Go down
Posts : 1219
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2018-01-06
Location : France
View user profile

Re: Sjamaan

on Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:14 pm
Sometimes when you are a one-man band you have to reflect back to where you plan to take things within your own life, which affects the lives of other people.  It's so easy today in this present phase of massive change, very quick progression along this preplanned route. We call it civilization towards the great society. Now it's called a global society. Many names down through the ages for the same thing that rather than simply discuss the trivia that the media dose out to us every day, so we all talk like little rats in a laboratory wondering what the technicians will do to them when they come in to work in the morning. Will they inject us? Will they put electrodes in our brains and shock us? (And all this kind of thing.) That's all we’re really given from the media. It's stuff to occupy our minds so we chatter, and when we chatter, we lose touch with our deeper selves, where your intuition lies and where information of all kinds is stored deep, deep within the mind. The mind itself has barriers. People in the past have tried to give words to these barriers, to make it more understandable in conversation, so we have subconscious and we have unconscious and at different stages in between even those.

The conscious mind, which is still a mystery to many of those who wish to control us—and that's the reason they're trying to bypass the usual techniques of simple indoctrination and repetition. They're trying to bypass it by literally taking over your mind directly, via the coming brain chip technology interfacing with a computer—the initial reason that they gave us the computer in the first place. We're being trained to go from one mouse-trap to the next and to the next, very simply in fact, as it appears to the public. However, much planning and discussion went into all of this technology, long before the public heard the word computer. When they showed the public giant computers in governmental agencies, with the big, big machines the size of Coca-Cola machines and tapes whirling round and round—that was to mislead you. The people in those offices also thought they were using the latest technology, but technology always has different layers and levels into high secretive levels, ongoing in parallel, in tandem, side-by-side at the same time. The trick is to make you believe that you're being told all there is to know. In reality, you're being told all you need to know and that being decided by those that say they are your betters.

They gave us the computer and made sure that everyone knew from the very first computer It was an imperative to get everyone hooked on it. Then to the iPod, then the combination of the iPod, cell phone, et cetera, right down to the next step, which is you know what? It's a brain chip. Why bother having a cumbersome thing stuck to your ear when you can have a chip and interface. It's so convenient; and through convenience, we shall give up our last vestige of our own ability to even be an individual. Most have really already given it up and didn't know it.

Most people truly are composites of all their indoctrinations and downloading of opinions by experts and educational authorities. The same educational authorities that at one time would condemn you and ridicule you if you said the world was round.  We know they told people that the world was flat because it said so in the Bible, in the four corners of the world et cetera, et cetera.  You couldn't contradict that, even though those same people in the Vatican had the archives of even the ancient Greek philosophers who discussed that the world was round; and then they got it from the Egyptians who also knew that.  Yes, they can tuck away reality and change it for one era to the next, by hiding truth and giving out a new truth. That's what science does today. Science gives us new truths all the time, which means they’re obviously contradicting their previous truths, and people can't quite catch on to that.

We know the world is round because NASA said so and it's on television. We see pictures. It's terribly easy to control a world population by ensuring that all information is coming from the same source. All you have to do is to employ thousands of people to write the same stuff and parrot the same stuff, from media to professors all the way down, and there's no one to contradict them with a voice. To get a voice you have to have big money.  Those who give us our opinions—I'm talking about above even the media—the ones who decide our opinions for us create the money, the big con-game.
This morning I was on an AM station in Montana called KGEZ, hosted by John Stokes who runs the station.  We to got talking about the big global elite. I mentioned that there's always been a global elite down through the ages. This is not the first so-called civilization we live in today. If you go back as far as money goes, you'll find the same hereditary families running different countries with their headquarters in different cities across the world at different times, because they built empires up and lived in them. When an empire had served its purpose, they would move on to somewhere else and another empire arose; because all armies that conquer anyone need money, and who runs the money but the same bankers.

You'll find global bankers were working in the ancient world in the writings of the ancient Greeks. You'll find that some of the top philosophers like Aristotle happened to be married to a daughter from one of them from the Middle East. There's nothing new under the sun as they say. The only difference being we're at a stage of a global empire—the culmination of all these takeovers called empire building, and takeovers of other countries and nations. They absorb countries into them down through the ages. Very often, the same families would split and live in different countries from each other and fund those countries as they had war with each other, because war is a method of necessitating the very existence of government. This is part of their ploy; and who owns the government but the same people, because everyone runs on money in the system, everyone down through the ages.

It's interesting if you look at ancient Babylon.  There are many levels of meaning to Babylon. It wasn't just a place. It was a system, and Babylon can move down through the ages.  What's important to know is that with the higher belief system that runs the occult societies at the top -- the higher occult. Not the nonsense that everyone at the bottom pay their way into and get a few passwords, and they learn to sit on their backsides and meditate and all this stuff, or find their spirit guide, or whatever, but the real stuff at the top, and those characters talk about circles. One of the most ancient symbols being the one of the serpent eating its tail. Again, many different levels of meaning, which I can't go into right here.  When ancient Egyptian nobility wore the Uraeus (the serpent in front of their skull), their head as a third eye almost, it was in a band round their head, the circle representing the same thing of completion. It meant the universe was contained within the mind of the person who had been taught, who was "Wise as a serpent," and who also guarded his mind from extraneous nonsense. The extraneous nonsense was only for the public because they would be given a different reality from those “in the know.”  Circles are very important since they studied the ancient stars.  The ancient Brotherhoods studied the movements of the moon, the sun, the stars and they grafted it all. They drew it all out in charts. Circles are important. Everything does travel in a complete circle.  Circles are important to do with time.

Getting back to Babylon being a system: They say that everything starts with a point, to start a circle, straight line, whatever, a journey, they’ll have completed a circle. It's interesting to see that Halliburton Corporation, the official, obviously it's an official authorized massive planning corporation that deals with receiving the massive grants from the military industrial complex to build things across the world, mainly through subcontractors, but they oversee it. You'll find certain members of the present Bush New American Century Team were employees of the Halliburton Corporation. Surprise, surprise, eh? Ha, ha, ha. Like corruption is only at the street level? No, peanuts are at the street level, and that's the way it's always been. We find Halliburton moving out of Texas and is off to Bahrain, setting up there.  We find the same thing with some of the big art foundations. The Louvre in Paris is making a duplicate also in Bahrain, as they get closer and closer to their goal. Eventually after this planned war or threat of war, which might come down to a compromise and then amalgamation and standardization into the system, whichever way it goes, Babylon will be restored as it was in the beginning. The completion of a circle that took thousands of years to fulfill.
That's why H.G. Wells could write in "The Shape of Things to Come" about the world wars. The three major ones, remembering that he was an officially authorized propagandist who was given facts and told to write stories around them, by the British Crown and those around it. He talked about how the British troops would be in Basra in Iraq at the beginning of it and that's exactly where they did go. The U.S. went to the north. Britain went around and maintained Basra. It would also be in "The Shape of Things to Come," the base of the New World Order where the scientists of the air, the freemasonry of the air, the great brotherhood; "scientific brotherhood," as Wells called it, would be based. That's what history has always been about, are takeovers and takeovers.  The countries who were taken over one by one are standardized and brought under a monetary system, the same type of system. We also find they're upgraded like a computer program at the same time. Even the languages are upgraded.

Our life spans being so short, it's tremendously easy to alter pretty well everything for a generation, especially when you separate those who had a bit of wisdom in the past, the elderly, when the elderly were respected and elevated for their wisdom and their knowledge. They could pass on information, which they did in extended families, which was the norm. Very important function because parents were so busy to teach the children these kind of things. That has been destroyed. That was an imperative for an elite to do. They wrote about they had to destroy that; and they demonized the elderly. Now it's you’re a geriatric if you get older. My goodness, you're a geriatric. Your obviously senile and you've got odd opinions and you don't go along quietly. You might object about being put into (I call them) "exit homes" or old age homes. You might object to being put there; and once you're there, you might object about being stuck in a chair all day with something in front of you that you can't get past. You'll be called "agitated." 

Now a younger person might be able to vocalize and be respected, but an elder person saying the same thing is automatically discounted.  Everyone has been indoctrinated that the elderly somehow don't know—they're not rational. There's something not rational, you see. Indoctrination mainly, again, through fiction and repetitive propaganda from the media and science magazines and so on.  The wisdom isn't passed down to one, two, three generations as it used to be. Now it's terribly easy to allow the State to bring your child up, which it does and which has been written about by those who planned the present system, at least that part of it the educational system. They published their own books long ago and how they scientifically indoctrinate the children, so that if there was any parental input in the evenings it would be canceled out, like a firewall you might say, by the child's conditioning; and that's happened.

We also think in our short model lives that major changes, major planning is impossible. We think that if we manage to get a house and pay for it in a lifetime we've done well. We’re short-term planners because we don't have long-range plans personally. The elite who run the world do; and the information is all recorded and written down and passed on to the next generation of the elite, who continue the big building projects of the builders—the real builders of society, the real Masons. The structure of society which we all take for granted as being normal because you're born into it. It must be normal. How else could it be? Never dawning on us that there are a thousand directions that humanity could live in, a thousand different systems.

Lenin said it and all the big boys knew it because they were all trained by the same teachers from the same archives of information. It was only the public that couldn't be allowed to know there are other ways of living. This buying, selling, producing and consuming thing is fairly recent, yet we all think it's normal. Like trained rats, we work and put up with jobs we wouldn't normally do if we had a choice, only because we can reward ourselves with some toy or some pleasurable thing at the end of the month. A simple reward, very Pavlovian. Simple to do, and everyone has been trained that this is normal.

Do any of you have the ability to say my great, great grandchild will be running the bank of whatever-it's-called in 100, 200 years time? No. It wouldn't even dawn on you. You'll be lucky to have your child resemble you in any way at all today, because they are scientifically indoctrinated through their education and through the media. Once again, modern books will tell you, "Oh that's normal. It's normal that the child will go off in their own direction." 
You have to go back before the Industrial Era, and for centuries, people lived on the land. Each generation grew up singing the same songs that had been in existence for hundreds of years. Liking them, enjoying them, identifying with them. They'd adopt the same clothing as their parents on the land. They didn't have a fashion industry then, at least in those countries in the West, not for the ordinary people. Those who create the muses, that's why the muses are so important. Create the culture. They shape the culture and culture is plastic. It can be shaped in any direction that the culture creationists decide that it will be shaped into.  It will be adopted by those who are downloaded with the marketing techniques that we're all exposed to; and ultimately, as I say, the lights go off one day in the mind as an artificial one takes over.  That will be the end of the ability to even think and work out even the most profound problems that humanity has ever, ever faced—that of existence itself, the worth of existence, the purpose of existence. You won't even have the ability to think it out at all.

Most folk (as you've noticed, I'm sure) around you have already lost that ability. 

They give you cliché answers written by other people because it's too much of a chore to do the thinking themselves. Life is not a bowl of cherries. It was never intended to be, but certainly in this artificial system that's been here and is spread out for thousands of years and taken over, there's nothing nice about it. There's no contentment and no lasting pleasure in it. Therefore, those who wish to stop time and just leave it as it is with all of its corruption. All of its lying from the top. All of its manipulation, just stop it right now. Don’t let it get worse. They think they can cope with that.

How could you cope forever holding up a tower of Babel that's held together with Band-Aids and glue and splints? You can't. Yet most people think what I'm talking about is very foreign to them. They can't imagine a world where they couldn't go out and reward themselves with some thing that's been advertised on television or through magazines, because all the smiling faces tell you that that's what happiness is—buying something, especially this item. I've never seen a glum face in an ad, unless they've just bought Brand X; but Brand A is wonderful. It's the ultimate experience and it's going to make you tremendously happy; yet we think this is normal, and people believe in it. We believe in this strange double-think that a thing, an inanimate inorganic thing is going to make them happy.  In the pursuit of this deviant culture, they will destroy those around them to get those inorganic dead things. They'd rather destroy people and each other than their ideas. Their deviant ideas must be deleted like a virus in a computer, if there is to be survival at all.

You can't decide to fight something or save something unless you know what you're fighting to save.  If it's simply a time period of part of a plan that wasn't yours or your grandparents either, you can't save it. It belonged to the elite long ago. You can't save it; therefore the whole deck of cards comes crashing down. If there's some miracle and if anyone who survives this with an intact sentient mind and memory, then they would know. They could never, ever emulate or go back to the system again because there's nothing humane in it. It's a cold-blooded system. It's one huge business that exploits everyone in it. It's a business which makes everyone in the business exploit someone else below, until we have a whole bunch at the bottom that can't survive in it, they’re called “useless eaters”, and not wasters, because they can't produce, only consume.
Is that the function of life?
Someone in this system high above has decided that's what it is. They also have been writing about it in their top economic books, since the 1700’s, that they wouldn't tolerate extra useless mouths to feed. Look at the mess society is in. Everyone is isolated from everyone else, except when they're drunk and in the flesh markets or nightclubs or whatever they go to, but when sober they can't communicate. They act like robots towards each other—separated. We have a culture which promotes all kinds of deviancies and crime. When I say crime, I mean that which hurts other people around them. The elite like this because they can use that excuse to hire armies, basically, of which they call police forces today to control everyone else. That's the real reason they’re allowed to go on and encourage it in fact, this merry-go-round of the legal business in society.
They knew thousands of years ago you couldn't cram people into a city, an artificial structure where they can't produce or feed themselves, and expect sanity. You can't have it in the city. It's artificial. It's unnatural. Yet that's the very project which they plan to use for thousands of years to get us all into, ultimately, now they call them "habitat areas".  All species, every species of animal becomes deviant when you cram it into confined areas and the population meets a certain level. They turn on each other. That has always been known.

Why are they doing it?

