Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for March, 2010

Read Full Post »

Watch all six parts of the press conference event HERE. -W.

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Read Full Post »

Photobucket

Stone Age sailors ‘beat Columbus to America’
Robin McKie, Science Editor
The Observer, Sunday 28 November 1999
Source: Guardian.Co.Uk

Stone-age Europeans were the first transatlantic sailors. Columbus and the Vikings were mere ocean-crossing latecomers, according to a leading American anthropologist.

Dr Dennis Stanford, of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, says that Neolithic fishermen and hunters sailed the Atlantic in tiny boats made of animal skins 18,000 years ago and colonised the eastern United States.

Such a journey would represent one of the most astonishing migrations ever undertaken – the Earth was then in the grip of the Ice Age, and much of its high northern and southern latitudes were desolate wastelands blasted by storms and blizzards.

On the other hand, much of the planet’s water was locked up in icecaps and glaciers, and sea levels would have been much lower than today’s. The edges of the continents would have extended further into the oceans.

‘The gap between Europe and America was greatly reduced,’ Stanford said. ‘It could have been quite feasible for fishermen and whale and seal hunters to sail around the southern rim of the packs of sea-ice that covered the North Atlantic and reach land around the Banks of Newfoundland.’

Stanford’s theory – outlined at a recent archaeology conference in Santa Fe – is based on discoveries indicating that ancient American people were culturally far more like the Neolithic tribes of France, Spain and Ireland than the Asian people whom scientists had previously thought to be the sole prehistoric settlers of North America.

Stanford also points out that although modern Native Americans possess DNA similar to that of Asians, they also carry some variants that are found only in European people. This genetic input could only be explained by accepting that Stone Age people were capable of sailing ocean-going boats, he said.

‘We now know that human beings learned to sail 50,000 years before the present,’ he said. ‘Mankind settled in Australia then and it was not linked by any land bridge to Asia. It could only have been reached by boat. Clearly, we had mastered sailing tens of thousands of years before America was colonised, so we should not be surprised by the idea that people took boat trips across the Atlantic 18,000 years ago.’

The theory that prehistoric Europeans colonised America was first put forward in the Fifties by archaeologist Frank Hibben, but was discredited by evidence supporting the notion that the continent was populated 20,000 to 15,000 years ago by Asian incomers who walked across the land bridge that then linked Siberia with Alaska, and who then migrated south through the continent.

Stanford does not disagree that Asian folk colonised ancient America, but argues that current genetic and archaeological evidence shows an influx of Europeans must also have taken place. And the prime candidates for these incomers are the Solutrean people who lived in Spain 23,000 to 18,000 years ago and who later colonised parts of France and Ireland.

They designed and made beautifully crafted fluted stone blades which bore a striking similarity to those made by the Clovis people who lived in America 11,000 years ago. Like the Clovis, the Solutreans also made stone scrapers to prepare hides and kept stores of stone implements, buried in red ochre, round the countryside. These ancient Spaniards must therefore have been among the first New World settlers, Stanford insists. Native Americans are Iberian, not Siberian, in origin.

The theory’s main problem stems from the fact that an Atlantic crossing in tiny Ice Age boats would have an awesome undertaking. Stanford argues, however, it would have been a less arduous undertaking than might be expected. ‘These people would have been hunters as well as fishermen and would have simply sailed round the southern edge of the packs of sea ice that covered the North Atlantic. If a storm arrived, they would have camped on an ice island until the weather got better. Eventually they would have drifted west until they reach eastern America.’

The idea has startled palaeontologists and anthropologists. Some support Stanford, some do not. ‘I think Dennis deserves a hearing,’ Chicago University anthropologist Leslie Freeman states in Science. ‘The convergence (between ancient Spanish and American culture) deserves further investigation.’

Palaeontologist Professor Chris Stringer, of the Natural History Museum in London, said the evidence is far from convincing. ‘Clovis and Solutrean spear points and stone blades are alike, but the similarity is superficial.

‘And don’t forget, no matter how much the Atlantic shrank 18,000 years ago, it would still have been a formidably long journey for people to have made in an open boat, particularly in the middle of an Ice Age.’
———————————————————-
Stone Age Columbus – programme summary
Source: BBC News

Who were the first people in North America? From where did they come? How did they arrive? The prehistory of the Americas has been widely studied. Over 70 years a consensus became so established that dissenters felt uneasy challenging it. Yet in 2001, genetics, anthropology and a few shards of flint combined to overturn the accepted facts and to push back one of the greatest technological changes that the Americas have ever seen by over five millennia.

The accepted version of the first Americans starts with a flint spearhead unearthed at Clovis, New Mexico, in 1933. Dated by the mammoth skeleton it lay beside to 11,500 years ago (11.5kya), it was distinctive because it had two faces, where flakes had been knapped away from a core flint. The find sparked a wave of similar reports, all dating from around the same period. There seemed to be nothing human before Clovis. Whoever those incomers were around 9,500BC, they appeared to have had a clean start. And the Clovis point was their icon – across 48 states.

“The best way to get beaten up, professionally, is to claim you have a pre-Clovis site”
Michael Collins, University of Texas

An icon that was supremely effective: the introduction of the innovative spearpoint coincided with a mass extinction of the continent’s megafauna. Not only the mammoth, but the giant armadillo, giant sloth and great black bear all disappeared soon after the Clovis point – and the hunters who used it – arrived on the scene.

But from where? With temperatures much colder than today and substantial polar ice sheets, sea levels were much lower. Asia and America were connected by a land bridge where now there’s the open water of the Bering Strait. The traditional view of American prehistory was that Clovis people travelled by land from Asia.

This version was so accepted that few archaeologists even bothered to look for artefacts from periods before 10,000BC. But when Jim Adavasio continued to dig below the Clovis layer at his dig near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, he found blades and blade cores dating back to 16,000BC. His findings were dismissed as erroneous; too astonishing to be credible. The Clovis consensus had too many reputations behind it to evaporate easily. Some archaeologists who backed Adavasio’s conclusions with other similar data were accused of making radiocarbon dating errors or even of planting finds.

“The first migration was 20,000 to 30,000 years ago”
Douglas Wallace, Emory University

Decisive evidence would have to come from an independent arena. Douglas Wallace studies mitochondrial DNA, part of the human chromosomes that is passed unchanged from mother to daughter. It only varies when mistakes occur in the replication of the genetic code. Conveniently for Wallace’s work (piecing together a global history of migration of native peoples) these mistakes crop up at a quite regular rate. The technique has allowed Wallace to map the geographical ancestry of all the Native American peoples back to Siberia and northeast Asia.

The route of the Clovis hypothesis was right. The date, however, was wrong – out by up to 20,000 years. Wallace’s migration history showed waves of incomers. The Clovis people were clearly not the first humans to set foot across North America.

Dennis Stanford went back to first principles to investigate Clovis afresh, looking at tools from the period along the route Clovis was assumed to have taken from Siberia via the Bering Strait to Alaska. The large bifaced Clovis point was not in the archaeological record. Instead the tools used microblades, numerous small flint flakes lined up along the spear shaft to make its head.

Wallace’s DNA work suggested migration from Asia to America but the Clovis trail contradicted it. Bruce Bradley stepped in to help solve this dichotomy, bringing with him one particular skill: flintknapping and the ability to read flint tools for their most intimate secrets.

He spotted the similarity in production method between the Clovis point and tools made by the Solutrean neolithic (Stone Age) culture in southwest France. At this stage his idea was pure hypothesis, but could the first Americans have been European?

The Solutreans were a remarkably society, the most innovative and adaptive of the time. They were among the first to discover the value of heat treating flints to increase strength. Bradley was keen to discover if Solutrean flintknapping styles matched Clovis techniques. A trawl through the unattractive flint offcuts in the storerooms of a French museum convinced him of the similarities, even though five thousand kilometres lay between their territories.

The divide was more than just distance; it crossed five thousand years as well. No matter the similarities between the two cultures, the possibility of a parallel technology developing by chance would have to be considered. More evidence emerged from an archaeological dig in Cactus Hill, Virginia. A bifaced flint point found there was dated to 16kya, far older than Clovis. Even more startling was its style. To flintknapper Bruce Bradley’s eye, the Cactus Hill flint was a technological midpoint between the French Solutrean style and the Clovis points dating five millennia later. It seemed there is no great divide in time. The Solutrean flint methods evolved into Clovis.

“[Stone Age] people crossing the Atlantic would be perfectly normal from my [Eskimo] perspective”
Ronald Brower, Inupiat Heritage Center, Barrow, Alaska

If time could be discounted, Bradley’s critics pointed to an obstacle that was hardly going to go away: crossing the Atlantic Ocean in small open boats. How could Stone Age people have made such an epic journey, especially when the Ice Age maximum would have filled the Atlantic with icebergs.

Dennis Stanford returned to his earlier hunch, looking for clues among the Arctic Eskimo peoples. Despite the influx of modern technologies, he was heartened to discover that traditional techniques endured. Clothing makers in Barrow, Alaska, recognised some Solutrean bone needles he showed them as typical of their own. The caribou skin clothing the Inuit still choose to wear could equally have been made by people in 16,000BC. And for Eskimo peoples the Arctic is not a desert – but a source of plentiful sea food. If the Solutreans had the Clovis point it would have made a formidable harpoon weapon to ensure a food supply. Would modern Eskimo ever consider a five thousand kilometre journey across the Atlantic?

The answer it seems is yes – they have undertaken similar journeys many times.. Most encouraging was the realisation that Inuit people today rely on traditional boat building techniques. ‘Unbreakable’ plastic breaks in the unceasing cold temperatures whereas boats of wood, sealskin and whale oil are resilient and easily maintained. The same materials would have been available to Solutrean boat builders. Even if the Stone Age Europeans could make those boats, would it survive an Atlantic crossing?

“DNA lineage predominantly found in Europe got to the Great Lakes, 14,000 to 15,000 years ago”
Douglas Wallace, Emory University

Stanford believes the boats’ flimsiness is deceptive. With the Atlantic full of ice floes it would be quite possible for paddlers in open boats to travel along the edges, always having a safe place to haul out upon if the weather turned in.

All this evidence was still essentially circumstantial, making the Solutrean adventure possible not proven. Douglas Wallace’s DNA history bore fruit once more. In the DNA profile of the Ichigua Native American tribe he identified a lineage that was clearly European in origin, too old to be due to genetic mixing since Columbus’ discovery of the New World. Instead it dated to Solutrean times. Wallace’s genetic timelines show the Ice Age prompted a number of migrations from Europe to America. It looks highly likely that the Solutreans were one.

The impact of this new prehistory on Native Americans could be grave. They usually consider themselves to be Asian in origin; and to have been subjugated by Europeans after 1492. If they too were partly Europeans, the[ir] dividing lines would be instantly blurred. Dr Joallyn Archambault of the American Indian Programme of the Smithsonian Institute offers a positive interpretation, however. Venturing across huge bodies of water, she says, is a clear demonstration of the courage and creativity of the Native Americans’ ancestors. Bruce Bradley agrees. He feels his Solutrean Ice Age theory takes into consideration the abilities of people to embrace new places, adding, “To ignore this possibility ignores the humanity of people 20,000 years ago.”

Read Full Post »

Photobucket

Review of Thomas Wheatland’s The Frankfurt School in Exile, Part I: Authoritarianism and the Family
Kevin MacDonald
October 19, 2009

Thomas Wheatland’s book, The Frankfurt School in Exile, provides a useful historical account of the travels, connections, and ideas of an important Jewish intellectual movement. The Institute for Social Research began as an orthodox Marxist organization during the Weimar period. During this period, they were dedicated to studying the class struggle and were often in close contact with members of the German Communist Party. Like several other members of the Institute, Max Horkheimer, who became head of the Institute, came from a wealthy background, but like so many Jewish radicals, had a “moral and emotional” opposition to bourgeois society (p. 15).

Wheatland agrees with other scholars that a persistent motivation of the Frankfurt School was to understand why a working class revolution failed to occur in Germany. Two main theoretical thrusts emerged from this realization: a critique that located ethnic prejudice, backward religious attitudes and lack of revolutionary fervor in the family, and a critique of mass culture seen as promoting passivity and escapism rather than revolutionary consciousness. Part I of this review deals with the first of these issues. Part II will discuss the theory of mass culture and interactions between the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals.

The Frankfurt School Finds Authoritarianism in the Family

Since Marxist revolution was so obviously desirable to the Frankfurt Intellectuals, they developed a theory in which the failure of revolution could be attributed to psychopathology in the family. As reviewed here, the epitome of psychological health was the “genuine liberal” — a radical individualist who is completely detached from all ingroups, including race and family. White people who rejected their family as role models were analyzed as psychologically healthy, while those who had positive views of their parents were analyzed as psychologically inadequate.

Such a view is obviously subversive of traditional values, since competent parents transmit their religious and cultural values to their children, and at the time of the study, many of these competent White parents had a sense of White racial identity which they were transmitting to their children. The Frankfurt School was essentially claiming that White families who successfully transmitted their ethnocentric attitudes to their children were pathological — a view for which there isn’t a shred of evidence. (Needless to say, the successful transmission of Jewish identity to Jewish children was not considered a pathology.)

A major part of the intellectual ammunition for this assault on the people and culture of the West derived originally from Erich Fromm whose association with the Frankfurt School dates from 1930. Fromm pioneered the idea of combining Marx with Freud and was responsible for the early development of the authoritarian personality concept. Fromm’s ideas are an excellent illustration of the ludicrous but deadly theories that resulted from this marriage of these two influential Jewish philosophers. For example, in Studien über Authorität und Familie (1936), Fromm wrote,

With regard to authoritarianism, masochism manifested itself in the surrender to authority, and sadism was evident in the acceptance of social hierarchy. In the developmental and sexual sense, the authoritarian character had suffered a regression from genital sexuality to infantile sexuality. Accompanying this regression of libidinal energy, Fromm also expected a shift from heterosexual to homosexual behavior among authoritarian personalities. (quoted in Wheatland, p. 68)

As a psychologist, I really can’t imagine a more ridiculous theory — unless perhaps one counts Freud’s politically useful Oedipal complex. None of these ideas ever had even a glimmer of empirical support. Freud’s theorizing — one hesitates to call it a theory — combines outrageousness with infinite plasticity. In the hands of Freudian revisionist like Fromm, it could be used as a weapon against those who resist a communist revolution. Eventually, Fromm’s ideas would be the basis for The Authoritarian Personality and its assault on White racial identity and traditional Western family values.

Wheatland, however, is utterly credulous in discussing these preposterous ideas: “Fromm had carefully examined the empirical findings. Exercising caution to make use of his data, Fromm utilized every response to each question to provide confirmation for his character models” (p. 69).

Ah yes, Erich Fromm — ever the dedicated, impartial empirical scientist. Since such findings have never been confirmed by the research of actual psychologists — indeed, they would be laughed at as the height of ridiculousness, one would think that Wheatland would at least suggest that perhaps Fromm was reading his a priori theories into the interview results — a common enough practice among psychoanalysts.

Indeed, a strikingly similar passage to Fromm’s monstrosity can be found in Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944), by the two leading lights of the Frankfurt School, Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno:

The forbidden action [of killing one’s father out of Oedipal jealousy] which is converted into aggression is generally homosexual in nature. Through fear of castration, obedience to the father is taken to the extreme of an anticipation of castration in conscious emotional approximation to the nature of a small girl, and actual hatred to the father is suppressed” (p. 192).

You can’t make this stuff up. Nevertheless, despite such passages and a generally fanciful theory of anti-Semitism (see Chap. 5 of The Culture of Critique), Wheatland refers to Dialectic of Enlightenment as the Institute’s “theoretical masterpiece” (p. 242).

Wheatland is typical of so many American intellectuals who become caught up in the well-honed mystique of the Frankfurt School, completely losing their critical sense. Even a casual reading of Dialectic of Enlightenment indicates the importance of Jewish ethnic interests in developing a theory of anti-Semitism in which the behavior of Jews is completely irrelevant. As Jacob Katz notes, the Frankfurt School has “not been notable for the accuracy of its evaluation of the Jewish situation either before the advent of Nazism or afterward” (p. 40).

Wheatland presents evidence that the Institute separated themselves from Fromm because of his revisionist views on psychoanalysis. Nevertheless, the separation was more tactical than real. Both Fromm and his former Frankfurt colleagues developed a similar intellectual rationale for radical individualism among Whites — mainly because they viewed it as effective in combating anti-Semitism. Prototypical individualists such as libertarians are much less prone to enmeshing themselves in cohesive groups — especially mass movements of ethnic defense They have no allegiance to their race, their culture, or even their family. The following is a famous passage from Fromm’s Escape from Freedom (1941):

There is only one possible, productive solution for the relationship of individualized man with the world: his active solidarity with all men and his spontaneous activity, love and work, which unite him again with the world, not by primary ties [e.g., family, religion, ethnic group, and race] but as a free and independent individual…. However, if the economic, social and political conditions… do not offer a basis for the realization of individuality in the sense just mentioned, while at the same time people have lost those ties which gave them security, this lag makes freedom an unbearable burden. It then becomes identical with doubt, with a kind of life which lacks meaning and direction. Powerful tendencies arise to escape from this kind of freedom into submission or some kind of relationship to man and the world which promises relief from uncertainty, even if it deprives the individual of his freedom. (Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom)

In other words, psychologically healthy people have no psychological ties to anything except their “active solidarity” with all of humanity. This lack of ethnic commitment is what defines freedom.

Fromm never saw any contradictions between this philosophy and his own strong Jewish identification. Fromm derived from an Orthodox Jewish religious background and was actively involved in promoting Jewish religion and culture in his 20s. Like many secular Jews on the left, Fromm’s view of Judaism was that it was a set of ethical, humanistic beliefs — indeed, it is common to assert that his view of Judaism had a strong influence on his humanistic psychology.

Obviously, such a view of Judaism ignores the strong Jewish emphasis on identifying with an ethnically-based ingroup (and all that that entails in terms of between-group conflict) rather than with humanity as a whole. It also ignores the notorious moral particularism (Is it good for the Jews?) that is so characteristic of Judaism. In any case, “although he later distanced himself from Judaism, it is reported that Fromm never tired of singing Hasidic songs or studying scripture.” One suspects that whatever Fromm’s public pronouncements, his identification with Judaism was quite a bit stronger than his identification with humanity.

While Fromm remained a psychoanalytic revisionist, the Frankfurt School retained an orthodox views of psychoanalysis. This had a major payoff for the Frankfurt School because it was able to ally itself with the Ernst Simmel’s Psychoanalytic Institute. Simmel, a powerful and well-connected psychoanalyst had direct ties to Freud — the gold standard of psychoanalytic royalty. (Those with direct ties to the master enjoyed a privileged position within psychoanalysis — a sure sign [among many others] that we are dealing with a cult rather than a scientific movement.) He then promoted the Frankfurt School’s work and called for research on anti-Semitism within the American Psychiatric Association (p. 325) at a time when psychoanalysis used its political muscle to dominate the APA. Simmel also sought funding for the Frankfurt School from wealthy, presumably Jewish, benefactors of psychoanalysis.

The entire episode is a wonderful example of Jewish ethnic networking that had the effect of subverting scientific psychiatry. Psychoanalysis is clearly a Jewish intellectual movement, as indicated not only by the ethnic background of the leading lights of the field, but also by the support it received from the wider Jewish community — the subject of Chapter 4 of The Culture of Critique. Fortunately, the rise of scientific psychiatry has resulted in the more or less complete eradication of psychoanalysis within mainstream psychiatry. Ultimately this was due mainly to the rise of biological psychiatry as well as the usefulness of cognitive and learning perspectives derived from mainstream psychology. During its heyday, however, psychoanalysts like Simmel used their position of power within the APA to promote psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic theories of anti-Semitism — an effort that had the effect of retarding scientific research in psychiatry.

In the event, the Institute received funding for its Studies in Prejudice project (including The Authoritarian Personality) from the American Jewish Committee (AJC). Wheatland also shows that the ADL was enthusiastic about the project. The Institute’s successful funding proposal argued that modern anti-Semitism

aims not only at exterminating the Jews, but also at annihilating liberty and democracy. It has become the spearhead of the totalitarian order. … The attacks on the Jews are not primarily aimed at the Jews but at large sections of modern society, especially the free middle classes, which appear as an obstacle to the establishment of totalitarianism. (p. 236)

In other words, the war on anti-Semitism was really a war against those who would destroy democracy, freedom, and the middle classes — clearly an attempt to appeal to mainstream America.

Particularly interesting is that prior to the publication of the Studies in Prejudice series, Commentary developed a public relations campaign to promote the books. (Commentary is an important intellectual magazine published by the AJC.) “From the very first issue [in 1945], the magazine began to publish a series of [uniformly uncritical] articles that brought the work of the Horkheimer Circle to the attention of American readers” (p. 253).

After the Frankfurt School received funding from the AJC, Horkheimer’s office and Commentary were housed in the same building. Nathan Glazer, a prominent New York Intellectual, got his job at Commentary because he was already working for Horkheimer. There was an obvious congruence between the views of the AJC and the Frankfurt School:

Rather than simply fulfilling Jewish aims that had been dramatically highlighted by the Holocaust, The Studies in Prejudice series was envisioned to be a broader contribution to American society and culture — efforts consistent with the AJC’s desire to promote pluralism and Jewish cultural interests within the United States. Unlike Partisan Review which self-consciously promoted an ideal of cosmopolitan universalism that was framed by the influences of Marxism and modernism, Commentary … was envisioned to be a distinctly Jewish magazine (p. 154).

Indeed, despite a carefully crafted public image of Commentary as completely independent of the AJC, in fact its “autonomy may have been more of an illusion than a reality” (p. 155). Wheatland cites evidence that Elliot Cohen (the editor of Commentary from 1945–1959) was occasionally reprimanded by the AJC executive board and at other times was pressured to promote projects advocated by the AJC. Significantly, Cohen encouraged members of the Frankfurt School to write for Commentary, and the AJC had become the main financial support for the Frankfurt School. Wheatland shows that Commentary played a major role in promoting the Frankfurt School’s Studies in Prejudice series, including the disastrously influential The Authoritarian Personality. The Institute also appealed to the wider Jewish community, publicizing their work “through public lectures at Jewish colleges and local temples” (p. 251) as well as other public venues.

An example of Frankfurt School writing in Commentary is Leo Lowenthal’s 1947 article on Heinrich Heine, a 19th-century Jewish poet who converted to Christianity early in his career but later renounced his conversion. “Heine’s religion” is interesting because, as Wheatland notes, it reflects not only Heine’s attitudes but also the attitudes of the New York Intellectuals and the other members of the Frankfurt School. Heine “sacrificed his Jewish traditions in order to embrace the same ideal of cosmopolitanism — embodied by the Enlightenment and the French Revolution — that the Frankfurt School and the prewar writers for Partisan Review adopted … For both groups [i.e., the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals] Marxism embodied the yearning for a repaired and redeemed humanity — a world in which racial prejudice and socioeconomic injustice were overcome” (p. 157).

Eventually, however, Heine and Lowenthal (and the other Frankfurters and New York Intellectuals) abandoned the Enlightenment and reverted to Jewish patriotism. Heine wrote that “my preference for Greece has declined. I see now that the Greeks were merely handsome youths, while the Jews were, and still are, grown men, mighty, indomitable men, despite eighteen centuries of persecution and misery. I have learned to rate them at their true value.” Lowenthal concurred: Judaism “was a tradition that need not be transcended in the name of loftier ideals” (p. 158).

In other words, Jews could advocate cosmopolitan universalism for Whites while at the same time retaining their own Jewish identity. This is perhaps the fundamental intellectual stance of Diaspora Jewish intellectuals since the Enlightenment (and strikingly absent in Israel). Wheatland doesn’t comment on the obvious contradiction here. White Christians are to give up their ethnic and religious attachments as outmoded and “anti-democratic” while Jews fashion an ethnic identity that wears the mask of cosmopolitan universalism.

To his credit, Wheatland presents at least some of the criticisms of the Studies in Prejudice series and, in particular, The Authoritarian Personality. As he notes, a consistent thread of the criticisms was the belief that the authors let their biases color their hypotheses and interpretations. My views on this body of work are a bit more scathing: “It is not difficult to suppose that the entire program of research of The Authoritarian Personality involved deception from beginning to end.”

After WWII, the Institute “returned to Germany with great fanfare, it received the generous support of HICOG [the US High Commissioner in occupied Germany] and the Rockefeller Foundation, … and its staff was viewed as a living bridge to the past” (p. 261). It’s fascinating that Adorno then embarked on a series of articles completely repudiating the entire concept of empirical research — perhaps agreeing with me that The Authoritarian Personality and the rest of the Studies in Prejudice series were not really empirical research at all.

Adorno would presumably not agree with me that these works were nothing more than thinly disguised, ethnically motivated ideology. But that’s what it was — aided and abetted by the organized Jewish community.
———————————————–
Review of Thomas Wheatland’s The Frankfurt School in Exile, Part II: The Critique of Mass Culture
Kevin MacDonald
October 28, 2009

One of Wheatland’s strengths is his rich documentation of the strong connections between the New York Intellectuals and the Frankfurt School. Both groups were predominantly Jewish (the first generation Frankfurt School exclusively so), and both were associated with the anti-Stalinist left. However, they had somewhat different theoretical perspectives and overlapping associations. It is common among intellectual historians (e.g., Eric P. Kaufmann) to view the New York Intellectuals as the most important group advocating cosmopolitan racial ideology in the post-World War II era.

Prominent New York Intellectuals include the art critic Clement Greenberg, writer and critic Robert Warshow, philosopher Sidney Hook, Partisan Review editors William Phillips and Philip Rahv, and several forerunners of the neoconservative movement, especially Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz. Wheatland shows that the some of the second-generation New York Intellectuals (e.g., Daniel Bell, Irving Howe, and Nathan Glazer) were well acquainted with the work of the Frankfurt School. Howe and Glazer had minor roles in the notorious Studies in Prejudice series discussed in Part I of this review.

The Critique of Mass Culture

These linkages and cross-fertilization were especially apparent in the analysis of culture. The Frankfurt School viewed contemporary Western societies of the 1930s and ’40s as “soft authoritarianism” — a phrase also used by Tom Sunic in describing contemporary Western societies. From their point of view, the basic problem was to explain the lack of revolutionary fervor in Western societies. Quite clearly, orthodox Marxism was wrong: The predicted revolution hadn’t happened.

This lack of fervor was particularly problematic because there was a considerable degree of personal freedom in Western societies: Theoretically at least, people had the freedom to be revolutionary, but instead they passively accepted the evils of capitalism.

These intellectuals developed the theory that control had shifted from obvious forms of external control (like gulags in the USSR) to control via the media — “secondary emanations of authority … namely newspapers, advertising, radio, etc.” (p. 79). Because the media was an expression of “late capitalism,” it prevented people from seeing the world as good leftists should, and as a result they were unable to “break the cycle of injustice and domination” (p. 79).

Early on Erich Fromm gathered survey data showing that working class Germans were not interested in revolution but were passive and prone to escapism. (Incidentally, Fromm seems to have been the originator of the most important ideas of the Frankfurt School. As noted in Part I of this review, he also came up with the disastrous idea of explaining ethnocentrism among Whites as due to family pathology.) The passivity and escapism of the working class were viewed as due to the failure of the culture, and particularly the media, to properly foment revolutionary consciousness. For example, during the 1930s, Herbert Marcuse wrote attacking “all bourgeois culture for its escapism, repression, and concealment of capitalism’s harsh realities” (p. 160). As discussed extensively by Elizabeth Whitcombe in TOO, the Frankfurt School criticized culture because it upheld a reactionary status quo.

Eventually, there was a general understanding among both the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals that mass culture — whether in the USSR (both of these groups were anti-Stalinist), National Socialist Germany, or bourgeois United States — promoted conformism and escape from harsh political realities; it “offered false pleasure, reaffirmed the status quo, and promoted a pervasive conformity that stripped the masses of their individuality and subjectivity” (p. 175). Obviously this fits well with the Frankfurt School ideas on the family: Again, there is a plea for individualists free from family and ethnic ties and in favor of non-conformity with the status quo.

These intellectuals promoted modernism in art at least partly because of its compatibility with expressive individualism, but also because they believed that it effectively opposed the culture of capitalism. Modernism was also seen as capable of alienating people from modern Western societies. As Elizabeth Whitcombe points out, “Adorno’s desire for a socialist revolution led him to favor Modernist music that left the listener feeling unsatisfied and dislocated — music that consciously avoided harmony and predictability.”

To be modern is to be alienated from the society of capitalism. The alienation of the New York Intellectuals is legendary. Norman Podhoretz was famously asked by a New Yorker editor in the 1950s “whether there was a special typewriter key at Partisan Review with the word ‘alienation’ on a single key.”

In short, they were trying to make all of America as alienated as they were.

Both the New York Intellectuals and the Frankfurt School had nothing but disdain for traditional art. In Adorno’s words, they sought “the end of the order that bore the sonata” — the end of European high culture. And if the audience failed to appreciate modernism, it was their fault. For example, Adorno wrote that the failure of the audience to appreciate Schoenberg “pointed to widespread alienation and irrationalism that were pervasive in society” (p. 29). Only the revolution would make people psychologically whole again and in tune with a genuine aesthetic sense.

The view that modernism would ultimately usher in the revolution eventually faded when it became obvious that it would never be popular with the great mass of people. The view that, say, Schoenberg, could ever have become popular with the great mass of people can only be described as amazingly naïve. We just aren’t wired that way.

(Incidentally, it’s intriguing that Tim Page, a major promoter of avant garde music [e.g., Philip Glass], has acknowledged that he has Asperger Syndrome, an autistic disorder associated with lack of social awareness or interest in people, combined with obsessive, repetitive, and [most importantly] idiosyncratic non-social interests. He is wired differently. Unfortunately for the modernists, very few people are wired like Tim Page. The fascinating question is how someone with a psychiatric disorder that puts him outside normal human interests and desires manages to get into a position to influence the cultural tastes of the wider public.)

But of course realistic ideas about natural human penchants and limitations have never been a strong suit of the intellectual left, dedicated as they are to the proposition that people can be shaped into virtually anything.

White Advocates and Cultural Alienation

In reading the views of the Frankfurt School on the importance of cultural control, it struck me that those of us attempting to preserve the traditional peoples and culture of the West are in a similar situation to the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals. Their complaints about the American culture of the 1930s through the 1950s are mirror images of the complaints that we have now.

Whereas the New York Intellectuals and the Frankfurt School felt alienated from the culture of the West, now we are the ones with feelings of alienation from the culture that has been so strongly influenced by these Jewish intellectual movements.

We are dismayed at the failure of the media to properly address White interests or even to allow expressions of White identity to be seen or heard in the mainstream media.

We are well aware that when there is a failure of media self-censorship (e.g., when media critic William Cash described the Jewish media elite as “culturally nihilist” in the Spectator in 1994), there are powerful campaigns to punish the guilty parties and to get them to recant.

Just as the Frankfurt School theorized, the West has come under the control of soft authoritarianism. But now the shoe is on the other foot: Power resides in the soft totalitarianism of the multi-cultural, multi-racial, anti-White left.

These Jewish intellectual movements decried the passivity, escapism, and conformity of American culture. Those of us who are White advocates are horrified that the vast majority of White people passively accept media messages filled with distorted images of Whites and their history. We are appalled that so many Whites are far more interested in escapist entertainment, ranging from sporting events to sci-fi thrillers, than they care about the future of their people. And we are dismayed by the conformity of the great mass of Whites who are terrified of being called a racist or in any way violating the current taboos of political correctness. We deplore the pathetic conformists striving to uphold the rules of a society deeply hostile to their own long term interests.

Rather than see a culture controlled by the “late capitalist” media,” White advocates see the culture of the West as controlled by a hostile media that advocates multiculturalism, the displacement of Whites, and the culture of Western suicide. And many of us believe that a very large influence on this culture stems not only from the influence of the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals, but also from Jewish ownership and production of the media.

There is thus a common ground between these Jewish intellectual movements and those of us attempting to preserve the traditional people and culture of the West. We all agree in the importance of media control. As I concluded in an article describing the psychology of cultural control, paraphrasing a Bill Clinton campaign slogan: “It’s the culture, stupid.”

Control of the media is critical. If there were strong media messages advocating White identity and the legitimacy of White interests, things would turn around rather dramatically and rather quickly. This is because the psychological power behind a movement of ethnic defense is far greater than the motivation that can be mustered for a multi-racial, multi-ethnic communist revolution.

Such media messages would be able to tap into the natural wellspring of ethnic feeling. There is a deep psychological attachment to one’s people and culture — even among us individualistic White folks — that can easily motivate a mass movement of ethnic defense.

Often these feelings are implicit and unconscious rather than explicit and conscious. They manifest themselves in moving to neighborhoods where their children can attend school with other Whites. Or they manifest themselves in activities where they are able to enjoy the company and camaraderie of others like themselves.

But these feelings are nevertheless real. And they are potentially very powerful. The revolution needed to reverse the cultural tides of the last decades would therefore be far easier to pull off than the communist revolution so ardently desired by the Frankfurt School.

If there is one central message from the post-World War II world, ethnicity and race matter. As Jerry Z. Muller has shown, there has been a strong trend toward ethnically based nations over the last 150 years, not only in the territorial adjustments in Europe following World War II, but around the world.

European Americans Defend Their Culture

It’s interesting that these leftist critics of the media completely ignored the actual mechanisms of cultural control that were in place during the period when they were writing. The controls on culture had little if anything to do with the culture of “late capitalism.” Instead, the traditional Anglo-American culture managed to retain its primacy during this period because of political activism on the part of Anglos in defense of their culture, often quite self-consciously directed against Jewish influence in the media.

Jewish influence on the media, especially Hollywood movies, weighed heavily on the minds of people like Henry Ford early in the 20th century. Public outrage at the content of Hollywood movies led to more or less successful controls on the moral and political content of movies until around the mid-1960s. The following passage from Chapter 2 of Separation and Its Discontents discusses this American Kulturkampf (references omitted but are available here):

During the McCarthy era, there was concern that the entertainment industry would influence American culture by, in the words of an overt anti-Semite, Congressman John R. Rankin of Mississippi, “insidiously trying to spread subversive propaganda, poison the minds of your children, distort the history of our country and discredit Christianity.”

The great majority of those stigmatized by the Un-American Activities Committee of the House of Representatives (HUAC) were Jews, many of them in the entertainment industry. A belief that “Jewish Hollywood” was promoting subversive ideas, including leftist political beliefs, was a common component of anti-Semitism in the post-World War II period, and indeed the push for the HUAC investigation was led by such well-known anti-Semites as Gerald L. K. Smith and Congressman Rankin. For example, Smith stated that “there is a general belief that Russian Jews control too much of Hollywood propaganda and they are trying to popularize Russian Communism in America through that instrumentality. Personally I believe that is the case.”

The substantive basis of the opinion of Rankin and others was that beginning in the 1930s Hollywood screenwriters were predominantly Jewish and politically liberal or radical — a general association that has been typical of Jewish intellectual history in the 20th century. The American Communist Party (CPUSA), which was under Soviet control during the period, sent V. J. Jerome and Stanley Lawrence, both Jews, to Hollywood to organize the writers and take advantage of their political sentiments. Jerome argued that “agitprop propaganda was actually better drama because Marxists better understood the forces that shaped human beings, and could therefore write better characters.” Writers responded by self-consciously viewing themselves as contributing to “the Cause” by their script writing. “But as much as the Hollywood Communist party was a writers’ party, it was also . . . a Jewish party. (Indeed, to be the former meant to be the latter as well).”

Nevertheless, during this period the radical writers were able to have little influence on the ultimate product, although there is good evidence that they did their best to influence movie content in the direction of their political views. Their failure was at least partly because of pressures brought to bear on Hollywood by conservative, predominantly [non-Jewish] political forces, resulting in a great deal of self-censorship by the movie industry. The Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, headed by Will H. Hays, was created in 1922 in response to movements in over thirty state legislatures to enact strict censorship laws, and the Production Code Administration, headed by Joseph I. Breen, was launched in response to a campaign by the Catholic Legion of Decency. The result was that producers were forced to develop projects “along the lines of a standard Hollywood genre while steering clear of both the Hays and Breen offices and the radical writer who may have been assigned to the project.”

In addition, the HUAC investigations of the late 1940s and early 1950s and the active campaigning of religious (Legion of Decency, Knights of Columbus), patriotic (Daughters of the American Revolution [DAR]), and educational (Parents and Teachers Association) groups influenced movie content well into the 1950s, including a great many anticommunist films made as a rather direct response to the HUAC investigations. The result was, in the words of one studio executive, that “I now read scripts through the eyes of the DAR, whereas formerly I read them through the eyes of my boss.” Particular mention should be made of the American Legion, described as “the prime mover” in attempting to eradicate “Communist influence” in the movie industry during the 1950s. The list of sixty-six movie personalities said to be associated with communism published in the American Legion Magazine caused panic in Hollywood and a prolonged series of investigations, firings, and blacklistings.

The point here is that there were strong controls emanating from political conservatives and from religious and cultural traditionalists that kept a lid on Jewish influence on culture through the 1950s — doubtless much to the chagrin of the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals who prided themselves in their alienation from that culture.

This all ended when the culture of the left finally triumphed in the 1960s. At that point, when the multi-cultural, anti-White left had seized the high ground in the cultural wars, they had far less reason to engage in the types of cultural criticism so apparent in the writings of the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals. Hollywood and the rest of the American media were unleashed, and it must have became apparent to many on the left that passivity, escapism and (leftist) conformity weren’t so bad after all.

Indeed, as Elizabeth Whitcombe suggests, there seems to have been some realization among the Frankfurt School intellectuals in the late 1940s and 1950s that popular culture could be utilized to “manipulate the masses in the directions that they wanted — toward liberal cosmopolitanism, breaking down racial barriers, and promoting Black cultural icons.”

Is Capitalism the Problem?

What would have surprised these intellectuals is that the culture of the left could co-exist with capitalism. As Marxists at heart, at least for most of their existence, they felt that it was necessary to destroy capitalism in order to usher in a revolution in culture that would affect the great mass of people.

But it turns out that capitalism was not the problem they faced any more than it is the problem White advocates face now. It is certainly true that capitalism requires control by a racially conscious political and intellectual elite. In the absence of such controls, capitalists may, for example, advocate mass immigration because of the purely economic benefits for individual capitalists.

Political control over capitalism was certainly apparent during the period from 1924–1965 when America reaffirmed that it was a nation of Europeans. Capitalism remained on a strong leash — a leash motivated by a deep desire for ethnic defense on the part of the great majority of European Americans.

Even when the immigration law was finally changed in 1965, business interests were notable for their absence. Far more important was Jewish activism motivated ultimately by perceptions of ethnic self-interest.

All of the great changes in culture over the last 100 years occurred within the capitalist system. Capitalism co-existed with immigration restriction from 1924–1965, and it co-exists with the open borders reality of recent decades.

Ethnic interests and cultural traditionalism were far more important than capitalism in defending the ethnic and cultural integrity of pre-1965 America. And the ethnic interests of the nascent Jewish elite were far more important than capitalism in undermining the traditional people and culture of America in the post-1965 era.

As Eric P. Kaufmann shows, the best explanation for the enormous shift in culture is that the left was able to seize the elite institutions of society — the media, the universities, and the political culture. In my view, this would not have happened without the intellectual and political activism of Jewish intellectual and political activists who not only identified as Jews, but also saw their work as advancing specifically Jewish interests. Certainly the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals are prime examples of Jewish movements that played important roles in this revolution.

The result of the countercultural revolution is that those who detest the cosmopolitan culture erected by these movements are now on the sidelines, feeling alienated, and decrying the passivity, escapism, and conformity of the contemporary culture of Western suicide.
——————————————————
Review of Thomas Wheatland’s The Frankfurt School in Exile, Part III: John Dewey, Sidney Hook, and Herbert Marcuse
Kevin MacDonald
October 19, 2009

Chapter 3 of The Frankfurt School in Exile is titled “John Dewey’s Pit Bull” — a reference to Sidney Hook. Hook had a leadership role among the New York Intellectuals, and is presented as the quintessential Jewish charismatic figure—passionately engaged in public debate. One has the image of him standing up in crowded venues where intellectual debate was a form of hand-to-hand combat, organizing loud protests and angry denunciations of his enemies.

But at the same time, Hook was a professional philosopher with a tenured position at New York University where he specialized in Marxist philosophy. He therefore became the more or less official authority on Marxism among the New York Intellectuals, a group for whom Marxism was at the very center of their world view.

Hook was no dogmatist and he changed with the times. In particular, as he noted in his autobiography, he saw his job as that of developing an intellectually respectable Marxism that fit with American intellectual currents. Indeed, Hook’s worldview was centered around the same problem as the Frankfurt School: The failure of the proletarian revolution in the West conflicted with Marxist dogma.

This is where John Dewey comes in. Hook realized that his leftist political agenda would be strengthened by becoming allied with Dewey because he was a prominent philosopher and public intellectual. As is well-known, the Hook and the New York Intellectuals did much to promote Dewey. Hook and the editors of Partisan Review (an important journal of the New York Intellectuals) praised Dewey to the skies (see Culture of Critique, Ch. 7). And as intellectual historian David Hollinger points out, “If lapsed Congregationalists like Dewey did not need immigrants to inspire them to press against the boundaries of even the most liberal of Protestant sensibilities, Dewey’s kind were resoundingly encouraged in that direction by the Jewish intellectuals they encountered in urban academic and literary communities.”

Dewey subscribed to a Hegelian philosophy of an active mind able to construct reality. The activist mind has deep roots in American philosophy — going back to the Transcendentalists of the 19th century who in turn were influenced by the same German idealist tradition originated by Hegel.

The basic idea is that humans can construct visions of reality that they can then engineer into existence. This approach is very open to science in the sense that science was seen as a tool to find how to attain human potentials.

The basic problem is that these human potentials are seen within a leftist perspective. Science would be used to created a utopia as imagined by these leftist intellectuals.

These idealistic philosophical ideas are entirely consistent with the findings of contemporary psychology: As I noted in my review of a book on the transcendentalists:

The Transcendentalist belief that the mind is creative and does not merely respond to external facts is quite accurate in light of modern psychological research. In modern terms, the Transcendentalists were essentially arguing that whatever “the animal wants of man” (to quote [Ralph Waldo] Emerson), humans are able to imagine an ideal world and exert effective psychological control over their ethnocentrism. They are even able to suppress desires for territory and descendants that permeate human history and formed an important part of the ideology of the Old Testament—a book that certainly had a huge influence on the original Puritan vision of the New Jerusalem. Like the Puritans, the Transcendentalists would have doubtlessly acknowledged that some people have difficulty controlling these tendencies. But this is not really a problem, because these people can be forced. The New Jerusalem can become a reality if people are willing to use the state to enforce group norms of thought and behavior. Indeed, there are increasingly strong controls on thought crimes against the multicultural New Jerusalem throughout the West.

Hook therefore never abandoned his leftist proclivities but saw Dewey’s philosophy as a better way to attain Marxist political objectives than was possible using classical Marxist ideology — not only more palatable to an American audience but also free from the baggage of historical determinism. After all, Marxist historical determinism had failed: The revolution didn’t happen.

Both the Frankfurt School and Dewey were oriented to achieving practical change in a leftist direction — “promoting rational and progressive social change through action” (p.105). In fact, as Hook described him in his autobiography, Dewey was useful to the communists even though he did not accept Marxism: Dewey “was in Communist eyes the ideal ‘honest liberal’ — a phrase used to characterize liberals who, if not sympathetic to, were at least not critical of the Soviet Union” (p. 159).

The result was a “pragmatic Marxism” much more acceptable to American academics: “Hook’s pragmatic Marxists made up their own minds based on their own evaluations of scientific evaluations of contemporary reality. If consensus could be reached among these private evaluations, collective action was possible, and its democratic course was assured” (p. 109). While phrased in terms of democracy and science, clearly this is a plea for an elite consensus followed by action. Still, it is opposed to orthodox Marxism which believes in historical determinism. Hook eventually saw pragmatism as offering all the advantages of Marxism without the baggage.

It’s interesting that in pursuing his pragmatic Marxist agenda, Hook was unencumbered by a need to justify his views on race and culture. In his autobiography, Hook simply accepts the idea that Franz Boas and his followers had refuted evolutionary theories of cultural differences that had been dominant until the triumph of the Boasians in anthropology.

Again, this illustrates the centrality of Boas. By discrediting Darwinian theories of culture and race, there was nothing to stop the domination of the intellectual arena by varieties of leftist activism like that of Hook. Indeed, Boas combined his successful academic crusade against Darwinism with far left political activism. Hook notes that Boas, as the leading light of the American Committee for Intellectual Freedom and Democracy was “Surrounded by a hard core of Communist Party members and fellow-travelers and, using Boas’ name as bait, this committee rallied hundreds of American scientists to protest racial and political oppression in Germany, Spain, and Italy. This was followed by another appeal, equally worthy and successful, addressed to scholars in the humanities” (Hook, p. 257). At the same time, Boas and the group “refused to recognize that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian country” (Hook, p. 258).

Despite the fact that Hook decried the communist affiliations of Boas, he accepted the logical outcome of Boasian anthropology — the ideology of ethnic and cultural diversity as a paradigm for America. Indeed, Hook also had a very strong Jewish identification and saw being Jewish as intimately related to advocating diversity. In a Partisan Review article of 1949, Hook presented his ideas on what it meant to be a Jew:

No philosophy of Jewish life is required except one—identical with the democratic way of life—which enables Jews who for any reason at all accept their existence as Jews to lead a dignified and significant life, a life in which together with their fellowmen they strive collectively to improve the quality of democratic, secular cultures and thus encourage a maximum of cultural diversity, both Jewish and non-Jewish. . . . If it is pruned of its Utopianism and its failure to understand that the ethics of democracy presupposes not an equality of sameness or identity but an equality of differences, much of the universalist view still has a large measure of validity.

Judaism = democracy = advocacy of secularism (i.e., opposition to a special place for Christianity in American culture) = advocacy of cultural (and presumably ethnic) diversity. Whatever else one may say about this, it certainly does not represent traditional Jewish society which was highly authoritarian, tolerated no heretical views on religion, and had very negative views of outgroups.

Nor does it represent even vaguely Judaism as it has evolved in the Jewish state (where, as Yuri Avnery notes, Eli Yishai, the current Interior Minister, is energetically promoting ethnic purity within Israel by expelling people, including wives of Israelis, who can’t establish their Jewish ancestry, and where descendants of Russian immigrants with a non-Jewish mother are relegated to second class citizenship. As I was reading the L.A. Times op-ed page today, I thought how refreshing it would be if they ran Avnery’s article. But alas, they saw fit to run an op-ed on the imminent extradition from Australia of an 88-year-old native of Hungary who is alleged to have murdered a Jew in 1944.)

Clearly, although Hook’s philosophy of Judaism is presented in the loftiest of ethical sentiment, it is a philosophy of Judaism tailor-made to suit Jewish interests as a Diaspora within Western societies. Just as clearly, it is a program this opposes the legitimate interests of the White, Christian population of America to retain political and cultural control.

In general, the New York Intellectuals moved in the direction of accepting basic American institutions as a framework for their political activism. The revolution of the left would happen not as a result of bloody revolution but within the traditional institutional structure of the West: “Whether because of Stalin, the theory of social freedom, the purge trials, then Nazi-Soviet pact, the Second World War, the Cold War, the rise of the Warsaw Pact, postwar American prosperity, or the repression of Hungary, almost all the New York Intellectuals grew to embrace American democracy and be suspicious of radical rhetoric” (pp. 133–134).

The Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals retained their theoretical differences. For example, Wheatland spends a chapter on the intellectual feud between Hook and the Frankfurt School’s Max Horkheimer. (My verdict: Horkheimer did not appreciate the power of the Dewey/Hook philosophy for creating a leftist revolution.) Each group saw itself as scientific and democratic and the other as metaphysical. But they were on the same page in seeing Christianity and ethnic intolerance as the central problems of America. And they both saw science as able to provide the cure. Intellectual historian David Hollinger notes that they saw themselves as the guarantors of a particular vision of democracy: one authentically Jeffersonian, but being subverted by the perpetuation of old-fashioned religious and ethnic prejudices and being inhibited by a psychologically immature and socially provincial predilection for absolutes that portended an authoritarian political culture for the United States. (p. 136)

The new enemy was not capitalism but the religious attitudes and ethnic intolerance of White people, with White people seen as latent fascists on the verge of enacting an authoritarian society to safeguard their interests as Whites.

But despite paying lip service to democracy, both of these groups championed elitist, anti-democratic attitudes: The whole point was to change America from the top down by getting rid of the traditional folkways of America.

Wheatland concludes with two chapters on Herbert Marcuse and his relationship to the New Left, arguing convincingly that Marcuse did not have much influence on the New Left and may well have been influenced by them to take more activist positions. In the end, the Frankfurt School as a whole and Marcuse in particular had far more direct influence on the leftist culture of the academic world in the period after the 1960s than on the leftist culture of 1960s protests.

The main long term effect of the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals was to seize the high ground of American culture in the academic world. Indeed, beginning in the 1970s, scholars of the Frankfurt School obtained positions at all the most prestigious US universities and became a major part of the leftist culture of the social sciences and humanities.

These ideas were broadened by other leftist currents unleashed by the 1960s counterculture (e.g., studies of Marxism and identity politics centered in departments of ethnic studies and women’s studies). They were then watered down and distributed in the media and in the K–12 educational system. The organized Jewish community was also deeply involved in promoting and funding these intellectual activists and in promoting their ideas throughout the school system. Eventually they were reinforced by powerful social controls against people who dissented from the culture of the left — what amounts to the culture of Western suicide.

At the end of the day, therefore, there was a remarkable commonality among these two groups of leftist Jewish intellectual activists. Much of their success derived ultimately from Jewish ethnic networking. Apart from a few non-Jews like Dewey and Dwight MacDonald, they were self-contained Jewish worlds.

But that Jewish world extended out to important parts of the high ground in American society, particularly the universities. Ultimately, it is not at all surprising that it was all connected to all of the critical concerns of Jewish in post-Enlightenment Western societies: “Critical theory offered the key that unified the interests and concerns of the New York Intellectuals. Marxism, modernism, alienation, conformity, totalitarianism, and the Holocaust were all interconnected within the thought of the Institute” (p. 187).

Kevin MacDonald is editor of The Occidental Observer and a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. Email him.

Permanent URL: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-WheatlandIII.html

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Photobucket

Pat Buchanan is Censored by Human Events
by Kevin MacDonald
Source: The Occidental Observer

Web Note: I was hoping someone would take the time to go through the Human Events version of Pat’s column, just to find out what they didn’t want the American people to read. What did PJB write that was so offensive, so verboten, that they were compelled to delete nearly 50% of his column? Kevin gives us the scoop.

Pat Buchanan is a national treasure — by far the most articulate and sensible spokesman in the mainstream media — or at least close to it — for a wide range of issues, from immigration, to economic nationalism, to foreign policy issues. Unfortunately, his exposure in the MSM seems to be on the wane. He still appears on the McLaughlin Group, but his former base at MSNBC has disappeared, and his exposure in the major newspapers seems non-existent. I can remember in the 1990’s when he was a regular on the LA Times op-ed page, which seems inconceivable now. (There was an LA Times column he did on the Frankfurt School at a time when I was starting to research Jewish intellectual movements. After reading his account of how the Frankfurt School undermined the family, I thought that there might be a Jewish story there. Not a bad guess. The Frankfurt School was labeled a “Jewish sect” by Gershon Scholem, and the Frankfurt School became the subject of Ch. 5 of The Culture of Critique and much subsequent writing. Thanks Pat.) Not surprisingly, Buchanan has a very long rap sheet at the ADL.

Buchanan’s latest article, “The Poodle Gets Kicked,” on the Biden visit to Israel will do nothing to endear him to the ADL. Buchanan makes an excellent case on the absurdity of supposing that US and Israeli interests are identical. The interesting thing is that the version that appeared on the Human Events website was about half the length of the original. (See “Human Events Censors Pat Buchanan’s Latest Column” at Buchanan.org). Linda Muller, who runs Buchanan.org, suggests that this is the result of neocon censors at Human Events, and notes that the revised version leaves out any mention of AIPAC or the USS Liberty incident.

It should surprise no one that Human Events would be involved in such a clumsy version of censorship. These are the people who fired Kevin Lamb after a phone call from the SPLC. (See Lamb’s VDARE article, “The Leftward Course Of Human Events.“)

The Human Events censor seems to have been motivated to expunge statements implying extreme groveling by Biden, as in his ridiculous statement “Progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the United States and Israel.” Of course, the opposite is the case. Israel can stall peace talks forever without having to worry that the US will do anything about it. Biden should have a special place in George Orwell’s Hall of Fame.

The censor also expunged the most egregious examples where Israel has demonstrated quite clearly that it has always pursued its own interests even when they conflict with US interests — not only in the USS Liberty case, but also stealing uranium during the JFK administration, transferring US technology to China, and spying on the US. (Buchanan was being kind by only mentioning Pollard; there are many more examples; see here and here.) The Israeli policy of ethnic cleansing on the West Bank and Jerusalem is therefore part of a long list of areas where Israel refuses to go modify its goals by listening to its poodle. Why should it? Nobody cares what poodles think.

The following is Buchanan’s entire column with the censored parts in bold print.

Actually, Joe set himself up. From the moment he set foot on Israeli soil, our vice president was in full pander mode.

First, he headed to Yad Vashem memorial, where he put on a yarmulke and declared Israel “a central bolt in our existence.”

“For world Jewry,” Joe went on, presumably including 5 million Americans, “Israel is the heart. … Israel is the light. … Israel is the hope.”

