Andrew Breitbart: Psychosis in a Political Mask Part One

Andrew Breitbart

ANDREW BREITBART:

PSYCHOSIS IN A POLITICAL MASK

PART ONE PART TWO PART THREE PART FOUR

(Originally this post featured book excerpts transcribed from the audio book; they have since been replaced with excerpts taken from the print digital edition.)

The sort of minor figure that will inspire later historians to wonder why his brief moment received such attention, and why his death got such notice, just as it might be difficult to explain to a person outside an era why some plate juggler or quirky singer was an object of such fascination. I believe that a person often reveals themselves the most in the books that they write, and I had enough interest in Breitbart to read (or listen to) his memoir, Righteous Indignation, a book with several insights, though perhaps not the ones that the writer intends. Having read this book, I find that many of his epitaphs, often written by sympathetic or friendly reporters, or friends outright, ring utterly false. The best of the bunch, easily, one written without affection, is Alex Pareene’s “What Andrew Breitbart Made and What Made Him”, striking the proper of bored repulsion, and properly focusing on what drove this man. He barely had any interest in political policy, knew nothing about the marginal tax rate or chained CPI, but had a craving for fame and intellectual repute.

A good chunk of what I’ll write here will be speculation, but it will be speculation based as much as possible on what Breitbart said or wrote. That it is speculation does not mean it will be malicious. Though I think many details of his life are well known, many are given insufficient weight. Much analysis has been external, viewing Breitbart as he seemed to view others, entirely as a political actor, and by political I mean someone without inner life, only someone with a series of statements and acts of which you were in sympathy or opposition. I do think at various points in his life, the question of why he acts in a particular manner can be answered only with speculation, but diligent speculation at least. I stress again that a lot of the discussion about the man before and after his death conveys a very different man than I discern. The consensus is that he was a happy warrior, a man who gave good fight but respected and often liked the opposition, who made a slow but happy ascent in a new field of internet news, an ordinary joe happy in his skin. I see something different: a man who felt a violent hatred for opponents he considered subhuman, someone who envied the wealth and renown of the Hollywood elite, who craved the intellectual aura of academia, a man stressed out by a lack of professional and economic opportunity, an unimportant man who deeply wished to be important.

It might be assumed that any such analysis would be unreliable since, ideologically, I am supposed to hate this man. The qualities, good or ill, of the analysis lie with the analysis itself, but I do not hate Andrew Breitbart. I dislike him. I pity him and think he was pathetic. That is something very different from hate. However, make no mistake, Andrew Breitbart did hate his targets, intensely, virulently, violently, and this is a point cheerfully understated or ignored by the memories of his friends.

I give perhaps the most egregious example, by Matt Welch, “Farewell to a Friend: Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)”:

It was always funny to many of his friends that Andrew Breitbart, after he became famous, was probably most famous for being a 100 percent polarizing political lightning rod. The reason that was funny was two-fold: He didn’t actually have strong philosophical/policy beliefs – at all – and he was always perfectly comfortable and perfectly welcome in ideologically and culturally diverse settings. Like my L.A. backyard, dozens of times.

That doesn’t mean the guy stumbled accidentally into political conflict. He lived for it. He was genuinely, convincingly, overwhelmingly outraged at the workaday biases of liberal media, academia, and entertainment, and always positioned himself smack dab in the center of it.

I quote Breitbart’s own words, from Righteous Indignation, about his feelings towards what he labeled as the Democrat Media Complex, the collective of people who work in academia and media who supposedly hold great influence over political life. It’s a short excerpt, but I bold the most notable parts:

At the exact moment in my life when I was recognizing the strength of my anti-leftism, my anti-communism, at the exact point when I was seeing that my emotions and theories were unintentionally driving me towards an accidental culture warrior status, at the exact juncture when I was realizing that the most brutal, evil force I could imagine wasn’t Al-Qaeda or radical Islam – at least you know where they’re coming from – the brutality of their mission and their anti-Western, anti-classical liberal hatred, but the complex surrounding me 24-7 in the form of attractive people making millions of dollars whose moral relativism and historical revisionism and collective cultural nihilism were putting them in the same boat as the martyrs of radical Islam, rather than red state Americans. At the exact time when I was undergoing the fundamental recognition that my neighbors in West Los Angeles were acting to undermine national cohesion in a time of war which put me in a perennial state of psychic dissonance.

I’m going to stress again what he’s saying here: Brad Pitt, Susan Sarandon, Bill Maher, Michael Eric Dyson, whatever other luminary you choose, do not simply have an outsize voice, but ARE MORE BRUTAL, MORE EVIL THAN AL-QAEDA. I ask two questions: 1) Is it really a surprise that such a man would be polarizing? 2) Should such outrage be seen as convincing, or simply repellent, disturbing, lunatic?

There is no irony, no smilies, no happy winks around the excerpt that I have left out. It is simpleminded, brutal rage, speaking of these people as worse than those who buried thousands in the dust of New York. That quite a few of these people may have had friends and family who died on that day, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan only makes the statement more loathsome. It is not a thrown away remark at some public event, but one committed to print. Nor is it inconsistent at all with the violent contempt he showed at other moments.

We are assured by various writers, that however he might have appeared, Breitbart was a man without genuine malice for his adversaries. In his obit, Jack Shafer quotes the man,”They want to portray me as crazy, unhinged, unbalanced. OK, good, fine. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you,” then goes on: “These sound like angry words from an angry man, but they weren’t. An F-bomb from Breitbart’s lips was a sort of Irish blessing, an invitation to get in the ring with him to see who was the champ and who was the chump.” Chris Beam’s profile, “What makes the conservative pundit tick”, ends on this note:

He used the spare moments before going onstage to sermonize into the camera of yet another liberal blogger. After the interview, the blogger turned his camera off and extended his hand to Breitbart. “What I will tell you is, I wish that I had your talent,” he said. “Because somehow you rose from-what-nowhere, and you’ve got a very big voice right now. So to that extent, you’re a kind of aspiration for me.” Breitbart grinned, adding: “Emphasis on the ass!”

The callous written declaration that his opponents are more evil, more brutal than Al-Qaeda tinges all these amities with falseness – the affect is not in the hateful gesture, but in the show of amity. The first is brutally sincere, the second is for show. His loathsome statement is not an isolated moment, but one of many.

Here he is at a Tea Party event where he speaks of his desire for a civil war – not a war of words, but an actual war. He wants this because he believes that since the military is on his side, they’ll win that war. Again, there is no irony here, no qualifying wink. He in fact stresses, “I’m not kidding”. He wants to wipe the enemy out.

The camera is directly on him, and the audio is clear. I transcribe the comments, and again bold the most notable.

BRING THEM ON. I must say, in my non-strategic…because I’m under attack all the time, you see it on Twitter, they’re intolerant and call me gay…they’re vicious, there are death threats and everything…and so, there are times where I’m not thinking as clearly as I should…and in those unclear moments I always think to myself: fire the first shot. Bring it on. Because I know who’s on our side. And they know that. They can only win a rhetorical or propaganda war, they cannot win. We outnumber them in this country, and we have the guns. (crowd laughter) I’m not kidding. (crowd laughter) They talk a mean game, but they will not cross that line. Because they know what they’re dealing with. And I have people who come up to me in the military (makes a gesture that the person has officer stripes), major names in the military, who grab me and go “thank you for what you’re doing”, and we’ve got your back. So…(very loud crowd laughter) They understand that. These are the unspoken things. We know. They know. They know who’s on their side. They’ve got Janeane Garofolo. We are freaked out by that. (laughter) When push comes to shove, they know who’s on our side. They are the bullies on the playground. And they’re starting to realize, what if we were to fight back? What if we were to slap back? You know, these union thugs, these SEIU union thugs…I’m just waiting. Bring it on. I’m sick of it. I am sick of this Trumka guy [Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO], I am sick of this John Sweeney [former head of the AFL-CIO], I am sick of the SEIU. I’m sick of them going to people’s homes. Executives’ homes and showing up, and the media not…you don’t think they have a problem with that? KATIE COURIC. What if we went to Katie Couric’s house? What if the Tea Party showed up at Katie Couric’s house? And scared the living crap out of her teenage kids? And that’s what they do, because they know the mainstream media won’t cover it. And so…just a part of me that wants them to walk over that line.

Here is Dave Weigel, writing in “What Andrew Breitbart Taught Me About Journalism” of his favorite moment of the man, Breitbart being part of a 2011 protest:

You see where the public Breitbart persona came from. He feuded constantly with liberal watchdog site Media Matters, waging Twitter-based war with MM senior fellow Eric Boehlert. Boehlert’s avatar portrayed him smiling, standing in front of foliage, sporting a beard. Breitbart grew out his beard and took an identical photo of himself. He would retweet, without comment, the anti-Breitbart tweets of others. He irritated liberal activists to no end, a pastime that gave him untold amounts of pleasure. My favorite moment: Breitbart infiltrating a group of anti-Koch protesters in Palm Springs, Calif., his feet lashed to a pair of Rollerblades.

Breitbart speaks of this very moment in his 2011 CPAC speech, and he speaks of the people at the event, without affection, but as a group that are contemptible and subhuman. Again, these are clearly audible, public remarks.

In this excerpt, his opponents are not human, they’re mindless robots. This moment is at 8:50-9:50, from “Andrew Breitbart CPAC 2011 Part 1”:

We’re filming them and you can see them looking at each other…looking for direction…where’s our community organizer in chief to tell us what to do right now…because we were programmed to chant…and just look good on television, where ABC, CBS, and NBC would have just gone there with cameras and said…”Community organizing group is upset that their funding has been taken away from the government…” And then ABC, CBS, and NBC would have said “They’re a great organization! And these conservative activists did something really mean. The end.” And then they’d talk about…stuff. And that’s the template. So what happened is they started to realize that I’d poured water on their circuitry and they started to frazzle (makes contorted shape).

In this next excerpt, his opponents, who in the Tea Party speech he wanted to destroy with the army in a civil war, who he hated because they will not cross the line, will not commit violence, he condemns now because they are violent. They are not Americans, they are animals. That he takes them to Appleby’s is not some gesture of solidarity, it’s to demonstrate that they are corrupt, that they don’t believe in their principles. Again, they are not human. They are a herd (at 13:38-14:38, from “Andrew Breitbart CPAC 2011 Part 3”):

We got them saying they wanted to string up Clarence Thomas…that they wanted to kill Roger Ailes…that they wanted to start a bloody revolution…I said, you know what? I got all the content I need…to show these…”We are the left, ask us why”…I found out why. They’re not american, I’m sorry. They’re animals. (loud applause) They’re being organized by the rest to intimidate the mass from shutting up. To shut up. And so, I’m on my rollerblades…and it’s time to pull my bar trick. Okay? And what do I do? I said to the crowd…okay, guys, it’s been a great day, let’s all go to Applebee’s! And guess where they went. They went to Applebee’s, like the herd that they are.

However, my favorite moment from this speech I leave to the last, (this one from “Andrew Breitbart CPAC 2011 Part 3” at 11:42-12:06), where this ravishing figure declares a bunch of women at the demonstration worthless because they are old and ugly:

The Code Pink ladies, they’re tedious at this point…you know, they’re boring…it’s not fun to watch them. They’re not even good-looking anymore. It used to be they were kinda slutty lefties (audience laughter)…”oh, I could imagine at a bar, I…” (more audience laughter) They’re getting long in the tooth…

I’ll just digress briefly: oh, to be a woman sexually desired by this jowly, balding beached whale of a man. When this guy drops money on the dresser, pay for play with some sporting girl, doubtless she has some hope that the rumors are true and the coke has limped out his dick.

That Breitbart was so polarizing is because of the manifestation of this hate, and though friendly journalists did attempt to soften this up, when he express himself in his memoir, the vitriol is explicit: Brad Pitt is worse than Al-Qaeda. That he was a man absent any strong “political” beliefs, by which we mean he has any views on any policy, is seen by Welch as a contradiction, but which I see as something going hand in glove with his poisonous attitude. It is belief in, and attempts to further, specific policies which often lessen animosities. The attempts to bring about immigration reform, same sex marriage, ending Guantanamo, ending the war on drugs, all these embrace diverse coalitions, and require those within to look past differences to common sympathies. Breitbart is entirely unmoored from this, looking to politics without wanting to reform or improve it, only as a theater for violence. It is well and aptly described by Breitbart’s bête noir, Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals as a state of madness:

Those who, for whatever combination of reasons, encourage the opposite of reformation, become the unwitting allies of the far political right. Parts of the far left have gone so far in the political circle that they are now all but indistinguishable from the extreme right. It reminds me of the days when Hitler, new on the scene, was excused for his actions by “humanitarians” on the grounds of a paternal rejection and childhood trauma. When there are people who espouse the assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy or the Tate murders or the Marin County Courthouse kidnapping and killings or the University of Wisconsin bombing and killing as “revolutionary acts,” then we are dealing with people who are merely hiding psychosis behind a political mask.

Breitbart views two specific groups as worse than Al-Qaeda: academia and Hollywood. These villains may be common among the right, but I don’t think they were adopted totems on his part – his anger towards these two was something innate. I’ll go first with his loathing of academia, and a detail in his life that’s sometimes mentioned but not, I think, looked square on. He writes in Righteous of his scattershot attention span, that he doesn’t have the patience to stay on a point for a few seconds, which makes the internet a suitable haven, while also exacerbating the malignancy. The symptom is made explicit in this interview, “Andrew Breitbart on Palin, Couric, Tina Fey, Glenn Beck and More” by Shushannah Walshe:

Q: Do you want Glenn Beck’s job, now that it is free?

A: I have ADD. But I have it worse than anyone that I know. And so when I’m on a set, I feel like I’m utterly constrained and feel like I need like an ADD drug like Adderall or something…if television could conform to my creativity and my desire to be out there in the field and having fun then I would be for it. But it seems kind of expansive for the 5 o’clock hour on Fox News.

This scattershot focus is treated as an amusing, eccentric trait, but I don’t know if this was necessarily true for the man actually living it. Breitbart was undistinguished in high school, and pulled in a 2.0 GPA at Tulane. He writes of his hard partying ways at his alma mater as the reason why he did so poorly at school, and speaks of it as either-or, you either do well at school or have a great time, when most students happily do both. You need one to deal with the stress of the other – the hardest drinkers at a school are always at the med school. The other excuse is that he was stuck reading critical theorists when he wanted to be reading american writers – “I wanted to read Mark Twain and Emerson and Thoreau” (from “Andrew Breitbart’s conservative Internet empire” by Rebecca Mead). It’s an incongruous passion; Breitbart is a man who was enraged at dissent during the Iraq war, and Twain was one of the fiercest critics of the war in the Philippines. Thoreau and Emerson were radical progressives, the very people he hated so much in his own life. The declaration of the names suggests an abstract mantra rather than writers he ever got around to reading1.

So there are signs that his own mind stymied him from accomplishing what he truly wanted, and that his partying at Tulane wasn’t just simple fun, and not just an escape from the problem, but an excuse for his own failure – I failed at the task not because I lacked ability, but because I didn’t bother to try. That he wished to be seen as intelligent, that he was not indifferent to this, shows up in Righteous. He devotes an outsize chunk to his receipt of a Lincoln Fellowship at the Claremont Institute and his time spent there. It is portrayed as a certification of intellectual achievement from a distinguished institution, when it is nothing of the kind. The Institute is a hard-right think tank that awards fellowships to advocates for the cause, with non-witch Christine O’Donnell and radio host Mark Levin among those rewarded.

He happily sprinkles french phrases, like fait accompli, throughout his memoir, though I differ with him on the use of some. Referring to a forgotten Clinton era “scandal”, he writes of the desire of a widow to have her husband buried in Arlington Cemetery as a petite bourgeoisie affectation. I tend to associate this phrase with those in the lower middle class who wish for the trappings of wealthier respectability, while this woman was married to one of the wealthiest men on the planet and Arlington carries no economic distinction, only a military one. The behavior shown is simply the entitlement of the wealthy – they get to go wherever they want, in both life and death. There is also his use of non-french phrases like “cognitive dissonance”, which he brings out to convey what german intellectuals experienced when they settled in Santa Monica. This term, for me, describes a conflict of very strong feelings – while Breitbart is trying to describe the distance between European intellectual temperament and the sunny Cali landscape. The word he is looking for, I think, is alienation.

I do not bring up these examples to be petty, but to point out that his approach to language is exactly the opposite of the pose he often affects, of a simple, direct man who uses the simple, direct language of a man unconnected with the academy. Here, he appears to do entirely the opposite, using language not out of habit or for proper purpose, but solely to convey to the reader a semblance of intelligence – I know french words and abstractions. This, again, is speculation, but there is another part of the book, a chapter called “Breakthrough”, where the intent appears even more obvious.

“Breakthrough” stands out from the rest of the memoir, because despite Breitbart’s education, most of the book has no reference to theory, history, or philosophy, while this section is heavy with it. The positive reviews in the conservative press specifically single it out for praise.

This is “Pointing Fingers at the Rogues”, from The Washington Times by Wes Vernon:

Right smack in the middle of this volume is where Mr. Breitbart’s narrative takes off like a rocket. The chapter “Breakthrough” is in and of itself well worth the price of “Righteous Indignation.”

Mr. Breitbart fingers the people who later would aid and abet the importation of cultural and political poison to our shores. He “names names” of those in this drama who arguably were serious threats to the nation’s security.

The chapter’s 21 pages track an in-depth research on the influence of such intellectual rogues as Herbert Marcuse, Theodor W. Adorno, Wilhelm Reich and their ilk.

This is “Righteous Indignation: Andrew Breitbart is out to save the world (and he just might)”, from The Daily Caller, by Derek Hunter:

The second part of the book is a history lesson on the progressive/liberal movement in America. It’s not nearly as detailed as Jonah Goldberg’s amazing Liberal Fascism, but it doesn’t need to be, and doesn’t aspire to be. This isn’t a history book; it has a different mission.

Nevertheless, this section plainly and calmly lays out the basic facts of how the progressive left-wing agenda first came to these shores with the help of many establishment people such as the vaunted Edward R. Murrow. Breitbart tells the history of how the Frankfurt School spread their radical ideals throughout the country.

Of all the things Righteous Indignation does, perhaps its most important function is to pull back the curtain on the unholy alliance between all the cultural and media institutions and the left-wing industrial complex and expose how they fit together like puzzle pieces to advance an agenda. If you trusted the media or the entertainment industry before reading this book, your eyes will be opened. If you didn’t, you will know you are not alone.

This history of the influence of the Frankfurt school on american media, cited in these reviews as a keystone of the memoir, and built up within the memoir as its center, appears to be taken almost entirely, without attribution or mention in the main text, footnotes, or lengthy acknowledgements, from two essays, “Cultural Marxism” by William Lind and “The New Dark Age: The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness” by Michael Minnicino, which originally appeared in Fidelio, a magazine published by Lyndon LaRouche. “The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness” has had a heavy influence on far right thought, and many of its ideas show up also in the manifesto of Anders Breivik (PDF), the Norwegian mass murderer. Breivik gives proper citation of Minnicino’s work, Breitbart does not2.

These are the footnotes for “Breakthrough” – they carry no mention of Lind or Minnicino. They are entirely, and solely, citations of quotes of the various philosophers sprinkled through the text3.

Chapter 6: Breakthrough

1. Theodore Roosevelt, “Who Is a Progressive?” April 1912, available at http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1199.

2. Theodore Roosevelt, “The New Nationalism,” 1910, available at http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=501

3. Quoted in Thomas E. Woods, 33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask (New York: Crown Forum, 2007), 138.

4. Ronald J. Pestritto, Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005), 75.

5. Ronald J. Pestritto, Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005), 78.

6. Christopher Lasch, Haven in a Heartless World: The Family Besieged (New York: W.W. Norton, 1995), 86.

7. As quoted in Chilton Williamson, The Conservative Bookshelf (Secaucus, NJ: Citadel Press, 2005), 296.

8. Max Horkheimer, Critical Theory: Selected Essays (New York: Continuum, 2002), 207.

9. Ibid., 218-219

10. As quoted in Patrick Buchanan, The Death of the West (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2001), 86.

11. Adam Cohen, “What’s Hot on This BBC Podcast? The Siege of Munster(1534-35),” New York Times, February 17, 2010.

12. Erich Fromm, The Fear of Freedom (London: Routledge, 1984), 241.

13. Ibid., 145-46.

14. Wilhelm Reich, The Sexual Revolution: Toward a Self-Governing Character Structure (New York: Macmillan, 1962), 77-78, 111, 184.

15. Thomas Maier, Dr. Spock: An American Life (New York: Basic Books, 2003), 112, 458.

16. Theodor Adorno, The Culture Industry (London: Routledge, 2003), 99.

17. Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Change (New York: Broadway Books, 2007), 175.

18. Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud (Boston: Beacon Press, 1966), 81, 226.

19. Herbert Marcuse, An Essay on Liberation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969(, 46-47.

20. Herbert Marcuse, “Repressive Tolerance,” in Robert Paul Wolff, Barrington Moore Jr., and Herbert Marcuse, A Critique of Pure Tolerance (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969(, 95-137.

21. Mao Zedong, “Where Do Correct Ideas Come From?” May 1963. Pamphlet, Foreign Languages Press, 1966, 3 pages.

22. Harry Chatten Boyte aand Nancy N. Kari, Building America: The Democratic Promise of Public Work (Philadelphia: Temple University Press: 1996), 102.

23. “Essay: Radical Saul Alinsky: Prophet of Power to the People,” Time, March 2, 1970.

24. Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals (New York: Vintage Books, 1989).

25. Ibid., xiii, xvi, xxi.

26. Ibid., xix.

27. Ibid., xxiv-xxv.

28. Ibid., 4.

29. Ibid., 21.

30. Ibid., 9-10.

31. Ibid., 6.

32. Ibid., 17.

33. Ibid., 33.

34. Ibid., 60.

35. Ibid., 136-138.

36. Ibid., 139.

The similarities are close enough that we might go through all four texts, side by side, to see the shared material. The section from Breitbart’s “Breakthrough” chapter devoted to the Frankfurt school will serve as a guide.

I color code it as follows.

Breitbart:

Frankfurt School

Minnicino:

Frankfurt School

Lind:

Frankfurt School

Breivik:

Frankfurt School

Within the Breitbart excerpts I leave in the footnotes, which I’ve linked to the chapter endnotes taken from Indignation to make clear what is given citation and what is not.

Here is the opening, which sets out the chapter’s intent, an attempt to explain how the Democratic Media Complex, a convergence of liberal academia and the entertainment industry which supposedly controls the political thought of the United States, came into being:

When you look at the history of the Soviet Union, what you see is the conversion of hundreds of millions to a corrupt and insidious worldview via the overpowering propaganda of communism. Yes, they used force. But they also used every means at their disposal to control the culture, the everyday lives, the very thoughts of their citizens.

When I was at Tulane, I saw the same cultural forces at work: the forces of the thought police, of the cultural fascisti. People in positions of power who decided what was okay to think and what to write, what words meant and who was allowed to say them. Tribunals without oversight, kids thrown out of college for uttering the wrong sentiments. Looking back, I thank God every day that I partied to excess at Tulane, because it kept me from buying into that worldview, from learning that language. If I hadn’t been busy having fun, I could have become a professor, gotten tenure, and taught that cultural Marxism, propagated it for a living. I could have reinforced and propagated the Complex because it would have reinforced my position.

Later, I saw that the cultural Marxism of Tulane wasn’t restricted to Tulane—it was everywhere, from the mainstream media to Hollywood to the educational system to the government. And when I began researching the origins of that pervasive cultural Marxism, I realized that this wasn’t a result of America’s suddenly and spontaneously embracing a rebellious counterculture in the 1960s—it started long before that.

It started from the beginning.

This is Minnicino:

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.

This is Breivik:

Political Correctness now looms over Western European society like a colossus. It has taken over both political wings, left and right. Among so called Western European “conservative” parties the actual cultural conservatives are shown the door because being a cultural conservative opposes the very essence of political correctness. It controls the most powerful element in our culture, the media and entertainment industry. It dominates both public and higher education: many a college campus is a small, ivy-covered North Korea. It has even captured the higher clergy in many Christian churches. Anyone in the Establishment who departs from its dictates swiftly ceases to be a member of the Establishment.

Breitbart then presents the idea that Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR were a triumvirate who tried to bring about a socialist autocracy, with only the constitution standing in the way. Many of the ideas appear taken entirely from Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism without attribution (this chapter’s footnote to Goldberg is not to this, but to material later in the text)4. He then moves on to the period after World War II, when there is renewed threat of a Marxist takeover of the United States, this time by the Frankfurt School5:

Mostly the constitution was standing in the way of the grand Hegelian synthesis of government power in the name of socialism. Wilson felt that true democracy and socialism were not just compatible, they were indistinguishable. All individual rights were subject to the rights of the state. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals. Both Roosevelt and Wilson were far less concerned with the rights of individuals or the value of Republicanism. It was the job of great leaders to hand down good governance. They thought great decisions should be made on high by men of high thought, and that the dirty process of democracy just blocked any chance of true change.

This philosophy paved the way for FDR and it echoes all the way down to Obama. Fortunately for America, after World War One, Wilson was extremely unpopular, and Wilson’s exit led off a decade of constitutional retrenchment. But in Europe, dirty business was afoot.

The chapter now turns to the rise of the Frankfurt school.

This is Breitbart:

Despite the fact that Marxism made headway in terms of policy in the United States and other Western European countries in the early part of the twentieth century, orthodox Marxists had a major problem by the end of the 1910s: the actual worldwide Marxist revolution really hadn’t ignited. Not only hadn’t it happened, workers had spent the better part of five years murdering each other en masse in World War I. Marx’s dialectical prophecy had been proved false.

But just because Marx’s dialectic materialism had been proved false, and just because soon the new Soviet Union would be slaughtering its own citizens at record rates, didn’t mean that the Marxist intellectuals were going to give up on worldwide revolution.

That was where Antonio Gramsci and Gyorgy Lukacs came in.

Gramsci was an Italian socialist who saw tearing down society as the necessary precondition for the eventual victory of global Marxism. Marxism simply hadn’t won because men were weak. And men were weak because they were the products of a capitalist society. “Man is above all else mind, consciousness,” Gramsci wrote in 1916. “That is, he is a product of history, not of nature. There is no other way of explaining why socialism has not come into existence already.”6

Lukacs built on Gramsci, deciding that Marx’s dialectic materialism wasn’t really a prophetic tool for predicting the future—it was a tool for tearing down society itself. Simply destroying the status quo in the minds of the people would bring Marxism.

Lukacs’s view was so influential that for a time, he actually became deputy commissar of culture in Hungary, where he proceeded to push a radical sex-ed program encouraging free love and rejection of Judeo-Christian morality. In that role, he tried to live out his ideology of destruction: “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution…. A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”7 Fortunately, the people of Hungary weren’t nuts, so they dumped him.

This is Lind:

Cultural Marxism began not in the 1960s but in 1919, immediately after World War I. Marxist theory had predicted that in the event of a big European war, the working class all over Europe would rise up to overthrow capitalism and create communism. But when war came in 1914, that did not happen. When it finally did happen in Russia in 1917, workers in other European countries did not support it. What had gone wrong?

Independently, two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, came to the same answer: Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interest that Communism was impossible in the West until both could be destroyed. In 1919, Lukacs asked, “Who will save us from Western civilization?” That same year, when he became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun government in Hungary, one of Lukacs’s first acts was to introduce sex education into Hungary’s public schools. He knew that if he could destroy the West’s traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying Western culture itself.

This is Minnicino:

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.

This is Breivik:

Just what is “Political Correctness?” Political Correctness is in fact cultural Marxism (Cultural Communism) – Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. The effort to translate Marxism from economics into culture did not begin with the student rebellion of the 1960s. It goes back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. In 1923, in Germany, a group of Marxists founded an institute devoted to making the transition, the Institute of Social Research (later known as the Frankfurt School). One of its founders, George Lukacs, stated its purpose as answering the question, “Who shall save us from Western Civilisation?” The Frankfurt School gained profound influence in European and American universities after many of its leading lights fled and spread all over Europe and even to the United States in the 1930s to escape National Socialism in Germany. In Western Europe it gained influence in universities from 1945.

Back to Breitbart:

That left Lukacs unemployed. But not for long.

Felix Weil was a young radical from Frankfurt, Germany, and a devotee of Marx. He, like Lukacs, saw the problems of implementing socialism—namely, that nobody really liked it very much. But like most of today’s leftie college students who live off their parents’ money while preaching the downfall of the capitalist system, he was rich. So he used his granddaddy’s money to fund the Institute for Social Research, which was really a precursor to John Podesta’s “Center for American Progress”—funded by Hungarian-born George Soros.

To staff this new institute, which quickly became known as the Frankfurt School, Weil brought in, along with Lukacs, a Marxist philosopher named Max Horkheimer. Lukacs didn’t last long, but Horkheimer did. At the Frankfurt School, he coined a term that would embody the whole corrupt philosophy of his fellow travelers’ mission to destroy society and culture using the Marxist dialectic: critical theory.

Critical theory was exactly the material we were taught at Tulane. It was, quite literally, a theory of criticizing everyone and everything everywhere. It was an attempt to tear down the social fabric by using all the social sciences (sociology, psychology, economics, political science, etc.); it was an infinite and unending criticism of the status quo, adolescent rebellion against all established social rules and norms.

Critical theory, says Horkheimer, is “suspicious of the very categories of better, useful, appropriate, productive, and valuable, as those are understood in the present order.”8 So if you liked ice cream better than cake, or thought a hammer might be more useful than a screwdriver in a particular situation, you were speaking on behalf of the status quo. The real idea behind all of this was to make society totally unworkable by making everything basically meaningless. Critical theory does not create; it only destroys, as Horkheimer himself openly stated, “Above all… critical theory has no material accomplishments to show for itself.”9 No wonder my thought upon graduating was that getting a job was selling out.

When Horkheimer took over the institute in 1930, he filled it up with fellow devotees of critical theory like Theodor Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse. Each agreed with the central idea of critical theory, namely that all of society had to be criticized ad nauseam, all social institutions leveled, all traditional concepts decimated. Marcuse later summed it up well: “One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including the morality of existing society…. What we must undertake is a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system.”10

This is Lind:

In 1923, inspired in part by Lukacs, a group of German Marxists established a think tank at Frankfurt University in Germany called the Institute for Social Research. This institute, soon known simply as the Frankfurt School, would become the creator of cultural Marxism.

To translate Marxism from economic into cultural terms, the members of the Frankfurt School – – Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Wilhelm Reich, Eric Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, to name the most important – – had to contradict Marx on several points. They argued that culture was not just part of what Marx had called society’s “superstructure,” but an independent and very important variable. They also said that the working class would not lead a Marxist revolution, because it was becoming part of the middle class, the hated bourgeoisie.

Who would? In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question: a coalition of blacks, students, feminist women and homosexuals.

Fatefully for America, when Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, the Frankfurt School fled – – and reestablished itself in New York City. There, it shifted its focus from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to destroying it in the United States. To do so, it invented “Critical Theory.” What is the theory? To criticize every traditional institution, starting with the family, brutally and unremittingly, in order to bring them down. It wrote a series of “studies in prejudice,” which said that anyone who believes in traditional Western culture is prejudiced, a “racist” or “sexist” of “fascist” – – and is also mentally ill.

This is Minnicino:

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.

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 [Frankfurt school associate Walter Benjamin].

This is Breivik:

The Frankfurt School blended Marx with Freud, and later influences (some Fascist as well as Marxist) added linguistics to create “Critical Theory” and “deconstruction.” These in turn greatly influenced education theory, and through institutions of higher education gave birth to what we now call “Political Correctness.” The lineage is clear, and it is traceable right back to Karl Marx.

The parallels between the old, economic Marxism and cultural Marxism are evident. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, shares with classical Marxism the vision of a “classless society,” i.e., a society not merely of equal opportunity, but equal condition. Since that vision contradicts human nature – because people are different, they end up unequal, regardless of the starting point – society will not accord with it unless forced. So, under both variants of Marxism, it is forced. This is the first major parallel between classical and cultural Marxism: both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness can be seen on campuses where “PC” has taken over the college: freedom of speech, of the press, and even of thought are all eliminated.

The second major parallel is that both classical, economic Marxism and cultural Marxism have single-factor explanations of history. Classical Marxism argues that all of history was determined by ownership of the means of production. Cultural Marxism says that history is wholly explained by which groups – defined by sex, race, religion and sexual normality or abnormality – have power over which other groups.

Another fact from that long-ago year, 1923, is equally significant: the intended name for the Frankfurt School was the Institute for Marxism. The Institute’s father and funder, Felix Weil, wrote in 1971 that he “wanted the Institute to become known, and perhaps famous, due to its contributions to Marxism as a scientific discipline…” Beginning a tradition Political Correctness still carries on, Weil and others decided that they could operate more effectively if they concealed their Marxism; hence, on reflection, they chose the neutral-sounding name, the Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung).

Now back to Breitbart for a section that is almost entirely his own:

Again, where am I going with all of this philosophical jabberwocky? Well, all of these boring and bleating philosophers might have faded into oblivion as so many Marxist theorists have, but the rise of Adolf Hitler prevented that. With Hitler’s rise, they had to flee (virtually all of them—Horkheimer, Marcuse, Adorno, Fromm—were of Jewish descent). And they had no place to go.

Except the United States.

The United States’ tradition of freedom and liberty, its openness to outside ideas, and our highest value, freedom of speech, ended up making all America vulnerable to those who would exploit those ideals. We welcomed the Frankfurt School. We accepted them with open arms. They took full advantage. They walked right into our cultural institutions, and as they started to put in place their leadership, their language, and their lexicon, too many chose to ignore them. And the most dangerous thing you can do with a driven leftist intellectual clique is to ignore it.

We always feel that our incredible traditions of freedom and liberty will convert those who show up on our shores, that they will appreciate the way of life we have created—isn’t that why they wanted to come here in the first place? We can’t imagine anyone coming here, experiencing the true wonder that is living in this country, and wanting to destroy that. But that’s exactly what the Frankfurt School wanted to do.

These were not happy people looking for a new lease on life. When they moved to California, they simply couldn’t deal with the change of scenery—there was cognitive dissonance. Horkheimer and Adorno and depressive allies like Bertolt Brecht moved into a house in Santa Monica on Twenty-sixth Street, coincidentally, the epicenter of my childhood. They had moved to heaven on earth from Nazi Germany and apparently could not handle the fun, the sun, and the roaring good times. Ingratitude is not strong enough a word to describe these hideous malcontents.

If only they had had IKEA furniture, this would have made for a fantastic season of The Real World.

Brecht and his ilk were the Kurt Cobains of their day: massively depressed, nihilistic people who wore full suits in eighty-degree weather while living in a house by the beach. As Adam Cohen wrote in the New York Times, these were “dyspeptic critics of American culture. Several landed in Southern California where they were disturbed by the consumer culture and the gospel of relentless cheeriness. Depressive by nature, they focused on the disappointments and venality that surrounded them and how unnecessary it all was. It could be paradise, Theodor Adorno complained, but it was only California.”11

Adorno was wrong. It was paradise. To the rest of the world, America’s vision was a vision of paradise. And these Marxists were here to try to destroy the best lifestyle man had ever created.

If I could go back in a time machine, I would go back to kick these malcontents in their shins.

Except for the fleeing of the School to America, which is from Lind:

Fatefully for America, when Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, the Frankfurt School fled – – and reestablished itself in New York City. There, it shifted its focus from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to destroying it in the United States. To do so, it invented “Critical Theory.” What is the theory? To criticize every traditional institution, starting with the family, brutally and unremittingly, in order to bring them down. It wrote a series of “studies in prejudice,” which said that anyone who believes in traditional Western culture is prejudiced, a “racist” or “sexist” of “fascist” – – and is also mentally ill.

Back to Breitbart. He gives heavy emphasis on Edward R. Murrow’s involvement in getting the Frankfurt School into the country, and though Minnicino also suggests something sinister in the way the Frankfurt school was allowed in, neither he nor any one else makes mention of Murrow. Nothing in the chapter footnotes points to what basis there might be for Murrow’s key involvement6.

Breitbart:

Members of the Frankfurt School had some American allies—men who had accepted the Roosevelt/Wilson synthesis of Hegel and Marx, and who were now looking for the next step. The Frankfurt School had been sending mailers out to prominent fellow-traveler sociologists in the United States for some years and creating connections with them.

Meanwhile, Columbia University’s Sociology department was dying. They needed new blood, and they liked what they saw in the Frankfurt School.

All the Frankfurt School had to do was to get into the country, and they’d take their place in the hallowed halls of American academia. Fortunately for them, there was an organization called the Institute of International Education, specifically devoted to helping fleeing scholars from Germany. The man who held the post of assistant secretary of the Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars was one Edward R. Murrow, who helped ship in many of the Frankfurt School’s greatest minds. Later, Senator Joe McCarthy would try to pillory Murrow in revenge for Murrow’s coverage of the McCarthy hearings by citing Murrow’s involvement with the Institute of International Education, but by then McCarthy was finished.

In any case, once in the country, the Frankfurt School was almost immediately accepted at Columbia University. It was a marriage made in hell.

With their tentacles affixed to the institutions of American higher education, the Frankfurt School philosophy began eking its way into every crevice of American culture. Horkheimer’s “critical theory” became a staple of Philosophy, History, and English courses across the country. Horkheimer himself took his show on the road, from Columbia to Los Angeles to the University of Chicago.

Meanwhile, Erich Fromm, one of the Frankfurt School’s main thinkers, was pushing cultural Marxism through psychology by blaming Western tradition for the rise of Nazism and the rejection of Marxism.12

This was a fiction, of course, convenient rewriting of science to meet a political agenda. Marxism is just as totalitarian as Nazism, so it would make sense that those who love communism quickly fell in love with Nazism in Germany, and those who resisted communism would resist Nazism. But Fromm had a convenient answer to protect the Marxists: Marxists had not gone Nazi; resisters to Marxism had gone Nazi! How did Fromm know this? Because those who submit to Marxism love freedom, while those who fight Marxism are secretly repressed. Soldiers are authoritarian because they take orders. Small businessmen are authoritarian in their unconscious desire to submit to “economic laws.”13 Leftists today still call their opponents Nazis on the basis of this flawed and inane psychoanalysis.

Minnicino:

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.

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 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.

Minnicino on Fromm:

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 believe that 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 (political 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.

Minnicino on “The Theory of the Authoritarian Personality”:

The Frankfurt School devised the “authoritarian personality” profile as a weapon to be used against its political enemies. The fraud rests on the assumption that a person’s actions are not important; rather, the issue is the psychological attitude of the actor-as determined by social scientists like those of the Frankfurt School. The concept is diametrically opposed to the idea of natural law and to the republican legal principles upon which the U.S. was founded; it is, in fact, fascistic, and identical to the idea of “thought crime,” as described by George Orwell in his 1984, and to the theory of “volitional crime” developed by Nazi judge Roland Freisler in the early 1930’s.

When the Frankfurt School was in its openly pro-Bolshevik phase, its authoritarian personality work was designed to identify people who were not sufficiently revolutionary, so that these people could be “re-educated.” When the Frankfurt School expanded its research after World War II at the behest of the American Jewish Committee and the Rockefeller Foundation, its purpose was not to identify anti-Semitism; that was merely a cover story. Its goal was to measure adherence to the core beliefs of Western Judeo-Christian civilization, so that these beliefs could be characterized as “authoritarian,” and discredited.

For the Frankfurt School conspirators, the worst crime was the belief that each individual was gifted with sovereign reason, which could enable him to determine what is right and wrong for the whole society; thus, to tell people that you have a reasonable idea to which they should conform, is authoritarian, paternalistic extremism.

Back to Breitbart, and a note on this section. It carries a footnote to Thomas Maier’s Doctor Spock: An American Life, for its source on Fromm’s philosophy influencing Benjamin Spock. There is no mention of Fromm in the cited pages, and no mention of Fromm in the book’s index. Freud is mentioned as an influence on Spock, but Freud was not part of the Frankfurt school. This is especially notable since Spock is mentioned as someone influenced by Fromm in Minnicino. Marx is also mentioned as an influence on Spock, but this was an explicit influence, and explicitly stated as such in the Maier biography, not hidden in any trojan horse.

I’ve scanned the referenced pages from Thomas Maier’s Spock, pages 112 and 458, along with the index page for F where there might be a listing for Fromm or the Frankfurt School7. Below is the text from the cited pages where Freud is said to have influenced Spock.

Here is the relevant text from page 112:

In Manhattan, Spock realized how insular his world had been in New Haven, where Americans of different religions and ethnic backgounds were rarely prominent. Italians mowed the lawn, the Irish worked as maids, and blacks were never seen in his neighborhood. When he moved to New York, he met Jews regularly for the first time, young students at Columbia and older analysts at the New York Psychoanalytic Institute who had immigrated from Europe during the 1930s. At Columbia, he remarked to one friend, “the only really interesting people in his class were Jews.” Indeed, the two most influential thinkers of his young adulthood – Freud and Marx – were both from Jewish backgrounds. IN this era, some 60 percent of the applicants to psychoanalytic clinics were Jewish, with the rest of the training analysts like Spock coming from white Protestant backgrouns. Nathaniel Ross, a brilliant son of Russian Jewish immigraants who graduated second to Ben at medical school, influenced Spock’s political beliefs and introduced him to psychoanalytic theories. “They came from very different backgrounds – Nat was a scholarship student and Ben came from an aristocratic, well-to-do family,” recalls Edith Ross, Nat’s wife. “The diea of psychoanalyssi was quite foreign to Ben but he just took to it.” Nat Ross, like his friend from Yale, considered himself “a democratic Socialist” during the heady New Deal era of the 1930s, she says.

Here is the relevant text from page 458:

The life of Benjamin McLane Spock reflected the story of America during the twentieth century with all of its tumultuous changes and sweeping redefinitions. From his staid Victorian beginnings in Connecticut at the turn of the century, Spock had transformed himself over and over – from the shy, unconfident Yalie who made good on the 1924 Olympic team; to the young New Yorker fascinated by Freud and Marx during the 1930s; to the friendly, conservative-looking pedicatrician living in the Midwest after World War II who wrote the famous baby book; to the social activist in the 1960s and 1970s, willing to risk his fame in a campaign agains twar and racial injustice.

Back to Breitbart, where he references Spock:

Early on, Fromm embraced the ideas of Frankfurt School fellow Wilhelm Reich, who felt that psychological problems largely stemmed from sexual repression, and said that sexual liberation from societal mores could cure large numbers of people. Reich (whose psychoanalysis included disrobing his patients and then touching them) helped place the foundations of modern feminism, arguing that “the repression of the sexual needs creates a general weakening of intellect and emotional functioning; in particular, it makes people lack independence, will-power and critical faculties.” Marriage, he wrote, ruins lives: “Marital misery, to the extent to which it does not exhaust itself in the marital conflicts, is poured out over the children.”14

Fromm also expanded on the parenting ideas of Lukacs and John Dewey, who rejected parental authority, telling parents to stand by and let their children reinvent the wheel through experience. Fromm’s philosophy was imbibed by a young socialist student named Benjamin Spock, who would go on to shape a generation of parents with his child-rearing book The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care, which helped launch the self-esteem movement.15

At the same time, Frankfurt School scholar Theodor Adorno was sliding Marxism into the American consciousness by attacking popular trends in the world of art. First teaching at Columbia and then later at Princeton, he argued that television and movies were problematic because they appealed to the masses—but television and the movies weren’t catering to the public tastes, they were shaping them, Adorno argued. Popular art and culture had destroyed true art, which is always used for revolutionary purposes, he said.16 All popular art therefore had to be criticized as a symptom of the capitalist system. All art had to be torn down. Performance art and modern art found their philosophical foundation in Adorno. The long line stretching from Piss Christ to Karen Finley smearing herself with feces to Susan Sarandon celebrating being hit with transsexual projectile vomit all had its roots with Adorno.

This nihilistic influence in art, reinforcing the destruction of cultural norms, means that many grown adults have never experienced an epoch in which the transcendent and the innately beautiful have been celebrated as the artistic ideal. And it all started because a Rat Pack of Nazi-fleeing depressives couldn’t appreciate leaving the world’s most oppressive place for the world’s most spectacularly free and beautiful place.

Santa Monica. Google it. It takes a sincerely deranged soul to want to deconstruct the good life and the optimistic citizenry in order to create mass intellectual and spiritual misery. But that’s exactly what they did. And as they constructed their philosophical dystopia, all the pieces of the modern leftist puzzle began falling into place.

Minnicino:

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.

The dominant influence in the area came from Dr. Otto Gross, a student of Freud and friend of Carl Jung, who had been part of Max Weber’s circle when Frankfurt School founder Lukacs was also a member. Gross took Bachofen to its logical extremes, and, in the words of a biographer, “is said to have adopted Babylon as his civilization, in opposition to that of Judeo-Christian Europe…. if Jezebel had not been defeated by Elijah, world history would have been different and better. Jezebel was Babylon, love religion, Astarte, Ashtoreth; by killing her, Jewish monotheistic moralism drove pleasure from the world.” Gross’s solution was to recreate the cult of Astarte in order to start a sexual revolution and destroy the bourgeois, patriarchal family.

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.

Here is Minnicino on Fromm, making reference to Spock:

The Frankfurt School’s original 1930’s survey work, including the “authoritarian personality,” was based on psychoanalytic categories developed by Erich Fromm. Fromm derived these categories from the theories of J.J. Bachofen, a collaborator of Nietzsche and Richard Wagner, who claimed that human civilization was originally “matriarchal.” This primordial period of “gynocratic democracy” and dominance of the Magna Mater (Great Mother) cult, said Bachofen, was submerged by the development of rational, authoritarian “patriarchism,” including monotheistic religion. Later, Fromm utilized this theory to claim that support for the nuclear family was evidence of authoritarian tendencies.

In 1970, forty years after he first proclaimed the importance of Bachofen’s theory, the Frankfurt School’s Erich Fromm surveyed how far things had developed. He listed seven “social-psychological changes” which indicated the advance of matriarchism over patriarchism:

  • “The women’s revolution;”
  • “Children’s and adolescents’ revolution,” based on the work of Benjamin Spock and others, allowing children new, and more-adequate ways to express rebellion;
  • The rise of the radical youth movement, which fully embraces Bachofen, in its emphasis on group sex, loose family structure, and unisex clothing and behaviors;
  • The increasing use of Bachofen by professionals to correct Freud’s overly-sexual analysis of the mother-son relationship-this would make Freudianism less threatening and more palatable to the general population;
  • “The vision of the consumer paradise…. In this vision, technique assumes the characteristics of the Great Mother, a technical instead of a natural one, who nurses her children and pacifies them with a never-ceasing lullaby (in the form of radio and television). In the process, man becomes emotionally an infant, feeling secure in the hope that mother’s breasts will always supply abundant milk, and that decisions need no longer be made by the individual.”

Back to Breitbart:

But all of these major contributors to the Frankfurt School of thought paled in comparison to Herbert Marcuse, the founder of the “New Left.” Marcuse was a former student of future Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger, the father of “deconstruction,” a process by which every thought or writing from the past had to be examined and torn down as an outgrowth of its social milieu. Heidegger wasn’t shy about his intentions; he longed for the moment “when the spiritual strength of the West fails and its joints crack, when the moribund semblance of culture caves in and drags all forces into confusion and lets them suffocate in madness.”17

Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School in 1933 and quickly became a leader of the movement. After he moved to the United States and became a citizen, he was hired by FDR’s Office of War Information to create anti-Nazi propaganda, despite his Marxism. He also worked in the Office of Strategic Services (the pre-CIA OSS), and the State Department, where he worked to prevent the United States from pushing Germany away from democratic socialism. He taught at Columbia, then Harvard, then Brandeis, and then finally at the University of California in San Diego.

To contrast the lack of acknowledgement for the work of Minnicino and Lind, the details of this section by Breitbart on Marcuse and Heidegger are footnoted to the work of Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, and the connection between Breitbart’s writing and the cited work is clear:

This was the ethos of Nazism that Heidegger wholeheartedly embraced and never forthrightly renounced, even decades after the extent of the Holocaust and other Nazi crimes were known. The Nazi critique of Western civilization was total. In his infamous rectorial address, Heidegger looked forward to the time–hastened by Hitler’s efforts–“when the spiritual strength of the West fails and its joints crack, when the moribund semblance of culture caves in and drags all forces into confusion and lets them suffocate in madness.”

Deconstruction’s indebtedness to the fascist avant-garde remains one of the most controversial subjects in academia today, precisely because that debt is so obvious and profound. Paul de Man, for example, was a Nazi collaborator in Belgium who wrote seething pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic articles for a fascist newspaper during the occupation. Herbert Marcuse, a protege of Heidegger’s, became the leader of the New Left’s academic brain trust. He attacked Western society mercilessly, arguing that “liberal tolerance” was “serving the cause of oppression”–an argument that echoed the fascist assault of the 1930s almost perfectly. Frantz Fanon, who preached about the “redemptive” power of violence, was widely seen as a direct heir of Georges Sorel, the pre-fascist theorist admired and emulated by Italian Fascists and Bolsheviks alike.

However, many of the details of this section – Marcuse’s joining the OSS and working for the state department, for instance – are nowhere to be found in Goldberg’s work, or the other cited books. They are, however, in Minnicino:

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 prestigious 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.

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.

Back to Breitbart:

He really hit his stride in 1955, however, with the publication of Eros and Civilization. The book essentially made Wilhelm Reich’s case that sexual liberation was the best counter to the psychological ills of society. Marcuse preferred a society of “polymorphous perversity,”18 which is just what it sounds like—people having sex every which way, with whatever.

It wasn’t so much the freshness of Marcuse’s message that made the difference (it wasn’t a fresh message) as his timing—the kids brought up with Fromm and Freud and Spock were coming of age. The misplaced guilt of the Greatest Generation brought forth a new generation free to embrace Marcuse. While similar philosophies of sex had failed in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, by the 1950s the men and women who had suffered through the Great Depression and fought in World War II were determined to raise privileged kids who would never have to actually fight for their country or work for their food. The result was a group of kids ready and able to participate in the sexual revolution promised by the Frankfurt School. Marcuse excused sexual promiscuity as the fulfillment of the need for the people to rise up against Western civilization and to free themselves of the sexual repression it created. Not a hard sell for teenagers.

It was no wonder that in a very real sense, his followers believed they were doing something special when they made love, not war (a slogan attributed to Marcuse himself)—they were using their sexual energy to bind the world together rather than destroy it, as sexual repression would do. While Marcuse may not have been the most important intellectual force behind the Frankfurt School, he was its most devious and effective marketer. The advertising adage “Sex sells” was applied to selling a generation on the idea that their parents’ values and ideals were repressive and evil. (Where geographically did Marcuse come to this nihilistic understanding? The picturesque cliffs of La Jolla, overlooking the Pacific Ocean.)

Lind:

After World War II ended, most members of the Frankfurt School went back to Germany. But Herbert Marcuse stayed in America. He took the highly abstract works of other Frankfurt School members and repackaged them in ways college students could read and understand. In his book “Eros and Civilization,” he argued that by freeing sex from any restraints, we could elevate the pleasure principle over the reality principle and create a society with no work, only play (Marcuse coined the phrase, “Make love, not war”). Marcuse also argued for what he called “liberating tolerance,” which he defined as tolerance for all ideas coming from the Left and intolerance for any ideas coming from the Right. In the 1960s, Marcuse became the chief “guru” of the New Left, and he injected the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School into the baby boom generation, to the point where it is now America’s state ideology.

Minnicino:

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.

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.”

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. 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.

Breivik:

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 civilised restraints, a message preached in his book, Eros and Civilisation, 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’ service as Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Hungarian government in 1919 to Western European and 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.

Back to Breitbart:

Marcuse carried his “critical theory” in another destructive direction as well: while repeating the Marxist trope that the workers of the world would eventually unite—he saw the third world’s “anti-colonial” movements as evidence that Marx was right—he recognized that in the United States there would be no such uprising by the working class. He therefore needed a different set of interest groups to tear down capitalism using his critical theory. And he found those groups in the racial, ethnic, and sexual groups that hated the old order. These victimized interest groups rightly opposed all the beauties of Western civilization “with all the defiance, and the hatred, and the joy of rebellious victims, defining their own humanity against the definitions of the masters.”19

Marcuse’s mission was to dismantle American society by using diversity and “multiculturalism” as crowbars with which to pry the structure apart, piece by piece. He wanted to set blacks in opposition to whites, set all “victim groups” in opposition to the society at large. Marcuse’s theory of victim groups as the new proletariat, combined with Horkheimer’s critical theory, found an outlet in academia, where it became the basis for the post-structural movement—Gender Studies, LGBT/“Queer” Studies, African-American Studies, Chicano Studies, etc. All of these “Blank Studies” brazenly describe their mission as tearing down traditional Judeo-Christian values and the accepted traditions of Western culture, and placing in their stead a moral relativism that equates all cultures and all philosophies—except for Western civilization, culture, and philosophy, which are “exploitative” and “bad.”

Marcuse was widely accepted in the 1960s by the student movement—so much so that students in Paris during the 1968 uprising marched with banners reading “Marx, Mao, and Marcuse.”

But he still wasn’t winning in America. Marcuse had a big, big problem: America’s founding ideology is still far sexier than that of the Marxists, who insist on a tyrannical state of equality rather than freedom with personal responsibility. Even if Marcuse was promising unending sex, drugs, and rock and roll, most Americans were more interested in living in liberty with their families, in a society that values virtue and hard work rather than promiscuity and decadence.

So Marcuse had to find a way to defy the opposition. He found it in what he termed “repressive tolerance.” In 1965, Marcuse wrote an essay by that name in which he argued that tolerance was good only if nondominating ideas were allowed to flourish—and that nondominating ideas could flourish only if dominating ideas were shut down. “[T]he realization of the objective of tolerance,” he wrote, “would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.” America was experiencing a “repressive tolerance” under which dissenting viewpoints were stifled; what it needed was “partisan tolerance.”20

In other words, if you disagreed with Marcuse, you should be forcefully shut up, according to Marcuse. This made political debate very convenient for him and his allies. This totalitarianism is now standard practice on college campuses, in the media, and in Hollywood—the very places that the Frankfurt School sought to control.

The First Amendment—the same instrument that allowed the Frankfurt School to land on our shores and express their pernicious ideas in freedom—was now curtailed by those who had benefitted from it. Marcuse called for a tyranny of the minority, since the tyranny of the majority could not be overcome without a total shutdown.

There’s another name for Marcuse’s “partisan tolerance”: Political Correctness.

In fact, the term “political correctness” came from one of Marcuse’s buddies: Mao Tse-tung. Mao used the term to differentiate between those who had “scientifically correct” views and those who did not; those who did were termed “politically correct.” In 1963, just two years before Marcuse’s “repressive tolerance,” Mao came out with an essay entitled “Where Do Correct Ideas Come From?”21 In that essay, he argued that the Marxist society determines correct ideas, and all incorrect ideas must be put out of their misery. Mao thought it. Marcuse thought it. And his ideological heirs thought it and still think it. Hello, neighbor!

Lind:

To translate Marxism from economic into cultural terms, the members of the Frankfurt School – – Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Wilhelm Reich, Eric Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, to name the most important – – had to contradict Marx on several points. They argued that culture was not just part of what Marx had called society’s “superstructure,” but an independent and very important variable. They also said that the working class would not lead a Marxist revolution, because it was becoming part of the middle class, the hated bourgeoisie.

Who would? In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question: a coalition of blacks, students, feminist women and homosexuals.

Fatefully for America, when Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, the Frankfurt School fled – – and reestablished itself in New York City. There, it shifted its focus from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to destroying it in the United States. To do so, it invented “Critical Theory.” What is the theory? To criticize every traditional institution, starting with the family, brutally and unremittingly, in order to bring them down. It wrote a series of “studies in prejudice,” which said that anyone who believes in traditional Western culture is prejudiced, a “racist” or “sexist” of “fascist” – – and is also mentally ill.

Most importantly, the Frankfurt School crossed Marx with Freud, taking from psychology the technique of psychological conditioning. Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood).

Minnicino:

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 Frankfurt School.

The witchhunt on today’s campuses is merely the implementation of Marcuse’s concept of “repressive toleration” – “tolerance for movements from the left, but intolerance for movements from the right” – enforced by the students of the Frankfurt School, 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.

Breivik:

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 revolution. 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.

The turning point in the academy came in the 1960s, when militant students launched a guerrilla attack on the traditions of Western culture and the liberal arts. Seeing that they could not gain lasting power through demonstrations alone, many of these militants opted to remain “in the system,” going on to become professors themselves. This generation of “Cultural Marxist radicals” has now become the establishment in the vast majority of our institutions of higher learning. As university head masters, deans, and department chairmen, they have set about hiring other ideologues in their own image and have instigated the repressive policies we know as political correctness. These politicised academics will be extremely difficult to dislodge from their current positions of power.

After this, Breitbart moves on to the influence of the Frankfurt school on Saul Alinsky, who supposedly helped implement their marxist plans; he goes through several of the rules listed in Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, and explains how he attempts to employ them in a conservative counterstrategy.

What is striking about the comparison of the work of Breitbart, Minnicino, and Breivik, is how clearly they suggest a deeply paranoid mindset. The enemy is not simply corrupt or malicious, they are not simply well funded or have good lawyers; they are all powerful, all seeing and all controlling. They do not simply pay off politicos or have judges in their pockets, they are a tyranny. Breivik’s insanity is well known; Minnicino’s work was published by Lyndon LaRouche, a figure well known for his paranoid and lunatic view of the world. Following the killings in Norway, Minnicino issued a statement making clear that he had long renounced the opinions expressed in the essay, and gave his current perspective on the organization: “The LaRouche organization is a cult completely dominated by the deeply paranoid and mean-spirited personality of Mr. LaRouche and by his ill-informed conspiracy theories about science, philosophy, and history.” This statement, as well as his insightful note that it had been shamelessly plagiarized by dictators, conspiraphiles, and neo-nazis, can be found at Talk to Action, “Author Cited by Anders Behring Breivik Regrets Original Essay” [archive link] by Chip Berlet.

Given this context, what is notable is that even though Breitbart makes adjustments to the text he is lifting, he very obviously does not change this paranoid tone. His perspective is as lunatic as Breivik’s.

Again, this is Breitbart:

When you look at the history of the Soviet Union, what you see is the conversion of hundreds of millions to a corrupt and insidious worldview via the overpowering propaganda of communism. Yes, they used force. But they also used every means at their disposal to control the culture, the everyday lives, the very thoughts of their citizens.

When I was at Tulane, I saw the same cultural forces at work: the forces of the thought police, of the cultural fascisti. People in positions of power who decided what was okay to think and what to write, what words meant and who was allowed to say them. Tribunals without oversight, kids thrown out of college for uttering the wrong sentiments.

Later, I saw that the cultural Marxism of Tulane wasn’t restricted to Tulane—it was everywhere, from the mainstream media to Hollywood to the educational system to the government.

This is Breivik:

Political Correctness now looms over Western European society like a colossus. It has taken over both political wings, left and right. Among so called Western European “conservative” parties the actual cultural conservatives are shown the door because being a cultural conservative opposes the very essence of political correctness. It controls the most powerful element in our culture, the media and entertainment industry. It dominates both public and higher education: many a college campus is a small, ivy-covered North Korea. It has even captured the higher clergy in many Christian churches. Anyone in the Establishment who departs from its dictates swiftly ceases to be a member of the Establishment.

That Breitbart may have simply taken ideas from another text and placed it in his own book, has two unintended consequences, one hilarious, the other disturbing. Michael Minnicino writes his piece as someone impassioned by the loss of great art, despairing that we are stuck with ubiquitous monochromatic musical ugliness where there once was Beethoven, and Beethoven was listened to widely. This is the propulsive theme of “The New Dark Age” – not Adam Smith or the constitution – and it is almost entirely removed. Only at one point does Breitbart leave behind a brief reminder, in order to contrast the great art of the past with the degenerate performance art of today:

This nihilistic influence in art, reinforcing the destruction of cultural norms, means that many grown adults have never experienced an epoch in which the transcendent and the innately beautiful have been celebrated as the artistic ideal.

This is a sentence that carries through the theme of Minnicino’s essay, and is appropriate for someone who lives for great art. However, it stands strangely next to Breitbart’s earlier declaration of his love for eighties music like Aztec Camera and The Cure – the very music Minnicino hates, the unavoidable, ear clawing music that does not uplift or tranquilize, is made by some of Breitbart’s favorite bands. There is a later, even more ridiculous statement by Breitbart, given this context: “Frankly, John Waters’ movies and Johnny Knoxville’s Jackass series are more up my alley than Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ.” The same man who mourns the loss of the transcendent and the innately beautiful, is a big fan of Jackass.

The other part is far more disturbing, some of which I think Breitbart was entirely indifferent to, and some of it an unintended effect of his numbskullery. I believe I detect the shadow of Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West overcasting Minnicino’s essay, Spengler’s thesis of a pristine western culture corrupted by an alien jewish influence. LaRouche, among various hateful ideas, has various hateful ideas about jews; and Michael Minnicino, whose “The New Dark Age” bears such striking similarities to Breitbart’s work, gave a lecture containing many of the same ideas, “Freud and the Frankfurt School”, about the construction of an artificial jewish ethnic identity, at a LaRouche ideas conference. This conference also featured the lecture “America’s ‘Young America’ movement: slaveholders and the B’nai B’rith” by Anton Chaitkin, which presented the thesis that B’Nai Brith was something like the Illuminati, a hidden manipulative hand behind the Civil War and the assassination of Lincoln8. “New Dark Age” carries some of these elements, positing that a group of jews fled to the United States, achieved extraordinary hidden political power, then manipulated their traditional pawn, the black man of the ghetto, against their aryan christian adversaries9.

More explicitly, “New Dark Age” posits that anti-semitism is something constructed as a form of social control, that accusations of anti-semitism are a type of christian persecution, and that the idea of anti-semitism is a weapon employed to destroy western civilization. This thinking also served the immediate interests of LaRouche at the time: the tax fraud charges for which he served jail time were a result of this persecution, and an example of the hidden hand of hidden masters.

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.

The Frankfurt School devised the “authoritarian personality” profile as a weapon to be used against its political enemies. The fraud rests on the assumption that a person’s actions are not important; rather, the issue is the psychological attitude of the actor—as determined by social scientists like those of the Frankfurt School. The concept is diametrically opposed to the idea of natural law and to the republican legal principles upon which the U.S. was founded; it is, in fact, fascistic, and identical to the idea of “thought crime,” as described by George Orwell in his 1984, and to the theory of “volitional crime” developed by Nazi judge Roland Freisler in the early 1930’s.

When the Frankfurt School was in its openly pro-Bolshevik phase, its authoritarian personality work was designed to identify people who were not sufficiently revolutionary, so that these people could be “re-educated.” When the Frankfurt School expanded its research after World War II at the behest of the American Jewish Committee and the Rockefeller Foundation, its purpose was not to identify anti-Semitism; that was merely a cover story. Its goal was to measure adherence to the core beliefs of Western Judeo-Christian civilization, so that these beliefs could be characterized as “authoritarian,” and discredited.

The following is the LaRouche organization’s perspective on a 1988 trial which resulted in LaRouche’s conviction. A failed attempt was made to bring the Frankfurt School into the proceedings. From “The Evil Philosophy Behind Political Correctness: Why Lyndon Larouche Is The Only Antidote” by, again, Michael Minnicino:

When Lyndon LaRouche and six of his colleagues faced trial on trumped-up charges in 1988, LaRouche identified that the prosecution would rely on the Frankfurt School’s authoritarian personality fraud, to claim that the defendants’ intentions were inherently criminal. During the trial, LaRouche’s defense attorney attempted to demonstrate the Frankfurt School roots of the prosecution’s conspiracy theory, but he was overruled by Judge Albert Bryan, Jr., who said, “I’m not going back into the early 1930’s in opening statements or in the testimony of witnesses.”

A more sober, critical assessment on the trial and LaRouche can be found in “No Joke” by April Witt.

Breitbart’s hatred of his liberal opponents, combined with his utter obtuseness and sense of melodrama, manages to take the problem of anti-semitism in the original text and make it even worse.

This is how Breitbart’s section on the Frankfurt School begins:

Again, where am I going with all of this philosophical jabberwocky? Well, all of these boring and bleating philosophers might have faded into oblivion as so many Marxist theorists have, but the rise of Adolf Hitler prevented that. With Hitler’s rise, they had to flee (virtually all of them—Horkheimer, Marcuse, Adorno, Fromm—were of Jewish descent). And they had no place to go.

Except the United States.

The United States’ tradition of freedom and liberty, its openness to outside ideas, and our highest value, freedom of speech, ended up making all America vulnerable to those who would exploit those ideals. We welcomed the Frankfurt School. We accepted them with open arms. They took full advantage. They walked right into our cultural institutions, and as they started to put in place their leadership, their language, and their lexicon, too many chose to ignore them.

This, a lengthy excerpt, is how the section on the Frankfurt School ends:

And so Marxism came stealthily to our shores, squatted here, planted its roots, and grew like a weed—all before we even noticed it. It happened at the university level and at the governmental level and at the media level. We didn’t notice because we couldn’t read the rhetorical garbage these jokers were spewing, and we didn’t think it was important—“Our Constitution survived a revolution and a Civil War and two World Wars. Why should we worry about a few German eggheads?” Especially since America was economically thriving under such “oppression.”

The foundations of the Complex had been built. But we still couldn’t see the Complex itself—the Complex was hidden under paragraphs of obscure text and in college curricula at places like Tulane University, under the unlikely auspices of “American Studies.” Talk about a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It all seemed so benign, and we figured that if college students went off and had sex and did drugs and engaged in teenage rebellious decadence, oh well, they’d eventually come back to the Constitution, just the way their parents had.

We slept while the other side armed, and while we snoozed they secretly stole away our defensive weaponry—our allegiance to the Constitution and to freedom of speech and opinion.

It was only when they fired the first shots over our bow that we noticed we were unarmed, and that they had weaponized the cloudy bacteria of their philosophy into full-bore ideological anthrax, ready to deploy on a moment’s notice.

The jews here are presented with every aspect of the Illuminati stereotype – invisible, all powerful, whose sole purpose is to undermine and destroy democracy. Marcuse is not simply a malign influence – he is omnipotent, able to shape the course of history with his hidden hand. That Marcuse works in the state department after the war is not a throwaway detail in Minnicino, but a key moment in his world-shaping influence – America had “handed the determination of who were the nation’s enemies, over to the nation’s own worst enemies”. While ordinary citizens try to go about their lives, the Frankfurt school plot treachery. The jews of Nazi Germany were portrayed as rats infested with lice; the jews of the Frankfurt school carry bacteria that they can develop into weapons to destroy their hosts10. I don’t think the melodramatic aspect of Breitbart’s conclusion comes from any anti-semitic writing. It reminds me of nothing less than the opening prologue to an old movie, and I think Breitbart is trying to cop something of its style in order to give significance to himself and his struggle.

War of the Worlds

From the prologue of The War of the Worlds (though it of course share some phrases, the book’s prologue is quite different):

No one would have believed in the early years of the 21st century, that our world was being watched by intelligences greater than our own. That as men busied themselves about their various concerns, they observed and studied. Like the way a man with a microscope might scrutinize the creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. With infinite complacency men went to and fro about the globe, confident of our empire over this world. Yet, across the gulf of space, intellects, vast and cool and unsympathetic regarded our plant with envious eyes. And slowly and surely, drew their plans against us.

Due to his depraved hatred of his liberal opponents, Breitbart’s essay implies an unintended depraved suggestion: if the Frankfurt school, a group of war refugees who were, in Breitbart’s words, virtually all jews, gave root in the United States to a force – again in Breitbart’s words – that is more brutal, more evil than Al-Qaeda, then maybe jewish refugees should not have been accepted in the United States in the first place. This man, who was adopted by jews, has ended up creating a vile piece of anti-semitic propaganda of jewish Illuminati, jews who are bacteria bearing vermin, jews who are malevolent world conquering aliens, entirely through clumsy accident.

It is because he leaves out another chunk of Minnicino’s essay that makes Breitbart’s claims of the control of the cultural elite especially ridiculous to a reader. What Breitbart leaves out of Indignation, is an equally irrational part of Minnicino’s essay, but at least it makes the thesis plausible, if you accept it. Breitbart has taken a story about a bunch of magicians or telepaths, and tried to edit it into a traditional detective story, so that plots that revolve around characters being directed by telepathic orders which might make sense in a science fiction world make no sense at all in a real one. What Breitbart leaves out of his essay is Minnicino’s idea that the Frankfurt school is able to shape political policy in the United States because they study techniques of mind control, and are thus able to control policy by manipulating the population.

It is for this reason that Minnicino stresses that Marcuse served in the pre-CIA OSS – what is incongruous in Breitbart is crucial in the original; the mind control experiments of the CIA, the overseas manipulation by the agency of other countries is to be applied domestically, in the United States. The context might be ridiculous and lunatic, but inside this context, Breitbart’s insistence that what happens in Hollywood is more important than what happens in D.C. at least makes sense, whereas without the context, it comes across as a moronic misunderstanding. The elite of the Frankfurt School will shape policy not through dissemination of ideas, but by brainwashing, through the methods of media, polling, and drugs.

A few excerpts from “The New Dark Age” should make the theme obvious:

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The concluding note on the comparison of these various texts I give over to Breitbart himself, with a comment he makes about a successful moment, as he perceived it, on “Real Time With Bill Maher”, that might give insight into this episode as well. The humble bold is mine:

I cut through the crap with prepackaged talking points I had cribbed from the estimable Charles Krauthammer, whose work on the subject seemed eminently plagiarizable. It stopped them in their tracks. If they had asked one follow-up question, of course, I would have fallen to the ground in a puddle of water and curled up in a fetal position and admitted I didn’t know what the hell I was talking about. But they didn’t.

We might return to the original intent of this lengthy examination, which has shown us the conspiratorial, lunatic basis of Breitbart’s world view, to why he hated academia so much. He envied their intellectual repute, an intellectual aura he tried for by misusing french phrases and theoretical terms. It is for this reason that he presents Minnicino’s work, without footnotes or acknowledgement, as his own – he wishes to be perceived as someone who can speak of philosophy and history with the ease of a scholar like Minnicino. He wishes for this intellectual repute while arguing that his being outside the academy is not simply the result of his debauchery, or his ADD, but a welcome event, that saved him from being a conspirator in this force more brutal and evil than Al-Qaeda:

When I was at Tulane, I saw the same cultural forces at work: the forces of the thought police, of the cultural fascisti. People in positions of power who decided what was okay to think and what to write, what words meant and who was allowed to say them. Tribunals without oversight, kids thrown out of college for uttering the wrong sentiments. Looking back, I thank God every day that I partied to excess at Tulane, because it kept me from buying into that worldview, from learning that language. If I hadn’t been busy having fun, I could have become a professor, gotten tenure, and taught that cultural Marxism, propagated it for a living. I could have reinforced and propagated the Complex because it would have reinforced my position.

He could have been a professor, but his not being one is not a sign of his inability, but a good thing, a heroic thing; his non-complicity with this alien, conquering force. That he is resentful of the fact that he is not a professor, comes through in the ugliness, real vile racial ugliness, with which he describes Michael Eric Dyson, who he debates on “Real Time With Bill Maher”:

I met Professor Michael Eric Dyson, and I started to piece together what the show was going to be like. I knew who he was — Hey, that’s Cornel West Jr.! You’re the guy who speaks in iambic pentameter def poetry slam clichés. Prepackaged speechifications that nobody understands. Oh, brother! — and I realized that they weren’t even having a third panelist who could alleviate the tension with a joke. I recognized that Maher, with political correctness on his side and as his chief weapon, was going to use Michael Eric Dyson to frame me as the racial Other, as the oppressor himself or, at the very least, as the unwitting aider and abettor of the oppressor.

I won’t go into the specifics of his description, only to say that every detail describing the man, every one – Cornel West Jr., def poetry slam clichés, speechifications that nobody understands – connotes only one thing, and that is that he is black. When he says that Dyson speaks in iambic pentameter, it is another pretentious, wrongful phrase that carries none of its defined meaning, but is intended only to connote the same – Dyson speaks in rhythmic phrases that are like poetry, because, you know.

Breitbart describes one part of the back and forth with Dyson in his memoir:

“That’s bullshit,” I insisted. “You’re allowed to have independent thought in this country, and this type of intimidation by the Black Studies intelligentsia crowd that intimidates black people who are conservative… That’s why I became conservative.”

Dyson went on another iambic pentameter def poetry slam filibuster for the next three minutes. There was simply no way to stop him. Critical-theory phrases flowed from his mouth like water from a fountain.

Dyson is part of the black studies intelligentsia, a professorship that, supposedly, Breitbart could never claim. What’s interesting is that even though “Real Time” will gladly provide a transcript to its participants, Dyson’s immediate reply to Breitbart’s statement here, which is very clear on the audio and does not use any obscure “def poetry”, or critical theory phrases, does not make it into Breitbart’s book. Though he mentions many parts of the exchange, he does not mention this, because it would make obvious that Dyson had a professor’s degree, not in the area of black studies, or some new post-Frankfurt School field, but an ancient and respected area of academia that Breitbart simply lacked the mental concentration to attain.

This is a clip of the argument:

This is the very first thing that Dyson says in reply:

I’ll defend the black studies professors; my Ph.D. is in religion from Princeton. That’s number one; number two, I teach sociology right now.

Breitbart describes his fight with Dyson as part of a war against a Democratic Media Complex that only he could discern. A viewer of this fight, even one skeptical of Dyson, might see something else: an argument between a man who clearly was a professor and a man who clearly was not. Whatever prisons that viewer might inhabit, it seems that Andrew Breitbart was trapped in a complex of his own.

(This concludes part one of this piece; I had no expectation that it would reach such great length when I started it. The second part will be done in a few days. War of the Worlds copyright Dreamworks and Paramount. The footnotes dealing with The New Hate by Arthur Goldwag were added on June 16th, 2013. On November 9th 2013, after Senator Rand Paul lost his Washington Times column due to a plagiarism scandal and found a place at Breitbart, I thought it would be a good idea to improve some of the material dealing with Breitbart’s own plagiarism: I transcribed the footnotes for Breitbart’s book from scans of those endnotes, and transcribed the relevant text from scans of Maier’s Spock book. On November 10th, the text on Edward R. Murrow was edited to include the footnote #5 and its supplemental information. On that same date, footnote #4 on material borrowed from Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism was also added. On November 10th, footnote #3 on the uncanny and unattributed similarities between Breitbart’s material on Roosevelt and Wilson to the material on the same subjects in Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism was added. On December 1st, 2013, the text that originally had been transcribed from the audio book was replaced with the text from the print digital edition, and a section was appended with footnotes from the book’s text to the book’s footnotes, so a reader of this post could see what material went cited and what did not. On December 15th, footnote #1 excerpting the insightful review of Indignation by Alexander Zaitchik and Mark Howard was added. On April 12, 2015, this post underwent a session of copy editing.)

ANDREW BREITBART:

PSYCHOSIS IN A POLITICAL MASK

PART ONE PART TWO PART THREE PART FOUR

FOOTNOTES

1 There is the question, raised by almost no one, of whether Breitbart’s description of his syllabus bears any relation to reality. The only people I found who did so were Alexander Zaitchik and Mark Howard, in their review, “GOP Hitman Andrew Breitbart’s Confessional Memoir: I Wouldn’t Be a Foul, Raging Jerk If I Had Made It in Hollywood”, and they hit pay dirt:

Strangulation aside, not everyone remembers Tulane as the Marxist nightmare that Breitbart describes. “The required courses in American Studies included two semesters each of American Literature and History,” says a former director of Tulane’s American Studies Department who taught and remembers Breitbart. “We used the Norton Anthology—very middle-of-the-road, canonical stuff.” Among the “cultural Marxists” the young Breitbart was supposed to study but didn’t were the Puritans, Franklin, Edwards, Emerson, Thoreau, Twain, Hawthorne, Melville, and Stowe. According to this professor, not even the more advanced interdisciplinary seminars at Tulane offered much critical theory.

That his description of his syllabus as a bunch of critical theorists and cultural marxists appears to have no relation to his actual assigned reading may give further substance to the idea that the worldview he frequently gave vent to and which he gives ample space to in his memoir, of a foreign cultural marxist takeover, is taken wholely from other sources, and derived not at all from his own life.

2 The primary source Breivik cites in his manifesto is The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute for Social Research, 1932 – 1950. On his manifesto, that citation occurs on page 39. The citation for Minnicino occurs on page 41:

Additional works on the Frankfurt School

  • The Frankfurt School by T.B. Bottomore (Tavistock, London, 1984). Another history written by a sympathiser; you are better off with Jay or Wiggershaus.
  • “The New Dark Age: The Frankfurt School and ‘Political Correctness’” by Michael Minnicino, in Fidelio, Vol. 1, No. 1, Winter 1992 (KMW Publishing, Washington, DC) One of the few looks at the Frankfurt School by someone not a sympathiser, this long journal article explains the role of the Institute for Social Research in creating the ideology we now know as “Political Correctness.” Unfortunately, its value is reduced by some digressions that lack credibility.

Those reading the manifesto should be forewarned that Breivik is a xenophobic mass murderer and its content reflects this.

3 The scans of the footnotes are below:

4 Here are the relevant excerpts out of Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, taken from the chapter “Woodrow Wilson and the Birth of Liberal Fascism”:

A more authentic form of leadership was needed: a great man who could serve both as the natural expression of the people’s will and as a guide and master checking their darker impulses. The leader needed to be like a brain, which both regulates the body and depends on it for protection. To this end, the masses had to be subservient to the will of the leader. In his unintentionally chilling 1890 essay, Leaders of Men, Wilson explained that the “true leader” uses the masses like “tools.” He must not traffic in subtleties and nuance, as literary men do. Rather, he must speak to stir their passions, not their intellects. In short, he must be a skillful demagogue.

Many believed, including Wilson, that they had found just such a figure in Theodore Roosevelt. More than a popular leader, he was the designated idol of a true leadership cult. William Allen White, the famed progressive writer, recalled in 1934 that he’d been “a young arrogant protagonist of the divine rule of the plutocracy” until Roosevelt “shattered the foundations of my political ideals. As they crumbled then and there, politically, I put his heel on my neck and I became his man.” Roosevelt was the first to translate “L’etat, c’est moi” into the American argot, often claiming that the nation’s sovereignty was indistinguishable from his own august personage. As president, he regularly exceeded the bounds of his traditional and legal powers, doing his will first and waiting (or not) for the courts and the legislatures to catch up.

This captured in small relief the basic difference between Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt, bitter rivals and the only two proudly progressive presidents of the Progressive Era. These were very different men with very similar ideas. Roosevelt was a great actor upon the world stage; Wilson saw himself more as a director. Roosevelt was the “bull moose” who charged into any problem; Wilson was the “schoolmaster” who first drew up a lesson plan. One wanted to lead a band of brothers, the other a graduate seminar. But if the roles they played were different, the moral of the story was the same. While Wilson wrote treatises explaining why Americans should abandon their “blind devotion” to the Constitution, Teddy was rough-riding all over the document, doing what he pleased and giving bellicose speeches about how the courts had sided against “popular rights” and were “lagging behind” the new realities. Indeed, William Howard Taft–Roosevelt’s honorable yet overwhelmed successor in the White House–might not have chosen to run for reelection, hence denying Roosevelt the Republican nomination, had he not been convinced that Roosevelt’s “impatience with the delay of the law” made him “not unlike Napoleon.”

There were many fault lines running through Progressivism. On one side, there were the likes of John Dewey and Jane Addams, who were more socialistic and academic in their approach to politics and policy. On the other were the nationalists who appealed more directly to patriotism and militarism. Wilson and Roosevelt more or less represented the two sides. In much the same way national socialists often split into two camps emphasizing either nationalism or socialism, some progressives concentrated on social reform while others were more concerned with American “greatness.”

Today the issues in the 1912 campaign seem narrow and distant. Wilson championed the “New Freedom,” which included what he called the “second struggle for emancipation”–this time from the trusts and big corporations. Roosevelt campaigned on the “New Nationalism,” which took a different view of corporations. Teddy, the famous trustbuster, had resigned himself to “bigness” and now believed the state should use the trusts for its own purposes rather than engage in an endless and fruitless battle to break them up. “The effort at prohibiting all combination has substantially failed,” he explained. “The way out lies, not in attempting to prevent such combinations, but in completely controlling them in the interest of the public welfare.” Teddy’s New Nationalism was equal parts nationalism and socialism. “The New Nationalism,” Roosevelt proclaimed, “rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.” This sort of rhetoric conjured fears among classical liberals (again, increasingly called conservatives) that Teddy would ride roughshod over American liberties. “Where will it all end?” asked the liberal editor of the New York World about the rush to centralize government power. “Despotism? Caesarism?”

Indeed, few figures represent the foreign, particularly German influence on Progressivism better than Wilson himself. Wilson’s faith that society could be bent to the will of social planners was formed at Johns Hopkins, the first American university to be founded on the German model. Virtually all of Wilson’s professors had studied in Germany–as had almost every one of the school’s fifty-three faculty members. But his most prominent and influential teacher was Richard Ely, the “dean of American economics,” who in his day was more vital to Progressivism than Milton Friedman or Friedrich Hayek have been to modern conservatism. Despite his open hostility to private property, and his fondness for what would today be called McCarthyite politics, Ely was not a top-down socialist like Bismarck. Rather, he taught his students to imagine a socialism of spirit that would replace laissez-faire from within men’s hearts. Ely eventually moved to the University of Wisconsin, where he helped found the “Wisconsin model”–a system still admired by leftist intellectuals whereby college faculties help run the state. Ely also served as a mentor to Teddy Roosevelt, who said that Ely “first introduced me to radicalism in economics and then made me sane in my radicalism.”

From Breitbart’s Indignation:

Let me continue with this brief history lesson.

President Teddy Roosevelt is on Mount Rushmore. Even though Teddy was a Republican, he was no conservative—he was a “Progressive.” Progressivism was a strain in American thought that merged the Hegelian dialectic with Marxism, backed by a rosy Rousseau-ian view of humanity and the general will—basically, it was soft Marxism without the class struggle.

There was only one problem, of course—here in America, we have something they didn’t have in Germany or even Britain: a Constitution that protects individual liberty. But that didn’t stop Teddy. Progressivism, you see, was active. And that was the thing about Teddy—he always had to keep himself busy and powerful. Like an early-twentieth-century Barack Obama, Teddy slammed those who disagreed with him, characterizing typical American self-reliance as selfishness. Collectivism was the new cool.

Those who stand for Progressivism, said Teddy, “stand for the forward movement… for the uplift and betterment, who have faith in the people.” Ends, not means, matter: “We of today who stand for the Progressive movement here in the United States are not wedded to any particular kind of machinery, save solely as means to the end desired. Our aim is to secure the real and not the nominal rule of the people.”1 That’s scary stuff—the business of government is all about means, which is why the Constitution is mostly a document describing how things get done, not what things should get done. Once a president starts ignoring means to get to ends, we’ve got a serious constitutional problem on our hands.

Teddy was a serious constitutional problem. His Progressivism had practical consequences. In his 1910 speech “The New Nationalism,” he compared wealth inequalities with the Civil War and said that individual rights had to take a backseat to the common interest.2

In that same speech, Teddy went over the Niagara Falls of Progressive ideology in a wooden barrel—he actually said that people couldn’t be permitted to make money unless it was of benefit to the community for them to do so. “We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community,” he said. This was Marx in action. With a president behind Marx, his ideals were now competing on equal footing with the Founding Fathers’.

Teddy’s Progressivism had its most dramatic effects in shaping a new view of the Constitution. He summed up his thoughts about the Constitution in one line: “To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!”3

Teddy’s ideological heir didn’t make it to the White House until 1912. His name was Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson was the proto-egghead, a political science professor and Princeton dean who frowned upon democracy. Our American egalitarianism was beginning to be replaced by elites who knew better than the masses. Wilson had imbibed the best of European philosophy (namely, Hegel and his heirs) while studying at Johns Hopkins University, which was the first American university to mirror the German university model. Unsurprisingly, he rejected the idea of government by the people, and he rejected the old-fashioned notion that founding principles of free enterprise and private property should be protected by checks and balances on the growth of government. Government, he said, was a living thing, and it needed the freedom to do its magical work. Because government had stuff to do, the Constitution was a waste of time for Wilson. It held the people back. “Justly revered as our great constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth clothed in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws.”4

The footnotes 1 through 4 for Breitbart’s text are as follows; none of them are citations for Goldberg’s work:

1. Theodore Roosevelt, “Who Is a Progressive?” April 1912, available at http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1199.

2. Theodore Roosevelt, “The New Nationalism,” 1910, available at http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=501

3. Quoted in Thomas E. Woods, 33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask (New York: Crown Forum, 2007), 138.

4. Ronald J. Pestritto, Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005), 75.

5 This idea of the constitution versus a “Hegelian synthesis of government power in the name of socialism” brought about by Wilson, appears to be a misunderstanding of text from Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism. I believe Goldberg is also wrong, but the focus of this part of an already too long piece is Breitbart’s plagiarism, not Goldberg’s ridiculous ideas; out of laziness, I point the reader to a succinct takedown of Goldberg’s book, “A Very Serious Blog Post” by Matthew Yglesias. The relevant text out of Fascism, taken from the chapter “Woodrow Wilson and the Birth of Liberal Fascism”:

The key concept for rationalizing progressive utopianism was “experimentation,” justified in the language of Nietzschean authenticity, Darwinian evolution, and Hegelian historicism and explained in the argot of William James’s pragmatism. Scientific knowledge advanced by trial and error. Human evolution advanced by trial and error. History, according to Hegel, progressed through the interplay of thesis and antithesis. These experiments were the same process on a vast scale. So what if Mussolini cracked skulls or Lenin lined up dissident socialists? The progressives believed they were participating in a process of ascendance to a more modern, more “evolved” way of organizing society, replete with modern machines, modern medicine, modern politics. In a distinctly American way, Wilson was as much a pioneer of this movement as Mussolini. A devoted Hegelian–he even invoked Hegel in a love letter to his wife–Wilson believed that history was a scientific, unfolding process. Darwinism was the perfect complement to such thinking because it seemed to confirm that the “laws” of history were reflected in our natural surroundings. “In our own day,” Wilson wrote while still a political scientist, “whenever we discuss the structure or development of a thing…we consciously or unconsciously follow Mr. Darwin.”

6 There is a reference to Murrow in Minnicino, but it has nothing to do with letting the Frankfurt School or anyone else into the United States. From “The New Dark Age”, I give the relevant section as follows:

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.

There is also a reference to Murrow letting the Frankfurt School into the United States in “Hate Crime Legislation – Back Door to Censorship” by James Simpson, published in May 10, 2009, before Righteous Indignation, but no mention is made as to the origin of the information. The links in the text go to wikipedia articles. Neither article contains the supporting information:

Marcuse, among other Frankfurt School advocates, was brought to the U.S. in the 1930s by Edward R. Murrow who at the time headed a program to resettle intellectuals facing Nazi repression. According to Wikipedia, Marcuse worked at the OSS, the State Department and taught at Columbia, Harvard and Brandeis. Now doesn’t that tell you something? He has been called the “Father of the New Left” and inspired many of the 1960s’ young radicals, who now have tenured teaching positions at colleges throughout the U.S. It is easy to see his Frankfurt School influence in university speech codes – indeed it is largely the reason they exist.

7 The scans of the pages from Maier’s Spock that Breitbart’s footnotes reference are below:

8 The idea of jewish proxies, where B’nai Brith or the Frankfurt school are substituted for the jews themselves in jewish conspiracies is a recurring theme in such theories, as detailed in Arthur Goldwag’s The New Hate:

Besides, as any number of conspiracists have pointed out, it is perfectly possible to believe in the message of the Protocols and not believe that it condemns all Jews. Robert Welch was no anti-Semite, but his John Birch Society summoned the spirit of the Protocols in its depiction of the all-pervasive Communist/Illuminist conspiracy. Milton William Cooper cited the Protocols repeatedly in his writings—he included its entire text in the appendix to his Behold a Pale Horse—but with the caveat that his readers should substitute the word “Illuminati” for “Jews” and “cattle” for “Gentiles.” The contemporary conspiracy theorist Jim Marrs proposes that the secret societies themselves, not their scapegoats the Jews, are the real actors; the Protocols may actually be “an Illuminati document with Jewish elements added for disinformation purposes.”

The English conspiracy writer David Icke believes that the Protocols documents a conspiracy of shape-shifting lizards from outer space or perhaps another dimension (though Icke also believes that the lizards are closely allied with Khazarite impostors—a staple of the Christian Identity religion, which believes that most European Jews aren’t descended from the biblical Hebrews at all, but from the Khazars, who converted to Judaism in medieval times). The anti–New Age Christian writer Constance Cumbey has argued that the real authors of the Protocols were Theosophical occultists.

“The Czarist Okhrana’s ‘Protocols of Zion’ include a hard kernel of truth,” wrote the arch-conspiracist Lyndon LaRouche. “The fallacy of the ‘Protocols of Zion’ is that it misattributes the alleged conspiracy to Jews generally, to Judaism. A corrected version of the Protocols would stipulate that the evil oaths cited were actually the practices of variously a Paris branch of B’nai B’rith.”

9 The idea that jews manipulate black men and women to forment insurrection against white christians is an old trope of conspiracy literature, and is given mention in The New Hate by Arthur Goldwag:

Not long afterward, another viral quotation that laid bare a different, albeit not unrelated, facet of the Jewish conspiracy began making the rounds of the hate sheets. It was drawn from A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century, a book ostensibly authored in 1912 by a Marxist Zionist Englishman named Israel Cohen. In 1957, the Mississippi congressman Thomas G. Abernethy read it into the Congressional Record. “We must realize that our party’s most powerful weapon is racial tension,” it began.

By pounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by the whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negroes will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.

Cohen’s words confirmed an old conviction of the racist Right that’s already been referred to in these pages more than once: that the civil rights movement was entirely the creation of Jewish Communists; that without their promptings, American blacks would have had no reason to feel any discontent. As the poet Ezra Pound put it, “It is perfectly well know that the fuss a bout [sic] ‘de-segregation’ in the U.S. has been started by the jews. Plenty of americans have been getting on quite nicely with coloured people for nearly a century.” The only problem was that the Communist Party didn’t exist in 1912, in either England or the United States—it came into being after the Russian Revolution—and no book with the title A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century was ever published. An article that appeared in the Washington Star on February 18, 1958, traced the story back to Eustace Mullins, who claimed to have encountered the quotation in a book he found in the Library of Congress. Around the same time, Mullins was also promoting a rumor that Eisenhower’s mother was black.

10 This conflation of vermin, jewish exiles, and political dissent in tabloid culture is not new at all. From The World That Never Was by Alex Butterworth, about the english yellow press in the late 19th century reporting on that country’s anarchist movement:

Tit Bits upped the ante, scooping an interview with a ‘gentleman holding a high position in the detective force’ who confided his concern that the anarchists were now turning their attention from conventional to biological terrorism, using the spores of typhus and yellow fever to spread viral contamination. Following the model of Rachkovsky’s [head of the Foreign Okhrana, the Russian intelligence service devoted to external intelligence] anti-Semitic propaganda, the immigrant masses were to be transformed in the popular imagination from inadvertent vectors of disease into intentional agents of infection.

FOOTNOTES FOR ANDREW BREITBART’S RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION: BREAKTHROUGH

6 Christopher Lasch, Haven in a Heartless World: The Family Besieged (New York: W.W. Norton, 1995), 86.

7 As quoted in Chilton Williamson, The Conservative Bookshelf (Secaucus, NJ: Citadel Press, 2005), 296.

8 Max Horkheimer, Critical Theory: Selected Essays (New York: Continuum, 2002), 207.

9 Ibid., 218-219

10 As quoted in Patrick Buchanan, The Death of the West (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2001), 86.

11 Adam Cohen, “What’s Hot on This BBC Podcast? The Siege of Munster(1534-35),” New York Times, February 17, 2010.

12 Erich Fromm, The Fear of Freedom (London: Routledge, 1984), 241.

13 Ibid., 145-46.

14 Wilhelm Reich, The Sexual Revolution: Toward a Self-Governing Character Structure (New York: Macmillan, 1962), 77-78, 111, 184.

15 Thomas Maier, Dr. Spock: An American Life (New York: Basic Books, 2003), 112, 458.

16 Theodor Adorno, The Culture Industry (London: Routledge, 2003), 99.

17 Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Change (New York: Broadway Books, 2007), 175.

18 Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud (Boston: Beacon Press, 1966), 81, 226.

19 Herbert Marcuse, An Essay on Liberation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969), 46-47.

20 Herbert Marcuse, “Repressive Tolerance,” in Robert Paul Wolff, Barrington Moore Jr., and Herbert Marcuse, A Critique of Pure Tolerance (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969), 95-137.

21 Mao Zedong, “Where Do Correct Ideas Come From?” May 1963. Pamphlet, Foreign Languages Press, 1966, 3 pages.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: