Thread: Norway Shooter Anders Behring Breivik

In case anyone's interested, the first ten pages or so of Breivik's manifesto are an exact duplicate of an article called "Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology" published by the Free Congress Foundation in November, 2004. The manifesto begins with this document.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005_docs/PC1.pdf

Most everything else is cobbled together from other unoriginal sources. Breivik never claims to have written this stuff. It's more like a research document without enough references and attributes.A patchwork of documents and ideas he agrees with.

Originally Posted by Epp

If Breivik was a threat or even seen as a potential threat to jewish financial power and cultural authority he would have been hanged or deep-sixed.

I find it strange that the reports were that when the cops first approached him on the island, they called him by name!

They may be keeping him alive because they think it will be easier to tie him to us. It may backfire, because I think the more he says the more he will distinguish himself from us. As if his slaughter of dozens of kids did not do that already!

Originally Posted by Jeff Hook

In case anyone's interested, the first ten pages or so of Breivik's manifesto are an exact duplicate of an article called "Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology" published by the Free Congress Foundation in November, 2004. The manifesto begins with this document.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005_docs/PC1.pdf

Most everything else is cobbled together from other unoriginal sources. Breivik never claims to have written this stuff. It's more like a research document without enough references and attributes.A patchwork of documents and ideas he agrees with.

Even if the various ideas don't agree with each other?

Who knows what really happened. Since when is any news source even reliable since they are yid owned.

Originally Posted by Edmund Ruffin

The most significant paragraph I have read since this incident is in your time link:

We have multiculturalismfor one reason: It's "Good for jews."

Bull****! Does this guy think he can sustain the argument that the US was not "Safe for jews" before 1960?

Here we see it again, Boys and Girls, it's all about the Holocaust™. That's why we have now reached the point where never a day passes without the Shoah, of which I heard nothing until after I was old enough to vote, being shoved in our faces. That's why our White children are subjected in school to horrific scatological yarns spun by wizened old jew liars. Without the Holocaust™ there is no multiculturalism. Without the Holocaust™our racial survival is assured. Now do you wonder why it is illegal to refute the lies of these liars in most of the once White Christian world?

http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/201...#ixzz1TGD9dzZF

The most interesting thing about these attacks is the global media coverage. Jews can't control the flow of information. Dangerous and previously verboten ideas are being openly discussed. This is a propaganda and public relations disaster for Jews because they have taken full credit for being the world's foremost promoters of cultural Marxism.

Breivik does not name the Jew, while pointing at them, because he does not believe naming them works in the political arena.

On those few occasions when Jews are named, as in the Time Magazine article, it's Jews naming themselves as the main beneficiaries of cultural Marxism! This is why they've been amazingly stupid in their coverage, or simply unable to control it due to panic and confusion.

Originally Posted by Edmund Ruffin

Even if the various ideas don't agree with each other?

Absolutely. The standard Jewish revolutionary tactic is to condemn violence while being ultra violent, condemn hate while being ultra hateful, and condemn racism while being ultra racist. Breivik condemns racism while demanding a return to 1950s demographics, for example.

Same thing.

Anyway, the political aftermath is all that matters. It's about explaining this event. Now that we have the entire world's attention, do we curl into a fetal position and suck our thumbs, like Stormfront management, or do we tell the truth about this horrific event and put the blame where it belongs: a provoked response to the Third-Worlding of Europe and the evaporation of Western culture. A very good case can be made that cultural Marxists are to blame. We aren't responsible for creating Breivik. He is a monster of their making. And we need to tell the truth about who those "innocent kids" actually are. If you listen carefully to the Norwegian Prime Minister’s numerous post-massacre speeches he repeatedly claims to know almost all of the victims. The social rank of these Norwegians is pretty evident when one finds out that the Princess of Norway’s step-brother died in the attack while protecting his son. The people on this island were without exception the future generation of Norway’s cultural Marxist ideological machinery.