Their plan through science was always to dominate and conquer through science, until they wouldn't need all of those people or their labor or their energy to bring about their ultimate goal, their plan to dominate a planet. They'll eradicate them eventually, under the guise of “there's too many of them,” and it certainly will appear that way when they're all crowded into confined areas called "habitat areas."  The elite of course won't live in the same habitat areas, and there will be exemptions also for the higher bureaucrats all serving this system. In fact, that was done already on the Soviet model, basically the same system. It was done that way, too, in the Soviet regime where the bureaucrats could have the use of dachas in the country and servants; whereas the peasant class were in the cities, overcrowded in decrepit, cheaply built buildings. Not much different really than the West.

It's odd isn't it that they can always find trillions of dollars of whatever currency, whatever con-game they use in whatever country?  They can find it in times of war; when right up to the war, they're always broke and they can't put out money for the essential things for the people. Isn't that odd? It happens all the time. All the time down through history and no one wonders why. It is often difficult for people to understand that an elite would appear to make the whole system completely dysfunctional if they wanted to conquer us all. They don't realize or understand the nature of generational and intergenerational or psychological and PSYOP operations. They certainly don't understand or know their histories of Order out of Chaos—the time between ages they just brought about to bring in a new system.  That's precisely what you do, is to break all bonds, to break the traditions that you're used to. That's why, in all modern towns and cities, buildings don't last very long.

At one time, you could grow up in a city and walk past the same buildings that your great grandparents walk passed when they were children. It gave a sense of continuity and belonging. When they can sever that continuity, they sever a hold that a reality has upon you, a natural phenomena has upon you. When they create a loss of roots and the lack of tradition, people become neurotic. The masses become neurotic; and that in turn will prepare them for collective hysteria. We already see this happening with all bizarre stories about "the aliens are coming and it's written in the stars." They're bringing back all the old stuff. In ancient times, it was the Gods returning and it was written in the stars; and it's all being recycled once more as the people are ready for it. It wouldn't have worked 100 years ago or 200 years ago. They had to prepare the minds and generations to accept it, and that creates the possibility to believe in it.

Sure enough, those are sent out there to propagate this stuff over again and mislead the people; and it works at the end of an age. They become hysterical and a collective hysteria really calls for collective therapies. That's why we have a massive business taken over from the old religions. This business is psychotherapy, psychiatry, Yoga, a million meditation schools. All these Band-Aids to try and cope and all these self-improvement things and coping with stress that they get taught in business now. They don't say, “let's decrease the stress.” No. You're supposed to “upgrade” yourself to cope with more stress, all the while knowing at the top there's only so far you can go before you can break. A collective therapy always takes away your rights. It abolishes rights and freedoms. That's always the therapy that's given when society becomes neurotic, neuroticized and hysterical.

With the abolition of liberty comes the terrorization of the public. That's what develops out of it. The modern society resembles a lunatic asylum and it's going to get worse. What I'm saying here is known and it has always been known in the higher quarters. It's known by those who are bringing it about. If they decided to save their system for some strange reason—and it certainly would be strange if they did want to save it as it is—they'd revert you back to 1950’s level of culture, a bit more feeling of stability and belonging, but they're going the whole way now. There's nothing new under the sun with the techniques that are being used. The only difference is being the immediate propaganda that comes into your habitat, your little room or your house everyday by the media instantly.

Whether it's men with spears and armor wearing the same colored cloaks that they wear on behalf of Caesar, or black military outfits with machine guns and some print on their sleeve—It makes no difference. It's all the same techniques.  The cry of terror, terror from the top down and imminent gloom and doom from the top down, these have all been used before.  While all this chaos is going on, which they are creating to bring out a new order at the end of it, no matter how long it takes, you'll find the same bizarre manifestations amongst the public, or even your nearest friends will tell you that it's written in the stars. See, “it's the law” or “it's in this book. It's the Bible.”  It's a book they don't understand because it's written in such a way that the exoteric is meant for the profane—those who do not understand, "those in the darkness."

The exoteric stories are written in such a way they captivate the mind.
You picture the people that you imagine are being discussed. 
They're written in such a wonderful way, great science absolutely, to captivate you, but it's not meant to give you a truth unless you have the ability to see deeper. It's all predictive programming, whether it's written in the Holy Book or scientists are telling you it's the end of the world as you know it, or various card sharks come out and play their games with you that it's fate. It's all prewritten. 
That's psychological warfare. Therefore, if you're not in control of yourself, since you're just an object of forces and it's game over; and that's what you think. It's game over. I can't do a thing. You're beaten already before you start. All are sciences which are understood at the top. All symptoms of the age, which is promoted by the top—and by the top, I'm not talking about the guys you vote into office.

To say that we simply have many families of power and influence running the world, and to say that they're just psychopathic—is putting it mildly.  There are also archives of material stretching back for thousands of years, which the regular public are never given access to; and they don't even know they exist, in fact. Everything that makes you who you think you are, including your language and the spell cast by spelling is coded. That's how far and deep it goes, and much deeper.

To program a computer you must know its language. You must know its logic. In fact, you create the language to suit the logic, and you can also alter perception. In other words, in a human being, by the same process by what you feed in and the language which you use. Many things influence people on a subconscious level, because the subconscious is able to see beyond your regular organ feedback and store that to the side. The conscious mind wants things in a hurry. We want everything, especially today, to be quick and easy and spelled right out for them; and it certainly is, in more ways than they know.

In all ages, the symbols of saviors have been pretty well the same. The symbols of life itself, mean more than just the physical realm, have been the same; and from the world tree too, the savior that's nailed on a tree. A savior who is both the horizontal and the vertical. The vertical being that which climbs towards higher thoughts and spirit you might say, and the horizontal being the world of matter. The outstretchedness of all extremities means to the four corners of the globe. It's the same in all ancient religions in the symbologies, in all times and ages and places. It doesn't matter if it's Brahma or a Messiah. It's the same thing because they always meant the inner man. The inner man that has to go through stages, because inner man is all things and you experience in all things, including all the mistakes that you make, too, which are all learning experiences as long as you do learn from them. Many decide not to.  Yet without knowing yourself you will never understand anything else. You will not understand anything else; and neither is it necessary to become a judge on others who have been through what you have done in the past when you decided you would no longer do.


The original religions were given as a starting place. It's always the same starting place that's always immediately corrupted by the elite in order to gain power and control, or retain power and control over the people.  Towards the end of an age, the exoteric is concretized. That's why it makes no sense to lots of people, except those who dogmatically cling to the exoteric believing that somehow they are superior. Really through fear they cling to it. Anyone who truly needs to be told week-after-week of how to be good to other people has a problem if they need a book to read it from.  It means they have not progressed themselves as individuals, not because it's written somewhere.


We're at a stage where people have to decide what life truly is about. We know what the elite have chosen. We know what all their masses of bureaucracy has concluded in that they have the right to plan our lives for us. They've decided what our purpose is or is not—and the servants have become the masters. The servants who become masters are always control freaks dedicated to their positions and status and what they see is a cause, their own cause. Collective cause, of course, because bureaucrats lose their individuality in their work. They become neuroticized and plan very crazy things, which they will speak about with straight faces to each other and repeat their neologisms, because they always dream up new terminology like any new religion.  They're discussing amongst themselves for an elite.  No matter how preposterous their new ideas are—if anyone were to laugh, they'd be demoted or fired. It's insanity.


Things are not meant to go on like this much longer. They're not planned to go on like this much longer. Mayhem, that's predicted by the Department of Defence in Britain. Remember, that's only part of NATO, all NATO countries, this chaos that they see coming because they're making it happen to a timetable. After all, it's one huge business world and they must stick to their timetables. They're going to make it all happen. They have daily reports on all these different agencies and sub-agencies and specialized think tanks on the pulse of the people. They know what's happening at every level to the people. They get constant feedback and prepare always to maintain control over the people, under every possible foreseeable circumstance.

We're well on our way to this crazy roller coaster ride towards the end of an age.  It truly is up to every person out there to start taking back the right to decide for themselves what life is all about. What it should be all about and what it could be all about, because it's never been discussed amongst society. All the big questions have always been answered by an elite, be it a priesthood or a scientific bureaucracy. The elites are always terrified of the masses. Paranoia is built into their structure. The reality they keep hyping about and the fear mongering they're constantly causing is psychotic.  They intend to get the world's population into the same psychotic state and frame of mind—if we allow it.

There is so much to do and so little time. 
We better start all making ripples fast—every single one of us while we can.
Posts : 1219
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2018-01-06
Location : France
View user profile

Re: Sjamaan

on Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:29 pm

The people of North America and Western Europe now accept a level of ugliness in their daily lives which is almost without precedent in the history of Western civilization. Most of us have become so inured, that the death of millions from starvation and disease draws from us no more than a sigh, or a murmur of protest. Our own city streets, home to legions of the homeless, are ruled by Dope, Inc., the largest industry in the world, and on those streets Americans now murder each other at a rate not seen since the Dark Ages.

At the same time, a thousand smaller horrors are so commonplace as to go unnoticed. Our children spend as much time sitting in front of television sets as they do in school, watching with glee, scenes of torture and death which might have shocked an audience in the Roman Coliseum. Music is everywhere, almost unavoidable—but it does not uplift, nor even tranquilize—it claws at the ears, sometimes spitting out an obscenity. Our plastic arts are ugly, our architecture is ugly, our clothes are ugly. There have certainly been periods in history where mankind has lived through similar kinds of brutishness, but our time is crucially different. Our post-World War II era is the first in history in which these horrors are completely avoidable. Our time is the first to have the technology and resources to feed, house, educate, and humanely employ every person on earth, no matter what the growth of population. Yet, when shown the ideas and proven technologies that can solve the most horrendous problems, most people retreat into implacable passivity. We have become not only ugly, but impotent.

Nonetheless, there is no reason why our current moral-cultural situation had to lawfully or naturally turn out as it has; and there is no reason why this tyranny of ugliness should continue one instant longer.

Consider the situation just one hundred years ago, in the early 1890's. In music, Claude Debussy was completing his Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun, and Arnold Schönberg was beginning to experiment with atonalism; at the same time, Dvorak was working on his Ninth Symphony, while Brahms and Verdi still lived. Edvard Munch was showing The Scream, and Paul Gauguin his Self-Portrait with Halo, but in America, Thomas Eakins was still painting and teaching. Mechanists like Helmholtz and Mach held major university chairs of science, alongside the students of Riemann and Cantor. Pope Leo XIII's De Rerum Novarum was being promulgated, even as sections of the Socialist Second International were turning terrorist, and preparing for class war.

The optimistic belief that one could compose music like Beethoven, paint like Rembrandt, study the universe like Plato and Nicolaus of Cusa, and change world society without violence, was alive in the 1890's—admittedly, it was weak, and under siege, but it was hardly dead. Yet, within twenty short years, these Classical traditions of human civilization had been all but swept away, and the West had committed itself to a series of wars of inconceivable carnage.

What started about a hundred years ago, was what might be called a counter-Renaissance. The Renaissance of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was a religious celebration of the human soul and mankind's potential for growth. Beauty in art could not be conceived of as anything less than the expression of the most-advanced scientific principles, as demonstrated by the geometry upon which Leonardo's perspective and Brunelleschi's great Dome of Florence Cathedral are based. The finest minds of the day turned their thoughts to the heavens and the mighty waters, and mapped the solar system and the route to the New World, planning great projects to turn the course of rivers for the betterment of mankind. About a hundred years ago, it was as though a long checklist had been drawn up, with all of the wonderful achievements of the Renaissance itemized—each to be reversed. As part of this "New Age" movement, as it was then called, the concept of the human soul was undermined by the most vociferous intellectual campaign in history; art was forcibly separated from science, and science itself was made the object of deep suspicion. Art was made ugly because, it was said, life had become ugly.

The cultural shift away from the Renaissance ideas that built the modern world, was due to a kind of freemasonry of ugliness. In the beginning, it was a formal political conspiracy to popularize theories that were specifically designed to weaken the soul of Judeo-Christian civilization in such a way as to make people believe that creativity was not possible, that adherence to universal truth was evidence of authoritarianism, and that reason itself was suspect. This conspiracy was decisive in planning and developing, as means of social manipulation, the vast new sister industries of radio, television, film, recorded music, advertising, and public opinion polling. The pervasive psychological hold of the media was purposely fostered to create the passivity and pessimism which afflict our populations today. So successful was this conspiracy, that it has become embedded in our culture; it no longer needs to be a "conspiracy," for it has taken on a life of its own. Its successes are not debatable—you need only turn on the radio or television. Even the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice is deformed into an erotic soap opera, with the audience rooting from the sidelines for their favorite character.

Our universities, the cradle of our technological and intellectual future, have become overwhelmed by Comintern-style New Age "Political Correctness." With the collapse of the Soviet Union, our campuses now represent the largest concentration of Marxist dogma in the world. The irrational adolescent outbursts of the 1960's have become institutionalized into a "permanent revolution." Our professors glance over their shoulders, hoping the current mode will blow over before a student's denunciation obliterates a life's work; some audio-tape their lectures, fearing accusations of "insensitivity" by some enraged "Red Guard." Students at the University of Virginia recently petitioned successfully to drop the requirement to read Homer, Chaucer, and other DEMS ("Dead European Males") because such writings are considered ethnocentric, phallocentric, and generally inferior to the "more relevant" Third World, female, or homosexual authors.

This is not the academy of a republic; this is Hitler's Gestapo and Stalin's NKVD rooting out "deviationists," and banning books—the only thing missing is the public bonfire.

We will have to face the fact that the ugliness we see around us has been consciously fostered and organized in such a way, that a majority of the population is losing the cognitive ability to transmit to the next generation, the ideas and methods upon which our civilization was built. The loss of that ability is the primary indicator of a Dark Age. And, a new Dark Age is exactly what we are in. In such situations, the record of history is unequivocal: either we create a Renaissance—a rebirth of the fundamental principles upon which civilization originated—or, our civilization dies.

I. The Frankfurt School: Bolshevik Intelligentsia
The single, most important organizational component of this conspiracy was a Communist thinktank called the Institute for Social Research (I.S.R.), but popularly known as the Frankfurt School.

In the heady days immediately after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it was widely believed that proletarian revolution would momentarily sweep out of the Urals into Europe and, ultimately, North America. It did not; the only two attempts at workers' government in the West— in Munich and Budapest—lasted only months. The Communist International (Comintern) therefore began several operations to determine why this was so. One such was headed by Georg Lukacs, a Hungarian aristocrat, son of one of the Hapsburg Empire's leading bankers. Trained in Germany and already an important literary theorist, Lukacs became a Communist during World War I, writing as he joined the party, "Who will save us from Western civilization?" Lukacs was well-suited to the Comintern task: he had been one of the Commissars of Culture during the short-lived Hungarian Soviet in Budapest in 1919; in fact, modern historians link the shortness of the Budapest experiment to Lukacs' orders mandating sex education in the schools, easy access to contraception, and the loosening of divorce laws—all of which revulsed Hungary's Roman Catholic population.

Fleeing to the Soviet Union after the counter-revolution, Lukacs was secreted into Germany in 1922, where he chaired a meeting of Communist-oriented sociologists and intellectuals. This meeting founded the Institute for Social Research. Over the next decade, the Institute worked out what was to become the Comintern's most successful psychological warfare operation against the capitalist West.

Lukacs identified that any political movement capable of bringing Bolshevism to the West would have to be, in his words, "demonic"; it would have to "possess the religious power which is capable of filling the entire soul; a power that characterized primitive Christianity." However, Lukacs suggested, such a "messianic" political movement could only succeed when the individual believes that his or her actions are determined by "not a personal destiny, but the destiny of the community" in a world "that has been abandoned by God [emphasis added-MJM]." Bolshevism worked in Russia because that nation was dominated by a peculiar gnostic form of Christianty typified by the writings of Fyodor Dostoyevsky. "The model for the new man is Alyosha Karamazov," said Lukacs, referring to the Dostoyevsky character who willingly gave over his personal identity to a holy man, and thus ceased to be "unique, pure, and therefore abstract."

This abandonment of the soul's uniqueness also solves the problem of "the diabolic forces lurking in all violence" which must be unleashed in order to create a revolution. In this context, Lukacs cited the Grand Inquisitor section of Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, noting that the Inquisitor who is interrogating Jesus, has resolved the issue of good and evil: once man has understood his alienation from God, then any act in the service of the "destiny of the community" is justified; such an act can be "neither crime nor madness.... For crime and madness are objectifications of transcendental homelessness."

According to an eyewitness, during meetings of the Hungarian Soviet leadership in 1919 to draw up lists for the firing squad, Lukacs would often quote the Grand Inquisitor: "And we who, for their happiness, have taken their sins upon ourselves, we stand before you and say, 'Judge us if you can and if you dare.' "

The Problem of Genesis
What differentiated the West from Russia, Lukacs identified, was a Judeo-Christian cultural matrix which emphasized exactly the uniqueness and sacredness of the individual which Lukacs abjured. At its core, the dominant Western ideology maintained that the individual, through the exercise of his or her reason, could discern the Divine Will in an unmediated relationship. What was worse, from Lukacs' standpoint: this reasonable relationship necessarily implied that the individual could and should change the physical universe in pursuit of the Good; that Man should have dominion over Nature, as stated in the Biblical injunction in Genesis. The problem was, that as long as the individual had the belief—or even the hope of the belief—that his or her divine spark of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation which Lukacs recognized as the necessary prerequisite for socialist revolution.

The task of the Frankfurt School, then, was first, to undermine the Judeo-Christian legacy through an "abolition of culture" (Aufhebung der Kultur in Lukacs' German); and, second, to determine new cultural forms which would increase the alienation of the population, thus creating a "new barbarism." To this task, there gathered in and around the Frankfurt School an incredible assortment of not only Communists, but also non-party socialists, radical phenomenologists, Zionists, renegade Freudians, and at least a few members of a self-identified "cult of Astarte." The variegated membership reflected, to a certain extent, the sponsorship: although the Institute for Social Research started with Comintern support, over the next three decades its sources of funds included various German and American universities, the Rockefeller Foundation, Columbia Broadcasting System, the American Jewish Committee, several American intelligence services, the Office of the U.S. High Commissioner for Germany, the International Labour Organization, and the Hacker Institute, a posh psychiatric clinic in Beverly Hills.

Similarly, the Institute's political allegiances: although top personnel maintained what might be called a sentimental relationship to the Soviet Union (and there is evidence that some of them worked for Soviet intelligence into the 1960's), the Institute saw its goals as higher than that of Russian foreign policy. Stalin, who was horrified at the undisciplined, "cosmopolitan" operation set up by his predecessors, cut the Institute off in the late 1920's, forcing Lukacs into "self-criticism," and briefly jailing him as a German sympathizer during World War II.

Lukacs survived to briefly take up his old post as Minister of Culture during the anti-Stalinist Imre Nagy regime in Hungary. Of the other top Institute figures, the political perambulations of Herbert Marcuse are typical. He started as a Communist; became a protégé of philosopher Martin Heidegger even as the latter was joining the Nazi Party; coming to America, he worked for the World War II Office of Strategic Services (OSS), and later became the U.S. State Department's top analyst of Soviet policy during the height of the McCarthy period; in the 1960's, he turned again, to become the most important guru of the New Left; and he ended his days helping to found the environmentalist extremist Green Party in West Germany.

In all this seeming incoherence of shifting positions and contradictory funding, there is no ideological conflict. The invariant is the desire of all parties to answer Lukacs' original question: "Who will save us from Western civilization?"

Theodor Adorno and Walter Benjamin

Perhaps the most important, if least-known, of the Frankfurt School's successes was the shaping of the electronic media of radio and television into the powerful instruments of social control which they represent today. This grew out of the work originally done by two men who came to the Institute in the late 1920's, Theodor Adorno and Walter Benjamin.

After completing studies at the University of Frankfurt, Walter Benjamin planned to emigrate to Palestine in 1924 with his friend Gershom Scholem (who later became one of Israel's most famous philosophers, as well as Judaism's leading gnostic), but was prevented by a love affair with Asja Lacis, a Latvian actress and Comintern stringer. Lacis whisked him off to the Italian island of Capri, a cult center from the time of the Emperor Tiberius, then used as a Comintern training base; the heretofore apolitical Benjamin wrote Scholem from Capri, that he had found "an existential liberation and an intensive insight into the actuality of radical communism."

Lacis later took Benjamin to Moscow for further indoctrination, where he met playwright Bertolt Brecht, with whom he would begin a long collaboration; soon thereafter, while working on the first German translation of the drug-enthusiast French poet Baudelaire, Benjamin began serious experimentation with hallucinogens. In 1927, he was in Berlin as part of a group led by Adorno, studying the works of Lukacs; other members of the study group included Brecht and his composer-partner Kurt Weill; Hans Eisler, another composer who would later become a Hollywood film score composer and co-author with Adorno of the textbook Composition for the Film; the avant-garde photographer Imre Moholy-Nagy; and the conductor Otto Klemperer.

From 1928 to 1932, Adorno and Benjamin had an intensive collaboration, at the end of which they began publishing articles in the Institute's journal, the Zeitschrift fär Sozialforschung. Benjamin was kept on the margins of the Institute, largely due to Adorno, who would later appropriate much of his work. As Hitler came to power, the Institute's staff fled, but, whereas most were quickly spirited away to new deployments in the U.S. and England, there were no job offers for Benjamin, probably due to the animus of Adorno. He went to France, and, after the German invasion, fled to the Spanish border; expecting momentary arrest by the Gestapo, he despaired and died in a dingy hotel room of self-administered drug overdose.

Benjamin's work remained almost completely unknown until 1955, when Scholem and Adorno published an edition of his material in Germany. The full revival occurred in 1968, when Hannah Arendt, Heidegger's former mistress and a collaborator of the Institute in America, published a major article on Benjamin in the New Yorker magazine, followed in the same year by the first English translations of his work. Today, every university bookstore in the country boasts a full shelf devoted to translations of every scrap Benjamin wrote, plus exegesis, all with 1980's copyright dates.

Adorno was younger than Benjamin, and as aggressive as the older man was passive. Born Teodoro Wiesengrund-Adorno to a Corsican family, he was taught the piano at an early age by an aunt who lived with the family and had been the concert accompanist to the international opera star Adelina Patti. It was generally thought that Theodor would become a professional musician, and he studied with Bernard Sekles, Paul Hindemith's teacher. However, in 1918, while still a gymnasium student, Adorno met Siegfried Kracauer. Kracauer was part of a Kantian-Zionist salon which met at the house of Rabbi Nehemiah Nobel in Frankfurt; other members of the Nobel circle included philosopher Martin Buber, writer Franz Rosenzweig, and two students, Leo Lowenthal and Erich Fromm. Kracauer, Lowenthal, and Fromm would join the I.S.R. two decades later. Adorno engaged Kracauer to tutor him in the philosophy of Kant; Kracauer also introduced him to the writings of Lukacs and to Walter Benjamin, who was around the Nobel clique.

In 1924, Adorno moved to Vienna, to study with the atonalist composers Alban Berg and Arnold Schönberg, and became connected to the avant-garde and occult circle around the old Marxist Karl Kraus. Here, he not only met his future collaborator, Hans Eisler, but also came into contact with the theories of Freudian extremist Otto Gross. Gross, a long-time cocaine addict, had died in a Berlin gutter in 1920, while on his way to help the revolution in Budapest; he had developed the theory that mental health could only be achieved through the revival of the ancient cult of Astarte, which would sweep away monotheism and the "bourgeois family."

Saving Marxist Aesthetics

By 1928, Adorno and Benjamin had satisfied their intellectual wanderlust, and settled down at the I.S.R. in Germany to do some work. As subject, they chose an aspect of the problem posed by Lukacs: how to give aesthetics a firmly materialistic basis. It was a question of some importance, at the time. Official Soviet discussions of art and culture, with their wild gyrations into "socialist realism" and "proletkult," were idiotic, and only served to discredit Marxism's claim to philosophy among intellectuals. Karl Marx's own writings on the subject were sketchy and banal, at best.

In essence, Adorno and Benjamin's problem was Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, Leibniz had once again obliterated the centuries-old gnostic dualism dividing mind and body, by demonstrating that matter does not think. A creative act in art or science apprehends the truth of the physical universe, but it is not determined by that physical universe. By self-consciously concentrating the past in the present to effect the future, the creative act, properly defined, is as immortal as the soul which envisions the act. This has fatal philosophical implications for Marxism, which rests entirely on the hypothesis that mental activity is determined by the social relations excreted by mankind's production of its physical existence.

Marx sidestepped the problem of Leibniz, as did Adorno and Benjamin, although the latter did it with a lot more panache. It is wrong, said Benjamin in his first articles on the subject, to start with the reasonable, hypothesizing mind as the basis of the development of civilization; this is an unfortunate legacy of Socrates. As an alternative, Benjamin posed an Aristotelian fable in interpretation of Genesis: Assume that Eden were given to Adam as the primordial physical state. The origin of science and philosophy does not lie in the investigation and mastery of nature, but in the naming of the objects of nature; in the primordial state, to name a thing was to say all there was to say about that thing. In support of this, Benjamin cynically recalled the opening lines of the Gospel according to St. John, carefully avoiding the philosophically-broader Greek, and preferring the Vulgate (so that, in the phrase "In the beginning was the Word," the connotations of the original Greek word logos—speech, reason, ratiocination, translated as "Word"—are replaced by the narrower meaning of the Latin word verbum). After the expulsion from Eden and God's requirement that Adam eat his bread earned by the sweat of his face (Benjamin's Marxist metaphor for the development of economies), and God's further curse of Babel on Nimrod (that is, the development of nation-states with distinct languages, which Benjamin and Marx viewed as a negative process away from the "primitive communism" of Eden), humanity became "estranged" from the physical world.

Thus, Benjamin continued, objects still give off an "aura" of their primordial form, but the truth is now hopelessly elusive. In fact, speech, written language, art, creativity itself—that by which we master physicality—merely furthers the estrangement by attempting, in Marxist jargon, to incorporate objects of nature into the social relations determined by the class structure dominant at that point in history. The creative artist or scientist, therefore, is a vessel, like Ion the rhapsode as he described himself to Socrates, or like a modern "chaos theory" advocate: the creative act springs out of the hodgepodge of culture as if by magic. The more that bourgeois man tries to convey what he intends about an object, the less truthful he becomes; or, in one of Benjamin's most oft-quoted statements, "Truth is the death of intention."

This philosophical sleight-of-hand allows one to do several destructive things. By making creativity historically-specific, you rob it of both immortality and morality. One cannot hypothesize universal truth, or natural law, for truth is completely relative to historical development. By discarding the idea of truth and error, you also may throw out the "obsolete" concept of good and evil; you are, in the words of Friedrich Nietzsche, "beyond good and evil." Benjamin is able, for instance, to defend what he calls the "Satanism" of the French Symbolists and their Surrealist successors, for at the core of this Satanism "one finds the cult of evil as a political device ... to disinfect and isolate against all moralizing dilettantism" of the bourgeoisie. To condemn the Satanism of Rimbaud as evil, is as incorrect as to extol a Beethoven quartet or a Schiller poem as good; for both judgments are blind to the historical forces working unconsciously on the artist.

Thus, we are told, the late Beethoven's chord structure was striving to be atonal, but Beethoven could not bring himself consciously to break with the structured world of Congress of Vienna Europe (Adorno's thesis); similarly, Schiller really wanted to state that creativity was the liberation of the erotic, but as a true child of the Enlightenment and Immanuel Kant, he could not make the requisite renunciation of reason (Marcuse's thesis). Epistemology becomes a poor relation of public opinion, since the artist does not consciously create works in order to uplift society, but instead unconsciously transmits the ideological assumptions of the culture into which he was born. The issue is no longer what is universally true, but what can be plausibly interpreted by the self-appointed guardians of the Zeitgeist.

"The Bad New Days"

Thus, for the Frankfort School, the goal of a cultural elite in the modern, "capitalist" era must be to strip away the belief that art derives from the self-conscious emulation of God the Creator; "religious illumination," says Benjamin, must be shown to "reside in a profane illumination, a materialistic, anthropological inspiration, to which hashish, opium, or whatever else can give an introductory lesson." At the same time, new cultural forms must be found to increase the alienation of the population, in order for it to understand how truly alienated it is to live without socialism. "Do not build on the good old days, but on the bad new ones," said Benjamin.

The proper direction in painting, therefore, is that taken by the late Van Gogh, who began to paint objects in disintegration, with the equivalent of a hashish-smoker's eye that "loosens and entices things out of their familiar world." In music, "it is not suggested that one can compose better today" than Mozart or Beethoven, said Adorno, but one must compose atonally, for atonalism is sick, and "the sickness, dialectically, is at the same time the cure....The extraordinarily violent reaction protest which such music confronts in the present society ... appears nonetheless to suggest that the dialectical function of this music can already be felt ... negatively, as 'destruction.' "

The purpose of modern art, literature, and music must be to destroy the uplifting—therefore, bourgeois — potential of art, literature, and music, so that man, bereft of his connection to the divine, sees his only creative option to be political revolt. "To organize pessimism means nothing other than to expel the moral metaphor from politics and to discover in political action a sphere reserved one hundred percent for images." Thus, Benjamin collaborated with Brecht to work these theories into practical form, and their joint effort culminated in the Verfremdungseffekt ("estrangement effect"), Brecht's attempt to write his plays so as to make the audience leave the theatre demoralized and aimlessly angry.

Political Correctness

The Adorno-Benjamin analysis represents almost the entire theoretical basis of all the politically correct aesthetic trends which now plague our universities. The Poststructuralism of Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, the Semiotics of Umberto Eco, the Deconstructionism of Paul DeMan, all openly cite Benjamin as the source of their work. The Italian terrorist Eco's best-selling novel, The Name of the Rose, is little more than a paean to Benjamin; DeMan, the former Nazi collaborator in Belgium who became a prestigious Yale professor, began his career translating Benjamin; Barthes' infamous 1968 statement that "[t]he author is dead," is meant as an elaboration of Benjamin's dictum on intention. Benjamin has actually been called the heir of Leibniz and of Wilhelm von Humboldt, the philologist collaborator of Schiller whose educational reforms engendered the tremendous development of Germany in the nineteenth century. Even as recently as September 1991, the Washington Post referred to Benjamin as "the finest German literary theorist of the century (and many would have left off that qualifying German)."

Readers have undoubtedly heard one or another horror story about how an African-American Studies Department has procured a ban on Othello, because it is "racist," or how a radical feminist professor lectured a Modern Language Association meeting on the witches as the "true heroines" of Macbeth. These atrocities occur because the perpetrators are able to plausibly demonstrate, in the tradition of Benjamin and Adorno, that Shakespeare's intent is irrelevant; what is important, is the racist or phallocentric "subtext" of which Shakespeare was unconscious when he wrote.

When the local Women's Studies or Third World Studies Department organizes students to abandon classics in favor of modern Black and feminist authors, the reasons given are pure Benjamin. It is not that these modern writers are better, but they are somehow more truthful because their alienated prose reflects the modern social problems of which the older authors were ignorant! Students are being taught that language itself is, as Benjamin said, merely a conglomeration of false "names" foisted upon society by its oppressors, and are warned against "logocentrism," the bourgeois over-reliance on words.

If these campus antics appear "retarded" (in the words of Adorno), that is because they are designed to be. The Frankfurt School's most important breakthrough consists in the realization that their monstrous theories could become dominant in the culture, as a result of the changes in society brought about by what Benjamin called "the age of mechanical reproduction of art."

II. The Establishment Goes Bolshevik: "Entertainment" Replaces Art
Before the twentieth century, the distinction between art and "entertainment" was much more pronounced. One could be entertained by art, certainly, but the experience was active, not passive. On the first level, one had to make a conscious choice to go to a concert, to view a certain art exhibit, to buy a book or piece of sheet music. It was unlikely that any more than an infinitesimal fraction of the population would have the opportunity to see King Lear or hear Beethoven's Ninth Symphony more than once or twice in a lifetime. Art demanded that one bring one's full powers of concentration and knowledge of the subject to bear on each experience, or else the experience were considered wasted. These were the days when memorization of poetry and whole plays, and the gathering of friends and family for a "parlor concert," were the norm, even in rural households. These were also the days before "music appreciation"; when one studied music, as many did, they learned to play it, not appreciate it.
Posts : 1219
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2018-01-06
Location : France
View user profile

Re: Sjamaan

on Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:30 pm
However, the new technologies of radio, film, and recorded music represented, to use the appropriate Marxist buzz-word, (see box) a dialectical potential. On the one hand, these technologies held out the possibility of bringing the greatest works of art to millions of people who would otherwise not have access to them. On the other, the fact that the experience was infinitely reproducible could tend to disengage the audience's mind, making the experience less sacred, thus increasing alienation. Adorno called this process, "demythologizing." This new passivity, Adorno hypothesized in a crucial article published in 1938, could fracture a musical composition into the "entertaining" parts which would be "fetishized" in the memory of the listener, and the difficult parts, which would be forgotten. Adorno continues,

The counterpart to the fetishism is a regression of listening. This does not mean a relapse of the individual listener into an earlier phase of his own development, nor a decline in the collective general level, since the millions who are reached musically for the first time by today's mass communications cannot be compared with the audiences of the past. Rather, it is the contemporary listening which has regressed, arrested at the infantile stage. Not only do the listening subjects lose, along with the freedom of choice and responsibility, the capacity for the conscious perception of music .... [t]hey fluctuate between comprehensive forgetting and sudden dives into recognition. They listen atomistically and dissociate what they hear, but precisely in this dissociation they develop certain capacities which accord less with the traditional concepts of aesthetics than with those of football or motoring. They are not childlike ... but they are childish; their primitivism is not that of the undeveloped, but that of the forcibly retarded. [emphasis aded]

This conceptual retardation and preconditioning caused by listening, suggested that programming could determine preference. The very act of putting, say, a Benny Goodman number next to a Mozart sonata on the radio, would tend to amalgamate both into entertaining "music-on-the-radio" in the mind of the listener. This meant that even new and unpalatable ideas could become popular by "re-naming" them through the universal homogenizer of the culture industry. As Benjamin puts it,

Mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses toward art. The reactionary attitude toward a Picasso painting changes into a progressive reaction toward a Chaplin movie. The progressive reaction is characterized by the direct, intimate fusion of visual and emotional enjoyment with the orientation of the expert.... With regard to the screen, the critical and receptive attitudes of the public coincide. The decisive reason for this is that the individual reactions are predetermined by the mass audience response they are about to produce, and this is nowhere more pronounced than in the film.

At the same time, the magic power of the media could be used to re-define previous ideas. "Shakespeare, Rembrandt, Beethoven will all make films," concluded Benjamin, quoting the French film pioneer Abel Gance, "... all legends, all mythologies, all myths, all founders of religions, and the very religions themselves ... await their exposed resurrection."

Social Control: The "Radio Project"

Here, then, were some potent theories of social control. The great possibilities of this Frankfurt School media work were probably the major contributing factor in the support given the I.S.R. by the bastions of the Establishment, after the Institute transferred its operations to America in 1934.

In 1937, the Rockefeller Foundation began funding research into the social effects of new forms of mass media, particularly radio. Before World War I, radio had been a hobbyist's toy, with only 125,000 receiving sets in the entire U.S.; twenty years later, it had become the primary mode of entertainment in the country; out of 32 million American families in 1937, 27.5 million had radios — a larger percentage than had telephones, automobiles, plumbing, or electricity! Yet, almost no systematic research had been done up to this point. The Rockefeller Foundation enlisted several universities, and headquartered this network at the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. Named the Office of Radio Research, it was popularly known as "the Radio Project."

The director of the Project was Paul Lazersfeld, the foster son of Austrian Marxist economist Rudolph Hilferding, and a long-time collaborator of the I.S.R. from the early 1930's. Under Lazersfeld was Frank Stanton, a recent Ph.D. in industrial psychology from Ohio State, who had just been made research director of Columbia Broadcasting System—a grand title but a lowly position. After World War II, Stanton became president of the CBS News Division, and ultimately president of CBS at the height of the TV network's power; he also became Chairman of the Board of the RAND Corporation, and a member of President Lyndon Johnson's "kitchen cabinet." Among the Project's researchers were Herta Herzog, who married Lazersfeld and became the first director of research for the Voice of America; and Hazel Gaudet, who became one of the nation's leading political pollsters. Theodor Adorno was named chief of the Project's music section.

Despite the official gloss, the activities of the Radio Project make it clear that its purpose was to test empirically the Adorno-Benjamin thesis that the net effect of the mass media could be to atomize and increase lability—what people would later call "brainwashing."

Soap Operas and the Invasion from Mars

The first studies were promising. Herta Herzog produced "On Borrowed Experiences," the first comprehensive research on soap operas. The "serial radio drama" format was first used in 1929, on the inspiration of the old, cliff-hanger "Perils of Pauline" film serial. Because these little radio plays were highly melodramatic, they became popularly identified with Italian grand opera; because they were often sponsored by soap manufacturers, they ended up with the generic name, "soap opera."

Until Herzog's work, it was thought that the immense popularity of this format was largely with women of the lowest socioeconomic status who, in the restricted circumstances of their lives, needed a helpful escape to exotic places and romantic situations. A typical article from that period by two University of Chicago psychologists, "The Radio Day-Time Serial: Symbol Analysis" published in the Genetic Psychology Monographs, solemnly emphasized the positive, claiming that the soaps "function very much like the folk tale, expressing the hopes and fears of its female audience, and on the whole contribute to the integration of their lives into the world in which they live."

Herzog found that there was, in fact, no correlation to socioeconomic status. What is more, there was surprisingly little correlation to content. The key factor — as Adorno and Benjamin's theories suggested it would be — was the form itself of the serial; women were being effectively addicted to the format, not so much to be entertained or to escape, but to "find out what happens next week." In fact, Herzog found, you could almost double the listenership of a radio play by dividing it into segments.

Modern readers will immediately recognize that this was not a lesson lost on the entertainment industry. Nowadays, the serial format has spread to children's programming and high-budget prime time shows. The most widely watched shows in the history of television, remain the "Who Killed JR?" installment of Dallas, and the final episode of M*A*S*H, both of which were premised on a "what happens next?" format. Even feature films, like the Star Wars and Back to the Future trilogies, are now produced as serials, in order to lock in a viewership for the later installments. The humble daytime soap also retains its addictive qualities in the current age: 70% of all American women over eighteen now watch at least two of these shows each day, and there is a fast-growing viewership among men and college students of both sexes.

The Radio Project's next major study was an investigation into the effects of Orson Welles' Halloween 1938 radioplay based on H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds. Six million people heard the broadcast realistically describing a Martian invasion force landing in rural New Jersey. Despite repeated and clear statements that the show was fictional, approximately 25% of the listeners thought it was real, some panicking outright. The Radio Project researchers found that a majority of the people who panicked did not think that men from Mars had invaded; they actually thought that the Germans had invaded.

It happened this way. The listeners had been psychologically pre-conditioned by radio reports from the Munich crisis earlier that year. During that crisis, CBS's man in Europe, Edward R. Murrow, hit upon the idea of breaking into regular programming to present short news bulletins. For the first time in broadcasting, news was presented not in longer analytical pieces, but in short clips—what we now call "audio bites." At the height of the crisis, these flashes got so numerous, that, in the words of Murrow's producer Fred Friendly, "news bulletins were interrupting news bulletins." As the listeners thought that the world was moving to the brink of war, CBS ratings rose dramatically. When Welles did his fictional broadcast later, after the crisis had receded, he used this news bulletin technique to give things verisimilitude: he started the broadcast by faking a standard dance-music program, which kept getting interrupted by increasingly terrifying "on the scene reports" from New Jersey. Listeners who panicked, reacted not to content, but to format; they heard "We interrupt this program for an emergency bulletin," and "invasion," and immediately concluded that Hitler had invaded. The soap opera technique, transposed to the news, had worked on a vast and unexpected scale.

Little Annie and the "Wagnerian Dream" of TV

In 1939, one of the numbers of the quarterly Journal of Applied Psychology was handed over to Adorno and the Radio Project to publish some of their findings. Their conclusion was that Americans had, over the last twenty years, become "radio-minded," and that their listening had become so fragmented that repetition of format was the key to popularity. The play list determined the "hits"—a truth well known to organized crime, both then and now—and repetition could make any form of music or any performer, even a classical music performer, a "star." As long as a familiar form or context was retained, almost any content would become acceptable. "Not only are hit songs, stars, and soap operas cyclically recurrent and rigidly invariable types," said Adorno, summarizing this material a few years later, "but the specific content of the entertainment itself is derived from them and only appears to change. The details are interchangeable."

The crowning achievement of the Radio Project was "Little Annie," officially titled the Stanton-Lazersfeld Program Analyzer. Radio Project research had shown that all previous methods of preview polling were ineffectual. Up to that point, a preview audience listened to a show or watched a film, and then was asked general questions: did you like the show? what did you think of so-and-so's performance? The Radio Project realized that this method did not take into account the test audience's atomized perception of the subject, and demanded that they make a rational analysis of what was intended to be an irrational experience. So, the Project created a device in which each test audience member was supplied with a type of rheostat on which he could register the intensity of his likes or dislikes on a moment-to-moment basis. By comparing the individual graphs produced by the device, the operators could determine, not if the audience liked the whole show — which was irrelevant—but, which situations or characters produced a positive, if momentary, feeling state.

Little Annie transformed radio, film, and ultimately television programming. CBS still maintains program analyzer facilities in Hollywood and New York; it is said that results correlate 85% to ratings. Other networks and film studios have similar operations. This kind of analysis is responsible for the uncanny feeling you get when, seeing a new film or TV show, you think you have seen it all before. You have, many times. If a program analyzer indicates that, for instance, audiences were particularly titilated by a short scene in a World War II drama showing a certain type of actor kissing a certain type of actress, then that scene format will be worked into dozens of screenplays—transposed to the Middle Ages, to outer space, etc., etc.

The Radio Project also realized that television had the potential to intensify all of the effects that they had studied. TV technology had been around for some years, and had been exhibited at the 1936 World's Fair in New York, but the only person to attempt serious utilization of the medium had been Adolf Hitler. The Nazis broadcast events from the 1936 Olympic Games "live" to communal viewing rooms around Germany; they were trying to expand on their great success in using radio to Nazify all aspects of German culture. Further plans for German TV development were sidetracked by war preparations.

Adorno understood this potential perfectly, writing in 1944:

Television aims at the synthesis of radio and film, and is held up only because the interested parties have not yet reached agreement, but its consequences will be quite enormous and promise to intensify the impoverishment of aesthetic matter so drastically, that by tomorrow the thinly veiled identity of all industrial culture products can come triumphantly out in the open, derisively fulfilling the Wagnerian dream of the Gesamtkunstwerk—the fusion of all the arts in one work.

The obvious point is this: the profoundly irrational forms of modern entertainment—the stupid and eroticized content of most TV and films, the fact that your local Classical music radio station programs Stravinsky next to Mozart—don't have to be that way. They were designed to be that way. The design was so successful, that today, no one even questions the reasons or the origins. (see box)

III. Creating "Public Opinion": The "Authoritarian Personality" Bogeyman and the OSS
The efforts of the Radio Project conspirators to manipulate the population, spawned the modern pseudoscience of public opinion polling, in order to gain greater control over the methods they were developing.

Today, public opinion polls, like the television news, have been completely integrated into our society. A "scientific survey" of what people are said to think about an issue can be produced in less than twenty-four hours. Some campaigns for high political office are completely shaped by polls; in fact, many politicians try to create issues which are themselves meaningless, but which they know will look good in the polls, purely for the purpose of enhancing their image as "popular." Important policy decisions are made, even before the actual vote of the citizenry or the legislature, by poll results. Newspapers will occasionally write pious editorials calling on people to think for themselves, even as the newspaper's business agent sends a check to the local polling organization.

The idea of "public opinion" is not new, of course. Plato spoke against it in his Republic over two millenia ago; Alexis de Tocqueville wrote at length of its influence over America in the early nineteenth century. But, nobody thought to measure public opinion before the twentieth century, and nobody before the 1930's thought to use those measurements for decision-making.

It is useful to pause and reflect on the whole concept. The belief that public opinion can be a determinant of truth is philosophically insane. It precludes the idea of the rational individual mind. Every individual mind contains the divine spark of reason, and is thus capable of scientific discovery, and understanding the discoveries of others. The individual mind is one of the few things that cannot, therefore, be "averaged." Consider: at the moment of creative discovery, it is possible, if not probable, that the scientist making the discovery is the only person to hold that opinion about nature, whereas everyone else has a different opinion, or no opinion. One can only imagine what a "scientifically-conducted survey" on Kepler's model of the solar system would have been, shortly after he published the Harmony of the World: 2% for, 48% against, 50% no opinion.

These psychoanalytic survey techniques became standard, not only for the Frankfurt School, but also throughout American social science departments, particularly after the I.S.R. arrived in the United States. The methodology was the basis of the research piece for which the Frankfurt School is most well known, the "authoritarian personality" project. In 1942, I.S.R. director Max Horkheimer made contact with the American Jewish Committee, which asked him to set up a Department of Scientific Research within its organization. The American Jewish Committee also provided a large grant to study anti-Semitism in the American population. "Our aim," wrote Horkheimer in the introduction to the study, "is not merely to describe prejudice, but to explain it in order to help in its eradication.... Eradication means reeducation scientifically planned on the basis of understanding scientifically arrived at."

The A-S Scale

Ultimately, five volumes were produced for this study over the course of the late 1940's; the most important was the last, The Authoritarian Personality, by Adorno, with the help of three Berkeley, California social psychologists.

In the 1930's Erich Fromm had devised a questionnaire to be used to analyze German workers pychoanalytically as "authoritarian," "revolutionary" or "ambivalent." The heart of Adorno's study was, once again, Fromm's psychoanalytic scale, but with the positive end changed from a "revolutionary personality," to a "democratic personality," in order to make things more palatable for a postwar audience.

Nine personality traits were tested and measured, including:

conventionalism—rigid adherence to conventional, middle-class values

authoritarian aggression—the tendency to be on the look-out for, to condemn, reject and punish, people who violate conventional values

projectivity—the disposition to believethat wild and dangerous things go on in the world

sex—exaggerated concern with sexual goings-on.
From these measurements were constructed several scales: the E Scale (ethnocentrism), the PEC Scale (poltical and economic conservatism), the A-S Scale (anti-Semitism), and the F Scale (fascism). Using Rensis Lickerts's methodology of weighting results, the authors were able to tease together an empirical definition of what Adorno called "a new anthropological type," the authoritarian personality. The legerdemain here, as in all psychoanalytic survey work, is the assumption of a Weberian "type." Once the type has been statistically determined, all behavior can be explained; if an anti-Semitic personality does not act in an anti-Semitic way, then he or she has an ulterior motive for the act, or is being discontinuous. The idea that a human mind is capable of transformation, is ignored.

The results of this very study can be interpreted in diametrically different ways. One could say that the study proved that the population of the U.S. was generally conservative, did not want to abandon a capitalist economy, believed in a strong family and that sexual promiscuity should be punished, thought that the postwar world was a dangerous place, and was still suspicious of Jews (and Blacks, Roman Catholics, Orientals, etc. — unfortunately true, but correctable in a social context of economic growth and cultural optimism). On the other hand, one could take the same results and prove that anti-Jewish pogroms and Nuremburg rallies were simmering just under the surface, waiting for a new Hitler to ignite them. Which of the two interpretations you accept is a political, not a scientific, decision. Horkheimer and Adorno firmly believed that all religions, Judaism included, were "the opiate of the masses." Their goal was not the protection of Jews from prejudice, but the creation of a definition of authoritarianism and anti-Semitism which could be exploited to force the "scientifically planned reeducation" of Americans and Europeans away from the principles of Judeo-Christian civilization, which the Frankfurt School despised. In their theoretical writings of this period, Horkheimer and Adorno pushed the thesis to its most paranoid: just as capitalism was inherently fascistic, the philosophy of Christianity itself is the source of anti-Semitism. As Horkheimer and Adorno jointly wrote in their 1947 "Elements of Anti-Semitism":

Christ, the spirit become flesh, is the deified sorcerer. Man's self-reflection in the absolute, the humanization of God by Christ, is the proton pseudos [original falsehood]. Progress beyond Judaism is coupled with the assumption that the man Jesus has become God. The reflective aspect of Christianity, the intellectualization of magic, is the root of evil.

At the same time, Horkheimer could write in a more-popularized article titled "Anti-Semitism: A Social Disease," that "at present, the only country where there does not seem to be any kind of anti-Semitism is Russia"[!].

This self-serving attempt to maximize paranoia was further aided by Hannah Arendt, who popularized the authoritarian personality research in her widely-read Origins of Totalitarianism. Arendt also added the famous rhetorical flourish about the "banality of evil" in her later Eichmann in Jerusalem: even a simple, shopkeeper-type like Eichmann can turn into a Nazi beast under the right psychological circumstances—every Gentile is suspect, psychoanalytically.

It is Arendt's extreme version of the authoritarian personality thesis which is the operant philosophy of today's Cult Awareness Network (CAN), a group which works with the U.S. Justice Department and the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith, among others. Using standard Frankfurt School method, CAN identifies political and religious groups which are its political enemies, then re-labels them as a "cult," in order to justify operations against them. (See box.)

The Public Opinion Explosion

Despite its unprovable central thesis of "psychoanalytic types," the interpretive survey methodology of the Frankfurt School became dominant in the social sciences, and essentially remains so today. In fact, the adoption of these new, supposedly scientific techniques in the 1930's brought about an explosion in public-opinion survey use, much of it funded by Madison Avenue. The major pollsters of today—A.C. Neilsen, George Gallup, Elmo Roper—started in the mid-1930's, and began using the I.S.R. methods, especially given the success of the Stanton-Lazersfeld Program Analyzer. By 1936, polling activity had become sufficiently widespread to justify a trade association, the American Academy of Public Opinion Research at Princeton, headed by Lazersfeld; at the same time, the University of Chicago created the National Opinion Research Center. In 1940, the Office of Radio Research was turned into the Bureau of Applied Social Research, a division of Columbia University, with the indefatigable Lazersfeld as director.

After World War II, Lazersfeld especially pioneered the use of surveys to psychoanalyze American voting behavior, and by the 1952 Presidential election, Madison Avenue advertising agencies were firmly in control of Dwight Eisenhower's campaign, utilizing Lazersfeld's work. Nineteen fifty-two was also the first election under the influence of television, which, as Adorno had predicted eight years earlier, had grown to incredible influence in a very short time. Batten, Barton, Durstine & Osborne — the fabled "BBD&O" ad agency—designed Ike's campaign appearances entirely for the TV cameras, and as carefully as Hitler's Nuremberg rallies; one-minute "spot" advertisements were pioneered to cater to the survey-determined needs of the voters.

This snowball has not stopped rolling since. The entire development of television and advertising in the 1950's and 1960's was pioneered by men and women who were trained in the Frankfurt School's techniques of mass alienation. Frank Stanton went directly from the Radio Project to become the single most-important leader of modern television. Stanton's chief rival in the formative period of TV was NBC's Sylvester "Pat" Weaver; after a Ph.D. in "listening behavior," Weaver worked with the Program Analyzer in the late 1930's, before becoming a Young & Rubicam vice-president, then NBC's director of programming, and ultimately the network's president. Stanton and Weaver's stories are typical.

Today, the men and women who run the networks, the ad agencies, and the polling organizations, even if they have never heard of Theodor Adorno, firmly believe in Adorno's theory that the media can, and should, turn all they touch into "football." Coverage of the 1991 Gulf War should make that clear.

The technique of mass media and advertising developed by the Frankfurt School now effectively controls American political campaigning. Campaigns are no longer based on political programs, but actually on alienation. Petty gripes and irrational fears are identified by psychoanalytic survey, to be transmogrified into "issues" to be catered to; the "Willy Horton" ads of the 1988 Presidential campaign, and the "flag-burning amendment," are but two recent examples. Issues that will determine the future of our civilization, are scrupulously reduced to photo opportunities and audio bites—like Ed Murrow's original 1930's radio reports—where the dramatic effect is maximized, and the idea content is zero.

Who Is the Enemy?

Part of the influence of the authoritarian personality hoax in our own day also derives from the fact that, incredibly, the Frankfurt School and its theories were officially accepted by the U.S. government during World War II, and these Cominternists were responsible for determining who were America's wartime, and postwar, enemies. In 1942, the Office of Strategic Services, America's hastily-constructed espionage and covert operations unit, asked former Harvard president James Baxter to form a Research and Analysis (R&A) Branch under the group's Intelligence Division. By 1944, the R&A Branch had collected such a large and prestigeous group of emigré scholars that H. Stuart Hughes, then a young Ph.D., said that working for it was "a second graduate education" at government expense. The Central European Section was headed by historian Carl Schorske; under him, in the all-important Germany/Austria Section, was Franz Neumann, as section chief, with Herbert Marcuse, Paul Baran, and Otto Kirchheimer, all I.S.R. veterans. Leo Lowenthal headed the German-language section of the Office of War Information; Sophie Marcuse, Marcuse's wife, worked at the Office of Naval Intelligence. Also at the R&A Branch were: Siegfried Kracauer, Adorno's old Kant instructor, now a film theorist; Norman O. Brown, who would become famous in the 1960's by combining Marcuse's hedonism theory with Wilhelm Reich's orgone therapy to popularize "polymorphous perversity"; Barrington Moore, Jr., later a philosophy professor who would co-author a book with Marcuse; Gregory Bateson, the husband of anthropologist Margaret Mead (who wrote for the Frankfurt School's journal), and Arthur Schlesinger, the historian who joined the Kennedy Administration. Marcuse's first assignment was to head a team to identify both those who would be tried as war criminals after the war, and also those who were potential leaders of postwar Germany. In 1944, Marcuse, Neumann, and Kirchheimer wrote the Denazification Guide, which was later issued to officers of the U.S. Armed Forces occupying Germany, to help them identify and suppress pro-Nazi behaviors. After the armistice, the R&A Branch sent representatives to work as intelligence liaisons with the various occupying powers; Marcuse was assigned the U.S. Zone, Kirchheimer the French, and Barrington Moore the Soviet. In the summer of 1945, Neumann left to become chief of research for the Nuremburg Tribunal. Marcuse remained in and around U.S. intelligence into the early 1950's, rising to the chief of the Central European Branch of the State Department's Office of Intelligence Research, an office formally charged with "planning and implementing a program of positive-intelligence research ... to meet the intelligence requirements of the Central Intelligence Agency and other authorized agencies." During his tenure as a U.S. government official, Marcuse supported the division of Germany into East and West, noting that this would prevent an alliance between the newly liberated left-wing parties and the old, conservative industrial and business layers. In 1949, he produced a 532-page report, "The Potentials of World Communism" (declassified only in 1978), which suggested that the Marshall Plan economic stabilization of Europe would limit the recruitment potential of Western Europe's Communist Parties to acceptable levels, causing a period of hostile co-existence with the Soviet Union, marked by confrontation only in faraway places like Latin America and Indochina—in all, a surprisingly accurate forecast. Marcuse left the State Department with a Rockefeller Foundation grant to work with the various Soviet Studies departments which were set up at many of America's top universities after the war, largely by R&A Branch veterans.

At the same time, Max Horkheimer was doing even greater damage. As part of the denazification of Germany suggested by the R&A Branch, U.S. High Commissioner for Germany John J. McCloy, using personal discretionary funds, brought Horkheimer back to Germany to reform the German university system. In fact, McCloy asked President Truman and Congress to pass a bill granting Horkheimer, who had become a naturalized American, dual citizenship; thus, for a brief period, Horkheimer was the only person in the world to hold both German and U.S. citizenship. In Germany, Horkheimer began the spadework for the full-blown revival of the Frankfurt School in that nation in the late 1950's, including the training of a whole new generation of anti-Western civilization scholars like Hans-Georg Gadamer and Jürgen Habermas, who would have such destructive influence in 1960's Germany. In a period of American history when some individuals were being hounded into unemployment and suicide for the faintest aroma of leftism, Frankfurt School veterans—all with superb Comintern credentials — led what can only be called charmed lives. America had, to an incredible extent, handed the determination of who were the nation's enemies, over to the nation's own worst enemies.

IV. The Aristotelian Eros: Marcuse and the CIA's Drug Counterculture
In 1989, Hans-Georg Gadamer, a protégé of Martin Heidegger and the last of the original Frankfurt School generation, was asked to provide an appreciation of his own work for the German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. He wrote,

One has to conceive of Aristotle's ethics as a true fulfillment of the Socratic challenge, which Plato had placed at the center of his dialogues on the Socratic question of the good.... Plato described the idea of the good ... as the ultimate and highest idea, which is supposedly the highest principle of being for the universe, the state, and the human soul. Against this Aristotle opposed a decisive critique, under the famous formula, "Plato is my friend, but the truth is my friend even more." He denied that one could consider the idea of the good as a universal principle of being, which is supposed to hold in the same way for theoretical knowledge as for practical knowledge and human activity.

This statement not only succinctly states the underlying philosophy of the Frankfurt School, it also suggests an inflection point around which we can order much of the philosophical combat of the last two millenia. In the simplest terms, the Aristotelian correction of Plato sunders physics from metaphysics, relegating the Good to a mere object of speculation about which "our knowledge remains only a hypothesis," in the words of Wilhelm Dilthey, the Frankfurt School's favorite philosopher. Our knowledge of the "real world," as Dilthey, Nietzsche, and other precursors of the Frankfurt School were wont to emphasize, becomes erotic, in the broadest sense of that term, as object fixation. The universe becomes a collection of things which each operate on the basis of their own natures (that is, genetically), and through interaction between themselves (that is, mechanistically). Science becomes the deduction of the appropriate categories of these natures and interactions. Since the human mind is merely a sensorium, waiting for the Newtonian apple to jar it into deduction, humanity's relationship to the world (and vice versa) becomes an erotic attachment to objects. The comprehension of the universal—the mind's seeking to be the living image of the living God—is therefore illusory. That universal either does not exist, or it exists incomprehensibly as a deus ex machina; that is, the Divine exists as a superaddition to the physical universe — God is really Zeus, flinging thunderbolts into the world from some outside location. (Or, perhaps more appropriately: God is really Cupid, letting loose golden arrows to make objects attract, and leaden arrows to make objects repel.) The key to the entire Frankfurt School program, from originator Lukacs on, is the "liberation" of Aristotelian eros, to make individual feeling states psychologically primary. When the I.S.R. leaders arrived in the United States in the mid-1930's, they exulted that here was a place which had no adequate philosophical defenses against their brand of Kulturpessimismus [cultural pessimism]. However, although the Frankfurt School made major inroads in American intellectual life before World War II, that influence was largely confined to academia and to radio; and radio, although important, did not yet have the overwhelming influence on social life that it would acquire during the war. Furthermore, America's mobilization for the war, and the victory against fascism, sidetracked the Frankfurt School schedule; America in 1945 was almost sublimely optimistic, with a population firmly convinced that a mobilized republic, backed by science and technology, could do just about anything. The fifteen years after the war, however, saw the domination of family life by the radio and television shaped by the Frankfurt School, in a period of political erosion in which the great positive potential of America degenerated to a purely negative posture against the real and, oftentimes manipulated, threat of the Soviet Union. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of the young generation—the so-called baby boomers—were entering college and being exposed to the Frankfurt School's poison, either directly or indirectly. It is illustrative, that by 1960, sociology had become the most popular course of study in American universities. Indeed, when one looks at the first stirrings of the student rebellion at the beginning of the 1960's, like the speeches of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement or the Port Huron Statement which founded the Students for a Democratic Society, one is struck with how devoid of actual content these discussions were. There is much anxiety about being made to conform to the system—"I am a human being; do not fold, spindle, or mutilate" went an early Berkeley slogan—but it is clear that the "problems" cited derive much more from required sociology textbooks, than from the real needs of the society.

The CIA's Psychedelic Revolution

The simmering unrest on campus in 1960 might well too have passed or had a positive outcome, were it not for the traumatic decapitation of the nation through the Kennedy assassination, plus the simultaneous introduction of widespread drug use. Drugs had always been an "analytical tool" of the nineteenth century Romantics, like the French Symbolists, and were popular among the European and American Bohemian fringe well into the post-World War II period. But, in the second half of the 1950's, the CIA and allied intelligence services began extensive experimentation with the hallucinogen LSD to investigate its potential for social control. It has now been documented that millions of doses of the chemical were produced and disseminated under the aegis of the CIA's Operation MK-Ultra. LSD became the drug of choice within the agency itself, and was passed out freely to friends of the family, including a substantial number of OSS veterans. For instance, it was OSS Research and Analysis Branch veteran Gregory Bateson who "turned on" the Beat poet Allen Ginsberg to a U.S. Navy LSD experiment in Palo Alto, California. Not only Ginsberg, but novelist Ken Kesey and the original members of the Grateful Dead rock group opened the doors of perception courtesy of the Navy. The guru of the "psychedelic revolution," Timothy Leary, first heard about hallucinogens in 1957 from Life magazine (whose publisher, Henry Luce, was often given government acid, like many other opinion shapers), and began his career as a CIA contract employee; at a 1977 "reunion" of acid pioneers, Leary openly admitted, "everything I am, I owe to the foresight of the CIA." Hallucinogens have the singular effect of making the victim asocial, totally self-centered, and concerned with objects. Even the most banal objects take on the "aura" which Benjamin had talked about, and become timeless and delusionarily profound. In other words, hallucinogens instantaneously achieve a state of mind identical to that prescribed by the Frankfurt School theories. And, the popularization of these chemicals created a vast psychological lability for bringing those theories into practice. Thus, the situation at the beginning of the 1960's represented a brilliant re-entry point for the Frankfurt School, and it was fully exploited. One of the crowning ironies of the "Now Generation" of 1964 on, is that, for all its protestations of utter modernity, none of its ideas or artifacts was less than thirty years old. The political theory came completely from the Frankfurt School; Lucien Goldmann, a French radical who was a visiting professor at Columbia in 1968, was absolutely correct when he said of Herbert Marcuse in 1969 that "the student movements ... found in his works and ultimately in his works alone the theoretical formulation of their problems and aspirations [emphasis in original]." The long hair and sandals, the free love communes, the macrobiotic food, the liberated lifestyles, had been designed at the turn of the century, and thoroughly field-tested by various, Frankfurt School-connected New Age social experiments like the Ascona commune before 1920. (See box.) Even Tom Hayden's defiant "Never trust anyone over thirty," was merely a less-urbane version of Rupert Brooke's 1905, "Nobody over thirty is worth talking to." The social planners who shaped the 1960's simply relied on already-available materials.

Eros and Civilization

The founding document of the 1960's counterculture, and that which brought the Frankfurt School's "revolutionary messianism" of the 1920's into the 1960's, was Marcuse's Eros and Civilization, originally published in 1955 and funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. The document masterfully sums up the Frankfurt School ideology of Kulturpessimismus in the concept of "dimensionality." In one of the most bizarre perversions of philosophy, Marcuse claims to derive this concept from Friedrich Schiller. Schiller, whom Marcuse purposefully misidentifies as the heir of Immanuel Kant, discerned two dimensions in humanity: a sensuous instinct and an impulse toward form. Schiller advocated the harmonization of these two instincts in man in the form of a creative play instinct. For Marcuse, on the other hand, the only hope to escape the one-dimensionality of modern industrial society was to liberate the erotic side of man, the sensuous instinct, in rebellion against "technological rationality." As Marcuse would say later (1964) in his One-Dimensional Man, "A comfortable, smooth, reasonable, democratic unfreedom prevails in advanced industrial civilization, a token of technical progress." This erotic liberation he misidentifies with Schiller's "play instinct," which, rather than being erotic, is an expression of charity, the higher concept of love associated with true creativity. Marcuse's contrary theory of erotic liberation is something implicit in Sigmund Freud, but not explicitly emphasized, except for some Freudian renegades like Wilhelm Reich and, to a certain extent, Carl Jung. Every aspect of culture in the West, including reason itself, says Marcuse, acts to repress this: "The totalitarian universe of technological rationality is the latest transmutation of the idea of reason." Or: "Auschwitz continues to haunt, not the memory but the accomplishments of man—the space flights, the rockets and missiles, the pretty electronics plants...."

This erotic liberation should take the form of the "Great Refusal," a total rejection of the "capitalist" monster and all his works, including "technological" reason, and "ritual-authoritarian language." As part of the Great Refusal, mankind should develop an "aesthetic ethos," turning life into an aesthetic ritual, a "life-style" (a nonsense phrase which came into the language in the 1960's under Marcuse's influence). With Marcuse representing the point of the wedge, the 1960's were filled with obtuse intellectual justifications of contentless adolescent sexual rebellion. Eros and Civilization was reissued as an inexpensive paperback in 1961, and ran through several editions; in the preface to the 1966 edition, Marcuse added that the new slogan, "Make Love, Not War," was exactly what he was talking about: "The fight for eros is a political fight [emphasis in original]." In 1969, he noted that even the New Left's obsessive use of obscenities in its manifestoes was part of the Great Refusal, calling it "a systematic linguistic rebellion, which smashes the ideological context in which the words are employed and defined." Marcuse was aided by psychoanalyst Norman O. Brown, his OSS protege, who contributed Life Against Death in 1959, and Love's Body in 1966—calling for man to shed his reasonable, "armored" ego, and replace it with a "Dionysian body ego," that would embrace the instinctual reality of polymorphous perversity, and bring man back into "union with nature." The books of Reich, who had claimed that Nazism was caused by monogamy, were re-issued. Reich had died in an American prison, jailed for taking money on the claim that cancer could be cured by rechanneling "orgone energy." Primary education became dominated by Reich's leading follower, A.S. Neill, a Theosophical cult member of the 1930's and militant atheist, whose educational theories demanded that students be taught to rebel against teachers who are, by nature, authoritarian. Neill's book Summerhill sold 24,000 copies in 1960, rising to 100,000 in 1968, and 2 million in 1970; by 1970, it was required reading in 600 university courses, making it one of the most influential education texts of the period, and still a benchmark for recent writers on the subject. Marcuse led the way for the complete revival of the rest of the Frankfurt School theorists, re-introducing the long-forgotten Lukacs to America. Marcuse himself became the lightning rod for attacks on the counterculture, and was regularly attacked by such sources as the Soviet daily Pravda, and then-California Governor Ronald Reagan. The only critique of any merit at the time, however, was one by Pope Paul VI, who in 1969 named Marcuse (an extraordinary step, as the Vatican usually refrains from formal denunciations of living individuals), along with Freud, for their justification of "disgusting and unbridled expressions of eroticism"; and called Marcuse's theory of liberation, "the theory which opens the way for license cloaked as liberty ... an aberration of instinct." The eroticism of the counterculture meant much more than free love and a violent attack on the nuclear family. It also meant the legitimization of philosophical eros. People were trained to see themselves as objects, determined by their "natures." The importance of the individual as a person gifted with the divine spark of creativity, and capable of acting upon all human civilization, was replaced by the idea that the person is important because he or she is black, or a woman, or feels homosexual impulses. This explains the deformation of the civil rights movement into a "black power" movement, and the transformation of the legitimate issue of civil rights for women into feminism. Discussion of women's civil rights was forced into being just another "liberation cult," complete with bra-burning and other, sometimes openly Astarte-style, rituals; a review of Kate Millet's Sexual Politics (1970) and Germaine Greer's The Female Eunuch (1971), demonstrates their complete reliance on Marcuse, Fromm, Reich, and other Freudian extremists.

The Bad Trip

This popularization of life as an erotic, pessimistic ritual did not abate, but in fact deepened over the twenty years leading to today; it is the basis of the horror we see around us. The heirs of Marcuse and Adorno completely dominate the universities, teaching their own students to replace reason with "Politically Correct" ritual exercises. There are very few theoretical books on arts, letters, or language published today in the United States or Europe which do not openly acknowledge their debt to the Frankfort School.

The witchhunt on today's campuses is merely the implementation of Marcuse's concept of "repressive toleration"—"tolerance for movements from the left, but intolerance for movements from the right"—enforced by the students of the Frankfurt School, now become the professors of women's studies and Afro-American studies. The most erudite spokesman for Afro-American studies, for instance, Professor Cornell West of Princeton, publicly states that his theories are derived from Georg Lukacs. At the same time, the ugliness so carefully nurtured by the Frankfurt School pessimists, has corrupted our highest cultural endeavors. One can hardly find a performance of a Mozart opera, which has not been utterly deformed by a director who, following Benjamin and the I.S.R., wants to "liberate the erotic subtext." You cannot ask an orchestra to perform Schönberg and Beethoven on the same program, and maintain its integrity for the latter. And, when our highest culture becomes impotent, popular culture becomes openly bestial. One final image: American and European children daily watch films like Nightmare on Elm Street and Total Recall, or television shows comparable to them. A typical scene in one of these will have a figure emerge from a television set; the skin of his face will realistically peel away to reveal a hideously deformed man with razor-blade fingers, fingers which start growing to several feet in length, and—suddenly—the victim is slashed to bloody ribbons. This is not entertainment. This is the deeply paranoid hallucination of the LSD acid head. The worst of what happened in the 1960's is now daily fare. Owing to the Frankfurt School and its co-conspirators, the West is on a "bad trip" from which it is not being allowed to come down.

The principles through which Western Judeo-Christian civilization was built, are now no longer dominant in our society; they exist only as a kind of underground resistance movement. If that resistance is ultimately submerged, then the civilization will not survive—and, in our era of incurable pandemic disease and nuclear weapons, the collapse of Western civilization will very likely take the rest of the world with it to Hell.

The way out is to create a Renaissance. If that sounds grandiose, it is nonetheless what is needed. A renaissance means, to start again; to discard the evil, and inhuman, and just plain stupid, and to go back, hundreds or thousands of years, to the ideas which allow humanity to grow in freedom and goodness. Once we have identified those core beliefs, we can start to rebuild civilization.

Ultimately, a new Renaissance will rely on scientists, artists, and composers, but in the first moment, it depends on seemingly ordinary people who will defend the divine spark of reason in themselves, and tolerate no less in others. Given the successes of the Frankfurt School and its New Dark Age sponsors, these ordinary individuals, with their belief in reason and the difference between right and wrong, will be "unpopular." But, no really good idea was ever popular, in the beginning.
Posts : 1219
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2018-01-06
Location : France
View user profile

Re: Sjamaan

on Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:32 pm
What is The Frankfurt School?

in short, how the cabal brainwashes the cattle, with great success we must add...
hardly anyone has a functional brain anymore
all doing Flat Earth now you see
chasing aliens, catching reptiles and doing ooooooooooooom navel staring
no " negativity" you see
while being depopulated
etc etc

Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson, CDR USN (Ret.)

If you have read the essays on “Cultural Marxism at the US Naval Academy” you should be quite
concerned that our future naval officers are being subjected to psychological intimidation and
indoctrination by behavioral psychologists and clinicians whose methods descend from Wilhelm Wundt
[1]. The facilitators and civilian professors in the “Leadership and Ethics Program” at the Academy are
‘Wundtians’ all. Cultural Marxism (CM) has invaded our military academies and other military institutions
and is pervasive. As a result, future US naval officers will not understand the essence of what they are
chosen to protect - the American Civilization that is the most precious and vital descendent of Western
Civilization [2].

So who in America today is at work destroying our traditions, our family bonds, our religious beginnings,
our reinforcing institutions - indeed our entire culture? What is changing our American civilization?
As reasonable people we may ask whether all changes to traditional American culture are simply random
events pursued by independent persons - disconnected from central premise or guidance. Are cultural
changes in a free democratic society the chance workings of human intellect in pursuit of what is possible
vice what is appropriate?

Observations in the “Cultural Marxism at the US Naval Academy” series suggest not. They consistently
demonstrate a design - a concept with a way of thinking and a process for bringing it about. Now suppose
we can identify a cadre of people as the designers. Wouldn’t we be interested in learning about this group?
Wouldn’t we want to know who they were, what they thought and how they conjured a process for bringing
their designs into action? For Americans the answer is a resounding yes!
Such a core group did exist. History identifies a small cadre of German intellectuals who devised concepts,
processes and plans conforming closely to what Americans presently observe in their society today. In the
Naval Academy essays, events are directly connected to activities of this group. These intellectuals were
members of “The Frankfurt School” founded in Germany in 1923. They were the forebears of what is
called Cultural Marxism - a radical social movement that has transformed American culture. Today it is
more commonly known as Political Correctness (PC).

For the slow of thinking , meaning Loss of ALL Freedom

hope the facebook zombies get at least that part of it ...wishful thinking I know...

The Institute of Social Research - Frankfurt University
Cultural Marxism and its Critical Theory were developed coincident to the 1923 founding of the Institute of
Social Research at Frankfurt University. The Institute was modeled after the Marx Engels Institute in
Moscow and became known as The Frankfurt School [3]. In 1933, when Nazis came to power in Germany,
members of this Frankfurt School fled to the United States. They migrated to major universities including
Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis and California at Berkeley. These intellectual Marxists included Herbert
Marcuse, who coined the phrase ‘Make Love, Not War’ during Vietnam War demonstrations.
By promoting a dialectic of ‘Negative Criticism’ - that is, pointing out rational contradictions in society’s
belief system - the Frankfurt School ‘Revolutionaries’ dreamed of constructing a Utopia where their rules
governed [4]. Their Critical Theory used this strongly imaginative, utopian strain to purposefully transcend
limits of reality. Thus, its tenets would never be subject to experimental evidence. The pure logic of their
thoughts would be incontrovertible. A precursor to today’s ‘postmodernism’ in intellectual academic
circles, “ recognized that disinterested scientific research was impossible in a society in which men
were themselves not yet autonomous...the researcher was always part of the social object he was
attempting to study” [5]. This concept led to the current fetish for rewriting history and the vogue for
deconstruction of our universities’ Law, English Literature and Humanities disciplines.
Critical Theory rejected the ideal of Western Civilization in an age of modern science, that the verification
of theory proceeds from experimental evidence [6]. 

Only the superior mind was able to fashion ‘truth’
from observation. There would be no need to test hypotheses against everyday experience.
The Frankfurt School studied ‘authoritarian personality’ - which became synonymous with the male as the
patriarchal head of the American Family. These idealistic intellectuals would construct a modern utopia by
‘turning Western civilization upside down’. Again, their utopia would be a product of their imagination,
not susceptible to criticism based on evidence. 
Their revolution would be accomplished by fomenting a very subtle, slow spread of Cultural Marxism,
bolstered by modern psychological concepts of Sigmund Freud. Thus, CM became a marriage of Marx and
Freud aimed at producing a ‘quiet revolution’ in the US.
This quiet revolution occurred in America over the past eight (Cool decades. While America slept!
Cultural Marxism (CM)

Just what is CM? Should it even be bothered about when the world’s vast experiment with Marx’s
economic theory went down to defeat in the disintegration of Soviet Communism? Didn’t America win the
Cold War against it?

The answer is ‘yes…but’. Yes, we won the 45 year Cold War, but we failed to recognize an intellectual
elite has meanwhile subtly, systematically diffused the economic theory of Marx into mainstream culture in
American society. And they did it while our eyes were on the Cold War abroad.
The cauldron of witch’s brew which introduced CM to America was the idealistic Baby Boomer elite -
young middle class and well to do college students who became vanguard of America’s counter culture
revolution in the mid-1960’s - in other words, the draft dodging, pot smoking hippies who demonstrated
against the Vietnam War and fomented the destructive to women ‘Women’s Liberation Movement’. These
New Totalitarians now hold power - come of age to control every public institution of our nation [7].
But that is getting ahead of the story.

In the boundless idealism of youth the ‘Boomer Generation’ became foot soldiers for their original
Frankfurt School gurus - Herbert Marcuse, Eric Fromm, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Wilhelm
Reich and others [8, 9] - whose influence is now felt in nearly every institution of the United States. Now
in America, elite Boomers are throwbacks to an idealistic American Transcendental Generation of the mid1800’s
and fashion themselves ‘Agents of Change’.

William S. Lind describes CM is an ideology traced back to the 1920’s - with deep roots in the writing of
Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci [10, 11]. Gramsci’s influence spread to Herbert Marcuse.
Herbert Marcuse was the most prominent Frankfurt School promoter of Critical Theory’s social revolution
among university students in the 1960’s. His words are revealing:

One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the
whole cultural establishment, including the morality of existing society...there is one thing
we can say with complete assurance. The traditional idea of revolution and the traditional
strategy of revolution have ended. These ideas are old-fashioned...what we must undertake
is a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system.
This sentiment was first expressed by Gramsci.

Before dying in 1937 in a Mussolini prison at age 46, Gramsci conjured the notion of a ‘quiet revolution’
which might be diffused through a culture over time - destroying it from within. He was the first to suggest
quietly applying psychology to break the traditions, beliefs, morals and will of a people while forestalling
possibility of resistance. He deduced “the civilized world had been thoroughly saturated with Christianity
for 2,000 years...” and a culture based on this religion could only be captured from within.

Gramsci insisted alliances with non-Communist Leftist groups would be essential to Communist victory.
In our time, such groups would include radical feminist groups, extremist environmental organizations, so
called civil rights movements, anti-police associations, internationalist minded groups, liberal church
denominations, piggybacking Islamists and others. Working together these groups could create a united
front for the destructive transformation of the time honored Judeo-Christian culture of the West.
By winning ‘cultural hegemony’ Gramsci concluded Communists could control the deepest wellsprings of
human thought - through the medium of mass psychology. Indeed, men could be made to ‘love their
servitude’. In the gospel of the Frankfurt School, resistance to CM could be completely negated by placing
resisters in a psychic ‘iron cage’. The tools of mass psychology could be applied to produce this result.
The essence of Antonio Gramsci's revolutionary strategy is reflected in American Boomer author Charles
A. Reich’s 1990’s book “The Greening of America” [12]. Reich pronounces:
There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate
with the individual and the culture and it will change the political structure as its final
act. It will not require violence to succeed, and it cannot be successfully resisted by
violence. This is the revolution of the New Generation.

Of course this New Generation is Reich’s elite Boomer pals. The mantra for these New Age foot soldiers
of Frankfurt School prophets is “have the courage to change” [13].
American Emasculation

The Frankfurt School theorizes the ‘authoritarian personality’ is product of a patriarchal family.
This idea directly connects to Frederich Engels’ “The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the
State” which promotes matriarchy. Karl Marx himself wrote about the radical notion of a ‘community of
women’ in the Communist Manifesto. Further, Marx wrote disparagingly about family as the basic unit of
society for ‘German Ideology’ in 1845.
The authoritarian personality purported by the Frankfurt School in the 1940’s and 1950’s in America,
prepared way for subsequent warfare against masculinity as promoted by Herbert Marcuse and his band of
social revolutionaries under the guise of ‘Women’s Liberation’ and the New Left Movement of the 1960’s.
The evidence that psychological techniques for changing personality are intended to emasculate American
males is provided by Abraham Maslow - founder of Third Force Humanist Psychology and a promoter of
the psychotherapeutic classroom. Maslow wrote:

The next step in personal evolution is a transcendence of both masculinity and femininity to
general humanness.
These Marxist revolutionaries knew what they wanted to do and how to do it. They have accomplished
much of their agenda.

Postmodernism - The Death of Truth

But how can we claim the breakdowns in our schools, universities and institutions - indeed in the fibers of
our culture - are products of a tiny cadre of intellectuals immigrating from Germany in 1933? Given all the
special interests involved in these circumstances, how can we trace cause to the Frankfurt School?
Look at some evidence.
Postmodern reconstruction of the history of Western Civilization (now prevalent in universities) has its
roots in the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School. Rewriting history by postmodern scholars in America
has only recently come under attack. Keith Windschuttle in his book, “Killing of History” strongly
criticizes the rush to ‘relativism’ by historiographers. Truly astonishing however, is that ‘relativism’ has
largely supplanted pursuit of truth [14]. George G. Iggers’ recently published book, “Historiography in the
Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge” reminds us of the infamous
statement by postmodernist Hayden White:

Historical narratives...are verbal fictions, the contents of which are more invented than found.
Herbert London refutes White’s noxious proposition observing, “...if history is largely invention, who can
say with authority that the American Revolution came before the French Revolution?” London observes
evidence has taken a back seat to invention - cutting right to the chase. The inventions of postmodernism -
which severe generations of Americans from their proud culture, history and traditions - evolved directly
from the Cultural Marxist cranks of the Frankfurt School.
George Iggers quotes other postmodernists, mostly non-historians, who “...reinforce the proposition that
truth and reality are primarily authoritarian weapons of our times” [15]. Again, we now recognize the
source of this postmodern assault - the Cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School who criticized the
‘authoritarian personality’ in American culture.
How did this situation arise in American universities? Gertrude Himmelfarb says it slipped past traditional
academics unobserved until it was too late [16]. It came so ‘quietly’ that when they ‘looked up’
postmodernism was upon them with a vengeance. “They were surrounded by a tidal wave of faddish
multicultural subjects such as radical feminism, deconstructed relativism as history and other courses”
which undermined perpetuation of Western Civilization. Indeed this cultural wave slipped by just as
Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurts envisioned - quietly. A revolution that could not be resisted by force.
Note that ‘sensitivity training’ techniques used in our public schools over the past 50 years and which are
now employed by the US military to educate troops about ‘sexual harassment’ were developed during
World War II and after, by Kurt Lewin and his protégés [17]. One of them, Abraham Maslow, was a
Frankfurter and the author of “The Art of Facilitation” which is a manual used during ‘sensitivity training’
[18]. Teachers are indoctrinated not to teach, but to ‘facilitate’. The manual describes techniques
developed by Kurt Lewin and others to change a person’s worldview via participation in small group
encounter sessions. Teachers were to become amateur group therapists. The classroom became a center of
self examination in therapeutic circles where children (and later on military personnel) talked about their
subjective feelings [19]. This technique was designed to convince children they were the sole authority in
their own lives - undermining family & transmission of parental wisdom to their children.
In the end, it is vital to acknowledge CM exists, to understand where it comes from and what its ultimate
objective is:
The slow, complete destruction - from the inside out - of Western Civilization in America.
CM in America - New Vernacular for New Totalitarians
By the end of World War II almost all the original Frankfurt Schoolers had become American citizens.
This meant inevitable broadening of a new English speaking audience for them. Now the focus became
more squarely centered on American forms of authoritarianism. With the shift, came a subtle change in the
Institute’s work.
In America, authoritarianism had come to appear in different forms than in Europe. Terror and coercion
had long been supplanted by more gentle, cultural forms of enforced conformism. According to Martin
Jay, “Perhaps the most effective of these were to be found in the cultural field. American mass culture thus
became one of the central concerns of the Frankfurt School in the 1940’s.” [20]
Subtle changes appeared in the Frankfurters’ description of their work. For example, the opposite of the
authoritarian was no longer the revolutionary - as it had been in studies aimed at Europeans. In America,
the authoritarian was now opposed by the ‘democratic’. So their Marxist language shifted to match more
closely the liberal ‘New Deal’ vernacular [21]. Education for tolerance - rather than praxis for
revolutionary change - became the ostensible goal of their research. They cleverly merged their language
with mainstream liberal left thought, while maintaining their CM objectives.
Toleration had never been an end in itself for the Frankfurt School, yet the non-authoritarian (utopian)
personality came to be described as a person with a non-dogmatic tolerance for diversity [22]. This thought
is centrally dominant in today’s power elite Boomer generation - the New Totalitarians.
Matriarchal America
One of the basic tenets of their Critical Theory was the necessity to break down the contemporary family.
The 1960’s ‘Generation Gap’ and the 1990’s ‘Gender Gap’ are two aspects of an attempt by elite Boomers
(using a page from the CM playbook) to transform American culture into Marxist utopia where the normal
unit of societal structure - the family - withers under the controlling reach of the Collective.
Institute mavens preached:
Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the
readiness of a coming generation to accept social change. [23] 
The transformation of American culture envisioned by Cultural Marxists is based on matriarchal theory.
That is, they propose transforming American culture into one dominated by the female.
This is direct lineage to Wilhelm Reich, a Frankfurt Schooler who considered matriarchal theory in
psychoanalytic terms. In 1933, he wrote in “The Mass Psychology of Fascism” that matriarchy was the
only genuine family type of ‘natural society’.
Eric Fromm, another charter member of the Institute, was also one of the most active in matriarchal theory.
Fromm was especially taken with the idea that all love and altruistic feeling were ultimately derived from
maternal love, necessitated by the extended period of human pregnancy and postnatal care:
Love was thus not dependent on sexuality, as Freud had supposed. In fact, sex was more
often tied to hatred and destruction. Masculinity and femininity were not reflections of
‘essential’ sexual differences, as the romantics had thought [24]. They were derived instead
from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.
This deluded dogma was precedent for today’s radical feminist pronouncements appearing in nearly every
major newspaper and TV program, including television newscasts. For present day CM radicals, male and
female roles result from cultural indoctrination in America - carried out by male patriarchy to the detriment
of women. Nature plays no role in this matter.
To facilitate the destruction and disintegration of American society, the Critical Theory of CM ‘change
agents’ and other emboldened social revolutionaries, has led them to open declaration of an intention to
restructure America. As they proclaim, their activities are directed toward disintegration of the traditional,
nominally white male power structure. Anyone with eyes to view present day television and motion
pictures can confirm, this has been largely achieved. Critical Theory, as applied mass psychology, has
achieved a quiet psychological revolution which facilitated an actual physical revolution visible
everywhere in America.
Destructive criticism of primary elements of American culture informed the 1960’s counter culture
revolution. As that phrase implies, this false awakening by idealist Boomers while coming of age, was the
intended transformation of prevailing American culture into an inverted opposite - a necessary precursor to
complete political revolution. Now that elite Boomers hold power in the United States, they are
consummating their work of destroying every American institution built up over 240 years of American
history. Their aim is to erase any vestige of an Anglo-American path taken by Western Civilization to
forming the greatest, most liberal society of any age in human history [25].
Most Americans do not yet realize they are being led by social revolutionaries who think first of the
destruction of the existing social order, to create a new one in this world. These revolutionaries are the
New Age elite Boomers, the New Totalitarians [26]. They now control every public institution in the
United States of America. Their ‘quiet’ revolution, beginning with a counter culture revolution in their
youth, is nearly complete. It was based on the intellectual foundation of Cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt
School. Its completion depends upon keeping the American male in his psychic ‘iron cage.’
Now the confluence of radical feminism and Cultural Marxism within a single generation of Baby Boomers
(the most dangerous generation in American history) - has imposed this yoke on the American male [27].
It remains to be seen whether he will continue voluntary submission to a future of slavery in a new
American matriarchy - a precursor to societal fracture, vulnerability and ultimate demise.
Should we allow subversion of American values and interests to continue, we surely lose all our Forebears
suffered and died for. At the core, history shows we are near losing that rare ephemeral thing which, once
gone, can never be easily recovered - our Liberty.
We are forewarned.
Posts : 1219
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2018-01-06
Location : France
View user profile

Re: Sjamaan

on Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:37 pm
Posts : 1219
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2018-01-06
Location : France
View user profile

Re: Sjamaan

on Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:42 pm
It is not so easy to find real information nowadays most things have been infiltrated

Sisters of Isis
well I think we have some idea who is behind such publications....wink wink...
the hidden hand, again...
Posts : 1219
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2018-01-06
Location : France
View user profile

Re: Sjamaan

on Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:45 pm
What is the difference between shamanism and druidism?

Chantal Guillou-Brennan, Integrative Energy Medicine Practitioner/teacher at Integrative Energy Medicine Institute (2008-present)
Answered Jan 1
The word “shaman” means seer/healer for the Tungis people of Siberia. The term was originally attributed to those medicine man and woman having the ability to see in non-ordinary reality. Essentially “seeing” things and having knowledge of things that the anthropologist or common man didn’t. Hence the idea that these gifted individuals were “wounded”, perhaps schizophrenic or suffering from multiple personality disorder or simply deluded; since they could speak to animals, plants and spirits. So druids, oracles, rebouteux/guérisseurs, faith healer, Ngangkari aborigines, witches, sorcere/ress, voodoo priest, are also seers/healers and theoretically may fall in the category of shamans.

However, shamanism as the term is use today especially in the United States refers to an indigenous culture practicing animalism and spiritism. It has all the characteristic of a religion with sacred ceremonies based on the principe of sacrifice and conditional love. Whereas the shaman will make offering in exchange for favors from Spirit and the spirits of ancestors or totem spirits (animal/plants).

Druids worship the forces of nature, the elements to which they attributed characters and personalities as did the greeks and romans in their pantheon of gods and goddesses. The same principle of “exchange for favors” is present in most if not all the human religions. Human sacrifice

In my teaching of Shamanic techniques of healing and of perception of non-ordinary reality, I encourage students to honor their own faith and ancestors. Each person appreciates the connection to a power greater than them-selves with the understanding that Love, honor and respect are the only prerequisite to any healing. Non judgment and Unity consciousness the option for unconditional Love, peace and preservation of life on earth. The foundation class of the Mastery of Awareness program is Shamanism 101 but you wilt learn the ways of worship from a specific indigenous culture (south or north american, african, caribbean, arborigenes.)

Our ancestors throughout the planet have alsways respected and honored life (plants and animal) because it sustained their own life. Hurting nature meant hurting the wellbeing of mankind. It is only when the preservation of the natural habitat of animals and plants became estranged from the survival of man that nature became a commodity to be used and abused, and man then started to destroy his own living space. Feeling separated from nature and each other, fear replaced love and we have been killing each other since.

Despite the many masters who have attempted to stir us back in the way of Love, of self respect, of recognition of a Divine principle in all life* we have persisted in increasing our separation from creation. It is only with the advances of science and quantum physics that we are now understanding that we are made and everything in the universe is made of the same thing: energy! The building blocks of this energy are so minuscule, and separated by such vast amount of space that we are told that 99.99% of everything is empty space.

The Chinese called this empty space Wiju, the Japanese Rei, (others may have called it God); Einstein called it the unifying field, and it is now called the Higgs field or Mind field. It is the consciousness that binds all of creation together and is present in every cell of every living being, including man. It is the consciousness that the Shamans and our ancestors (before the inquisition) tapped into for wisdom. It is the karmic field, the Akasha (ether) that mystics dive into.

So is Quantum Physics the new Shamanism that will again allow man to respect all life and stop his own destruction?

Science is limited by our own imagination and ability to create the tools to assess reality. The human mind as the ability to bridge the gap between the material world and the non material world because our very consciousness is the same consciousness that binds all form and our act of perception directly affects the material world. (see work of Masuro Emotto on the molecule of water; the research doe by Heartmath on meditation and consciousness; quantum physics experiment on how the observer influence the experiment).

To me Shamanic techniques are a simple and easy way for anyone to develop their own “psychic” skills, to broaden their perception of life and self, to become aware of the multidimensional universe, and ultimately to Love oneself as part of the whole; hence respecting and honoring all Life.

In harmony with you, CGB.

Related QuestionsMore Answers Below

How does a shaman differ from a witch doctor?
What are the differences between bokors and shamans?
What is the relationship between Wicca and Druidism? Are they the same?
When is the next launch for a shaman centre?
What would be the opposite of a shaman?

Nikola Petrovic, studied Business Law at University of Belgrade (2018)
Answered Jun 1, 2017 · Author has 110 answers and 56.3k answer views

Druids were originally from Britain, and there were different types of Druids. Of course, some people would say we don’t know anything about druids, we don’t have any proofs about their customs. As I read in one book, there were Druids who made all decisions for their people, they ruled. Also, some druids were bards who were more into music, and others were healers who managed to heal others. Their power was in nature. When I say nature, I think about system of balance (woods, animals,…).

Shamans are more close to spirits and animism. They can also heal and use “magic” but their power has to do more with spirits. They often communicate with spirits and get some information from them. They use elements, mostly fire, and nature is viewed here differently through elements.

I must mention that Druids and Shamans are from totally different cultures. From my point of view, shamans are more from southern cultures and druids from northern. Example for Druids are Celts, and for Shamans are Indians from North America. Both of them were fully respected by their people.

Alan B Jones, Elder Cornwall School Mystery and Magick

Answered Dec 30 · Author has 215 answers and 35.7k answer views

We have to be careful with ‘catch-all’ terms like Shamanism.

Shamanism is a term which was originally used to describe a specific group of peoples in the Tunguska region of Siberia. It has since be ‘generalised’ to embrace the spiritual practices of native peoples.

Broadly, in modern parlance, Shamanism includes the practices of being able to ‘travel between worlds’ to bring back valuable information and healing to their people. The Shaman is the wise-person of the tribe; the one who intervenes between the material and the spiritual.

In what we now call Shamanism there are some fairly ‘common’ features…

a) Animism - the notion that there is a spiritual essence to all things

b) A belief in different worlds - often described as Upper, Middle and Lower

c) The Symbolism of a Tree - in those regions where trees are common

d) Shamans can travel between the worlds

e) Shamans have spirit guides, totems and helpers

f) Shamans keep and re-tell the mythic stories of their ancestors

In so many ways the title Shaman is not one that an individual claims for themselves, but one which is given by those they serve.

Shamanic practices are spiritual, but not religious and have accompanied the development of the human race.

Druidry, if we accept some of the popular accounts, relates to specific practices of the Gaulish/Celtic people. Pliny and other Roman writer noted that there were three classes of Druid. The Bard, The ‘Vate (Ovate) and The Druid.

Modern interpretations suggest that the Bard was the keeper of myth, poet and ‘historian’; the Ovate was the oracle and healer and the Druid the Priest and Lawkeeper.

SO whilst there maybe elements of what we can call Shamanism with Druidic practice, it could be suggested that Druidry had a more formal, almost religious, basis. Druidry could be seen as a development of traditional Shamanism (perhaps).

Modern Druidry does have an animistic belief system; explores the Three Worlds as defined by The Land, Sea and Sky and refers to totems and spirits of place as other-worldly guides. More relevantly, perhaps, the Bardic tradition is one of honouring and retelling the stories and myths of ‘their’ peoples.

Alan /|\

Mark Johnston, BSET Electrical Engineering, Old Dominion University (2020)

Answered Jun 2, 2017 · Author has 1.1k answers and 1m answer views

TL;DR: druids might have been a type of shaman, or in a state of transition from shaman to priest in Celtic polytheism. Druids were particular to pre-Roman Europe, while shamans are common to many animistic religions around the world.

Technology is usually thought of as tools and inventions, but social systems and institutions like capitalism and democracy can be seen as social technologies. For the purposes of this explanation, let us consider religion to be a form of social technology.

Just as we can broadly and crudely think of technological evolution as ‘technology levels’ because of how many early cultures developed many similar technologies in roughly the same order and way, so too can we talk about religion as having ‘technology levels’. Note that this is not a judgement of the value or preferability of one level over another: lots of people will be happy to tell you how people’s life expectancy and leisure time dropped significantly with the adoption of agriculture.

“Stone Age” societies are typically nomadic hunter-gatherers or pastoral herders. “Stone Age” religion typically has the features of animism and shamanism. Rather than (or in addition to) a set pantheon, there are innumerable powerful spirits that reside in animals, plants, and the natural world, which can cause sickness, madness, or bad luck. The shaman is a spiritual specialist in these societies who use various ecstatic practices to interact with these spirits for the spiritual well-being of their community. Shamanism proper and vestigial remnants of shamanism remain an important part of many Amerindian, Central Asian, and African religions.

“Bronze Age” and “Iron Age” societies are typically sedentary and agricultural, usually become literate, and have increased state centralization and social specialization. “Bronze Age” and “Iron Age” religion is typically polytheist and develops the role of a priestly class. The rules of religion become more codified, and the role and functions of the priests become more constrained.

(Some “Iron Age” societies make the transition to monotheism or transcendental religion, but this is not relevant to the question.)

From what we know of them, the Celtic peoples of Western Europe in classical antiquity were a preliterate polytheistic agrarian culture, but their cultural and religious practices were seen as primitive by the Romans. The role of the druid has long fascinated romantics, but we have no histories by the Celts, and the classical accounts are bad anthropology at best and likely propagandistic. It is possible that the druids retained something of the shamanic in their roles as spiritual leaders, or they may have partially or completely transitioned into a priestly class.
Sponsored content

Re: Sjamaan

Back to top
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum