9/11 Truth, JFK assassination, Holocaust revision & ISIS interactive spreadsheet

9/11, JFK, Holocaust ISIS Timeline

Trump/Clinton Timeline

Donald Trump & William S. Lind

below

Weyrich letter to conservatives

Donald Trump & William S. Lind    top    

William S. Lind ... How Neoconservatives Conquered Washington – and Launched a War by Michael Lind April 10, 2003

America's allies and enemies alike are baffled. What is going on in the United States? Who is making foreign policy? And what are they trying to achieve? Quasi-Marxist explanations involving big oil or American capitalism are mistaken. Yes, American oil companies and contractors will accept the spoils of the kill in Iraq. But the oil business, with its Arabist bias, did not push for this war any more than it supports the Bush administration's close alliance with Ariel Sharon. Further, President Bush and Vice President Cheney are not genuine "Texas oil men" but career politicians who, in between stints in public life, would have used their connections to enrich themselves as figureheads in the wheat business, if they had been residents of Kansas, or in tech companies, had they been Californians.

Equally wrong is the theory that the American and European civilizations are evolving in opposite directions. The thesis of Robert Kagan, the neoconservative propagandist, that Americans are martial and Europeans pacifist, is complete nonsense. A majority of Americans voted for either Al Gore or Ralph Nader in 2000. Were it not for the overrepresentation of sparsely populated, right-wing states in both the presidential electoral college and the Senate, the White House and the Senate today would be controlled by Democrats, whose views and values, on everything from war to the welfare state, are very close to those of western Europeans.

Both the economic-determinist theory and the clash-of-cultures theory are reassuring: They assume that the recent revolution in U.S. foreign policy is the result of obscure but understandable forces in an orderly world. The truth is more alarming. As a result of several bizarre and unforeseeable contingencies – such as the selection rather than election of George W. Bush, and Sept. 11 – the foreign policy of the world's only global power is being made by a small clique that is unrepresentative of either the U.S. population or the mainstream foreign policy establishment.

The core group now in charge consists of neoconservative defense intellectuals. (They are called "neoconservatives" because many of them started off as anti-Stalinist leftists or liberals before moving to the far right.) Inside the government, the chief defense intellectuals include Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense. He is the defense mastermind of the Bush administration; Donald Rumsfeld is an elderly figurehead who holds the position of defense secretary only because Wolfowitz himself is too controversial. Others include Douglas Feith, No. 3 at the Pentagon; Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a Wolfowitz protégé who is Cheney's chief of staff; John R. Bolton, a right-winger assigned to the State Department to keep Colin Powell in check; and Elliott Abrams, recently appointed to head Middle East policy at the National Security Council. On the outside are James Woolsey, the former CIA director, who has tried repeatedly to link both 9/11 and the anthrax letters in the U.S. to Saddam Hussein, and Richard Perle, who has just resigned his unpaid chairmanship of a defense department advisory body after a lobbying scandal. Most of these "experts" never served in the military. But their headquarters is now the civilian defense secretary's office, where these Republican political appointees are despised and distrusted by the largely Republican career soldiers.

Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history. Their admiration for the Israeli Likud party's tactics, including preventive warfare such as Israel's 1981 raid on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, is mixed with odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for "democracy." They call their revolutionary ideology "Wilsonianism" (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism. Genuine American Wilsonians believe in self-determination for people such as the Palestinians.

The neocon defense intellectuals, as well as being in or around the actual Pentagon, are at the center of a metaphorical "pentagon" of the Israel lobby and the religious right, plus conservative think tanks, foundations and media empires. Think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) provide homes for neocon "in-and-outers" when they are out of government (Perle is a fellow at AEI). The money comes not so much from corporations as from decades-old conservative foundations, such as the Bradley and Olin foundations, which spend down the estates of long-dead tycoons. Neoconservative foreign policy does not reflect business interests in any direct way. The neocons are ideologues, not opportunists.

The major link between the conservative think tanks and the Israel lobby is the Washington-based and Likud-supporting Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa), which co-opts many non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel. It flew out the retired general Jay Garner, now slated by Bush to be proconsul of occupied Iraq. In October 2000, he cosigned a Jinsa letter that began: "We ... believe that during the current upheavals in Israel, the Israel Defense Forces have exercised remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of [the] Palestinian Authority."

The Israel lobby itself is divided into Jewish and Christian wings. Wolfowitz and Feith have close ties to the Jewish-American Israel lobby. Wolfowitz, who has relatives in Israel, has served as the Bush administration's liaison to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Feith was given an award by the Zionist Organization of America, citing him as a "pro-Israel activist." While out of power in the Clinton years, Feith collaborated with Perle to coauthor a policy paper for Likud that advised the Israeli government to end the Oslo peace process, reoccupy the territories, and crush Yasser Arafat's government.

Such experts are not typical of Jewish-Americans, who mostly voted for Gore in 2000. The most fervent supporters of Likud in the Republican electorate are Southern Protestant fundamentalists. The religious right believes that God gave all of Palestine to the Jews, and fundamentalist congregations spend millions to subsidize Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

The final corner of the neoconservative pentagon is occupied by several right-wing media empires, with roots – odd as it seems – in the British Commonwealth and South Korea. Rupert Murdoch disseminates propaganda through his Fox television network. His magazine, the Weekly Standard – edited by William Kristol, the former chief of staff of Dan Quayle (vice president, 1989-1993) – acts as a mouthpiece for defense intellectuals such as Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith and Woolsey as well as for Sharon's government. The National Interest (of which I was executive editor, 1991-1994) is now funded by Conrad Black, who owns the Jerusalem Post and the Hollinger empire in Britain and Canada.

Strangest of all is the media network centered on the Washington Times – owned by the South Korean messiah (and ex-convict) the Rev. Sun Myung Moon – which owns the newswire UPI. UPI is now run by John O'Sullivan, the ghostwriter for Margaret Thatcher who once worked as an editor for Conrad Black in Canada. Through such channels, the "gotcha!" style of right-wing British journalism, and its Europhobic substance, have contaminated the US conservative movement.

The corners of the neoconservative pentagon were linked together in the 1990s by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), run by Kristol out of the Weekly Standard offices. Using a P.R. technique pioneered by their Trotskyist predecessors, the neocons published a series of public letters whose signatories often included Wolfowitz and other future members of the Bush foreign policy team. They called for the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq and to support Israel's campaigns against the Palestinians (dire warnings about China were another favorite). During Clinton's two terms, these fulminations were ignored by the foreign policy establishment and the mainstream media. Now they are frantically being studied.

How did the neocon defense intellectuals – a small group at odds with most of the U.S. foreign policy elite, Republican as well as Democratic – manage to capture the Bush administration? Few supported Bush during the presidential primaries. They feared that the second Bush would be like the first – a wimp who had failed to occupy Baghdad in the first Gulf War and who had pressured Israel into the Oslo peace process – and that his administration, again like his father's, would be dominated by moderate Republican realists such as Powell, James Baker and Brent Scowcroft. They supported the maverick senator John McCain until it became clear that Bush would get the nomination.

Then they had a stroke of luck – Cheney was put in charge of the presidential transition (the period between the election in November and the accession to office in January). Cheney used this opportunity to stack the administration with his hard-line allies. Instead of becoming the de facto president in foreign policy, as many had expected, Secretary of State Powell found himself boxed in by Cheney's right-wing network, including Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton and Libby.

The neocons took advantage of Bush's ignorance and inexperience. Unlike his father, a Second World War veteran who had been ambassador to China, director of the CIA, and vice president, George W was a thinly educated playboy who had failed repeatedly in business before becoming the governor of Texas, a largely ceremonial position (the state's lieutenant governor has more power). His father is essentially a northeastern moderate Republican; George W, raised in west Texas, absorbed the Texan cultural combination of machismo, anti-intellectualism and overt religiosity. The son of upper-class Episcopalian parents, he converted to Southern fundamentalism in a midlife crisis. Fervent Christian Zionism, along with an admiration for macho Israeli soldiers that sometimes coexists with hostility to liberal Jewish-American intellectuals, is a feature of the Southern culture.

The younger Bush was tilting away from Powell and toward Wolfowitz ("Wolfie," as he calls him) even before 9/11 gave him something he had lacked: a mission in life other than following in his dad's footsteps. There are signs of estrangement between the cautious father and the crusading son: Last year, veterans of the first Bush administration, including Baker, Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger, warned publicly against an invasion of Iraq without authorization from Congress and the U.N.

It is not clear that George W fully understands the grand strategy that Wolfowitz and other aides are unfolding. He seems genuinely to believe that there was an imminent threat to the U.S. from Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction," something the leading neocons say in public but are far too intelligent to believe themselves. The Project for the New American Century urged an invasion of Iraq throughout the Clinton years, for reasons that had nothing to do with possible links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. Public letters signed by Wolfowitz and others called on the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq, to bomb Hezbollah bases in Lebanon, and to threaten states such as Syria and Iran with U.S. attacks if they continued to sponsor terrorism. Claims that the purpose is not to protect the American people but to make the Middle East safe for Israel are dismissed by the neocons as vicious anti-Semitism. Yet Syria, Iran and Iraq are bitter enemies, with their weapons pointed at each other, and the terrorists they sponsor target Israel rather than the U.S. The neocons urge war with Iran next, though by any rational measurement North Korea's new nuclear arsenal is, for the U.S., a far greater problem.

So that is the bizarre story of how neoconservatives took over Washington and steered the U.S. into a Middle Eastern war unrelated to any plausible threat to the U.S. and opposed by the public of every country in the world except Israel. The frightening thing is the role of happenstance and personality. After the al-Qaida attacks, any U.S. president would likely have gone to war to topple bin Laden's Taliban protectors in Afghanistan. But everything that the U.S. has done since then would have been different had America's 18th century electoral rules not given Bush the presidency and had Cheney not used the transition period to turn the foreign policy executive into a PNAC reunion.

For a British equivalent, one would have to imagine a Tory government, with Downing Street and Whitehall controlled by followers of the Rev. Ian Paisley, extreme Euroskeptics, empire loyalists and Blimpish military types – all determined, for a variety of strategic or religious reasons, to invade Egypt. Their aim would be to regain the Suez Canal as the first step in a campaign to restore the British empire. Yes, it really is that weird.

William Lind on Shlomo Sand's book "The Invention of the Land of Israel"

Weyrich letter to conservatives, excerpts ...complete

But it is impossible to ignore the fact that the United States is becoming an ideological state. The ideology of Political Correctness, which openly calls for the destruction of our traditional culture, has so gripped the body politic, has so gripped our institutions, that it is even affecting the Church. It has completely taken over the academic community. It is now pervasive in the entertainment industry, and it threatens to control literally every aspect of our lives.

Those who came up with Political Correctness, which we more accurately call "Cultural Marxism," did so in a deliberate fashion. I'm not going to go into the whole history of the Frankfurt School and Herbert Marcuse and the other people responsible for this. Suffice it to say that the United States is very close to becoming a state totally dominated by an alien ideology, an ideology bitterly hostile to Western culture. Even now, for the first time in their lives, people have to be afraid of what they say. This has never been true in the history of our country. Yet today, if you say the "wrong thing," you suddenly have legal problems, political problems, you might even lose your job or be expelled from college. Certain topics are forbidden. You can,t approach the truth about a lot of different subjects. If you do, you are immediately branded as "racist", "sexist", "homophobic", "insensitive", or "judgmental."

Donald Trump - Alt Right - AntiSemitism - 9/11 Truth - Cultural Marxism   top    

• Economist The making of a neo-KGB state (in context of Trump's nomination of Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State) ON THE evening of August 22nd 1991—16 years ago this week—Alexei Kondaurov, a KGB general, stood by the darkened window of his Moscow office and watched a jubilant crowd moving towards the KGB headquarters in Lubyanka Square. A coup against Mikhail Gorbachev had just been defeated. The head of the KGB who had helped to orchestrate it had been arrested, and Mr Kondaurov was now one of the most senior officers left in the fast-emptying building. For a moment the thronged masses seemed to be heading straight towards him. ... Over the two terms of Mr Putin's presidency, that “group of FSB operatives” has consolidated its political power and built a new sort of corporate state in the process. Men from the FSB and its sister organisations control the Kremlin, the government, the media and large parts of the economy—as well as the military and security forces. According to research by Olga Kryshtanovskaya, a sociologist at the Russian Academy of Sciences, a quarter of the country's senior bureaucrats are siloviki—a Russian word meaning, roughly, “power guys”, which includes members of the armed forces and other security services, not just the FSB. The proportion rises to three-quarters if people simply affiliated to the security services are included. These people represent a psychologically homogeneous group, loyal to roots that go back to the Bolsheviks' first political police, the Cheka. As Mr Putin says repeatedly, “There is no such thing as a former Chekist.” ... whoever succeeds Mr Putin, real power is likely to remain in the organisation. Of all the Soviet institutions, the KGB withstood Russia's transformation to capitalism best and emerged strongest. “Communist ideology has gone ... In fact, the KGB was cut off from the post-Soviet redistribution of assets. Worse still, it was upstaged and outwitted by a tiny group of opportunists, many of them Jews (not a people beloved by the KGB), who became known as the oligarchs. Between them, they grabbed most of the country's natural resources and other privatised assets. KGB officers watched the oligarchs get super-rich while they stayed cash-strapped and sometimes even unpaid. ... The most politically active (Jewish) oligarchs, Mr Berezovsky, who had helped Mr Putin come to power, and Mr Gusinsky, were pushed out of the country, and their television channels were taken back into state hands. Mr Khodorkovsky, Russia's richest man, was more stubborn. Despite several warnings, he continued to support opposition parties and NGOs and refused to leave Russia. In 2003 the FSB arrested him and, after a show trial, helped put him in jail.
• Wikipedia Stephen Bannon Stephen K. "Steve" Bannon (born November 27, 1953) is an American businessman and media executive. He is the executive chairman of Breitbart News, a politically conservative American news, opinion and commentary website noted for its connection to the alt-right. Bannon will be chief strategist and senior counselor of the upcoming Trump Administration.[He became chief executive officer of the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump in August 2016. He is the co-founder and executive chairman of the Government Accountability Institute and the executive chairman of Breitbart News LLC, the parent company of Breitbart News. He has been involved in the financing and production of a number of films, including Fire from the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman, The Undefeated (on Sarah Palin), and Occupy Unmasked. Bannon also hosts a radio show (Breitbart News Daily) on a Sirius XM satellite radio channel.... Bannon married Mary Louise Piccard, his second wife, in April 1995. Their twin daughters were born three days later. Bannon was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence, battery and dissuading a witness in early January 1996, after Piccard accused Bannon of domestic abuse. The charges were later dropped when his now ex-wife did not show up to court. Piccard also claimed that Bannon had made antisemitic remarks, a claim Bannon's spokesperson has denied. Bannon's association with the alt-right movement along with his alleged anti-Semitic remarks have contributed to accusations of white nationalism from the Southern Poverty Law Center and other advocacy groups, commentators, and Senator Harry Reid.
• Occidental Observer White Nationalism ... To most Westerners today, the words ‘nation’, ‘nationality’ and ‘law’ seem only to mean the state, citizenship and legislation enacted by the state. But there are other meanings to these words, which were their primary and even sole meanings in the past. The nation was once the ethnic group, the tribe at large — nationality being one’s ethnicity. Likewise, in Europe the law was once the customs of the kin-group. So how is it that kinship is not only ignored by Western states as the criterion for citizenship but is even unheard of to most? And is there a future for the original understanding of these words? Historically, nations (in the truest sense of the word) decided personhood and rights-exercising ability based on their being a member of the kin group, not according to whomever the state decided was welcome to citizenship of that nation. Ricardo Duchesne (whose work has often been discussed on TOO) rightly points out that even the rise of Western nation-states, including the US, was not based on civic nationalism, noting their ‘White-only’ immigration policies. He writes, The nations of Europe were not mere “inventions” or functional requirements of modernity, but were factually rooted in the past, in common myths of descent, a shared history, and a distinctive cultural tradition. While the rise of modern industry and modern bureaucracies allowed for the materialization of nation states in Europe, these nations were primordially based on a population with a collective sense of kinship. Aliens have always been granted special rules, notably, being treated according to the law of their own people; this wasn’t because they had the wrong passport, but because they were simply not of one’s nation. Many today will presume this was just ancient tribalism, fueled by irrational xenophobia. However, as Duchesne notes, modern liberal democracy of the West denies the biological impulse to protect one’s own and mistakenly assumes that this denial and even the individualistic, classical liberal ideals of the West, are shared by all the peoples of the world: Humans are social animals with a natural impulse to identify themselves collectively in terms of ethnic, cultural and racial markers. But today Europeans have wrongly attributed their unique inclination for states with liberal constitutions to non-Europeans. They have forgotten that liberal states were created by a particular people with a particular individualist heritage, beliefs, and religious orientations… They don’t want to admit openly that all liberal states were created violently by a people with a sense of peoplehood laying sovereign rights over an exclusive territory against other people competing for the same territory. They don’t want to admit that the members of the competing outgroups are potential enemies rather than abstract individuals seeking a universal state that guarantees happiness and security for all regardless of racial and religious identity. MORE
• Kevin McDonald.net The Frankfurt School of Social Research and the Pathologization of Gentile Group Allegiances THE POLITICAL AGENDA OF THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL OF SOCIAL RESEARCH Hatred and [the] spirit of sacrifice . . . are nourished by the image of enslaved ancestors rather than that of liberated grandchildren. (Illuminations, Walter Benjamin 1968, 262) To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric. (T. W. Adorno 1967, 34) Chapters 2–4 reviewed several strands of theory and research by Jewish social scientists that appear to have been influenced by specifically Jewish political interests. This theme is continued in the present chapter with a review of The Authoritarian Personality. This classic work in social psychology was sponsored by the Department of Scientific Research of the American Jewish Committee (hereafter, AJCommittee) in a series entitled Studies in Prejudice. Studies in Prejudice was closely connected with the so-called Frankfurt School of predominantly Jewish intellectuals associated with the Institute for Social Research originating during the Weimar period in Germany. The first generation of the Frankfurt School were all Jews by ethnic background and the Institute of Social Research itself was funded by a Jewish millionaire, Felix Weil (Wiggershaus 1994, 13). Weil’s efforts as a “patron of the left” were extraordinarily successful: By the early 1930s the University of Frankfurt had became a bastion of the academic left and “the place where all the thinking of interest in the area of social theory was concentrated” (Wiggershaus 1994, 112). During this period sociology was referred to as a “Jewish science,” and the Nazis came to view Frankfurt itself as a “New Jerusalem on the Franconian Jordan” (Wiggershaus 1994, 112–113). MORE
• Unaligned Media Brandon Martinez ... Zionist Infighting Over Bannon Appointment ... The “fiercely proud Jew and unapologetic Zionist,” Pamela Gellar, rushed to the defense of Donald Trump’s campaign manager and chief strategist Stephen Bannon, the former chief executive of Breitbart News, a pro-Israel kosher conservative rag that has attempted to hijack right-wing dissent and steer it off-course into a Zionist dead-end. On the Breitbart website where she has been a regular contributor for years, Gellar wrote: As long as I have known Steve [Bannon], he has been an unabashed supporter of Israel, and of those of us who fight against Jew-hatred and racism. Unequivocally. He is whip-smart, courageous, bold, and loyal. Now the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is claiming that he is anti-Semitic? What? He partnered with Andrew Breitbart — a Jew. He partnered with Larry Solov, another Jew, after Breitbart died. He worked with me — a Jew. He gave proud and fierce Zionists such as Aaron Klein a platform to speak and advance the cause of the Jewish people and the Jewish state. Breitbart Jerusalem was launched under Bannon’s tenure with the Breitbart organization. MORE
• Donald Trump, born 1946, American businessman, real estate mogul, reality television star, president of the US, announced candidacy June 2015, born and raised in New York City, received bachelors degree from Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, built Trump Organization, built office towers, hotels, casinos, golf courses, Miss USA pageant, TV show the Apprentice, sought Reform Party candidacy in 2000, received unprecedented and biased media coverage from CNN, Washington Post, New York Times and other... of 2016 election, was the greatest piling on of establishment MSM and still won the election... campaign ... the Wikipedia Trump page fails to mention anything about the Wikileaks emails of John Podesta that detail collusion between DNC and the main stream media such as CNN, Donna Brazille's giving Hillary Clinton debate questions, the illegal storage of classified emails on an illegal private server in the Clinton home in Chapaqua New York... special access program (SAP) State Dept classified emails on that server, emails stored on Huma Abedin's laptop that Anthony Weiner had access to, or that Weiner's activities exposed a pedophile ring that may have had connections to the Madeline Kahn case. Weiner was known to have sent sexting messages to 20-100 women and stored those messages on a laptop that contained US classified information. The emails also exposed facts about parties John Podesta hosted with members of the DNC, Hillary Clinton lost the election because of smart campaign tactics by Trump, but he would not have prevailed without the American people becoming well-versed in the deep and horrific corruption of the Clinton Crime Family, including Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton Foundation... it was revealed that ISIS was funded by Qatar and Saudi Arabia (...Israel)...but Clinton Foundation still accepted millions in donations from those countries ...
• Aryanskynet Rob Zombie (stage name of Massachusetts native Robert Cummings) has, since the moonrise of the twenty-first century, made a name for himself as a filmmaker with outings such as his hyper-violent Halloween franchise resuscitations for the Weinstein Company. Zombie’s sadistic diptych House of 1,000 Corpses (2003) and The Devil’s Rejects (2005) constitutes perhaps the quintessential statement of the torture porn philosophy on film. Trivializing and even eroticizing the acts of torture and murder, the films offer what, on the surface, would seem to be a typical Hollywood rendering of that threat to American modernity, the Texas redneck. This should come as no surprise in view of the fact that the films were produced by Madonna’s and U2’s manager Guy Oseary – an Israeli and “hardcore Jew”1. Scurrying under the floorboards of Zombie’s nightmare movie vision are indications of a distinctly un-Texan origin.
• BlessedQuietness Tavistock Institute is headquartered in London. Its prophet, Sigmond Freud, settled in Maresfield Gardens when he moved to England. He was given a mansion by Princess Bonaparte. Tavistock's pioneer work in behavioral science along Freudian lines of "controlling" humans established it as the world center of foundation ideology. Its network now extends from the University of Sussex to the U.S. through the Stanford Research Institute, Esalen, MIT, Hudson Institute, Heritage Foundation, Center of Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown, where State Dept. personal are trained, US Air Force Intelligence, and the Rand and Mitre corporations. The personnel of the corporations are required to undergo indoctrination at one or more of these Tavistock controlled institutions. A network of secret groups, the Mont Pelerin Society, Trilateral Commission, Ditchley Foundation, and the Club of Rome is conduit for instructions to the Tavistock network.
• Smash Multiculturalism The goal is clear. Not only in the words of Jews themselves, but in the visual reality we see in European and Western nations every day. If you have ever asked yourself why your country is being destroyed then here is your answer. When we and others say that the engineering of Multicultural, Multiracial and Multifaith societies has been by design and has been no accident then this is why we say it. It isn’t about the economy, it isn’t about diversity, it isn’t about enrichment, it is about the weakening of the once European majority in the interests of one specific group. How do they achieve this? Despite being an extreme minority they achieve this very easily. They influence politicians by lobbying and providing campaign finance and who then proceed to do their bidding. They use academia to indoctrinate our youth into thinking they don’t exist as a group with interests. They use the media to attack and demonise any opposition to their agenda as ‘nazis’ and at the same time use the film industry to portray a narrative of WWII that fits their agenda. What they want is for the public to think that any identification with ones own racial group and the interests specific to them, will lead to the ‘gas chambers.’ ‘a tenacious minority will beat down the resistance of a disorganised majority,’ in other words they use a divide and conquer strategy to weaken us thereby strengthening their own position and dominance. They can operate more freely as a cohesive ethno-religious group when they live in a society with many different ethnic and religious groups and when they don’t stand out so easily as a corrosive force as they have done in the past. Essentially what we have is an alien element within society that uses our institutions against us for their own benefit. Everything that we see as an obvious negative in the West they describe as being progress, but progess for them not us. They are a criminal element, an enemy of our people and are determined to achieve the irreversible ruination of our nations and people.
• Wikipedia Frankfurt School Academic Speak BS Although sometimes only loosely affiliated, Frankfurt School theorists spoke with a common paradigm in mind; they shared the Marxist Hegelian premises and were preoccupied with similar questions.[2] To fill in the perceived omissions of classical Marxism, they sought to draw answers from other schools of thought, hence using the insights of antipositivist sociology, psychoanalysis, existential philosophy, and other disciplines.[3] The school's main figures sought to learn from and synthesize the works of such varied thinkers as Kant, Hegel, Marx, Freud, Weber, and Lukács.[4] Following Marx, they were concerned with the conditions that allow for social change and the establishment of rational institutions.[5] Their emphasis on the "critical" component of theory was derived significantly from their attempt to overcome the limits of positivism, materialism, and determinism by returning to Kant's critical philosophy and its successors in German idealism, principally Hegel's philosophy, with its emphasis on dialectic and contradiction as inherent properties of human reality. Since the 1960s, Frankfurt School critical theory has increasingly been guided by Jürgen Habermas's work on communicative reason, linguistic intersubjectivity and what Habermas calls "the philosophical discourse of modernity".[6] Critical theorists such as Raymond Geuss and Nikolas Kompridis have voiced opposition to Habermas, claiming that he has undermined the aspirations for social change that originally gave purpose to critical theory's various projects—for example the problem of what reason should mean, the analysis and enlargement of "conditions of possibility" for social emancipation, and the critique of modern capitalism.
• FreeBritainNow The British Labour Party was organised in 1900 as the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) by Fabian Society leaders Bernard Shaw and Edward Pease, and had Fabian Socialist Ramsay MacDonald as General Secretary (Pugh, p. 67). The LRC was renamed “The Labour Party” in 1906 and, under Fabian guidance and direction, it became the organisation it is today (Ratiu, 2012). By 1918, Labour had become Britain’s second-largest political organisation – replacing the Liberals – and in Pease’s own words, was “virtually, if not formally,” Fabian in its political policy (Pease, p. 73). .... The “Memorandum on War Aims” by Fabian Society co-founder Sidney Webb became the Labour Party’s policy statement. The pamphlet “Labour and the New Social Order,” also by Webb, was adopted as the Labour Party manifesto. “ Fabian Society has 7000 members 80 per cent (5600) of whom are members of the Labour Party, which includes hundreds of Members of Parliament, Prime Ministers, and other members of Labour governments. What is particularly significant is that this makes about 3 per cent in the general Labour Party membership (about 190,000 in 2010) but close to 100 per cent in the Labour leadership. For example, nearly the entire 1997 Labour Cabinet (including Prime Minister Blair) was composed of Fabians (“The Fabian Society: a brief history”). Moreover, all Labour Prime Ministers have been members of the Fabian Society as have all (or nearly all) Labour Party leaders and deputy leaders. This ought to persuade even die-hard sceptics of the obvious fact that the Labour Party is an organisation run by the Fabian Society. As pointed out by the Guardian – a left-wing paper with close links to the Labour Party and the Fabian Society – (Mandelson, 2005). In 2006 Tony Blair (a Fabian Society member) openly admitted that the values the early Fabians stood for would be “very recognisable” in today’s Labour Party (“A piece of Fabian history unveiled at LSE”). Fabians are routinely involved in Labour Party conferences such as in 2009; the current Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband, launched his leadership bid at a Fabian Society conference, etc. What becomes evident from the above facts is that the Labour Party is an organisation created and controlled by the Fabian Society.
• 

• ZeroHedge The Birth Of Cultural Marxism: How The "Frankfurt School" Changed America Tyler Durden's picture by Tyler Durden Aug 12, 2016 9:00 PM 12 SHARES Submitted by David Galland via GarretGalland.com, The 1950s were a simple, romantic, and golden time in America. California beaches, suburbia, and style. Atlas Shrugged was published, NASA was formed, and Elvis rocked the nation. Every year from 1950–1959 saw over 4 million babies born. The nation stood atop the world in every field. It was an era of great economic prosperity in The Land of the Free. So, what happened to the American traits of confidence, pride, and accountability? The roots of Western cultural decay are very deep, having first sprouted a century ago. It began with a loose clan of ideologues inside Europe’s communist movement. Today, it is known as the Frankfurt School, and its ideals have perverted American society. When Outcomes Fail, Just Change the Theory Before WWI, Marxist theory held that if war broke out in Europe, the working classes would rise up against the bourgeoisie and create a communist revolution. Well, as is the case with much of Marxist theory, things didn’t go too well. When war broke out in 1914, instead of starting a revolution, the proletariat put on their uniforms and went off to war. After the war ended, Marxist theorists were left to ask, “What went wrong?” Two very prominent Marxists thinkers of the day were Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukács. Each man, on his own, concluded that the working class of Europe had been blinded by the success of Western democracy and capitalism. They reasoned that until both had been destroyed, a communist revolution was not possible. Gramsci and Lukács were both active in the Communist party, but their lives took very different paths. Gramsci was jailed by Mussolini in Italy where he died in 1937 due to poor health. In 1918, Lukács became minister of culture in Bolshevik Hungary. During this time, Lukács realized that if the family unit and sexual morals were eroded, society could be broken down. Lukács implemented a policy he titled “cultural terrorism,” which focused on these two objectives. A major part of the policy was to target children’s minds through lectures that encouraged them to deride and reject Christian ethics. In these lectures, graphic sexual matter was presented to children, and they were taught about loose sexual conduct. Here again, a Marxist theory had failed to take hold in the real world. The people were outraged at Lukács’ program, and he fled Hungary when Romania invaded in 1919. The Birth of Cultural Marxism All was quiet on the Marxist front until 1923 when the cultural terrorist turned up for a “Marxist study week” in Frankfurt, Germany. There, Lukács met a young, wealthy Marxist named Felix Weil. Until Lukács showed up, classical Marxist theory was based solely on the economic changes needed to overthrow class conflict. Weil was enthused by Lukács’ cultural angle on Marxism. Weil’s interest led him to fund a new Marxist think tank—the Institute for Social Research. It would later come to be known as simply The Frankfurt School. In 1930, the school changed course under new director Max Horkheimer. The team began mixing the ideas of Sigmund Freud with those of Marx, and cultural Marxism was born. In classical Marxism, the workers of the world were oppressed by the ruling classes. The new theory was that everyone in society was psychologically oppressed by the institutions of Western culture. The school concluded that this new focus would need new vanguards to spur the change. The workers were not able to rise up on their own. As fate would have it, the National Socialists came to power in Germany in 1933. It was a bad time and place to be a Jewish Marxist, as most of the school’s faculty was. So, the school moved to New York City, the bastion of Western culture at the time. Coming to America In 1934, the school was reborn at Columbia University. Its members began to exert their ideas on American culture. It was at Columbia University that the school honed the tool it would use to destroy Western culture: the printed word. The school published a lot of popular material. The first of these was Critical Theory. Critical Theory is a play on semantics. The theory was simple: criticize every pillar of Western culture—family, democracy, common law, freedom of speech, and others. The hope was that these pillars would crumble under the pressure. Next was a book Theodor Adorno co-authored, The Authoritarian Personality. It redefined traditional American views on gender roles and sexual mores as “prejudice.” Adorno compared them to the traditions that led to the rise of fascism in Europe. Is it just a coincidence that the go-to slur for the politically correct today is “fascist”? The school pushed its shift away from economics and toward Freud by publishing works on psychological repression. Their works split society into two main groups: the oppressors and the victims. They argued that history and reality were shaped by those groups who controlled traditional institutions. At the time, that was code for males of European descent. From there, they argued that the social roles of men and women were due to gender differences defined by the “oppressors.” In other words, gender did not exist in reality but was merely a “social construct.” A Coalition of Victims Adorno and Horkheimer returned to Germany when WWII ended. Herbert Marcuse, another member of the school, stayed in America. In 1955, he published Eros and Civilization. In the book, Marcuse argued that Western culture was inherently repressive because it gave up happiness for social progress. The book called for “polymorphous perversity,” a concept crafted by Freud. It posed the idea of sexual pleasure outside the traditional norms. Eros and Civilization would become very influential in shaping the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Marcuse would be the one to answer Horkheimer’s question from the 1930s: Who would replace the working class as the new vanguards of the Marxist revolution? Marcuse believed that it would be a victim coalition of minorities—blacks, women, and homosexuals. The social movements of the 1960s—black power, feminism, gay rights, sexual liberation—gave Marcuse a unique vehicle to release cultural Marxist ideas into the mainstream. Railing against all things “establishment,” The Frankfurt School’s ideals caught on like wildfire across American universities. Marcuse then published Repressive Tolerance in 1965 as the various social movements in America were in full swing. In it, he argued that tolerance of all values and ideas meant the repression of “correct” ideas. It was here that Marcuse coined the term “liberating tolerance.” It called for tolerance of any ideas coming from the left but intolerance of those from the right. One of the overarching themes of the Frankfurt School was total intolerance for any viewpoint but its own. That is also a basic trait of today’s political-correctness believers. To quote Max Horkheimer, “Logic is not independent of content.” Recalling the Words of Winston (Not That One) The Frankfurt School’s work has had a deep impact on American culture. It has recast the homogenous America of the 1950s into today’s divided, animosity-filled nation. In turn, this has contributed to the undeniable breakdown of the family unit, as well as identity politics, radical feminism, and racial polarization in America. It’s hard to decide if today’s culture is more like Orwell’s 1984 or Huxley’s Brave New World. Never one to buck a populist trend, the political establishment in America has fully embraced the ideas of the Frankfurt School and has pushed them on American society through public miseducation. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the beacons of progressivism, are both disciples of Saul Alinsky, a devoted cultural Marxist. And so we now live in a hyper-sensitive society in which social memes and feelings have overtaken biological and objective reality as the main determinants of right and wrong. Political correctness is a war on logic and reason. To quote Winston, the protagonist in Orwell’s dystopia, “Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4.” Today, America is not free.

• The Frankfurt School ...................http://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/index.htm
  and “Critical Theory”
  
  Index to the biographies and writings of members of the “Frankfurt School”, or Institute for Social Research, set up by a group of Marxist intellectuals in Germany in 1923, affiliated to the University of Frankfurt and independently of the Communist Party, which has been influential in the development of Marxist theory ever since.
  
  The founding of the Institut marked the beginning of a current of “Marxism” divorced from the organised working class and Communist Parties, which over the decades merged with bourgeois ideology in academia.
  
  **************************************
  The Institut für Sozialforschung (Institut) was the creation of Felix Weil, who was able to use money from his father's grain business to finance the Institut. Weil was a young Marxist who had written his PhD on the practical problems of implementing socialism and was published by Karl Korsch.
  
  With the hope of bringing different trends of Marxism together, Weil organised a week-long symposium (the Erste Marxistische Arbeitswoche) in 1922 attended by Georg Lukacs, Karl Korsch, Karl August Wittfogel, Friedrich Pollock and others. The event was so successful that Weil set about erecting a building and funding salaries for a permanent institute. Weil negotiated with the Ministry of Education that the Director of the Institut would be a full professor from the state system, so that the Institut would have the status of a University.
  Weil himself was an orthodox Marxist, who saw Marxism as scientific; the role of the Institut would be social and historical research mainly on the workers' movement. Indeed, in its early years, the Institut did fairly orthodox historical research. However, one of Weil's central objectives was also cross-disciplinary research, something which the German University system made impossible.
  
  Although Georg Lukacs and Karl Korsch both attended the Arbeitswoche which had included a study of Korsch's Marxism and Philosophy, both were too committed to political activity and Party membership to join the Institut, although Korsch participated in publishing ventures for a number of years.
  
  The way Lukacs was obliged to repudiate his History and Class Consciousness, published in 1923 and probably a major inspiration for the work of the Frankfurt School, was an indicator for others that independence from the Communist Party was necessary for genuine theoretical work.
  
  Friedrich Pollock was one of those who had been involved with the Institut from the beginning, and took over the role of Director on the death of Carl Grünberg. Pollock was content to concern himself with administrative matters, but he was also a life-long friend and associate of Max Horkheimer, who is probably the figure most identified as the leading representative of the Frankfurt School.
  
  Max Horkheimer [Archive] later himself became Director of the Institut, and it was Horkheimer who guided the Institut into its innovative exploration of cultural aspects of the development of capitalism.
  See Horkheimer’s opening address on becoming Director.
  
  Karl August Wittfogel was a participant from the beginning, but was a Party member and had a more orthodox, “scientific” view of Marxism. It is Wittfogel who established the classic Marxist analysis of “Asiatic Despotism.”
  
  Richard Sorge worked at the Instiut, but as it turned out was only there in his role as a Soviet spy.
  
  David Ryazanov [Archive] was assigned to Germany to compile the writings of Marx and Engels and publish the Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe, and worked closely with the Institut.
  
  In 1931/32 a number of psychoanalysts from the Frankfurt Institute of Psychoanalysis and others who were acquainted with members of the Institut began to work systematically with the Institut. These included Franz Borkenau, Erich Fromm, Wilhelm Reich, Karl Landauer and Heinrich Meng.
  
  In joining what was predominantly a “Hegelian-materialist” current of Marxists, these psychologists gave the development of Marxist theory an entirely new direction, which has left its imprint on social theory ever since.
  
  Erich Fromm [Archive] dealt with psychological aspects of social control, delusion and conformity and became one of the founders of “socialist humanism”.
  
  Wilhelm Reich developed his own doctrine of sexual liberalism as an antidote to political conformism and social psychosis.
  
  Other young German Communist intellectuals who were associated with the Institut, but after the Nazi takeover, wound up in the United States, were Kurt Lewin and Adolph Löwe.
  
  They all went on to make significant contributions to social theory, though only distantly related to their initial Communist inspirations. Kurt Lewin for instance contributed to the emergence of group-dynamics and social action theory as specialised disciplines. Adolph Lowe made important contributions to the development of political economy.
  
  Raymond Aron was a French journalist and sociologist.
  
  
  Leo Lowenthal [Archive] was one of the early workers at the Institut
  whose principal interest was in the sociology of literature.
  
  Later he was joined by the Hegelian philosopher Herbert Marcuse [Archive] who was probably the only member of the Institut who achieved wide influence among political activists, in the 1960s.
  
  When Hitler came to power, the Institut was closed down, and by various routes, most of the participants in the Institut regrouped themselves in New York, with a new Institute affiliated to Columbia University. They continued to publish in German, even though very few people would have been reading their work in that language. However, after the War, the Institut returned to Frankfurt.
  Perhaps two of the most famous figures who were in the central core of the Institut were Theodor Adorno [Archive] and Walter Benjamin, both renowned for their studies of literature and mass culture which would become so influential from the 1960s on.
  
  After the Institut re-established itself in Germany after the War, the main figure of the younger generation was Jürgen Habermas [Archive] who continued to develop the “critical theory” in the Hegelian tradition of Adorno and Marcuse. Habermas was instrumental in the 1960s in developing the theory of “networks,” but in later years Habermas has focussed on communicative ethics in the tradition of Immanuel Kant, and departed not only from the Marxist, but even the Hegelian tradition.
  
  ( A BRANCH established in NYC is extant and draws from students
  from across the globe.
  
  Its name is "The New School for Social Justice " and many of Folliewoods 
  brightest and outspoken stars were students there . To become a 
  successful therapist in NYC one MUST have a few courses from 'TNS' 
  in ones resume and the connections that go with that. 
  
  It shouldnt need to be pointed out the ONE connection among all the founders and administrators relative to the Marxist Theory and the New School. 
  
  At NYC Marxist School many teachers are also famous ones from 'TNS' 
  and do travel to many colleges and Universities giving lectures to
  seduce people into the Marxist philosophy. I write from personal experience. 
  
  For any who really want to understand what is happening in 
  OUR world today and what more is planned it is a good start to
  read comparisons of Marxist Socailism to National Socialism. 
  The differences are that between slavery and freedom . Progress and stagnation. )
  Currently Axel Honneth represents the third generation, continuing the work of Jürgen Habermas, but with a partial return to Hegel, still quite remote from any reading of Karl Marx.
  After the isolation and Stalinisation of the Soviet Union, and the consequent decline of the Communist Parties in the “West,” the possibilities for the fruitful development of Marxism as a revolutionary-critical theory in close connection with the practical-critical activity of the workers movement, became extremely restricted.
  The current generation of Critical Theorists, unlike previous generations, is led by women, such as Nancy Fraser, Seyla Benhabib and Agnes Heller: 
  The intellectuals who founded the Frankfurt Institut deliberatively cut out a space for the development of Marxist theory, inside the “academy” and independently of all kinds of political party.
  The result was a process in which Marxism merged with bourgeois ideology. A parallel process took place in post-World War Two France, also involving a merging with Freudian ideas. One of the results was undoubtedly an enrichment of bourgeois ideology. In this connection Paul Mattick's Marcuse: One Dimensional Man In Class Society (1972) is worth reading. But also, despite everything, the Frankfurt School makes an important critique of orthodox Marxism, and their work should be taken seriously.

• Mark Dankof on the Charlie Hebdo Affair for the Rasa News Agency of Iran

  Mark Dankof on Charlie Hebdo: It’s a Zionist Instrument Dedicated to Blasphemy and Subversion of Christian and Islamic Faiths Alike.

  Seyed Muhammad Javad Mousavi of the Rasa News Agency of Iran interviewed Mark Dankof for his perspective on the Charlie Hebdo Affair.  The Persian language version of the discussion may be accessed here.  

  1 – What do you think is the main purpose of continuously insulting the Prophet of Islam? 

  Mark Dankof:  It is important to remember what Pat Buchanan told us all last week:  The Charlie Hebdopublication in France was also insulting and blaspheming every version of orthodox Christianity when it depicted the God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, as being involved in an incestuous sexual relationship.  Who has a vested interest in blaspheming both Christianity and Islam as part of a world-wide ideological and political game plan? Clearly, it is the global Zionist network which desires to assert the Talmudic doctrine of Jewish racial supremacy on a global basis, and to convince comatose Westerners that their primary enemy in the world is Islam, and not the Zionist hijacking of their own banking system, culture, government, media, and educational establishments.  The Frankfurt School and its Institute of Social Research which destroyed the older Christian civilizations in the West in partnership with the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith (ADL) by subverting Europe and the United States with pornography, sexual perversion including the LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transsexual) agenda, and the abortion/euthanasia industries, is working its demonic magic through all kinds of Jewish-funded media outlets and NGOs to solidify its hold on the Western world, even as it also seeks the subversion of the Islamic societies and Vladimir Putin’s Russia.  Eric Margolis concedes that the Charlie Hebdo publication is financed by Rothschild banking interests in France.  Simply follow the trail of the money.

  Pat Buchanan and Mark Dankof: Charlie Hebdo Depicts God the Father and God the Son, Jesus Christ, in an Incestuous Relationship.

  Charlie Hebdo’s financiers and handlers clearly seek to falsely equate mainstream Sunni and Shia Islam with the Wahhabi and Takfiri fanatics comprising the ISIS and al-Qaeda organizations, and to discredit Islam generally in the West, even as orthodox Christianity is also lampooned.  Both Islamic and Christian movements must be infiltrated from within with sexual decadence, paid intelligence assets, and internal disorder. The final strategy in the quest for Zionist global supremacy and the final victory of the so-called New World Order will involve the realization of the dream of launching the War of Civilizations envisioned by the Project for the New American Century and its bedfellows.  This will necessitate pitting Sunni Islam and Shia Islam against one another as adversaries, and pitting what remains of a Christian remnant in the West against both Islam and Putin’s Russia.  Divide and Conquer is the age-old methodology used by this evil monolith.  

  2 – Some analysts believe that the role of the western intelligence services such as MI6 and Mossad is undeniable regarding the Charlie Hebdo attacks. What’s your take on that? If there is a role, what are the possible reasons behind that? 

  Mark Dankof:  While I cannot absolutely prove it, I agree with Ron Paul and Paul Craig Roberts that theCharlie Hebdo affair has all the earmarks of a False Flag operation conducted by the Israeli Mossad, the British MI6, and the American CIA.  It is ludicrous to believe that the national security police states erected in Europe and the United States would be providing money, political, and logistical support to ISIS in a clear attempt to overthrow President Assad in Syria (a clear Zionist objective as a prelude to attacking Iran), and then would subsequently fail to effectively monitor the comings and goings of hundreds of these Wahhabic terror elements traveling with apparent impunity between Syria and both Europe and the United States. These travels are being allowed for a purpose, which is to deliberately enact incidents of this kind, diverting Western public attention from the Hidden Hand financing and directing these operations, as well as diverting public attention from ongoing Israeli atrocities in Palestine, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. Additionally, I believe France was being punished for its public deviations as of late from the wholesale support of the Zionist agenda demanded by the power elite in the West.  I refer to the French Parliament’s recent pro-Palestinian vote (s) in public session, and President Hollande’s urging of a reassessment of the wisdom and utility of the economic sanctions being imposed on Putin’s Russia.  

  I believe there are additional cracks in the canvas being painted by the real perpetrators of this incident, including the convenient leaving behind of an Identification Card in a getaway car by the alleged assailants, and the equally convenient killing of the accused by the French police.  Dead Men Tell No Tales.  . . . Just ask Lee Harvey Oswald.

  3 – In your opinion, what might be the possible reasons behind the Israeli Prime Minister’s attendance in Charlie Hebdo’s post-attack rally? 

  Mark Dankof: Netanyahu is a war criminal and murderer simply taking advantage of the Zionist controlled media in France specifically and the West generally. He obviously wants to justify his regime’s criminal policies in Palestine and Gaza by posing as a defender of human rights and freedom of expression in the West against “Islamic Jihadists“.  It is the established Zionist strategy to make the aggressor and the criminal perpetrator appear as the aggrieved victim.  This is especially outlandish, given the legal persecution and economic marginalization of scholars and political activists in the West who have criticized Israel, or who have questioned aspects of the establishment Zionist narrative on what happened in World War II and during the runup to the establishment of the Zionist state in 1948. What Dr. E. Michael Jones ofCulture Wars refers to as the “Jewish control of narrative” has served Netanyahu and his predecessors quite well, especially in the United States.  How many Americans know about the Zionist bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946?  The Lavon Affair in 1954?  The dispute between JFK and Ben Gurion in 1963 over the Israeli nuclear weapons plant at Dimona in the Negev? The Meyer Lansky Jewish Crime Syndicate connection to the anti-Castro Cubans, to James Jesus Angleton of the CIA, and the Giancana-Trafficante-Marcello-Roselli led crime syndicates in the United States who were all provably involved in the JFK assassination?  The NUMEC nuclear raw materials thefts in Pennsylvania in the United States for Israel’s weapons program?  The Pollard-AIPAC-Ben Ami spy cases?  And the Arnon Milchan financing of Oliver Stone’s JFK movie which diverted public attention from the Israeli connection to the events in Dallas in November of 1963?  What about the Israeli role in 9-11 and the subsequent coverup of this fact by the Israeli citizens assigned to direct the official American governmental investigation of the event?

  The Hidden Hand Behind the Mask of the Truth.

  The Zionist-controlled Western media has perfected the Orwellian inversion of truth and falsehood, victim and perpetrator ongoingly.  Look at Syria, where the existence of “Jihadic extremists” being decried in France and the West for involvement in the Charlie Hebdo affair are being simultaneously financed, trained, and introduced into that country by the United States, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, Turkey, and Jordan for the express purpose of overthrowing the Alawite regime of President Assad. Look at the criminals installed by coup d’etat last February by the United States, Israel, and the EU in the Ukrainian regime headquartered in Kiev, with all of the atrocities committed by this regime in the eastern part of that country since, including the shootdown of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 falsely attributed by Western media to Vladimir Putin or Russian ethnics under his control, and the horrific Odessa Trade Union building burning.

  It is noteworthy that the mastermind of these crimes, Petro Poroshenko, joined Netanyahu in Paris for theCharlie Hebdo protests.

  The Odessa Trade Union Fire: The Work of the Latest American-Installed “Government.”

  These illegal actions continue the NATO encirclement of Putin’s Russia in complete contravention of George H. W. Bush’s explicit promises to Gorbachev and Shevardnadze after the end of the old Soviet Union.  This coup d’etat is also another way of punishing Putin for effectively stymying (for now) American and Israeli plans to employ overt military force against Assad, even as Jewish and CIA financed NGOs in Russia are attempting to subvert Putin and Russian Orthodox Christian resurgence from within by employing the Frankfurt School types like Pussy Riot and Elton John to attack nationalistic culture and morality in that country.  It is all a part of the playbook of the New World Order, as is the False Flag Charlie Hebdo incident and the Orwellian inversion of truth and falsehood, victim and perpetrator, that has predictably followed.

  Vladimir Putin: Opposing the Subversion of Christian Culture in Russia and the Target of the Apostles of the Zionist New World Order.

  4 – There is a campaign going on throughout Muslim countries named #WeLoveMuhammad. How effective do you see this campaign, especially regarding its reflection in western and US media outlets? 

  It will have no appreciable effect in the Western world and in the United States, where the Zionists have a lock on the control of narrative.  Simply look at the way they have marginalized Christian anti-Zionist media critics and activists like me in America.  Having successfully achieved that, what makes anyone believe an Islamic media and political movement will be any more effective in changing the political and media neighborhood in the West?

• Timothy Mathews / Darkmoon Satan’s Secret Agents: The Frankfurt School and their Evil Agenda Admin February 3, 2013 Other Writers, Recommended Reading Based on an original article (see here) by Timothy Matthews. Abbreviated and adapted with additional material by Lasha Darkmoon. “GOD IS DEAD! . . . BEHOLD, I GIVE YOU THE SUPERMAN!” — Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra Let’s begin by considering the corrosive work of the Frankfurt School: a group of German-American scholars, mostly Jewish, who developed highly provocative and original perspectives on contemporary society and culture, drawing on Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and Weber. Their idea of a “cultural revolution” was not particularly new. Joseph, Comte de Maistre (1753-1821), who for fifteen years had been a Freemason, had this to say: “Until now, 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 a Workers’ Revolution would sweep into Europe and, eventually, into the United States. It failed to do so. Towards the end of 1922, the Communist International (Comintern) began to consider the reasons for this failure. On Lenin’s initiative, a meeting was organized at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. The aim of the meeting was to throw light on the meaning of Marx’s Cultural Revolution. What did “cultural revolution” entail? What was it all about? First, among those present, was Georg Lukács, a Jewish Hungarian aristocrat and son of a banker. He had become a Communist during World War I. A good Marxist theoretician, he had developed the idea of “Revolution and Eros” — sexual instinct used as an instrument of destruction. Then there was Willi Münzenberg, another revolutionary Jew whose proposed solution to the problems besetting society was “to organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilization 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 more harmful to Western civilization than the Bolshevik Revolution itself.” Lenin died in 1924, but by that time Stalin had risen to power and was beginning to look on Willi Munzenberg, George Lukács and other Jewish revolutionaries (like Trotsky) as dangerous Marxist “revisionists”, introducing concepts into Marxism that were alien to Marxism and which served only a Jewish agenda. In June 1940, on Stalin’s orders, Münzenberg was hunted down to the south of France by a NKVD assassination squad and hanged from a tree. In the summer of 1924, after being attacked for his writings by the Fifth Comintern Congress, Lukács moved to Germany. Here he chaired the first meeting of a group of Communist oriented sociologists. This gathering was to lead to the foundation of the Frankfurt School. This “School”, designed to put flesh on their revolutionary program, was started at the University of Frankfurt in the Institut für Sozialforschung. To begin with, school and institute were indistinguishable. In 1923, the Institute had been officially established, and funded by Felix Weil (1898-1975). Weil, born in Argentina into a wealthy Jewish family, was sent to attend school in Germany at the age of nine. 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. Carl Grünberg, the Institute’s Jewish director from 1923-1929, was an avowed Marxist, although the Institute did not have any official party affiliations. But in 1930 Max Horkheimer (also Jewish) assumed control. He believed that Marx’s theory should be the basis of the Institute’s research. When Hitler came to power, the Institute was closed and its members, by various routes, fled to the United States and ended up as academics at major US universities: Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley. LD: The fact that they spoke very poor English was no disqualification. They were Jewish, and so they managed to obtain prestigious academic appointments through Jewish influence, i.e., through networking — a system that works exceptionally well even today and which accounts for the huge and unfair preponderance of Jews in academia. 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 [sexual] licence cloaked as liberty” — Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, the popular writer Erich Fromm, Leo Lowenthal, and Jurgen Habermas. All these individuals except Habermas were of Jewish origin. 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 a socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the “Judaeo-Christian legacy.” LD: “Judeo-Christian” is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, given that Judaism and Christianity are at opposite ends of the religious spectrum. Since most Jews are actively hostile to Christianity, and since Talmudic Jews actually take pleasure in the thought of Christ being boiled in excrement in hell, to speak of the “Judeo-Christian legacy” is clearly nonsensical. To undermine Western civilization, the Frankfurt School Jews called for the most negative and destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life. To de-stabilize society and bring it to its knees, to engineer collapse, to produce crisis and catastrophe — this became the aim of these maladjusted and mentally sick Jewish revolutionaries masquerading as high-powered intellectuals. 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, the Frankfurt School made the following twelve recommendations — all of them calculated to undermine the foundations of society and create the dystopia we now see all around us: 1. The creation of racism offences and hate speech laws. 2. Continual change to create confusion (e,g., in school curricula). 3. Masturbation propaganda in schools, combined with the homosexualization of children and their corruption by exposing them to child porn in the classroom. 4. The systematic undermining of parental and teachers’ authority. 5. Huge immigration to destroy national identity and foment future race wars. 6. The systematic promotion of excessive drinking and recreational drugs. 7. The systematic promotion of sexual deviance in society. 8. An unreliable legal system with bias against the victims of crime. 9. Dependency on state benefits. 10. Control and dumbing down of media. (Six Jewish companies now control 96 percent of the world’s media. LD). 11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family. 12. All all-out attack on Christianity and the emptying of churches. LD: In the Soviet Union, under Stalin and his Communist Jews, the emptying of churches was accomplished by the simple expedient of burning the churches down—thousands of them. (See here, here, here, here and here for more details on the systematic destruction of Christian churches and the persecution of Russian Christians under the Jewish leaders of the Russian Revolution. See also extended endnote.) Coincidentally, most of the 12 aims and objectives mentioned above were set out prominently in the pages of that alleged “forgery”, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The Jewish philosophers of the Frankfurt School, it seems, had been heavily influenced by the Protocols. They were clearly impressed by what they read there and decided to implement its recommendations in their own sinister agenda. One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of “pansexualism”: the search for indiscriminate sexual pleasure, the promotion of “unisex”, the blurring of distinctions between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women, and, finally, the undermining of heterosexuality at the expense of homosexuality — as, for example, in the idea of “same-sex marriage” and the adoption of children by homosexual couples. Willi Münzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation thus: “We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.” WILLI MUNZENBERG, JEWISH REVOLUTIONARY OF THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL “We must organise the intellectuals and use them TO MAKE WESTERN CIVILIZATION STINK! Only then, after they have CORRUPTED ALL ITS VALUES AND MADE LIFE IMPOSSIBLE, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.” (Emphasis added) LD: According to Sean McMeekin’s The Red Millionaire: A political biography of Willi Münzenberg, Münzenberg was “the perpetrator of some of the most colossal lies of the modern age…. He helped unleash a plague of moral blindness upon the world from which we have still not recovered.” The Frankfurt School believed there were two types of revolution: (a) Political revolution and (b) Cultural revolution. They were more concerned with cultural revolution, the demolition of the established order from within. “Modern forms of subjection are marked by mildness”, they taught. So-called “reforms” were to be made so slowly and subtly that these changes for the worse were barely perceptible. The School saw the undermining of the social order as a long-term project. LD: The systematic erosion of Christian moral values and the promotion of sexual perversion is known as cultural Marxism. Today, thanks to the efforts of organized Jewry which controls 96 percent of the world’s media, cultural Marxism has largely triumphed and Christianity lies in ruins. To many dispassionate observers, society has now reached its rockbottom moral nadir — as Jewish Marxists such as Willi Munzenberg (see quote above) would have been only too happy to witness — had he been around today. These iconoclasts kept their sights firmly fixed on the family, education, media, sex and popular culture. Each of these would be their target. If things did not go from bad to worse, year after year, they were not succeeding. To these revolutionary Jewish thinkers, bad was good — and worse was better. The Destruction of the Family and the Promotion of Feminism The School’s Critical Theory preached that the “authoritarian personality” was 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 (1848), about the radical notion of a “community of women”. In The German Ideology (1845), he had 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 need to break down the family unit. LD: All families were essentially evil, these thinkers believed — even happy families — so they had to be destroyed. It was better if children had no parents, or did not know who their parents were. Or if they were orphans of the state. It was better if romantic love between the sexes, leading to stable long-term marriages, were destroyed in favor of short-term, unstable, promiscuous relationships. After all, the former might lead to happiness for all concerned, and that was clearly impermissible — for the whole point of the Cultural Revolution was “to create a culture of pessimism” (Lukács) and “to make life impossible for everyone.” (Münzenberg). Georg Lukács (1885–1971): “I want a culture of pessimism … a world abandoned by God” The Institute scholars therefore 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.” LD: These neo-Freudian Marxist philosophers of the Frankfurt School were clearly out to create trouble: to drive a wedge between parent and child and sow division in the family. Whatever was good in human relationships simply had to be destroyed. If people didn’t have problems, then problems would have to be manufactured “to make life impossible.” (Munzenberg). 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. LD: The idea that women should run society and wear the trousers, telling men what to do, had an enormous appeal to certain bossy types of women with a surplus of testosterone, particularly to butch lesbians and man-hating matriarchs. Many of these misguided females were to become evangelists for radical Feminism, some even proposing to cut themselves off from the male sex completely and live in communes of their own. Curiously enough, the number of Jewish feminists is huge—out of all proportion to their percentage in the population. In 1933, Wilhelm Reich, an honored and adulated member of the Frankfurt School, wrote in The Mass Psychology of Fascism that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of “natural society.” He was, as such, to be an inspiration to the feminists. LD: Reich, incidentally, a compulsive masturbator and sexual pervert, had entertained incestuous longings for his own mother and practiced bestiality with horses while still a child. (See here). This versatile sexual deviant, now a cult figure on the left, along with the equally sex-obsessed Herbert Marcuse—popularizer of the slogan MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR—were to be godfathers of the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s as well as the patron saints of the Feminist movement. The Indoctrination of Children through Education Bertrand Russell was to join the Frankfurt School in their efforts at mass social engineering. He spilled the beans in his 1951 book, The Impact of Science on Society. He wrote: 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. LD: The irony is unmistakable, but that is beside the point. Russell was all for turning the world upside down and ushering in Brave New World: atheism, feminism, and “sexual liberation” i.e., the green light to promiscuity, perversion, and abortion on demand. The devaluation of values so sought after by the luminaries of the Frankfurt School has now largely been achieved through sex education and media propaganda: in particular, by the promotion of masturbation, pornography, and the systematic high pressure salesmanship of homosexuality in schools. POSTER ON A CLASSROOM WALL LD: This, then, is the secret agenda of organized Jewry as represented by the Cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School: the destruction of traditional values, the destruction of the moral order, the destruction of the family unit, the destruction of religion, the destruction of meaning and purpose, and, finally, the destruction of happiness itself. These are the people who now rule over us. They are in control. They create new wars with the same rapidity that a stage magician pulls rabbits from a hat. And they make sure that the people they rule over, their subject populations, are either demoralized debt slaves in insecure jobs or unemployed bums living on state benefits and a diet of junk food and sleazy junk entertainment laid on by the Jews. Satan’s Secret Agents have been only too successful in creating a New World Order that bears a remarkable resemblance to hell. * * * Endnote by Lasha Darkmoon American historian Edwin Schoonmaker writes: Fifteen years after the Bolshevist Revolution was launched to carry out the Marxist program, the editor of the American Hebrew could write: “According to such information that the writer could secure while in Russia a few weeks ago, not one Jewish synagogue has been torn down, as have hundreds—perhaps thousands of the Greek Catholic Churches… In Moscow and other large cities one can see Christian churches in the process of destruction… the Government needs the location for a large building,” (American Hebrew, Nov. 18, 1932, p. 12) Apostate Jews, leading a revolution that was to destroy religion as the “opiate of the people” had somehow spared the synagogues of Russia.” (“Democracy and World Dominion,” 1939, p.211). Wikipedia tells us that the Communist state after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution was “committed to the destruction of religion”, and destroyed churches, mosques and temples — no mention of synagogues being destroyed — and that it “ridiculed, harassed and executed [Christian] religious leaders, flood[ing] the schools and media with atheistic propaganda.” Since the Russian Revolution was essentially a Jewish revolution, with an overwhelmingly high percentage of its leaders being Jewish, one can understand why synagogues were NOT destroyed. The animosity of the Jewish leadership was directed almost exclusively toward the Christian clergy and their churches. Monks, nuns and priests were put to death in large numbers, often after being cruelly tortured in the process, their eyes gouged out and in some instances being boiled alive. (For graphic details of the systematic torture of Christians under the Bolsheviks, see here and section 7, “Fiendish tortures devised by the Jewish cheka”, here). According to the Atlantic, September 1991, p.14, “In 1919, three-quarters of the Cheka staff in Kiev were Jews, who were careful to spare fellow Jews. (See footnote 21, here) For more on the specifically Jewish character of the Russian Revolution, see here and here. Russian-born Jewish writer Sonya Margolina goes so far as to call the Jewish role in supporting the Bolshevik regime the “historic sin of the Jews.” She points, for example, to the prominent role of Jews as commandants of Soviet Gulag concentration and labor camps, and the role of Jewish Communists in the systematic destruction of Russian churches. Moreover, she goes on, “The Jews of the entire world supported Soviet power, and remained silent in the face of any criticism from the opposition.” In light of this record, Margolina offers a grim prediction: “The exaggeratedly enthusiastic participation of the Jewish Bolsheviks in the subjugation and destruction of Russia is a sin that will be avenged. Soviet power will be equated with Jewish power, and the furious hatred against the Bolsheviks will become hatred against Jews.” (Cited here)

• ExoHuman “THE JEWISH PEOPLE as a whole will become its own Messiah. It will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of Monarchy, and by the establishing of a World Republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this New World Order the Children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. “The governments of the different peoples forming the World Republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish leaders to abolish private property, and everywhere to make use of the resources of The State. Thus will the promise of theTalmud be fulfilled. In which it is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands.” —Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx, La Review de Paris, p574, June 1st. 1928

• The Birth Of Cultural Marxism: How The "Frankfurt School" Changed America

  by Tyler Durden

  Aug 12, 2016 9:00 PM

  12

  SHARES

  Submitted by David Galland via GarretGalland.com,

  The 1950s were a simple, romantic, and golden time in America.

  California beaches, suburbia, and style. Atlas Shrugged was published, NASA was formed, and Elvis rocked the nation. Every year from 1950–1959 saw over 4 million babies born. The nation stood atop the world in every field.

  It was an era of great economic prosperity in The Land of the Free.

   

  So, what happened to the American traits of confidence, pride, and accountability?

  The roots of Western cultural decay are very deep, having first sprouted a century ago. It began with a loose clan of ideologues inside Europe’s communist movement. Today, it is known as the Frankfurt School, and its ideals have perverted American society.

  When Outcomes Fail, Just Change the Theory

  Before WWI, Marxist theory held that if war broke out in Europe, the working classes would rise up against the bourgeoisie and create a communist revolution.

  Well, as is the case with much of Marxist theory, things didn’t go too well. When war broke out in 1914, instead of starting a revolution, the proletariat put on their uniforms and went off to war.

  After the war ended, Marxist theorists were left to ask, “What went wrong?”

  Two very prominent Marxists thinkers of the day were Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukács. Each man, on his own, concluded that the working class of Europe had been blinded by the success of Western democracy and capitalism. They reasoned that until both had been destroyed, a communist revolution was not possible.

  Gramsci and Lukács were both active in the Communist party, but their lives took very different paths.

  Gramsci was jailed by Mussolini in Italy where he died in 1937 due to poor health. 

  In 1918, Lukács became minister of culture in Bolshevik Hungary. During this time, Lukács realized that if the family unit and sexual morals were eroded, society could be broken down.

  Lukács implemented a policy he titled “cultural terrorism,” which focused on these two objectives. A major part of the policy was to target children’s minds through lectures that encouraged them to deride and reject Christian ethics.

  In these lectures, graphic sexual matter was presented to children, and they were taught about loose sexual conduct.

  Here again, a Marxist theory had failed to take hold in the real world. The people were outraged at Lukács’ program, and he fled Hungary when Romania invaded in 1919.

  The Birth of Cultural Marxism

  All was quiet on the Marxist front until 1923 when the cultural terrorist turned up for a “Marxist study week” in Frankfurt, Germany. There, Lukács met a young, wealthy Marxist named Felix Weil.

  Until Lukács showed up, classical Marxist theory was based solely on the economic changes needed to overthrow class conflict. Weil was enthused by Lukács’ cultural angle on Marxism.

  Weil’s interest led him to fund a new Marxist think tank—the Institute for Social Research. It would later come to be known as simply The Frankfurt School.

  In 1930, the school changed course under new director Max Horkheimer. The team began mixing the ideas of Sigmund Freud with those of Marx, and cultural Marxism was born.

  In classical Marxism, the workers of the world were oppressed by the ruling classes. The new theory was that everyone in society was psychologically oppressed by the institutions of Western culture. The school concluded that this new focus would need new vanguards to spur the change. The workers were not able to rise up on their own.

  As fate would have it, the National Socialists came to power in Germany in 1933. It was a bad time and place to be a Jewish Marxist, as most of the school’s faculty was. So, the school moved to New York City, the bastion of Western culture at the time.

  Coming to America

  In 1934, the school was reborn at Columbia University. Its members began to exert their ideas on American culture.

  It was at Columbia University that the school honed the tool it would use to destroy Western culture: the printed word.

  The school published a lot of popular material. The first of these was Critical Theory.

  Critical Theory is a play on semantics. The theory was simple: criticize every pillar of Western culture—family, democracy, common law, freedom of speech, and others. The hope was that these pillars would crumble under the pressure.

  Next was a book Theodor Adorno co-authored, The Authoritarian Personality. It redefined traditional American views on gender roles and sexual mores as “prejudice.” Adorno compared them to the traditions that led to the rise of fascism in Europe.

  Is it just a coincidence that the go-to slur for the politically correct today is “fascist”?

  The school pushed its shift away from economics and toward Freud by publishing works on psychological repression.

  Their works split society into two main groups: the oppressors and the victims. They argued that history and reality were shaped by those groups who controlled traditional institutions. At the time, that was code for males of European descent.

  From there, they argued that the social roles of men and women were due to gender differences defined by the “oppressors.” In other words, gender did not exist in reality but was merely a “social construct.”

  A Coalition of Victims

  Adorno and Horkheimer returned to Germany when WWII ended. Herbert Marcuse, another member of the school, stayed in America. In 1955, he published Eros and Civilization.

  In the book, Marcuse argued that Western culture was inherently repressive because it gave up happiness for social progress.

  The book called for “polymorphous perversity,” a concept crafted by Freud. It posed the idea of sexual pleasure outside the traditional norms. Eros and Civilization would become very influential in shaping the sexual revolution of the 1960s.

  Marcuse would be the one to answer Horkheimer’s question from the 1930s: Who would replace the working class as the new vanguards of the Marxist revolution?

  Marcuse believed that it would be a victim coalition of minorities—blacks, women, and homosexuals.

  The social movements of the 1960s—black power, feminism, gay rights, sexual liberation—gave Marcuse a unique vehicle to release cultural Marxist ideas into the mainstream. Railing against all things “establishment,” The Frankfurt School’s ideals caught on like wildfire across American universities.

  Marcuse then published Repressive Tolerance in 1965 as the various social movements in America were in full swing. In it, he argued that tolerance of all values and ideas meant the repression of “correct” ideas.

  It was here that Marcuse coined the term “liberating tolerance.” It called for tolerance of any ideas coming from the left but intolerance of those from the right. One of the overarching themes of the Frankfurt School was total intolerance for any viewpoint but its own. That is also a basic trait of today’s political-correctness believers.

  To quote Max Horkheimer, “Logic is not independent of content.”

  Recalling the Words of Winston (Not That One)

  The Frankfurt School’s work has had a deep impact on American culture. It has recast the homogenous America of the 1950s into today’s divided, animosity-filled nation.

  In turn, this has contributed to the undeniable breakdown of the family unit, as well as identity politics, radical feminism, and racial polarization in America.

  It’s hard to decide if today’s culture is more like Orwell’s 1984 or Huxley’s Brave New World.

  Never one to buck a populist trend, the political establishment in America has fully embraced the ideas of the Frankfurt School and has pushed them on American society through public miseducation.

  Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the beacons of progressivism, are both disciples of Saul Alinsky, a devoted cultural Marxist.

  And so we now live in a hyper-sensitive society in which social memes and feelings have overtaken biological and objective reality as the main determinants of right and wrong.

  Political correctness is a war on logic and reason.

  To quote Winston, the protagonist in Orwell’s dystopia, “Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4.”

  Today, America is not free.

• Mission Statement We are an organization of revolutionaries who share common visions of a new world – a world where people collectively control their own workplaces, communities and land and where all basic needs are met. A world where power and participation flow from the bottom upwards and society is organized for peoples’ aspirations, passions, and needs rather than profit, racial prejudice, patriarchy, or imperialism; and where we live sustainably with the planet. We believe that this vision can only be brought about through the revolutionary power of the working class organized in the workplaces, community, schools, and streets to overthrow the state and capitalism and build a new world from the bottom up. As those actively seeking to construct this vision we are inspired by the traditions of anarchist-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, especifismo, platformism, feminism, queer liberation, black liberation, abolitionism, anti-racism and their history of global struggle for liberation. We believe in the need for a political home from which to organize ourselves and put forward our vision. We believe in the need to create spaces for the development of new revolutionaries that allow the grouping together of similarly minded militants. We see the need to build a specifically anarchist organization united around a common set of ideas, strategy, and practice. We believe that political organization should speak to the needs of our time, and act as a catalyst in struggles to expand their revolutionary potential. Political organization should be a vehicle to build, contribute to, and learn from social struggles.

Critical Theory, Academia, Jews  top    

Reject NeoNazis and the use of the swastika. It reinforces the Holocaust lie whose central theme is to blame the German people for an event that never occured and lay an interminable guilt upon them in order to extract hundreds of millions in reparations. ... No Jews died in gas chambers in Auschwitz. Hundreds of thousands of Jews did die from typhus, starvation and disease due to the chaos of war and Allied terror bombing of Germany. 60 million people died due to the Jewish Bolshevik Revoltution, Holodomor ... Zionists are trying to rub out this historical fact by endless Holocaust propaganda. The real story is how Zionists and Nazis conspired to enable mass emigration to Palestine to create Israel, the ultimate aim of Zionists...MORE

• list contiues:
•