Meeting Shimon Peres the next day, Joe confessed that when he first visited at age 29, “Israel captured my heart.”

In Peres’ guestbook, he wrote, “The bond between our two nations has been and remains unshakeable.”

He then told Peres and the world, “There is absolutely no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel’s security.”

As Peres spoke, Biden took notes. When Peres called him “a friend,” Joe gushed, “It’s good to be home.”

Even at AIPAC, they must have been gagging.

Walking around the corner to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s office, Joe called him by his nickname, “Bibi,” declared him a “real” friend and said the U.S. relationship with Israel “has been and will continue to be the centerpiece of our policy.”

Then the sandbag hit.

Interior Minister Eli Yishai announced construction of 1,600 new apartment units in Arab East Jerusalem. Stunned and humiliated, Biden issued a statement saying he “condemned” the decision.

He then retaliated by coming late to dinner at Bibi’s house.

Netanyahu has apologized for the timing, but they are going ahead with the apartments. What are the Americans going to do about it? At this point, nothing but bluster.

Indeed, a day later, at Tel Aviv University, Joe was back at it: “(T)he U.S. has no better friend … than Israel.”

On his departure for Jordan, Ha’aretz reported that Israel plans to build 50,000 new homes in East Jerusalem over the next few years.

Biden may feel he was played for a fool, and Americans may feel jilted, but we got what grovelers deserve. And if we wish to understand why the Arabs who once respected us now seem contemptuous of us, consider that battered-spouse response to a public slap across the face.

Consider also the most remarkable statement of Biden’s first 24 hours.

“Progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the United States and Israel.”

Biden is saying we are a more effective force for Mideast peace in a region where Arabs outnumber Israelis 50 to one if everyone knows we sing from the same song sheet as Israel and have no policy independent of Israel’s.

How can America be seen as an honest broker between Arabs and Israelis if there is “no space” between America and Israel?

Even with the closest ally in our history, Britain in World War II, there was space between Winston Churchill and FDR on where to invade — North Africa, Italy, France, the Balkans? — whether to beat Stalin to Berlin, Prague and Vienna, who should be supreme allied commander, even whether the British Empire should survive.

Israel keeps its own interests foremost in mind, and when these dictate actions inimical to U.S. interests, Israel acts unilaterally. David Ben-Gurion did not seek Dwight Eisenhower’s permission to attack Egypt in collusion with the French and British in 1956, enraging Ike.

Israel did not consult JFK on whether it could steal enriched uranium from the NUMEC plant in Pennsylvania for its atom bomb program.

Israel did not consult us on whether it could attack the USS Liberty in the Six-Day War, or suborn Jonathan Pollard to loot our security secrets, or transfer our weapons technology to China. They went ahead and did it, knowing the Americans would swallow hard and take it.

Ehud Olmert did not consult President-elect Obama on whether to launch a war on Gaza and kill 1,400 Palestinians. Nor did Netanyahu consult us before Mossad took down the Hamas minister in Dubai.

What Netanyahu and Yishai are telling Obama with their decision to keep building on occupied land is, “When it comes to East Jerusalem and the West Bank, we decide, not you.”

And if Netanyahu has jolted Joe and others out of their romantic reveries about Israel, good. At least now we no longer see as through a glass darkly.

Israeli and U.S. interests often run parallel, but they are not the same. Israel is concerned with a neighborhood. We are concerned with a world of 300 million Arabs and a billion Muslims. Our policies cannot be the same.

If they are, we will end up with all of Israel’s enemies, who are legion, and only Israel’s friends, who are few.

And if our policy and Israel’s are one and the same, the Arab perception will be what it is today — that America cannot stand up to Israel, even when her national interests command it.

Joe’s performance before he got the wet mitten across the face only underscored the point: The mighty superpower is a poodle of Israel.
——————————————————
Look at this treacherous, groveling scoundrel. How low can one go?

——————————————————
Photobucket

Humiliating America
by Eric Margolis – EricMargolis.com
March 17th, 2010

Israel’s hard right knows that the one sure way of thwarting any possible peace with the Palestinians is to keep annexing East Jerusalem and squeezing out its Arab population. Some of these activities are even financed by American tax-free charities….

After the astounding humiliation of Vice President Joseph Biden by Israel’s rightwing government, that nation’s premier newspaper, “Ha’aretz,” cited an old Hebrew saying, `Biden had to wipe spit off his face and say it was only rain.’

Before arriving in Israel, Biden had repeated President Obama’s demand that Israel cease building new housing in East Jerusalem, which violates international law and decades of UN resolutions. Washington and the EU have repeatedly asked Israel to cease most building activity in the occupied West Bank.

Shortly before Biden arrived at an intimate dinner hosted by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel dropped a bombshell: it would build 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem. Some reports in Israel said thousands more are planned on the West Bank and Golan.

All the humiliated Biden managed to do to express his anger was to arrive an hour and a half late for Bibi’s dinner.

What a pathetic, cowardly response. Biden should at least have gotten on his plane and flown home. A great power cannot afford to lose face like this.

Biden’s humiliation showed the unprecedented influence that Israel’s rightwing government holds over Washington and made a mockery of the endless talks about Arab-Israeli “peace.”

The Biden fiasco also delivered another body blow to the wobbling Obama administration.

Netanyahu’s insult was so stinging, that even Israel’s point-woman in the administration, Hillary Clinton, who waits in the wings to replace a fallen Obama, was forced to blast the Israelis. But, of course, everyone knew this was mere political theater. Israel may announce a brief delay in colonization, then go right on gobbling up the West Bank and Golan.

How the mighty have fallen. In 1956, Israel colluded with Britain and France to attack Egypt. Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula. President Dwight Eisenhower ordered Israel to get out of Sinai without delay or face a total cutoff of aid and diplomatic support – or even face a military response. Israel got out.

Adding to the black comedy, Israel’s hard-line interior minister apologized for authorizing illegal colonization while Biden was in town and promised not to do it again – when Biden was next in Israel that is. As Washington stamped its foot in impotent fury, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu made the mocking excuse that the announcement had been a mistake of timing.

This pathetic episode shows Israel’s right wing has Washington in its pocket.

And why not. The Israel lobby had forced candidate Obama to promise that if elected, he would never press Israel into a peace settlement. Congress has become more attuned to Israel’s needs than Israel’s own Knesset. The US is inching towards war with Iran.

Israel contemptuously scorned Obama’s calls for it to cease colonizing the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, and withdraw its 500,000 settlers, many of whom are Americans and Russians.

Netanyahu even denounced senior Obama aides David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel as “self-hating Jews” for opposing Israel’s expansionist policies as injurious to America’s strategic interests.

The Obama administration’s humiliation by Israel is having loud repercussions in Washington. Staunchly pro-Israel Republicans are elated over Obama’s failure, the latest sign of presidential weakness.

Israel and just about everyone in Washington knows that Obama would not now dare to challenge Israel’s many supporters in the US Congress, or enrage Israel’s powerful American lobby when his administration is floundering and mid-term elections are on the political radar.

The Republican Party is firmly in the grip of Protestant fundamentalists who believe an expanding Israel is an essential part of their faith. Many Republicans mistakenly believe that Obama is an Arab.

Israelis understand that the White House has to pretend to rebuke Israel in order to maintain good relations with its Arab allies, reassure them over the supposed Iranian threat, and pretend the US-backed Palestinian authority of Mahmoud Abbas has legitimacy.

Biden’s humiliation was shared by the hapless Abbas, who was just tiptoeing under US prodding into more useless `indirect’ negotiations with Israel. He was left looking confused, helpless and ever more so an American-Israeli puppet. The useless Arab league huffed and puffed. Back to square one.

That suited Israel’s Netanyahu just fine. Israel is relentlessly gobbling up the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Its policy is to keep talking and stalling until there is nothing left to negotiate. The only power that can stop Israel’s colonization campaign that is destabilizing the Mideast and bringing the threat of war with Iran, Syria and Lebanon, is the United States….

Read more at EricMargolis.com

Read Full Post »

Credit to N.S.W. for the resource. -W.

Read Full Post »

Photobucket

Ex-Italian President Says 911 an Inside Job
by James Buchanan

An ex-president of Italy, Francesco Cossiga. has told the respected Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera that “the disastrous (911) attack was planned and realized by the American CIA and Mossad with the help of the Zionist world to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and to persuade the Western powers to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

This is truly outstanding news! This statement supports the suspicions of the 911 truth movement, which rejected the “official” 911 explanation from the government long ago. Most people – once they study the facts and details of the World Trade Center collapse – immediately become suspicious about the government account. Why did the World Trade Center 7 building collapse – even though it had NOT been hit by an airplane? How did a film crew of MOSSAD agents know in advance that the WTC buildings would be attacked? Why were there Israeli art students/spies in the same towns as the [alleged] 911 hijackers? Why did our government set free these Israelis who obviously KNEW something important about 911 while we later filled up Guantanamo with Afghani goat herders, who knew as much about 911 as their goats?

The WTC towers survived the initial impact of the airliners that hit them. Most of the fuel burnt up in a huge fireball outside the buildings. After ten minutes all of the jet fuel should have burnt up according to fire experts. The remaining fire was nothing more than a paper and wood fire. The steel support structure of the World Trade Center would have been coated with a cement-like material that would provide hours of high-temperature fire protection.

Despite this, we are told that the fire was so intense that the steel in the building lost most of its strength and the building started to collapse. Steel does not melt until it reaches 3,000 degrees F. Steel does not begin to lose significant strength until it gets above 1,000 degrees F. The insulating material on the steel should have kept it well below this temperature for hours. Every civil engineer and architect KNOWS this information and there’s even a website where professionals of the field voice their suspicions about the WTC collapse.

There were firemen at the 78th floor just before the collapse. One of them radioed down that the remaining fire could be put out with two fire hoses in a short amount of time. Most likely some sinister rogue elements in the MOSSAD and/or our government were monitoring the fire department radio channel, and someone pressed the button for a controlled demolition of the first tower to collapse. (It would be a little bit difficult to explain how the building could collapse if the fire department put out the fire, so the building was destroyed right then killing a large number of firefighters and police who were trying to rescue people.) A short time later the second tower was brought down by a controlled demolition, and then the WTC 7 building was similarly destroyed.

A steel-reinforced skyscraper has never collapsed due to a fire. Even a bomber colliding with the Empire State Building during World War Two did not cause a collapse. There have been buildings that collapsed due to earthquakes, but these buildings collapsed non-symmetrically. The World Trade Center buildings (1, 2 and 7) all collapsed into their own footprints like a perfect controlled demolition with only some minor scratches and a few broken windows in neighboring buildings.

One website skeptical of the official 911 story announces “Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth! (We have) 230 architectural and engineering professionals and 582 other supporters including A/E students (who) have joined us in demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation.” There are dozens of suspicious circumstances surrounding the 911 event.

The more high-ranking political officials around the world who confirm that 911 was an “inside job” the better. Most people have suspicions about 911 and have heard some of the alternate theories about it.

Even the circumstances surrounding 911 are suspicious. How could the thoroughly incompetent Bush regime stop terrorism from 2001 until the end of his second term if some outside force wanted to set off bombs in the U.S.? Does anyone seriously believe that if al Qaeda were real that it would not have been able to sneak a terrorist across the Mexican border or fly one here on a student visa from Saudi Arabia and then set off a bomb in a shopping mall?

Israel was caught setting up an artificial al Qaeda cell in Palestine in 2001. Their MOSSAD could easily have recruited the 911 hijackers [“fall guys”] in Egypt and Saudi Arabia in similar artificial al Qaeda cells.

The only way the highly inept Bush could have stopped terrorism would be if Bush (or Israel) were responsible for the terrorism in the first place. [“Mission accomplished.”]

Read Full Post »

Photobucket

Uncovering the ultimate family tree
By Tristana Moore
BBC News, Goettingen
See also: Reuters video link

Manfred Huchthausen, a 58-year-old teacher, proudly showed me around his well-tended garden. “Isn’t it beautiful?” he asked, pointing to the lush flower bed and immaculate lawn.

“But I know that you want to see the cave, don’t you? I’ll show you,” he said, chuckling.

The Lichtenstein Cave is a short drive away from Manfred’s village, deep in the Harz mountains.

This is the spot where Manfred’s relatives, dating back 3,000 years, were buried. The cave remained hidden from view until 1980, and it was only later, in 1993, that archaeologists discovered 40 Bronze Age skeletons.

The 3,000-year-old skeletons were in such good condition that anthropologists at the University of Goettingen managed to extract a sample of DNA. That was then matched to two men living nearby: Uwe Lange, a surveyor, and Manfred Huchthausen, a teacher. The two men have now become local celebrities.

“It’s odd, standing here in the same area where my ancestors were buried. I felt really strange when I had the bones, the skull of my great-great-great grandfather dating back 120 generations, in my hands,” said Manfred.
“ I didn’t expect it at all, to end up being the direct descendant of the cavemen ”
Manfred Huchthausen

“I can’t describe it, the hairs on the back of my neck stood on end. It wasn’t exactly a nice feeling, but it was an incredible experience that I won’t ever forget. The 3,000-year-old bones are so far removed from our lives today, and these 120 generations, that’s so long ago,” he said.

“We have no idea what happened during this time, we don’t know what happened to these people,” he added.

Unique pattern

At her lab at the University of Goettingen, Susanne Hummel, an anthropologist, has all the skeletons stored in a freezer.

As she carefully removed the plastic wrapping, she explained the research project.

“It is a unique discovery. While we were examining the prehistoric bones of the male individuals, we found genetic patterns which are unique,” Dr Hummel said.

“We wanted to find out whether these genetic patterns were still present in the living population of this area, so we put an advert in the local paper and we asked people to take part in our project – 270 people came forward. We were very surprised that so many wanted to help us.

“The local residents had to give a sample of saliva. We extracted DNA from the saliva and looked for the genetic patterns on the Y chromosome. In the end, we found two men who have a very similar genetic pattern to the prehistoric one, and that genetic pattern is unique,” she added.

The analysis showed that most of the bones were from the same family.

“I saw the advert in the paper and I thought it was an interesting idea,” said Manfred.

“They took a sample of saliva using cotton wool buds, they put it in a plastic tube and then sealed it. The scientists also had their mouths covered to prevent any mixing of the DNA samples,” he said.

“I didn’t expect it at all, to end up being the direct descendant of the cavemen. It’s amazing, especially as on that particular day I had such a dry mouth, I thought the DNA sample wouldn’t work,” he said.

Family tree

But do Uwe Lange and Manfred Huchthausen resemble one another?

“The two men don’t really look alike,” Dr Hummel said.

“Your appearance is determined by both parents, by the mother and father. We were investigating the Y chromosome, from father to son, in our project. It’s a modern phenomenon that we move around… In the old days, people normally lived and stayed in the same place where they were born,” she said.

And what about Manfred, does he think he looks like his Bronze Age ancestors?

“I definitely think the shape of the head is similar to the caveman, but after 3,000 years and 120 generations, I’m sure personalities have changed,” Manfred said.

Manfred Huchthausen is planning to organise a Bronze Age feast and party in his village.

Claiming to have the longest proven family tree in the world, he says he is now determined to find out more about his ancestors.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7570928.stm
——————————————————
Photobucket
Two Germans Recently Discovered They Were Related Through a 3,000-Year-Old Ancestor
By CHRISTEL KUCHARZ
PASSAU, Germany, July 16, 2008
Source: ABC News

Two Germans share the longest proven family tree in the world.

The men, Manfred Huchthausen, a 58-year-old teacher, and Uwe Lange, a 48-year-old surveyor, had known each other from living in the same village, about half a mile apart from each other.

But they never knew they were related through a 3,000-year-old shared ancestor.

They only recently found out they are both true descendants of Bronze Age cave-dwellers who lived in the area three millenniums ago.

Thanks to a DNA test on well-preserved Bronze Age bones found in the Lichtenstein cave in the foothills of the Harz Mountains in Germany’s Lower Saxony, the men can now claim to have the longest family tree in the world.

“Before the discovery, I could trace my family back by name to 1550,” Lange said. “Now, I can go back 120 generations.”

Lange comes from the small village of Nienstedt, which is near the excavation site.

“We used to play there as kids,” he told ABC News. “If I’d known that there were 3,000-year-old relatives buried there, I would not have set a foot in that cave.”

A local team of archaeologists discovered the L. cave, which had been hidden from view, in 1980. But it wasn’t until 1993 that they found the Bronze Age remains.

The cave was used between 1,000 and 700 B.C., according to archaeological investigations conducted by scientists at the nearby University of Goettingen. One of them, anthropologist Susanne Hummel, confirmed that Huchthausen and Lange share the longest proven family tree.

They found the bones of 23 people — nine females and 14 males — along with what appeared to be cult objects, prompting speculation among scientists that the cave was a living area and a sacrificial burial place.

Scientists found that the bones had been protected from the elements by calcium deposits that formed a protective skin around the skeletons.

The remains turned out to be from the same family group that had a distinctive and rare DNA pattern.

When 300 locals were tested with saliva swabs as part of the archaeological research, two local residents turned out to have the exact same genetic characteristics: Manfred Huchthausen and Uwe Lange.

“I could not believe this at first, but I think it’s truly fascinating,” Huchthausen, whose family has lived in the area since the 18th century, told ABC News.

The skulls have been reconstructed using 3-D computer techniques and are now placed at a museum in nearby Bad Grund.

Huchthausen has been to the museum, saying he found it “awesome” to see his ancestors.

He said he has received many calls from across Germany since the archaeologists published their findings.

“People are interested to find out what it is like to be able to trace back the family roots for 3,000 years, and I can tell them, it’s awesome, it’s sensational, it’s fascinating.”

Read Full Post »

Note the similarity between the Anasazi cliff palaces and the cliff palaces of the Chachapoyas of Peru. Our “historians” have failed us miserably. Only the sober revisionist can unearth the truth — and the truth, for today, is that this entire subject merits further investigation. Expect non-Whites the whole world over to bitterly protest Solutrean and early White migration theories, no matter how much evidence we amass. Primitive man was far more sophisticated than modern arrogance will readily admit. Our people have been voyagers and boundary breakers from “the beginning.” -W.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »