it aside for a time while he pursues a new train of thought. Indeed, two new trains of thought. Then note the parenthesis that follows: “although he” etc. Having outlined what would give him emotional satisfaction, viz. throat-cutting and putting a bullet through an opponent’s head, Paul asserts his virtue by suggesting that it is the opponent who is the more murderously inclined. I.e., his impulse to murder Mr Carson, while entirely understandable, is in fact reactive, not spontaneous. And he rounds off his statement of the self-evident with three words in capitals, further confirming his levels of calm and self-control.

    The literary skill at work, conscious or otherwise, is apparent when we examine an unadorned version of The Quote:

    “It would be emotionally satisfying to cut Kevin Carson’s throat, or blow his head off with a bullet, but it is the job of politics to avoid that situation.”

    It doesn’t carry conviction, does it? But the full version attests very convincingly to casual malevolence and hair-trigger psychopathy.

  25. Sounds as if democracy is turning nasty, throats slit, heads blown off, but what a point immigration, the road where no one dear go, firstly, i ask myself why are we letting people stay and reside in the country, when they enter with false documents, and bogus colleage qualifications, the situation is now so bad gangs have set them selves up with officies and switchboards to evade the police and customs check, how bad do things get when gangs are able to create a bogus colleage and get thousands into the UK illegally, only this week the bombshell drops, the government have failed to vet staff working in the NHS, no one really knows, who they are, what they have done, or where they really come from at the moment, the fact is the authorities have been swamped with bogus identities and qualifications, they have done little about it apart from letting these so called victims have a better lifestyle than the native english, allocating them with the best jobs. My opinion, these people are dangerous crim’s, they are well proven in arears of organised fruad and counterfeiting, some times so good they don’t get rumbled for decades, not need, to slit anyones throats or blow heads off, just deport the crim’s I say, end of problem.

  26. Voldemort – you have asked me a question (at least I think you have).

    Am I in favour of free migration into a Welfare State?

    The answer to that question is NO I am not in favour of free migration into a Welfare State.

    And, of course, that includes the United Kingdom.

    By the way, even if someone was not a Welfare State, I would NOT be in favour of new people arriving in a country if they were hostile to the place they were going to.

    For example, people who claim that Texas is really part of Mexico should not be welcomed into Texas, and people who claim the whole world should be under an Islamic state, should not be welcomed into non Islamic countries. That may be a “feudal” way of thinking (a military version of the “cricket test”), but I have to admit that is the way I think.

    As for your point about genetic differences concerning the mind, as well as the body (at least I think that was the point you were driving towards), I must confess I lack the biological knowledge to have a real opinion on that matter – other than the obvious one that any genetic difference in intelligence between racial averages (for example the old claim that East Asians have a higher mathematical intelligence than Europeans) is going to be vastly smaller than the differences within a racial group itself.

    I am not even sure that intelligence matter that much – at least not in comparison to other things. For example, I would rather live in a place where the people were hard working and honest,rather than live in a place of degenerate criminals – even if the second group of people were, on average, more intelligent than the first group of people.

    And whether a group of people is going to be hard working and decent is certainly a matter of culture – not of race.

    For example, the population of Glasgow are not (on average) very productive or very honest (at least so it is claimed) – but genetically they are very “Nordic”. A century ago the same population group (the citizens of Glasgow) were some of the most productive and inventive people on the planet.

    It is difficult to believe that some sort of genetic mutation has happened and spread to the general population. Surely it is more likely that there has been a CULTURAL change?

  27. Karl – on democracy I read Sean Gabb’s article on “50 Shades of Gray”.

    In my tradition of arguing with him I tried to think up counter arguments.

    I failed – failed totally.

    His evidence was sound and his reasoning logically watertight.

  28. Of course if you study cultural change, that is the real reason for the demise
    of glasgow, as you say they are Nordic, whilst we in the east are more saxon, of course some quack graduates argue genetic inferiorites and then
    allocate them the to different arears of the UK, but much of these arguments
    are nonsense, they are mainly based on illness, mortality, education, poor people do indeed
    alway’s suffer higher mortality and disease due to poor health care, they
    did some interesting research a couple of years ago from GP stats, it
    establshed this, two areas, one working class, one middle, the research middle class area
    concluded they lived twenty years longer with the same conditions, they had
    identical conditions to that in the working class area, but much better health
    care,in some cases due to the attitudes of doctors when dealing with the different social classes,
    of course a second reason for different cultures in the UK is the difference in
    social education, and historic isolation, which retained area cultures, the
    education facilities are alway’s superior in middle england! Some recent
    studies on diabetes are now establishing people with police records and
    subject to incarceration are being subject to higer complications and mortality, in relation to their middle class none charged counterparts, this
    is not genetic causation but rather a situation of the way things are and
    the noted attitudes towards different cultures in middle england, and the
    way people interact with the class system, same with wealfare, there is
    not a level playing field, example, a working class person may find his
    wealfare stopped, but a person such as a state worker with identical
    conditions would retain theirs!

  29. Karl – I am certainly not an expert on race stuff, but I think that people who are interested in this subject count the Saxons as “Nordic”, i.e. one of the “northern peoples”.

    Still I agree with the rest of what you say – the cultural/political change that has happened in Glasgow is an extreme version of what has happened in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  30. Well I alway’s understood they were Northern Germanic tribes, you could be
    right, of course you’re right on the past tense of Glasgow, I have indeed
    been everywhere in the UK over the last 30 years, not so extreme now,
    with many of the economic and social changes that have taken place in
    the last decade, identical conditions can be found in the North, certain
    transformations are taking place in the east, Gt Yarmouth now is similar
    now in both social and economic identity, I spent a great many years working and traveling the UK as a long distance
    commercial driver, and again, as many years touring on two wheels, I do indeed, identify the comparisons, when I look at one chicken egg, on seeing
    the second, I identify it as a chicken egg!

  31. Of course paul, a great many teachers and graduates, not surprising these
    day’s identify the Normans as being french, in fact they were Norsemen,
    Normandy was independent from france!

  32. Paul we should note, the Roman scholars leave us with this, AD411-476, there is a mass movement of peoples from europe towards the central wealth and tax generating arears, Rome has become seperate entities with many different languages, Attila saw this opportunity to strike an arrow into the heart of his enemies, such perfect timming, and of course for Attila being in the right place at the right time! Taking the advange of the fragmentation of the empire. and bringing it to total defeat.

  33. Of course Ptolemy tells us the saxons were Nothern Germanic Tribes, that
    like many in europe at the time were unsettled by the victories of the Huns!
    During the mass migration periods.

  34. I have a soft spot for the Saxons (although they were very bad news for anyone who met them). No all mighty rulers like the Roman Empire (or the Huns), those 12 man councils in their villages, and law that (among their own people) was fairer than Roman law – for example in regards to the property rights of women.

  35. Paul — you’re libertarian, and conservative, and honest, in the same way that North Korea is Democratic, and the People’s, and a Republic.

    The answer to that question is NO I am not in favour of free migration into a Welfare State.

    Then please point to your voluminous writings in opposition to that migration into the US and UK. Not that the “welfare state” is the important point: the important point is that cultures arise from genetics, and immigration from Mexico into the US will inevitably make the US more like Mexico, whether or not the US has a welfare state. So, as a conservative, I say: no immigration. Also, as a conservative, I wouldn’t have the arrogance to say I don’t oppose migration into a sovereign state of which I’m not a citizen. Finally, as a conservative, I congratulate Israel on its desire to remain Jewish and to exclude non-Jews by all necessary means.

    As for your point about genetic differences concerning the mind, as well as the body (at least I think that was the point you were driving towards), I must confess I lack the biological knowledge to have a real opinion on that matter – other than the obvious one that any genetic difference in intelligence between racial averages (for example the old claim that East Asians have a higher mathematical intelligence than Europeans) is going to be vastly smaller than the differences within a racial group itself.

    Now, I’ll make a statistical point that you will neither understand nor allow to affect your repetition of that rubbish in the future.

    The difference between the average athletic or mathematical or chess-playing ability of men and women is “vastly smaller than the differences within” a sex (no doubt, as a conservative, you’d prefer to say “gender”) “itself”. Please tell me:

    How many women currently play in the Premier League? Indeed, in the top ten divisions of English football?

    How many women have won a Nobel Prize for Physics or a Fields Medal?

    How many women are numbered among the 100 greatest chess players in history?

    And why do those patterns hold true, given what is also true of the inter-group averages and the intra-group variation?

    If you understand the above, you will also understand why, although the average difference in various psychological traits between American whites and the American Black Community is “vastly smaller than the differences within the racial group itself”, this does not mean both “communities” are capable of high scientific or technological or cultural achievement. Clearly, one is and the other isn’t. Despite Thomas Sowell and George Washington Carver. Neither of whom could have achieved what he did without the society created by […] and not by […].

    I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

  36. “Voldemort”

    I repeat what I have already said – both about the topic, and about you personally.

  37. I would agree Israel does have the right aproach to immigration, as does,
    Iran, japan, china, numerous other countries, mass immigration changes
    not only the gentic pool of the country, the cultures, and religions, what this
    will lead to is big political change and loss of native culture, as the case
    in the U.K. When we talk about genetics, just look at the countries many
    of these people come from, in reality they could’nt organise a P up, in
    a brewery. I don’t agree about wealfare, we have paid a lot of tax for this,
    just to hand the largest portion to immigrants Chloe Smith, that’s what
    you do indeed.

  38. They may be true paul, but the point I was putting across was how mass migration can change the status and rule and politics in any continent, even the USA. in england today we are seeing fragmentation as witnessed by the scholars of Rome, The UK is now on a new destiny both politically and ecomonically that is something that cannot now be changed, In 100 years from now britian will be unrecognizable, pobably no monarcy, no westiminister, no white domination, predominately Islam.

  39. Voldemont, we do indeed have to have wealfare for native citizens, but
    not migrants, they have paid nothing towards it.

  40. On immigration my view has been the same all my adult life. No free migration into a Welfare State – and, even if there is no Welfare State, no entry for people whose loyality is to hostile powers (hostile to the polity they are seeking to enter). My latter opinion might be described as “feudal” (as it connects entry with loyality), but so be it.

    Karl – I think that bankruptcy (de facto bankruptcy) will change everything.

    Both the Welfare State and the fiat money credit bubble financial system are going to collapse.

    That is as true of Japan (which basically has no real immigration) as it is of Britain (which has lots and lots of immigration).

    And when this de facto (and double) bankruptcy occurs – everything changes. Changes in very wild and unpredictable ways.

  41. You have hit the nail bang on the head, once I was not to concerned about
    immigration, but having traveled all over the UK and evaluated my sociology
    research, I have changed my mind the gates must close at once, fist stage,
    riots civil unrest, second stage, more fragmentation, third stage, seperation
    of counties, forth stage, possibly civil war, but not in our lifetime!

  42. Of course those government wet’s live in a bubble, you can only see the reality of the situation from the ground, Ghetto’s, no go areas, communities
    fragmented by a main road, this is the reality, not the dream world of
    westminister and steak Ta……Ta…….. or the looney tune graduates!

  43. Paul Marks wrote:


    I repeat what I have already said – both about the topic, and about you personally.

    Wot, no more blogorrhoea?

    On immigration my view has been the same all my adult life. No free migration into a Welfare State – and, even if there is no Welfare State, no entry for people whose loyality is to hostile powers (hostile to the polity they are seeking to enter).

    It’s highly probable that the parents of the 7/7 suicide-bombers weren’t loyal to hostile powers, or hostile to the UK, or particularly fervent in their faith. I strongly suggest that they were, instead, very grateful for their chance to live here. But their offspring, if we judge by their actions, seemed to have sloughed off their parents’ gratitude.

    Your understanding of immigration and its consequences seems to be dictated by the Guardian or Socialist Worker, Paul. You are, in other words, a fine representative of the modern, post-nasty, pre-dissolution “Conservative” party.

  44. “Voldemort” – if someone comments treason they should be punished – regardless of their race. In the case of 7/7 bombers – they are dead and can not be punished. However, people of all races are Muslims (Islam is not a race) and white, blue eyed people have converted to Islam. Indeed one Belgium lady (or “nordic” stock) went all the way to Iraq to be a suicide bomber.

    By the way – would you have supported the United Kingdom against Nazi Germany in World War II? Or would you have put your racial ideology ahead of the country of your birth?

  45. I think what one fails to understand about mulims, is this, as a group they
    are difficult or impossible to punish, only in incarceration terms, they do
    indeed not fare death and have this delusion, they are going to a better
    place, I have met many on my travels, but one thing is apparent, they appear
    not to fare death as we do, hence long periods of incarceration in hell must
    represent a horrific punishment for them.

  46. In the UK there are many woman converting to islam, more then those
    converting to catholicism or protestant religions.

  47. Voldemont,I also hold similar views to paul on immigration, I am certainly
    not a conservative, just part of the common sense revolution. people found
    to be committing crime on entry should be immediately deported, not presented with a nice
    council house and up to 20, G, a year in wealfare!

  48. Converts to Islam (or any religion) do tend to be more extreme than people born into a faith, and yes Karl there are a lot of converts now.

    Still Voldemort has a point – immigrants have the culture of where they have come from (their clan and so on). Their children do not have that – so they either adopt the culture of the country they were born in, or they seek something else (such as a religious commitment far “purer” than than of their parents – and without the cultural safety valves of clan, tribal elders and so on).

    The problem that Britain (and the rest of the West faces) is that our culture has been systematically undermined – by leftists (most, for the record, white leftists).

    Does the Church of England reach out to convert people? When the ex Bishop of Rochester (himself a man of brown skin who was born in Pakistan) suggested that this might be a good idea – he was treated as if he was something the cat brought it.

    It is the same with all aspects of traditional British culture – they are not valued, they are not supported, no one tries to offer them as something the new people might value or want to join. It is tragic.

    Take the example of “Voldemort” – he is not really some evil wizard, he is just a man (like you and me Karl), he is no more an evil wizard than he is a SS racial warrior (it is just a POSE – nothing more). But he is quite intelligent.

    If he (and others like him) would just drop this racist rubbish and use their intelligence to promote traditional British culture, he would actually do some good.

    Perhaps not enough good (things may be past the point of restoration), but we will never know – because such people will not even try.

    For example, when they see the ex Bishop of Rochester they see a man with brown skin who was born and brought up in Pakistan. It does not occur to them that he is just as British (indeed just as ENGLISH) as themselves. And that other people with brown skin who were born in Pakistan could be like him – if things were different, if British culture was supported (not despised).

    Nor is this just Britain.

    For example the United States used to be famous for people arriving from all over the world and turning into Americans (and if not them – then certainly their children).

    That has fallen apart – as it has in most of the Western world.

    Because of the influence (direct and indirect) of the Frankfurt School and others.

    It is a cultural crises in the West – as loss of self belief (due to the efforts of the Frankfurt School and others).

    And if people do not believe in their own culture – new people certainly will not believe in it.

  49. Karl – about the Islamists and their lack of fear of death.

    During the siege of Alexandra (640s I think) the Islamists are said to have declared that they would win because “we love death, as much as you love life”.

    That may be true – but there is an answer to it. As Winston Churchill (that “evil Zionist”) argued in “The River War” the answer is technology and the use of calm intelligence in warfare.

    Of course if one is dealing with an emotional country that thinks handing over 1000 terrorists in return for one soldier is a good thing (sentimentality), or gives seats in Parliament to a television personality whose own supporters call him “Pretty Boy” (valuing external appearance over solid service), then hope fades.

    The cultural conflict is something else again. I wish I could point to a single Western nation where (for example), large numbers of Muslims are being converted to Christianity – but I can not.

    Even in the United States conversions bring down the wrath of the P.C. police in the media (which brings us back to the Frankfurt School).

  50. Yes, probably did say that, but never the less, they didn’t like the side of a
    “TEMPLARS” broad sword!

  51. I think to a point you have got things right, but to be a true leftist in england
    today, you need a property port folio, a wine celler or large storidge area
    as such, be in high paid state job, best criterion, these new lefties are far
    more dangerous than traditional labour, they only wanted fairness, not
    destroy the country, as the new lefties created by that “Tony Man.”

  52. Of course this is the important point, they are unable to not appear as being
    racist thugs, immigration needs intelligence, careful choice of words, a
    well planed policy to protect countries interests. they seem unable to shake off the british BNP
    racist image, everytime you raise the subject, you become Adolf Hitler,
    this is esentially the fundamental problem, and why we have no proper
    immigration policies in the united kingdom.

  53. Karl – with what you say about rich leftists you remind me of the later “Peter Simple” of the Daily Telegraph (back in the days when it was worth buying). The rich Hampstead Marxist in her vast pile “Marxmount”.

    Micheal Wharton (“Peter Simple”), Denis Hills (get his autobiography – it is wonderful), Enoch Powell – all gone. The world is a duller place without them.

  54. “Voldemort” – if someone comments treason they should be punished – regardless of their race. In the case of 7/7 bombers – they are dead and can not be punished. However, people of all races are Muslims (Islam is not a race) and white, blue eyed people have converted to Islam. Indeed one Belgium lady (or “nordic” stock) went all the way to Iraq to be a suicide bomber.

    Oh, yes. “It’s the ideology”, isn’t it? That’s why Iceland, Japan and Finland have had suicide bombers and have to spend so much money guarding against more.

    Your grasp of statistics isn’t feeble: it’s non-existent.

    On your “let them in if they’re not hostile” line.

    How do you test whether they’re hostile? Ask them to tick a box?

    What if they turn hostile after they arrive? Deport them?

    What if their children or grandchildren turn hostile? Deport them?

    By the way – would you have supported the United Kingdom against Nazi Germany in World War II? Or would you have put your racial ideology ahead of the country of your birth?

    I am not a nazi, Mr Marks, altho’, of course, as a hysterical leftist, you try to paint me as one because I express completely traditional conservative views. What about your father? Should he have been deported as a communist, “hostile” to the polity? Should you be deported for supporting immigration, which is a hugely harmful process and will — as the racist Peter Simple repeatedly pointed out — end in disaster?

    If he (and others like him) would just drop this racist rubbish and use their intelligence to promote traditional British culture, he would actually do some good.

    This “racist rubbish” says someone who displays his complete ignorance with every Guardianista cliche he peddles. As I said, you’re not a conservative, altho’ you are indeed a Conservative, i.e., an ally of the cultural Marxists who are destroying the country. “Traditional British culture” — as expressed by racists such as Chaucer, Shakespeare, T.S. Eliot, perhaps? Or do you mean Dizzy Rascal, Yasmin Alittlebit-Bolshevik and Doreen Laurence?

    For example, when they see the ex Bishop of Rochester they see a man with brown skin who was born and brought up in Pakistan. It does not occur to them that he is just as British (indeed just as ENGLISH) as themselves.

    As I said, you take the dictation of the Guardian and Socialist Worker on immigration. Cultures arise from genetics (as well as influencing genetics). The genetics of the Bishop have built Pakistan, where neither libertarianism nor women’s rights do particularly well, I have heard it said. My genetics (tho’ not yours, Mr Marks) have built England. As a conservative, I want England to stay England. This is why I oppose the lies and deceit peddled by cultural Marksists such as you: England is not a “proposition nation”, it is a nation created by a particular sub-set of a particular race. As more of the Bishop’s race appear here, England becomes more like Pakistan. Libertarians should question whether that is a good thing. As a cultural Marxist and non-libertarian, you don’t.

    For example, the population of Glasgow are not (on average) very productive or very honest (at least so it is claimed) – but genetically they are very “Nordic”. A century ago the same population group (the citizens of Glasgow) were some of the most productive and inventive people on the planet.

    It is difficult to believe that some sort of genetic mutation has happened and spread to the general population. Surely it is more likely that there has been a CULTURAL change?

    No, they are not “very Nordic”. No, the argument from incredulity is not scientifically valid. And yes, there has been a genetic change in the population of Glasgow, which accounts for the criminality and lack of productivity there. It is the same genetic change that has done for Liverpool and sections of other British cities. That genetic change was caused by immigration from Ireland. For genetic reasons, the Catholic Irish have a lower average IQ, inter alia. They have not been good for mainland Britain.

  55. It’s true, most chavs and criminal underclass types in England look Irish to me, and their Christian names give them away – Shane, and so forth.

  56. Alas – now my other blood line is under attack. As my late father said “big hands, big feet, thick neck – typical Irish peasant”.

    Still at least my first name is not “Sean”.

  57. You said that paul, good man probably oppressed by some alien one could
    argue! people will alway’s be peasants as long as those in power keep them
    there by force.

  58. Harold, why is it people like you jump to these rediculous sterotype, presumptions, firstly, the Irish are not all criminal underclass as you put it,
    whilst there are a great number of irish people in england, the suggestion
    they are all law breakers or terrorists as some suggest is nonsense, as I
    established in london Irish people are victimised by the british authorities,
    criminalised illegally, get yourself an education in the real world for gods
    sake man! or join the goons in the Norfolk Police.


    You “people” around here… you are really, really unintelligent. I think any member of the Arthropoda superphylum would easily grasp Critical Theory much better than you could ever possibly dream to do… That little list above, with all the McEvil things that the villains from Frankfurt invented to undermine the glorious catholic order of capitalism is the fattest joke I’ve read in years. I’ve heard of how ignorant the little men and women of the upper hemisphere could be, but I would never, in my wildest delusions, think you could all go this far… Lukács talking about “Eros and revolution”? No, no, no, that never happened… You see, you were try to talk about – I mean, to lie about – Marcuse. But I think distinguishing such similar sounding names as Lukács and Marcuse must be a pretty difficult task for the likes of you boys and girls, right? Where else could I go to read such vile, child-like ociosities? Only this very well-informed blog could contain such a vivid distortion of the history of ideas!
    The saddest, most blatant fact, crystalline for anyone in the possession of a relatively functional brain, is that you all KNOW you’re just inventing all this “Satan” verborragy about intelectualls with the sole purpose of justifying your own endless stupidity, and the fact that you’d rather contribute to the maintenance of the current status of the beautiful world we live in, where you happen to get the best piece of the pie, right? Shame on you, girls, shame on you. You are the Mussolinis and Hitlers of my time, and I despise your kind.

Leave a Reply