Please ignore Alex Jones, who tries to misinform the public as usual but do listen to Dr. Stevie Pieczenik's analysis on the Oslo attacks:

(fast forward through Jones's yapping)

Originally Posted by SydneyStan

I think that there is a strand of misguided White Nationalist coming through who has been duped by, or failed to understand jewish supremacism. The EDL supporters come to mind. They see the Muslim first, and because the Jew is umpteen degrees removed from what they see day-to-day, and is craftily working the media, the reactionary assumption is that the Muslim is the most urgent consideration. In Europe though, they're right. The Muslim IS the greatest threat now to Whites. That is an aside, however... I reiterate what I said above: he went for [what he saw as] the cause, and not the symptom. For where I live, if I attack a Muslim, it is a futile gesture, because Muslims do not process their own visas, welfare and admission into the country. This is down to the government, which is driven in part by its corporate masters, and in part by its [alleged] ideology. It is the Govt that stands in for the Muslim. It is the Govt that is the traitor. In England, was it not Blair's Labour that really opened the floodgates? Does that then not make the 'white' elite ideologues the facilitators of their nations invasion? Isn't that treason. If a White man stands at a door, poised to turn the knob and let in a killer, do I wait for him to do so and shoot the killer, or do I prevent the killer from entering by shooting him?
However, saying that sounds like validation of an act of mass murder and there is no way I want to wear that tag. But examined in its inevitable text, these are the unavoidable signifiers.
As to his incongruities vis-a-vis the Jews... I read somewhere about how a huge group of users on 'right wing' websites are coming out of Israel. It wouldn't be like the jew to pull the strings of a goyim now, would it?

I think, what confuses people the most, is that "how come" a neocon or neocon-like-pro-Israel government is flooding its own country with immigrants, especially from the darker shades of skin?

It's very simple and I have explained this many times to many people.

Answer : Cheap labor.

Corporations, big chain-stores etc etc..don't want to pay for health insurance or higher wages, and seeing China or Indonesia paying 2 dollars/day , while having sweatshops where those people work 10hr shifts with 3 hrs of sleep, this looks very very promising and profitable. Forget the living standards or what Whites want. Money is the final word, even if the whole UK or France goes Muslims or look like an African state. They don't care.

This is the maximum how traitorous someone can become. Basically they are sacrificing their own people for a couple of extra silver coins, because they know, they don't have to deal with the mess they are making anyway. They will probably be dead in 20-30-40 years, so who cares??

They don't, because they either gonna be on Cayman Islands or on their yachts or in a maximum security Lords- manor with their own private security roaming the perimeters.

Look. These people understand genetics, brain development, lack of IQ, lack of will etc. In the European men - it's almost like coded in to rise up against tyranny, because of the many many centuries of clashes, wars etc.
Meanwhile the poor dumb brown and black people are much easier to control, they are behind on the bell curve anyway, plus they are less civilized and they don't mind if they have to share an apartment between 20 of them and eat rice or some cheap garbage all day. They got lower level of standards. What you'd consider a stinky rat hole and a savage lifestyle - for them - it's a damn luxury, compared to where they came from.
So your own government and political leaders are actively committing treason at the highest level, and they are (slowly but surely) ethnically cleansing their own countries for more profit. That's the whole point of the affirmative action as well, along with the screwed up immigration policies and the whole media love with the dark skin and race mixing.

Originally Posted by Gallus Anonymus

I think, what confuses people the most, is that "how come" a neocon or neocon-like-pro-Israel government is flooding its own country with immigrants, especially from the darker shades of skin?

It's very simple and I have explained this many times to many people.

Answer : Cheap labor.

No question, being a traitor is highly profitable. And not being a traitor can put you in the poor house, or in prison. This is true and an easy explanation for the sheeple to understand. What they will probably never understand is that Jews shape public opinion thru media monopolies which also allows them operational control of our government. In mass media we are allowed the full spectrum of Jewish opinion, from the neoconservative Right, which is Jewish to the very core, to the Marxist Left, which is Jewish to the very core. We are stranded in a narrow range of opinion strictly enforced by one ethnic group for their sole and exclusive benefit. The neoconservatives and cultural Marxists are two sides of the same coin. The neoconservatives are useful as controlled opposition, and as a pro-Israel, pro-war propaganda mill. All of those Jewish neocons used to be on the Left, and still are unless being on the Left is bad for Israel.

White nations are being overrun by immigrants because it makes Jews feel safe. This is the main motivating factor.

Vague sense of impending doom anyone?

Here is the front page of Wednesday's edition of "Dagbladet," the Norwegian newspaper. It includes photos of many of the victims.

http://www.dagbladet.no/

De savnede og drepte etter angrepene 22. juli 2011

Just looking at that list makes one realize how much WHITER Norway is than America.

Tragic this had to occur in Norway.

They don't realize how much better they have it up there.

Originally Posted by Jeff Hook

The most interesting thing about these attacks is the global media coverage. Jews can't control the flow of information. Dangerous and previously verboten ideas are being openly discussed. This is a propaganda and public relations disaster for Jews because they have taken full credit for being the world's foremost promoters of cultural Marxism.

Breivik does not name the Jew, while pointing at them, because he does not believe naming them works in the political arena.

On those few occasions when Jews are named, as in the Time Magazine article, it's Jews naming themselves as the main beneficiaries of cultural Marxism! This is why they've been amazingly stupid in their coverage, or simply unable to control it due to panic and confusion.

I have read about 400 pages now. He admits early on that about half of it is copied from others. I recognize some of it as stuff I have read before, and on a couple of occasions, I know who he is quoting.

But I must admit that this guy, even if he is as crazy as his lawyer says he is(Dr. Pieczenik, in the linked A. Jones videoes says the guy is sane as you and I), he certainly is no intellectual midget. He is a first class polemicist.

He takes the word "Zionist" and throws it back at them, with the same meaning it had when they invented both the movement and the word. When he says someone is a Zionist, he means they want all jews to go to Israel, which is exactly what Herzl meant in 1895.

"Anti-semites" currently use the word as a eupheism for the distasteful three-letter word. It has come to mean in the common parlance, "Bad jew," as opposed to the "Good jew," who is simply a jew. Breivik uses it in its original meaning, and not as a modern epithet, and they don't know how to handle it when someone uses "Zionist" to mean "Good jew," as Theo. Herzl meant it in 1895. It's much easier for them if it is used as an epithet.

If you take his position in toto, there are two kinds of jews. There are Zionists, who believe they should all be in their own nation, and there are those jews who remain in host countries, where he defines them as "Disloyal and treasonous."

I am looking for him to use Henry Ford's "International jew" to describe the bad jews, but I haven't seen it yet.

Dr. Steve Pieczenik seems almost desperate to prove that it's all about neo-nazis. Without being asked, he repeated three or four times that the idea of any monolithic group (Jews?) controlling the government of the United States, or its security apparatus, is ridiculous. Strange that he would redirect the conversation in this manner over and over again, which was totally off-topic.

Originally Posted by Jeff Hook

Dr. Steve Pieczenik seems almost desperate to prove that it's all about neo-nazis. Without being asked, he repeated three or four times that the idea of any monolithic group (Jews?) controlling the government of the United States, or its security apparatus, is ridiculous. Strange that he would redirect the conversation in this manner over and over again, which was totally off-topic.

Pieczenik has spent his life in academia, publishing, intelligence, and movies. 'Nuff said. I think it is obvious what it is that Dr. Steve is worried about.

The mainstream media, and dozens of blogs, are wrongfully attributing Raymond V. Raehn book "The Historical Roots of Political Correctness” to Anders Breivik who used it to begin his manifesto. Below is an excerpt, with a link to the complete original. (I hope I'm not spamming the board by posting a file this large. If so please edit or remove.)

The Historical Roots of “Political Correctness”

By Raymond V. Raehn

America is today dominated by an alien system of beliefs, attitudes and values that we have come to know as “Political Correctness.” Political Correctness seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans and is therefore totalitarian in nature. Its roots lie in a version of Marxism which seeks a radical inversion of the traditional culture in order to create a social revolution.

Social revolution has a long history, conceivably going as far back as Plato’s Republic. But it was the French Revolution of 1789 that inspired Karl Marx to develop his theories in the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, the success of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia set off a wave of optimistic expectation among the Marxist forces in Europe and America that the new proletarian world of equality was finally coming into being. Russia, as the first communist nation in the world, would lead the revolutionary forces to victory.

The Marxist revolutionary forces in Europe leaped at this opportunity. Following the end of World War I, there was a Communist “Spartacist uprising in Berlin, Germany lead by Rosa Luxemburg; the creation of a “Soviet” in Bavaria led by Kurt Eisner; and a Hungarian communist republic established by Bela Kun in 1919. At the time, there was great concern that all of Europe might fall under the banner of Bolshevism. This sense of impeding doom was given vivid life by Trotsky’s Red Army invasion of Poland in 1919.

However, the Red Army was defeated by Polish forces at the battle of the Vistula in 1920. The Spartacist, Bavarian Soviet and Bela Kun governments all failed to gain widespread support from the workers and after a brief time they were all overthrown. These events created a quandary for the Marxist revolutionaries in Europe. Under Marxist economic theory, the oppressed workers were supposed to be the beneficiaries of a social revolution that would place them on top of the power structure. When these revolutionary opportunities presented themselves, however, the workers did not respond. The Marxist revolutionaries did not blame their theory for these failures. They blamed the workers.

One group of Marxist intellectuals resolved their quandary by an analysis that focused on society’s cultural “superstructure” rather than on the economic substructures as Marx did. The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci and Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs contributed the most to this new cultural Marxism.

Antonio Gramsci worked for the Communist International during 1923-24 in Moscow and Vienna. He was later imprisoned in one of Mussolini’s jails where he wrote his famous “Prison Notebooks.” Among Marxists, Gramsci is noted for his theory of cultural hegemony as the means to class dominance. In his view, a new “Communist man” had to be created before any political revolution was possible. This led to a focus on the efforts of intellectuals in the fields of education and culture. Gramsci envisioned a long march through the society’s institutions, including the government, the judiciary, the military, the schools and the media. He also concluded that so long as the workers had a Christian soul, they would not respond to revolutionary appeals.

Georg Lukacs was the son a wealthy Hungarian banker. Lukacs began his political life as an agent of the Communist International. His book History and Class Consciousness gained him recognition as the leading Marxist theorist since Karl Marx. Lukacs believed that for a new Marxist culture to emerge, the existing culture must be destroyed. He said, “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution to the cultural contradictions of the epoch,” and, “Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”

When he became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary in 1919, Lukacs launched what became known as “Cultural Terrorism.” As part of this terrorism he instituted a radical sex education program in Hungarian schools. Hungarian children were instructed in free love, sexual intercourse, the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the out-datedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasures. Women, too, were called to rebel against the sexual mores of the time. Lukacs’s campaign of “Cultural Terrorism” was a precursor to what Political Correctness would later bring to American schools.

In 1923, Lukacs and other Marxist intellectuals associated with the Communist Party of Germany founded the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University in Frankfurt, Germany. The Institute, which became known as the Frankfurt School, was modeled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. In 1933, when Nazis came to power in Germany, the members of the Frankfurt School fled. Most came to the United States.

The members of the Frankfurt School conducted numerous studies on the beliefs, attitudes and values they believed lay behind the rise of National Socialism in Germany. The Frankfurt School’s studies combined Marxist analysis with Freudian psychoanalysis to form the basis of what became known as “Critical Theory.” Critical Theory was essentially destructive criticism of the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism. These criticisms were reflected in such works of the Frankfurt School as Erich Fromm’s Escape from Freedom and The Dogma of Christ, Wilhelm’s Reich’s The Mass Psychology of Fascism and Theodor Adorno’s The Authoritarian Personality.

The Authoritarian Personality, published in 1950, substantially influenced American psychologists and social scientists. The book was premised on one basic idea, that the presence in a society of Christianity, capitalism and the patriarchal-authoritarian family created a character prone to racial prejudice and German fascism. The Authoritarian Personality became a handbook for a national campaign against any kind of prejudice or discrimination on the theory that if these evils were not eradicated, another Holocaust might occur on the American continent. This campaign, in turn, provided a basis for Political Correctness.

Critical Theory incorporated sub-theories which themselves were intended to chip away at specific elements of the existing culture, including “matriarchal theory,” “androgyny theory,” “personality theory,” “authority theory,” “family theory,” “sexuality theory,” “racial theory,” “legal theory” and “literary theory.” Put into practice, these theories were to be used to overthrow the prevailing social order and usher in social revolution based on cultural Marxism.

To achieve this, the Critical Theorists of the Frankfurt School recognized that traditional beliefs and the existing social structure would have to be destroyed and then replaced. The patriarchal social structure would be replaced with matriarchy; the belief that men and women are different and properly have different roles would be replaced with androgyny; and the belief that heterosexuality is normal would be replaced with the belief that homosexuality is “normal.”

As a grand scheme intended to deny the intrinsic worth of white, heterosexual males, the Critical Theorists of the Frankfurt School opened the door to the racial and sexual antagonisms of the Trotskyites. Leon Trotsky believed that oppressed blacks could be the vanguard of a communist revolution in North America. He denounced white workers who were prejudiced against blacks and instructed them to unite with the blacks in revolution. Trotsky’s ideas were adopted by many of the student leaders of the 1960s counterculture movement, who attempted to elevate the black revolutionaries to positions of leadership in their movement.

The student revolutionaries were also strongly influenced by the ideas of Herbert Marcuse, another member of the Frankfurt School. Marcuse preached the “Great Refusal,” a rejection of all basic Western concepts, sexual liberation and the merits of feminist and black revolutions. His primary thesis was that university students, ghetto blacks, the alienated, the asocial, and the Third World could take the place of the proletariat in the Communist revolution. In his book, An Essay on Liberation, Marcuse proclaimed his goals of a radical transvaluation of values; the relaxation of taboos, cultural subversion; Critical Theory; and a linguistic rebellion that would amount to a methodical reversal of meaning. As for racial conflict, Marcuse wrote that white men are guilty and that blacks are the most natural force of rebellion.

Marcuse may be the most important member of the Frankfurt School in terms of the origins of Political Correctness, because he was the critical link to the counterculture of the 1960s. His objective was clear: “One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including morality of existing society…” His means was liberating the powerful, primeval force of sex from its civilized restraints, a message preached in his book, Eros and Civilization, published in 1955. Marcuse became one of the main gurus of the 1960s adolescent sexual rebellion; he himself coined the expression, “make love, not war.” With that role, the chain of Marxist influence via the Frankfurt School was completed: from Lukacs’s service as Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Hungarian government in 1919 to American students burning the flag and taking over college administration buildings in the 1960s. Today, many of these same colleges are bastions of Political Correctness, and the former student radicals have become the faculties.

One of the most important contributors to Political Correctness was Betty Friedan. Through her book The Feminine Mystique, Friedan became the mother of the modern feminist movement in America. Friedan was not a member of the Frankfurt School, but she was strongly influenced by it. Her work offers a useful case study of the Marxist roots of Political Correctness.

Friedan devoted almost a full chapter of The Feminine Mystique to Abraham Maslow’s theory of self-actualization. Maslow was a social psychologist who in his early years did research on female dominance and sexuality. Maslow was a friend of Herbert Marcuse at Bandeis University and had met Erich Fromm in 1936. He was strongly impressed by Fromm’s Frankfurt School ideology. He wrote an article, “The Authoritarian Character Structure,” published in 1944, that reflected the personality theory of Critical Theory. Maslow was also impressed with the work of Wilhelm Reich, who was another Frankfurt School originator of personality theory.

The significance of the historical roots of Political Correctness cannot be fully appreciated unless Betty Friedan’s revolution in sex roles is viewed for what it really was – a manifestation of the social revolutionary process begun by Karl Marx. Friedan’s reliance on Abraham Maslow’s reflection of Frankfurt School ideology is simply one indicator. Other indicators include the correspondence of Friedan’s revolution in sex roles with Georg Lukacs’ annihilation of old values and the creation of new ones, and with Herbert Marcuse’s transvaluation of values. But the idea of transforming a patriarchy into a matriarchy – which is what a sex-role inversion is designed to do – can be connected directed to Friedrich Engels book The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the Sate. First published in 1884, this book popularized the now-accepted feminist belief that deep-rooted discrimination against the oppressed female sex was a function of patriarchy. The belief that matriarchy was the solution to patriarchy flows from Marx’s comments in The German Ideology, published in 1845. In this work Marx advanced the idea that wives and children were the first property of the patriarchal male. The Frankfurt School’s matriarchal theory (and its near-relation, androgyny theory) both originated from these sources.

When addressing the general public, advocates of Political Correctness – or cultural Marxism, to give it its true name – present their beliefs attractively. It’s all just a matter of being “sensitive” to other people, they say. They use words such as “tolerance” and “diversity,” asking, “Why can’t we all just get along?”

The reality is different. Political Correctness is not at all about “being nice,” unless one thinks gulags are nice places. Political Correctness is Marxism, with all that implies: loss of freedom of expression, thought control, inversion of the traditional social order and, ultimately, a totalitarian state. If anything, the cultural Marxism created by the Frankfurt School is more horrifying than the old, economic Marxism that ruined Russia. At least the economic Marxists did not exalt sexual perversion and attempt to create a matriarchy, as the Frankfurt School and its descendants have done.

This short essay has sought to show one critical linkage, that between classical Marxism and the ingredients of the “cultural revolution” that broke out in America in the 1960s. The appendices to this paper offer a “wiring diagram” which may make the trail easier to follow, along with a more detailed look at some of the main actors. Of course, the action does not stop in the ‘60s; the workings of Frankfurt School are yet very much with us, especially in the field of education. That topic, and other present-day effects of Frankfurt School thinking, will be the subjects of future chapters in this book.

Profiles

Georg Lukacs

• He began his political life as a Kremlin agent of the Communist International.

• His History and Class-Consciousness gained him recognition as the leading Marxist theorist since Karl Marx.

• In 1919 he became the Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Bela Kun Regime in Hungary. He instigated what become known as the “Cultural Terrorism.”

• The Cultural Terrorism was a precursor of what was to happen in American schools.

• He launched an “explosive” sex education program. Special lectures were organized in Hungarian schools and literature was printed and distributed to instruct children about free love, the nature of sexual intercourse, the archaic nature of the bourgeois family codes, the outdatedness of monogamy and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasure. Children urged thus to reject and deride paternal authority and the authority of the Church, and to ignore precepts of morality, were easily and spontaneously turned into delinquents with whom only the police could cope. This call to rebellion addressed to Hungarian children was matched by a call to rebellion addressed to Hungarian women.

• In rejecting the idea that Bolshevism spelled the destruction of civilization and culture, Lukacs stated: “Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”

• Lukacs’ state of mind was expressed in his own words:

o “All the social forces I had hated since my youth, and which I aimed in spirit to annihilate, now came together to unleash the First Global War.”

o “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution to the cultural contradictions of the epoch.”

o “The question is, Who will free us from the yoke of Western Civilization?”

o “Any political movement capable of bringing Bolshevism to the West would have to be ‘Demonic’.”

o “The abandonment of the soul’s uniqueness solves the problem of ‘unleashing’ the diabolic forces lurking in all the violence which are needed to create a revolution.”

• Lukacs’ state of mind was typical of those who represented the forces of Revolutionary Marxism.

• At a secret meeting in Germany in 1923, Lukacs proposed the concept of inducing “Cultural Pessimism” in order to increase the state of hopelessness and alienation in the people of the West as a necessary prerequisite for revolution.

• This meeting led to the founding of the Institute for Social Research at Frankfurt University in Germany in 1923 – an organization of Marxist and Communistoriented psychologists, sociologists and other intellectuals that came to be known as the Frankfurt School, which devoted itself to implementing Georg Lukacs’s program.

Antonio Gramsci

• He was an Italian Marxist on an intellectual par with Georg Lukacs who arrived by analysis at the same conclusions as Lukacs and the Frankfurt School regarding the critical importance of intellectuals in fomenting revolution in the West.

• He had traveled to the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and made some accurate observations that caused him to conclude that a Bolshevikstyle uprising could not be brought about by Western workers due to the nature of their Christian souls.

• Antonio Gramsci became the leader of the Italian Communist Party, which earned him a place in one of Mussolini’s jails in the 1930s, where he wrote Prison Notebooks and other documents.

• These works became available in English to Americans.

• His advice to the intellectuals was to begin a long march through the educational and cultural institutions of the nation in order to create a new Soviet man before there could be a successful political revolution.

• This reflected his observations in the Soviet Union that its leaders could not create such a new Soviet man after the Bolshevik Revolution.

• This blueprint for mind and character change made Gramsci a hero of Revolutionary Marxism in American education and paved the way for creation of the New American Child in the schools by the education cartel.

• The essential nature of Antonio Gramsci’s revolutionary strategy is reflected in Charles A. Reich’s The Greening of America: “There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions in 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 revolution of the New Generation.”

Wilhelm Reich

• In his 1933 book entitled The Mass Psychology of Fascism, he explained that the Frankfurt School departed from the Marxist sociology that set “Bourgeois” against “Proletariat.” Instead, the battle would be between “reactionary” and “revolutionary” characters.

• He also wrote a book entitled The Sexual Revolution, which was a precursor of what was to come in the 1960s.

• His “sex-economic” sociology was an effort to harmonize Freud’s psychology with Marx’s economic theory.

• Reich’s theory was expressed in his words: “The authoritarian family is the authoritarian state in miniature. Man’s authoritarian character structure is basically produced by the embedding of sexual inhibitions and fear in the living substance of sexual impulses. Familial imperialism is ideologically reproduced in national imperialism…the authoritarian family…is a factor where reactionary ideology and reactionary structures are produced.”

• Wilhelm Reich’s theory, when coupled with Georg Lukacs’ sex education in Hungary, can be seen as the source for the American education cartel’s insistence on sex education from kindergarten onwards and its complete negation of the paternal family, external authority, and the traditional character structure.

• Reich’s theory encompassed other assertions that seem to have permeated American education:

o The organized religious mysticism of Christianity was an element of the authoritarian family that led to Fascism.

o The patriarchal power in and outside of man was to be dethroned.

o Revolutionary sexual politics would mean the complete collapse of authoritarian ideology.

o Birth control was revolutionary ideology.

o Man was fundamentally a sexual animal.

• Reich’s The Mass Psychology of Fascism was in its ninth printing as of 1991, and is available in most college bookstores.

Erich Fromm

• Like Wilhelm Reich, Fromm was a social psychologist of the Frankfurt School who came to America in the 1930s.

• His book Escape from Freedom, published in 1941, is an ideological companion to Wilhelm Reich’s The Mass Psychology of Fascism.

• Fromm asserted that early capitalism created a social order that bred a sadomasochistic and authoritarian character of which Martin Luther and Adolph Hitler were prime examples.

• He asserted that the same capitalistic social order resulted in Calvin’s Theory of Predestination, which reflected the principle of the basic inequality of men that was revived in Nazi ideology.

• He asserted the authoritarian character experiences only domination or submission and “differences, whether sex or race, to him are necessarily of superiority or inferiority.”

• He asserted that “Positive Freedom” implies the principle that there is no higher power than the unique individual self; that man is the center and purpose of life; that the growth and realization of man’s individuality is an end that can never be subordinated to purposes which are supposed to have a greater dignity.

• Fromm made the real meaning of this “Positive Freedom” clear in another of his many books – The Dogma of Christ… wherein he describes a revolutionary character such as himself as: the man who has emancipated himself from the ties of blood and soil, from his mother and father, and from special loyalties to state, race, party or religion.

• Fromm makes his revolutionary intent very clear in The Dogma of Christ… “We might define revolution in a psychological sense, saying that a revolution is a political movement led by people with revolutionary characters, and attracting people with revolutionary characters.”

Herbert Marcuse

• Like Wilhelm Reich and Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse was an intellectual of the Frankfurt School who came to America in the 1930s.

• He has often been described as a Marxist philosopher, but he was in fact a fullblooded social revolutionary who contemplated the disintegration of American society just as Karl Marx and Georg Lukacs contemplated the disintegration of German society: “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 has ended. These ideas are old-fashioned…What we must undertake is a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system.”

• Marcuse published Eros and Civilization in 1955, which became the founding document of the 1960s counterculture and brought the Frankfurt School into the colleges and universities of America.

• He asserted that the only way 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.”

• This erotic liberation was to take the form of the “Great Refusal,” a total rejection of the capitalist monster and its entire works, including technological reason and ritual-authoritarian language.

• He provided the obtuse intellectual justifications for adolescent sexual rebellion, and the slogan “Make Love, Not War.”

• His theory included the belief that the Women’s Liberation Movement was to be the most important component of the opposition, and potentially the most radical.

• His revolutionary efforts would blossom into a full-scale war by revolutionary Marxism against the European white male in the schools and colleges.

Theodor Adorno

• He was another Marxist revolutionary and member of the Frankfurt School who came to America in the 1930s.

• Along with others, Adorno authored The Authoritarian Personality, which was published in 1950.

• Adorno’s book was inspired by the same kind of theoretical assertions revealed in the works of Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse based on analytical studies of German society that were begun in 1923.

• The basic theme was the same. There was such a thing as an authoritarian character that was the opposite of the desired revolutionary character. This authoritarian character was a product of capitalism, Christianity, conservatism, the patriarchal family and sexual repression. In Germany, this combination induced prejudice, anti-Semitism and fascism according to Frankfurt School theory.

• It so happened that most Americans were products of capitalism, Christianity, conservatism, the patriarchal family and sexual repression in their youth. So Theodor Adorno and other members of the Frankfurt School had a golden opportunity to execute Georg Lukacs’s and Antonio Gramsci’s program for creating social revolution in America instead of Germany.

• They would posit the existence of authoritarian personalities among Americans with tendencies toward prejudice, and then exploit this to force the “scientifically planned re-education” of Americans with the excuse that it was being done in order to eradicate prejudice.

• This scientifically-planned re-education would become the master plan for the transformation of America’s system of fundamental values into their opposite revolutionary values in American education so that school children would become replicas of the Frankfurt School revolutionary characters and thus create the New American Child.

• This can be confirmed by noting that The Authoritarian Personality is the key source of the affective domain of Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives of 1964, which guided the education cartel thereafter.


http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/A...orrectness.htm

Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg vows there will be more openess and not less, obviously referring to Muslim immigrants.

Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg says his country must remain committed to an open and democratic society... The prime minister said he felt the assaults were an attack on "...our political system."

"There's been a very strong answer of more democracy, more openness and not less," he said.

The prime minister said he had visited the island targeted in the attack "every summer since 1974," and that he knew many of the people who were killed.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...s-missing.html

Article describing murder victims.

Police release IDs of Norwegian gunman's 76 victims

By Lee Moran

Among those killed on the island on Friday, where a summer holiday camp for the youth section of the Labour Party was taking place, were the family members of several senior party politicians.

Gunnar Linaker, 23, was the son of powerful regional Labour figure.

Tarald Mjelde, 18, a vice-chairman of the Norwegian Youth Labour Party in Hordaland and Nordhordland.

Male model and dancer Ismail Haji, 20.

Tore Eikeland, 21, a local councillor and the leader of Young Labour in the south-west region. He has since been described by Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg as 'one of our most talented young politicians'.

Hanne Kristine Fridtun, 19. She spoke at a Labour Party conference. She said: 'We want the right to live in the best possible world. We want openness...' She was a party activist who had made herself known in her local town of Stryn.

Monica Bosei, 45, a stalwart member of the Labour Party, sometimes tipped for Cabinet Office, and valued as a talent-spotter. She had run the summer camp for several years and encouraged constituency officers across the county to send their best and brightest to Utoya island. She also played a key informal role in the regeneration of the Left in Norway.

Jamil Rafal Yasin, 20, who moved to Norway after her family sought refuge from war-torn Iraq.

The Crown Princess of Norway's step-brother, Trond Berntsen, 51, the son of Princess Mette-Marit's late stepfather.

The stepdaughter of Defence Minister Roger Ingebrigsten was also injured in the legs as she ran from Breivik.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-police.html