Discussion:
The Origins of Political Correctness
(too old to reply)
Anti-Multiculty
2004-08-21 04:08:54 UTC
Permalink
The Origins of Political Correctness
An Accuracy in Academia Address
http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html
by Bill Lind

Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA conferences
including the 2000 Consevative University at American University

Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about this morning – the
victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the
rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it – where does it
come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful
of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to
be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or
insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.

We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has
been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and
to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that
people would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of what
words they used. But we now have this situation in this country. We have it
primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole
society. Were does it come from? What is it?

We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something of a
joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only
half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our
century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in
Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of
ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly
find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It
is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort
that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but
back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness
with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of
Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college
campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas,
where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set
up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local
black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted "victims" groups that
PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the
small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some
star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the
future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.

Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology
(I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is
to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain
things must be true – such as the whole of the history of our culture is the
history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that, reality
must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of
our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are
naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to
look out and say, "Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true,"
the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is
why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic
Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says
that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production.
Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is
determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc.,
have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature,
indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.

Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers
and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and
capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness
certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist
women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups
are determined to be "victims," and therefore automatically good regardless
of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically
to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic
Marxism.

Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the
classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they
expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when
the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate
through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with
superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a
black or Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is
expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is
a system of expropriation. White owned companies don’t get a contract
because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or
women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.

And finally, both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the
answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For
the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes
any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired. So
we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of
women, or the Bible is really about race and gender. All of these texts
simply become grist for the mill, which proves that "all history is about
which groups have power over which other groups." So the parallels are very
evident between the classical Marxism that we’re familiar with in the old
Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today as Political
Correctness.

But the parallels are not accidents. The parallels did not come from
nothing. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history,
a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a small
group of academics who have studied this. And the history goes back, as I
said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today
bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.

Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did
come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up
and overthrow their governments – the bourgeois governments – because the
workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries
than they had in common with the bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their
own country. Well, 1914 came and it didn’t happen. Throughout Europe,
workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to fight each other.
The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic
Party in Germany and said there are no parties now, there are only Germans.
And this happened in every country in Europe. So something was wrong.

Marxists knew by definition it couldn’t be the theory. In 1917, they
finally got a Marxist coup in Russia and it looked like the theory was
working, but it stalled again. It didn’t spread and when attempts were made
to spread immediately after the war, with the Spartacist uprising in Berlin,
with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers
didn’t support them.

So the Marxists’ had a problem. And two Marxist theorists went to work on
it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. Gramsci said the
workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism,
until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the
Christian religion – that they are blinded by culture and religion to their
true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist
theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, "Who will save us from Western
Civilization?" He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of
a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.

Lukacs gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home
grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government is established in Hungary in 1919, he
becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did was
introduce sex education into the Hungarian schools. This ensured that the
workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian
people looked at this aghast, workers as well as everyone else. But he had
already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by,
that we would consider the "latest thing."

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of
translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates
Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created
the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about because the very
wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil
has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend. He is disturbed by the
divisions among the Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First
Marxist Work Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of the key German
thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.

And he says, "What we need is a think-tank." Washington is full of think
tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back quite a
ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt University,
established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as the
Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning
that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The
last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it’s a
form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social
Research.

Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the
author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for
Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, "I wanted the
institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to
Marxism." Well, he was successful. The first director of the Institute, Carl
Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to
Martin Jay, "by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a
scientific methodology." Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at
the Institute, and that never changed.

The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it
acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were
very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create
and form the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists. They’re still very much
Marxist in their thinking, but they’re effectively run out of the party.
Moscow looks at what they are doing and says, "Hey, this isn’t us, and we’re
not going to bless this."

Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and
the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural
terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay
writes, "If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the
Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s
socio-economic sub-structure," – and I point out that Jay is very
sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here –
"in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural
superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the
relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory."

The stuff we’ve been hearing about this morning – the radical feminism,
the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black
studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory. What
the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the
1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious
because you’re tempted to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to
criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the
capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse
to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free
society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’
re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order
which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that
Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it.
What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most
destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the
current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the
whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism
is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the
1960s.

Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and,
most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse
introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that’s
the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls
for a society of "polymorphous perversity," that is his definition of the
future of the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the
1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation,
but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see
in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view,
masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual
differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from
differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined." Sex
is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.

Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism.
"Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating
attitude toward nature." That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in
Materialismus und Moral. "The theme of man’s domination of nature,"
according to Jay, " was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School
in subsequent years." "Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of
labor, (here’s were they’re obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy)
expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human,
sensual happiness." In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the
Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer "discussed the
hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture." And he
specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his
"protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher morality."

How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our
universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt
School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came
to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for
Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City, and the
Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia
University. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s,
though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from
Critical Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every
aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society.
There is another very important transition when the war comes. Some of them
go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key
figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including
Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.

These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to
us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student
rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the
draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed theory of some
sort. They couldn’t just get out there and say, "Hell no we won’t go," they
had to have some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them were
interested in wading through Das Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not
light, and most of the radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for
them, and unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the
university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School
relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany
is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the
student rebels come into Adorno’s classroom, he calls the police and has
them arrested – Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw the 60s student
rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of
the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United
States.

One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of
the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and
Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays
the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry
into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that
order and that gives us the person Freud describes – the person with all the
hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can
envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in
which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of
"polymorphous perversity," in which you can "do you own thing." And by the
way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a wonderful
message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They’re students, they’re
baby-boomers, and they’ve grown up never having to worry about anything
except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way
they can easily follow. He doesn’t require them to read a lot of heavy
Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially,
"Do your own thing," "If it feels good do it," and "You never have to go to
work." By the way, Marcuse is also the man who creates the phrase, "Make
love, not war." Coming back to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse
defines "liberating tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the
Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the
Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes back
to the 1930s.

In conclusion, America today is in the throws of the greatest and direst
transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a
country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state.
In "hate crimes" we now have people serving jail sentences for political
thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever
further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who
dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly
what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now
it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political
Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s
here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy,
everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Time To String Up The Traitors"
John Tibbs
2004-08-20 13:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anti-Multiculty
The Origins of Political Correctness
An Accuracy in Academia Address
http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html
by Bill Lind
Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA conferences
including the 2000 Consevative University at American University
Where does all this stuff that you've heard about this morning - the
victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the
rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it - where does
it
Post by Anti-Multiculty
come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful
of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to
be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or
insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.
We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has
been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and
to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that
people would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of what
words they used. But we now have this situation in this country. We have it
primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole
society. Were does it come from? What is it?
We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something of a
joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only
half-serious. In fact, it's deadly serious. It is the great disease of our
century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in
Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of
ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.
If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly
find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It
is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort
that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but
back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness
with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.
First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of
Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college
campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas,
where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set
up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local
black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted "victims" groups that
PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the
small legal system of the college, they face formal charges - some
star-chamber proceeding - and punishment. That is a little look into the
future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.
Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology
(I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is
to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain
things must be true - such as the whole of the history of our culture is
the
Post by Anti-Multiculty
history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that, reality
must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of
our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are
naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to
look out and say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true. I can see it isn't
true,"
Post by Anti-Multiculty
the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is
why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.
Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic
Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says
that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production.
Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is
determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc.,
have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature,
indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.
Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers
and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and
capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness
certain groups are good - feminist women, (only feminist women,
non-feminist
Post by Anti-Multiculty
women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups
are determined to be "victims," and therefore automatically good regardless
of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined
automatically
Post by Anti-Multiculty
to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic
Marxism.
Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the
classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they
expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when
the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate
through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with
superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a
black or Hispanic who isn't as well qualified, the white student is
expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is
a system of expropriation. White owned companies don't get a contract
because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or
women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.
And finally, both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the
answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it's Marxist economics. For
the cultural Marxist, it's deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially
takes
Post by Anti-Multiculty
any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired. So
we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of
women, or the Bible is really about race and gender. All of these texts
simply become grist for the mill, which proves that "all history is about
which groups have power over which other groups." So the parallels are very
evident between the classical Marxism that we're familiar with in the old
Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today as Political
Correctness.
But the parallels are not accidents. The parallels did not come from
nothing. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history,
a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a small
group of academics who have studied this. And the history goes back, as I
said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today
bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.
Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did
come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up
and overthrow their governments - the bourgeois governments - because the
workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries
than they had in common with the bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their
own country. Well, 1914 came and it didn't happen. Throughout Europe,
workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to fight each other.
The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic
Party in Germany and said there are no parties now, there are only Germans.
And this happened in every country in Europe. So something was wrong.
Marxists knew by definition it couldn't be the theory. In 1917, they
finally got a Marxist coup in Russia and it looked like the theory was
working, but it stalled again. It didn't spread and when attempts were
made
Post by Anti-Multiculty
to spread immediately after the war, with the Spartacist uprising in Berlin,
with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers
didn't support them.
So the Marxists' had a problem. And two Marxist theorists went to work
on
Post by Anti-Multiculty
it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. Gramsci said the
workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism,
until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the
Christian religion - that they are blinded by culture and religion to
their
Post by Anti-Multiculty
true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist
theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, "Who will save us from Western
Civilization?" He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of
a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.
Lukacs gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home
grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government is established in Hungary in 1919, he
becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did was
introduce sex education into the Hungarian schools. This ensured that the
workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian
people looked at this aghast, workers as well as everyone else. But he had
already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by,
that we would consider the "latest thing."
In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of
translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates
Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created
the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about because the very
wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil
has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend. He is disturbed by the
divisions among the Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First
Marxist Work Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of the key German
thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.
And he says, "What we need is a think-tank." Washington is full of think
tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back quite a
ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt University,
established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as the
Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning
that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The
last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it's a
form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social
Research.
Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the
author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for
Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, "I wanted the
institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to
Marxism." Well, he was successful. The first director of the Institute, Carl
Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to
Martin Jay, "by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a
scientific methodology." Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at
the Institute, and that never changed.
The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it
acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer's views were
very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create
and form the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists. They're still very
much
Post by Anti-Multiculty
Marxist in their thinking, but they're effectively run out of the party.
Moscow looks at what they are doing and says, "Hey, this isn't us, and
we're
Post by Anti-Multiculty
not going to bless this."
Horkheimer's initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and
the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural
terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay
writes, "If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the
Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois
society's
Post by Anti-Multiculty
socio-economic sub-structure," - and I point out that Jay is very
sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I'm not reading from a critic here -
"in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural
superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the
relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory."
The stuff we've been hearing about this morning - the radical feminism,
the women's studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black
studies departments - all these things are branches of Critical Theory.
What
Post by Anti-Multiculty
the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the
1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious
because you're tempted to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to
criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the
capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse
to do that. They say it can't be done, that we can't imagine what a free
society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as
we'
Post by Anti-Multiculty
re living under repression - the repression of a capitalistic economic
order
Post by Anti-Multiculty
which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that
Freud describes in individuals of repression - we can't even imagine it.
What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most
destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the
current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the
whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism
is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the
1960s.
Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and,
most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse
introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that's
the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls
for a society of "polymorphous perversity," that is his definition of the
future of the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the
1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation,
but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see
in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm's view,
masculinity and femininity were not reflections of 'essential' sexual
differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from
differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined." Sex
is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.
Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism.
"Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating
attitude toward nature." That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in
Materialismus und Moral. "The theme of man's domination of nature,"
according to Jay, " was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School
in subsequent years." "Horkheimer's antagonism to the fetishization of
labor, (here's were they're obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy)
expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human,
sensual happiness." In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the
Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer "discussed the
hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture." And he
specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his
"protest.against asceticism in the name of a higher morality."
How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our
universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt
School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came
to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for
Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City, and the
Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia
University. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s,
though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from
Critical Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every
aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society.
There is another very important transition when the war comes. Some of them
go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key
figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including
Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.
These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to
us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student
rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the
draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed theory of some
sort. They couldn't just get out there and say, "Hell no we won't go,"
they
Post by Anti-Multiculty
had to have some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them were
interested in wading through Das Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not
light, and most of the radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for
them, and unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the
university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School
relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany
is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there - when the
student rebels come into Adorno's classroom, he calls the police and has
them arrested - Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw the 60s student
rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of
the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United
States.
One of Marcuse's books was the key book. It virtually became the bible
of
Post by Anti-Multiculty
the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and
Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays
the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry
into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that
order and that gives us the person Freud describes - the person with all
the
Post by Anti-Multiculty
hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can
envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in
which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of
"polymorphous perversity," in which you can "do you own thing." And by the
way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a wonderful
message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They're students, they're
baby-boomers, and they've grown up never having to worry about anything
except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way
they can easily follow. He doesn't require them to read a lot of heavy
Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially,
"Do your own thing," "If it feels good do it," and "You never have to go to
work." By the way, Marcuse is also the man who creates the phrase, "Make
love, not war." Coming back to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse
defines "liberating tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the
Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the
Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes back
to the 1930s.
In conclusion, America today is in the throws of the greatest and direst
transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a
country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state.
In "hate crimes" we now have people serving jail sentences for political
thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever
further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who
dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It's exactly
what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now
it's coming here. And we don't recognize it because we call it Political
Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it's not funny,
it's
Post by Anti-Multiculty
here, it's growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy,
everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.
--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty
"Time To String Up The Traitors"
SER
2004-10-03 17:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Excellent post, but you did not mention the Jews until way far into
the post. They should have been cetral to the post early on.
Post by Anti-Multiculty
Post by Anti-Multiculty
The Origins of Political Correctness
An Accuracy in Academia Address
http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html
by Bill Lind
Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA conferences
including the 2000 Consevative University at American University
Where does all this stuff that you've heard about this morning - the
victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the
rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it - where does
it
Post by Anti-Multiculty
come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful
of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to
be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or
insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.
We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this
has
Post by Anti-Multiculty
been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity,
and
Post by Anti-Multiculty
to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange
that
Post by Anti-Multiculty
people would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of
what
Post by Anti-Multiculty
words they used. But we now have this situation in this country. We have
it
Post by Anti-Multiculty
primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole
society. Were does it come from? What is it?
We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something of
a
Post by Anti-Multiculty
joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only
half-serious. In fact, it's deadly serious. It is the great disease of our
century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in
Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of
ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.
If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly
find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It
is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort
that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement,
but
Post by Anti-Multiculty
back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political
Correctness
Post by Anti-Multiculty
with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.
First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature
of
Post by Anti-Multiculty
Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college
campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas,
where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines
set
Post by Anti-Multiculty
up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local
black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted "victims" groups that
PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within
the
Post by Anti-Multiculty
small legal system of the college, they face formal charges - some
star-chamber proceeding - and punishment. That is a little look into the
future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.
Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an
ideology
Post by Anti-Multiculty
(I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology)
is
Post by Anti-Multiculty
to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain
things must be true - such as the whole of the history of our culture is
the
Post by Anti-Multiculty
history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that,
reality
Post by Anti-Multiculty
must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of
our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are
naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes
to
Post by Anti-Multiculty
look out and say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true. I can see it isn't
true,"
Post by Anti-Multiculty
the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That
is
Post by Anti-Multiculty
why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.
Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic
Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says
that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production.
Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is
determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc.,
have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature,
indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.
Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e.
workers
Post by Anti-Multiculty
and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie
and
Post by Anti-Multiculty
capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness
certain groups are good - feminist women, (only feminist women,
non-feminist
Post by Anti-Multiculty
women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These
groups
Post by Anti-Multiculty
are determined to be "victims," and therefore automatically good
regardless
Post by Anti-Multiculty
of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined
automatically
Post by Anti-Multiculty
to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic
Marxism.
Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When
the
Post by Anti-Multiculty
classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they
expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly,
when
Post by Anti-Multiculty
the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate
through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with
superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a
black or Hispanic who isn't as well qualified, the white student is
expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today,
is
Post by Anti-Multiculty
a system of expropriation. White owned companies don't get a contract
because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or
women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.
And finally, both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the
answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it's Marxist economics. For
the cultural Marxist, it's deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially
takes
Post by Anti-Multiculty
any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired.
So
Post by Anti-Multiculty
we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of
women, or the Bible is really about race and gender. All of these texts
simply become grist for the mill, which proves that "all history is about
which groups have power over which other groups." So the parallels are
very
Post by Anti-Multiculty
evident between the classical Marxism that we're familiar with in the old
Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today as Political
Correctness.
But the parallels are not accidents. The parallels did not come from
nothing. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a
history,
Post by Anti-Multiculty
a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a
small
Post by Anti-Multiculty
group of academics who have studied this. And the history goes back, as I
said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today
bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.
Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did
come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up
and overthrow their governments - the bourgeois governments - because the
workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries
than they had in common with the bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their
own country. Well, 1914 came and it didn't happen. Throughout Europe,
workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to fight each other.
The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic
Party in Germany and said there are no parties now, there are only
Germans.
Post by Anti-Multiculty
And this happened in every country in Europe. So something was wrong.
Marxists knew by definition it couldn't be the theory. In 1917, they
finally got a Marxist coup in Russia and it looked like the theory was
working, but it stalled again. It didn't spread and when attempts were
made
Post by Anti-Multiculty
to spread immediately after the war, with the Spartacist uprising in
Berlin,
Post by Anti-Multiculty
with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the
workers
Post by Anti-Multiculty
didn't support them.
So the Marxists' had a problem. And two Marxist theorists went to work
on
Post by Anti-Multiculty
it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. Gramsci said the
workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism,
until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the
Christian religion - that they are blinded by culture and religion to
their
Post by Anti-Multiculty
true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant
Marxist
Post by Anti-Multiculty
theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, "Who will save us from Western
Civilization?" He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation
of
Post by Anti-Multiculty
a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.
Lukacs gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the
home
Post by Anti-Multiculty
grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government is established in Hungary in 1919, he
becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did was
introduce sex education into the Hungarian schools. This ensured that the
workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian
people looked at this aghast, workers as well as everyone else. But he had
already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by,
that we would consider the "latest thing."
In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role
of
Post by Anti-Multiculty
translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates
Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created
the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about because the
very
Post by Anti-Multiculty
wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil
has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend. He is disturbed by
the
Post by Anti-Multiculty
divisions among the Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First
Marxist Work Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of the key German
thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.
And he says, "What we need is a think-tank." Washington is full of think
tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back quite a
ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt University,
established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as the
Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning
that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The
last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it's a
form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for
Social
Post by Anti-Multiculty
Research.
Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the
author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for
Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, "I wanted the
institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to
Marxism." Well, he was successful. The first director of the Institute,
Carl
Post by Anti-Multiculty
Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according
to
Post by Anti-Multiculty
Martin Jay, "by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a
scientific methodology." Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle
at
Post by Anti-Multiculty
the Institute, and that never changed.
The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930
it
Post by Anti-Multiculty
acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer's views were
very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create
and form the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists. They're still very
much
Post by Anti-Multiculty
Marxist in their thinking, but they're effectively run out of the party.
Moscow looks at what they are doing and says, "Hey, this isn't us, and
we're
Post by Anti-Multiculty
not going to bless this."
Horkheimer's initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and
the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural
terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay
writes, "If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the
Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois
society's
Post by Anti-Multiculty
socio-economic sub-structure," - and I point out that Jay is very
sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I'm not reading from a critic here -
"in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural
superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the
relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical
Theory."
Post by Anti-Multiculty
The stuff we've been hearing about this morning - the radical feminism,
the women's studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black
studies departments - all these things are branches of Critical Theory.
What
Post by Anti-Multiculty
the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in
the
Post by Anti-Multiculty
1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious
because you're tempted to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to
criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and
the
Post by Anti-Multiculty
capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse
to do that. They say it can't be done, that we can't imagine what a free
society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as
we'
Post by Anti-Multiculty
re living under repression - the repression of a capitalistic economic
order
Post by Anti-Multiculty
which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions
that
Post by Anti-Multiculty
Freud describes in individuals of repression - we can't even imagine it.
What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most
destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring
the
Post by Anti-Multiculty
current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that
the
Post by Anti-Multiculty
whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of
criticism
Post by Anti-Multiculty
is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not
the
Post by Anti-Multiculty
1960s.
Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and,
most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse
introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that's
the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings
calls
Post by Anti-Multiculty
for a society of "polymorphous perversity," that is his definition of the
future of the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the
1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual
liberation,
Post by Anti-Multiculty
but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see
in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm's view,
masculinity and femininity were not reflections of 'essential' sexual
differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from
differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined."
Sex
Post by Anti-Multiculty
is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.
Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism.
"Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating
attitude toward nature." That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in
Materialismus und Moral. "The theme of man's domination of nature,"
according to Jay, " was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt
School
Post by Anti-Multiculty
in subsequent years." "Horkheimer's antagonism to the fetishization of
labor, (here's were they're obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy)
expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human,
sensual happiness." In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the
Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer "discussed the
hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture." And he
specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his
"protest.against asceticism in the name of a higher morality."
How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our
universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the
Frankfurt
Post by Anti-Multiculty
School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis
came
Post by Anti-Multiculty
to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for
Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City, and the
Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia
University. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s,
though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from
Critical Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every
aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed toward American
society.
Post by Anti-Multiculty
There is another very important transition when the war comes. Some of
them
Post by Anti-Multiculty
go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key
figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including
Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.
These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much
to
Post by Anti-Multiculty
us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student
rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the
draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed theory of some
sort. They couldn't just get out there and say, "Hell no we won't go,"
they
Post by Anti-Multiculty
had to have some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them were
interested in wading through Das Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is
not
Post by Anti-Multiculty
light, and most of the radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for
them, and unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the
university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School
relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in
Germany
Post by Anti-Multiculty
is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there - when the
student rebels come into Adorno's classroom, he calls the police and has
them arrested - Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw the 60s student
rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of
the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United
States.
One of Marcuse's books was the key book. It virtually became the bible
of
Post by Anti-Multiculty
the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and
Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays
the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry
into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of
that
Post by Anti-Multiculty
order and that gives us the person Freud describes - the person with all
the
Post by Anti-Multiculty
hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can
envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order,
in
Post by Anti-Multiculty
which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of
"polymorphous perversity," in which you can "do you own thing." And by the
way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a
wonderful
Post by Anti-Multiculty
message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They're students, they're
baby-boomers, and they've grown up never having to worry about anything
except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way
they can easily follow. He doesn't require them to read a lot of heavy
Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially,
"Do your own thing," "If it feels good do it," and "You never have to go
to
Post by Anti-Multiculty
work." By the way, Marcuse is also the man who creates the phrase, "Make
love, not war." Coming back to the situation people face on campus,
Marcuse
Post by Anti-Multiculty
defines "liberating tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the
Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the
Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes back
to the 1930s.
In conclusion, America today is in the throws of the greatest and direst
transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a
country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the
state.
Post by Anti-Multiculty
In "hate crimes" we now have people serving jail sentences for political
thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever
further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who
dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It's exactly
what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and
now
Post by Anti-Multiculty
it's coming here. And we don't recognize it because we call it Political
Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it's not funny,
it's
Post by Anti-Multiculty
here, it's growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy,
everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.
--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty
"Time To String Up The Traitors"
Peter Terry
2004-08-20 21:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anti-Multiculty
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty
"Time To String Up The Traitors"
JimB is a known Australian racist and Nationalist scumbag?

What's your connection to this Australian group who have threatened to
retaliate with violence against politicians and anyone in the general public
who supports the free notion of multiculturalism for this country? Police
have ceased a video by J. van Tongeren where he threatens anyone who
promotes multicultural values, with violence!


Given the nature of your posts its abundantly clear that you
and the convicted urban terrorist Jack van Tongeren support
one and the same antimulticultural organisation, on the issue of race.

http://www.thewest.com.au/20040730/news/general/tw-news-general-home-sto128911.html

I've noticed that you peddle the same posts threw nz.politics to another
6 newsgroups which indicates nothing more than repeated spam with
a race agenda designed to foster hatred and violence.

You are reminded forthwith:

AUSTRALIA'S RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975

http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/47/top.htm

AUSTRALIA'S RACIAL HATRED ACT 1995

http://scaletext.law.gov.au/html/comact/9/4573/top.htm

I would suggest that your racist agenda is best suited posted
at Neo Nazi dot KKK thataway---------------------------------->

PeterT
Ned Latham
2004-08-22 07:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Terry
Post by Anti-Multiculty
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty
"Time To String Up The Traitors"
JimB is a known Australian racist and Nationalist scumbag?
You have no moral ground for accusing anyone of racism, you lying
little shit:

* "Peter Terry" wrote in <***@news.iprimus.com.au>:
* >
* > You Jews arent overly bright are you,

----snip----

Ned
--
True Blue FAQ: <***@arthur.valhalla.oz>
Public key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ http://www.keyserver.net/en/
Fingerprint: D17C FDD5 BBA8 8687 42E3 C8F2 C9FB 0314 E17A 0CD7
Ned Latham
2004-08-24 07:21:32 UTC
Permalink
* > >
* > > JimB
* > > http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
* > > Union Against Multi-Culty
* > >
* > > "Time To String Up The Traitors"
* >
* > JimB is a known Australian racist and Nationalist scumbag?
*
* You have no moral ground from which to make that accusation,
* you lying little shit.
*
* * >
* * > You Jews arent overly bright are you,
Why'd you snip the evidence, Fairy? Can't you handle the truth?
Have you ever wondered why the scumbag
net Nazi Nerd Loathsome is always found
defending the likes of Australia's extreme right
white nationalists movements like One Nation,
and the racist pinhead antimulti who peddles
his tirade of hate agendas around a dozen or more
newsgroups......
Feel free to show something you think might pass as evidence that
I ever defended any of them, liar.
### then all is to be revealed ###
Put it away, you filthy little slug. And do up your fly.
Check out this scoop, a revealing secrete initiation of
this wacko redneck twit, adorned by Amerikkkas
extreme right. It is to be noted that this repugnant
US group also congratulated Pauline Hanson and her
racist One Nation agendas.
This recent initiation was held live over the Internet and
could only be accessed by Nerds small group of fascist
redneck mates whom he has managed to recruit online
threw the newsgroup, aus.culture.true-blue. To view
the initiation online they had to punch in certain codes
into Nerds online, "keyserver and fingerprint" bizzo.
Tch. Aren't you getting a bit desperate there, Fairy?
Evidently, each viewer, (half a dozen hatemongering idiots),
were required to draw blood by pricking their fingers
and forming a blood painted cross over their monitors.
LOL

You feeling a bit left out, Flossy? Feel free to smear blood on
your monitor if that's what turns you on, you fumbling freak.
check it out----------------------------------------------->
That's Nerd in the black, swearing allegiance to his
Amerikkkan controllers.
Loading Image...
Just one question Flossy: does the one you picked as me
look as dopey as you are?

+++

The message you followed up wasn't posted into act-b, troll.
So why did you post your filth into act-b, troll?

Oh, that's right: you're a troll.

Piss off, troll.

Ned
--
True Blue FAQ: <***@arthur.valhalla.oz>
Public key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ http://www.keyserver.net/en/
Fingerprint: D17C FDD5 BBA8 8687 42E3 C8F2 C9FB 0314 E17A 0CD7
Have Anna She Roots (CIGARS)
2004-10-22 15:17:51 UTC
Permalink
Youra Pain In The ASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS NED
Post by Ned Latham
* > >
* > > JimB
* > > http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
* > > Union Against Multi-Culty
* > >
* > > "Time To String Up The Traitors"
* >
* > JimB is a known Australian racist and Nationalist scumbag?
*
* You have no moral ground from which to make that accusation,
* you lying little shit.
*
* * >
* * > You Jews arent overly bright are you,
Why'd you snip the evidence, Fairy? Can't you handle the truth?
Have you ever wondered why the scumbag
net Nazi Nerd Loathsome is always found
defending the likes of Australia's extreme right
white nationalists movements like One Nation,
and the racist pinhead antimulti who peddles
his tirade of hate agendas around a dozen or more
newsgroups......
Feel free to show something you think might pass as evidence that
I ever defended any of them, liar.
### then all is to be revealed ###
Put it away, you filthy little slug. And do up your fly.
Check out this scoop, a revealing secrete initiation of
this wacko redneck twit, adorned by Amerikkkas
extreme right. It is to be noted that this repugnant
US group also congratulated Pauline Hanson and her
racist One Nation agendas.
This recent initiation was held live over the Internet and
could only be accessed by Nerds small group of fascist
redneck mates whom he has managed to recruit online
threw the newsgroup, aus.culture.true-blue. To view
the initiation online they had to punch in certain codes
into Nerds online, "keyserver and fingerprint" bizzo.
Tch. Aren't you getting a bit desperate there, Fairy?
Evidently, each viewer, (half a dozen hatemongering idiots),
were required to draw blood by pricking their fingers
and forming a blood painted cross over their monitors.
LOL
You feeling a bit left out, Flossy? Feel free to smear blood on
your monitor if that's what turns you on, you fumbling freak.
check it out----------------------------------------------->
That's Nerd in the black, swearing allegiance to his
Amerikkkan controllers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/2/28/Kkklan.jpg
Just one question Flossy: does the one you picked as me
look as dopey as you are?
+++
The message you followed up wasn't posted into act-b, troll.
So why did you post your filth into act-b, troll?
Oh, that's right: you're a troll.
Piss off, troll.
Ned
--
Public key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ http://www.keyserver.net/en/
Fingerprint: D17C FDD5 BBA8 8687 42E3 C8F2 C9FB 0314 E17A 0CD7
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...