Weaponizing Sex'n'Drugs'n'Rock&Roll????

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Let's hope this footnote cures others, e.g. Joe, of lumping a genuine thinker like Gramsci with the happy HAM hookers of "Cultural Marxism". Thus the only conspiracy I see here is the crudity of Gramsci's editors (or the English translator Buttigieg) trying to buttress the link between Gramsci and Lukacs - implying to me that either they must themselves really believe the crude materialist BS in the Popular Manual, or wish to deceive their readers with such BS.
Just to be clear, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is (to use Wikipedia's definition):

...a right-wing, antisemitic conspiracy theory, which claims that the Frankfurt School is part of a continual academic and intellectual culture war to systematically undermine and destroy Western culture and social traditions.[49] As articulated in the 1990s, the supposed conspiracy means to replace traditionalist conservatism and Christianity with the counterculture of the 1960s to promote social changes such as racial multiculturalism, multi-party progressive politics, acceptance of LGBT rights, and political correctness in language.[50][51][52]
Hmm... this website doesn't give much support to "traditionalist conservatism" or "Christianity", either. And we support multiculturalism, progressive politics, and LGBT rights. But, I don't see much evidence that the Frankfurt School is part of any conspiracy to promote the counterculture of the '60s, or to systematically undermine and destroy Western culture. Nor is there much evidence linking Horkheimer & Adorno to the CIA or to promotion of LSD.

Edit: as a discussion forum host, perhaps I should learn to be more polite. Claude, what would you see as the evidence linking Horkheimer & Adorno to the CIA-promoted sex, drug & rock'n'roll culture of the 1960's and beyond? I know they did propose a sort of program or project to prevent the rise of anti-semitic fascism in the USA. But I'd argue that the program they proposed, is hardly recognizable as what later materialized.
 
Last edited:
Dear Jerry,

I had copied your words before you put in the strike through and 'deburgerizing', so I remove it in the post below. Your honesty and integrity really impress me here on such a vexatious issue.
****
We need to delineate what Cultural Marxism (a leftist movement) consists of, quite apart from "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" which is obviously a conspiracy theory of right wing origin as you demonstrate decisively. Now I too support LGBTI rights (having met intersex people through my medical practice) and the need for some kind of social underpinning for multiculturalism.

However, this has not been and cannot be achieved thru the cultural debasement resulting from the Frankfurt School's promotion of SnDnR&R.
Just to be clear, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is (to use Wikipedia's definition):

...a right-wing, antisemitic conspiracy theory, which claims that the Frankfurt School is part of a continual academic and intellectual culture war to systematically undermine and destroy Western culture and social traditions.[49] As articulated in the 1990s, the supposed conspiracy means to replace traditionalist conservatism and Christianity with the counterculture of the 1960s to promote social changes such as racial multiculturalism, multi-party progressive politics, acceptance of LGBT rights, and political correctness in language.[50][51][52]

Hmm... this website is also opposed to traditionalist conservatism and Christianity, and we support multiculturalism, progressive politics, and LGBT rights.
The leading trio of the Frankfurt School (HAM) were all of Jewish background (Adorno party so) and saw Leninist ideas triumph briefly in the Soviet Union before collapsing in the West under the sudden emergence of Fascism. The Frankfurt School arose in response, seeing correctly that Western culture contained something that could resist Leninism. They wanted to find what this Western cultural component was - rather than asking where Leninism goes wrong! Having isolated this cultural component they then wanted to neutralize it.

They were further demoralized by the Fascist era, especially the Nazis because the leading trio were all of German origin. Now no one can deny the Nazi's massacre of millions of Jews, despite evidence of exaggerated figures, nor can one deny the genuine popularity of Nazism, given the millions of soldiers who fell fighting for it. This profoundly affected the Frankfurters, and their US backers, who realized that there was something in the human 'soul' which was extremely antipathetic to socialistic ideas (not merely against Leninism or Communism). Remember Adorno’s infamous words: “To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric;” hence all post-1945 poets must be barbarians!

Now Horkheimer and Adorno were absolutely correct in identifying the Enlightenment of the 17th-18th century as a major – if not the major – cause of this Western cultural blindness and arrogance (as seen in the title Dialectic of Enlightenment). However, their interpretation of the defects in Enlightenment thinking are entirely different to my own critique of the Enlightenment (much like Gramsci's critique of Bukharin is different to Lukacs'). E.g. Horkheimer & Adorno did not critique Leninism (i.e. they offer no critique of his State and Revolution), even though they critique the notion of determinism correctly in the quote below.

Dialectic of Enlightenment p. 5 said:
On the road to modern science, men renounce any claim to meaning. They substitute formula for concept, rule and probability for cause and motive.
Despite their excellent start however they soon degenerate into a striking collection of observations that are nevertheless disconnected, revealing no attempt on their part to link them together into a new synthesis and understanding. This was highlighted in 1947 with the addition of the chapter "Elements of anti-Semitism", which, while underscoring their underlying motivation, struggles to find a solution through Freudian psychology – but emphasizes the ‘package deal’ involved, one that for them required an all-encompassing broad-based solution (rather than requiring further analysis). I.e.

”Dialectic of Enlightenment p. 201 of my 258 page edition” said:
Anyone who gives a chance to Fascism, subscribes to the destruction of the trade unions and the crusade against Bolshevism; he automatically subscribes too to the destruction of the Jews. The conviction of the anti-Semites – however artificial it may be – has been absorbed in the predetermined and subjectless reflexes of a political party.
Given the authors’ blanket refusal to carry out further analysis on the Jewish question, this means that one has either to be labelled a Fascist or a chump, hence all deeper thinking (including genuine thinking) on the issue is to be labelled “fascist”! Jean Paul Sartre independently came up with the same debate-denying binary opposition.

The eventual result was The Authoritarian Personality (1950 – funded by the American Jewish Committee), which, as Joe showed from chapter 23 (esp. page 976), attacks and destroys anyone who will not submit to, nor be influenced and manipulated by simple-minded Leftist ideas. The authors also realized that Fascism has many rational and reasonable features, so many that the authors realized that it could not be combatted in a ‘rational’ way - hence their later recourse to hedonism and cultural debasement, as proven in Marcuse's Eros and Civilization, which in 1955 looked forward to a machine-based future where workers had plenty of leisure time (shades of Brave New World) – and hence the risk of thinking for themselves and realizing that just as Bolshevism, whether under Stalin or Khrushchev was no good, perhaps the West would not be either and that economic downturn (which is inevitable under the capitalism system as Rosa Luxemburg showed) would lead to the return of Fascism! Hence Marcuse’s bizarre idea of 'revolution' lying in the turn to infant sexuality – rendering the masses confused and intellectually impotent.

”Marcuse E&C p. 201-2 said:
No longer used as a full-time instrument of labor, the body would be resexualized. The regression involved in this spread of the libido would first manifest itself in a reactivation of all erotogenic zones and, consequently, in a resurgence of pregenital polymorphous sexuality and in a decline of genital supremacy. … This change in the value and scope of libidinal relations would lead to a disintegration of the institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been organized, particularly the monogamic and patriarchal family.

These prospects seem to confirm the expectation that intellectual liberation can lead only to a society of sex maniacs, that is, to no society. However, the process just outlined involves not simply a release but a transformation of the libido: from sexuality constrained under genital supremacy to erotization of the entire personality. It is a spread rather than an explosion of the libido – a spread over private and societal relations which bridges the gap maintained between them by a repressive reality principle. …

In contrast, the free development of transformed libido within transformed institutions, which eroticizing previously tabooed zones, time and relations, would minimize the manifestations of mere sexuality by integrating them into a far larger order, including the order of work. In this context, sexuality tends to its own sublimation: the libido would not simply reactivate precivilized and infantile stages, but would also transform the perverted content of these stages.
An aside: Presumably the apostles might have done likewise (Acts 2:45)…
”Acts of the Apostles” said:
And sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.
… as “possessions” could include even their own bodies used for ‘sacred prostitution’ to sustain early Christianity economically! Luckily for them however they had 'procured' friends in high places.

Hence, post 1955, the debasement of culture as outlined in the essays on this website (Wasson's mushroom trip, Woodstock etc.)! And these perversions lie at the very center of popular culture today.

And you too, Jerry, no doubt see the startling paradox of Joe Atwill's podcasts in which he supports having family and children, despite his having overturned the very basis of Christianity – which of course itself claims to the be the fundamental basis of Western culture and family values! This traps not just Joe but all of us, not just in the West, in a terrible predicament!

While the intended turn to cultural and sexual debasement is clear from the very last page in The Authoritarian Personality as well as Marcuse’s works, the philosophical connection to Adorno & Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment might seem less clear, despite the obvious Freudian connection between the HAM trio and their common Frankfurter membership.

However, I have since discovered the answer – and it dovetails with the position to be put forward in the Corruption of Science by Modern Philosophy. They identify the Enlightenment and its doctrine of determinism (= atheistic predestination) with [a conception of] truth being a “wholly conceived and mathematized world” which they blame on one particular person, quoting the arguments of Edmund Husserl, an early 20th century German philosopher of Jewish background whose ideas are popularly misconceived as agreeing with Heidegger’s (to the latter’s great annoyance).
“Dialectic of Enlightenment p. 25” said:
“An infinite world, in this case a world of idealities, is conceived as one whose objects do not accede singly, imperfectly, and as if by chance to our cognition, but are attained by a rational, systematically unified method – in a process of infinite progression – so that each object is ultimately apparent according to its full inherent being … In the Galilean mathematization of the world, however, this selfness is idealized under the guidance of the new mathematics: in modern terms, it becomes itself a mathematical multiplicity.” Thinking objectifies itself to become an automatic, self-activating process; an impersonation of the machine that it produces itself so that ultimately the machine can replace it. … Mathematical procedure became, so to speak, the ritual of thinking.
It is clear that Adorno & Horkheimer identify the culprit as being Galileo!

Likewise Marcuse (my edition of One Dimensional Man has exactly 200 pages). He is quoting from an untranslated work of Husserl titled (my translation) The Crisis of European Sciences and the Transcendental Phenomenology (Die Krisis der Europäischen Wissenschaften und die transcendentale Phänomenologie):
“One Dimensional Man chapter 6 p. 133” said:
Husserl starts with the fact that the mathematization of nature resulted in valid practical knowledge: in the construction of an “ideational” reality which could be effectively ‘correlated’ with the empirical reality (pp. 19, 42). But the scientific achievement referred back to a pre-scientific practice, which constitutes the scientific basis (the Sinnesfundament) of Galilean science. This pre-scientific basis of science is the world of practice (Lebenswelt) which determined the theoretical structure, was not questioned by Galileo; moreover, it was concealed by the further development of science. The result was the illusion that the mathematization of nature created an autonomous (eigenständige) absolute truth” (p. 49f), while in reality, it remained a specific method and technique for the Lebenswelt. …

In this project, universal quantifiability is a prerequisite for the domination of nature. Individual non-quantifiable qualities stand in the way of an organization of men and things in accordance with the measurable power to be extracted from them. But this is a specific, socio-historical project, and the consciousness which undertakes this project is the hidden subject of Galilean science; the latter is the technic, the art of anticipation extended in infinity (ins Unendliche erweiterte Voraussicht p. 51).
We see here that Marcuse shares the viewpoint of Horkheimer & Adorno, that the culprit to blame for the Enlightenment’s perversions is ultimately Galileo, because he supposedly created a rigid mathematical world where everything was predetermined by equations.

Their and Husserl’s viewpoint is manipulative BS. Galileo said that the physical world is “written in the language of mathematics” but did not imply that the world is reducible to mathematics as the authors above do! Newton reduced it more to mathematics but only Pierre Laplace drew the ultimate conclusion. The true preacher of the mathematical subjugation of physics is Einstein however!

So what is their underlying message? Just have a good time from SnDnR&R since you cannot understand what science and mathematics (and therefore life, politics, economics and meaningful human relationships) are really about.

Now I agree with you 100% that Jews do not have a genetic tendency to perversion, sleaze, evil, deceit, avarice or whatever over and against non-Jews. However, when it comes to culture – which dovetails with and partly controls ideology – Miss Kitty for example, realizes that humanity’s predicament is grave (e.g. while I was composing this, news came through of an Israeli military strike on Syria, killing Syrian soldiers there)! And this too is why I find it difficult when considering "Racism, Cultural Degeneration and Misplaced Paranoia" (the quote marks are hardly required given the subject matter) to take either your side or Joe's since it is more than mere tribal and ethnic motivations at work today but at the same time trying to identify any potential Machiavellian malpractice concerning whatever front group is to be victimized so as to take the cultural blame is also an extremely taxing task - but worthy of the effort.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
I am heading to Sydney today and will return only on the 12th June. I do not have internet access there - so my non-replies in the meantime are not to be taken to mean that I have abandoned you!:)

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
From my observance of the phenomenon, there is no doubt that there has indeed been damage to respective societies, but all societies are constantly dealing with the issue of Temptation. The freer the society is the more such 'chaos' appears. The opposite extreme is the repressive society and this leads to other ... severe problems to individuals and more.

In my opinion, whatever problems were created (outside of the clearly criminal) cannot come close to what societal damage occurred via mergers and acquisitions of companies and corporations. What has been termed Vulture Capitalism, a form of speculation, all of which serves narrow interests over the societal interests.

Ironically, I find that those who complain so about the damage to their societies are, in effect, Socialists by doing so. Because of various other pernicious propaganda they can't bring themselves to admit it. Thus they don't mind if others are wage slaves, even making others into such.

At the end of the day, it's all about Balance (Economic, Sexual, whatever). And there are always people looking to leverage themselves, and/or some BS agenda, by promoting Imbalance. Then we end up with Unbalanced people trying to justify their shit by blaming other people, some of whom are Balanced.

Why aren't these people complaining about the Catholic Church and the rape and other abuse of children? Because the same people who don't like some supposed Jewish cabal fucking with them, absolutely love having their priests and nuns do it to them? Or, they're just too embarrassed that their 'romanticized' Culture is always a fucking mess, and they neurotically need to keep white-washing it?

I witnessed up close, several viable, American medium sized companies cannibalized by such vulture enterprises, foreign and domestic. In some cases the motive is to acquire technology, others to reduce competition, or in others simply to extract profits from the butchery. This process is still going on, including in America's agricultural heartland. Everyone is getting in on the takings, from the descendants of blue-collar workers cum Wall Street M&A tycoons to the likes of Mitt Romney at Bain Capital. The gentle owners of 'homes' see their 'homes' as speculative investments, they buy other 'homes' so they can make others pay exorbitant rents, they cause prime agricultural land to be turned into even more speculative 'homes'.

Chairman Mao said that the Chinese would sell us the rope to hang ourselves with, and the Mont Pelerin Society descendants of the Euro-royalty sold us the free market ideology to turn everything into a profit making endeavor, ... so that we could buy the Chinese rope ... and Christmas tree lights.

No wonder we need medication. This is the revenge of the Chinese for the opium wars, only it should be directed at the people who really started all this, not institutional scapegoats. In any case, I consider it all as part of the historical continuum, .... create a problem(s) and provide the solution(s).
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Remember Adorno’s infamous words: “To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric;” hence all post-1945 poets must be barbarians!
The source is here: Prisms by Adorno, page 34. The context is that Western traditional culture has become materialist, vulgar, pompous, and subject to ridicule by "hucksters of mass culture". Thus, participation in either Western traditional culture, or mass culture, is barbaric. Although the "infamous" quote refers to poetry, I don't think Adorno's condemnation is limited to poetry.

I feel it's ironic that much of Adorno & Horkheimer's cultural critique is not so different from Joe's or Claude's: bitter complaints about vulgarity and debasement.

The eventual result was The Authoritarian Personality (1950 – funded by the American Jewish Committee), which, as Joe showed from chapter 23 (esp. page 976), attacks and destroys anyone who will not submit to, nor be influenced and manipulated by simple-minded Leftist ideas.
I do not agree that Joe has demonstrated any such thing. The only specific program proposed by TAP (on p. 955) is that "All that is really essential is that children be generally loved and treated as individual humans." Beyond that, they suggest that techniques developed in individual psychotherapy, might be used on a mass scale to bring about cultural change.

Hence Marcuse’s bizarre idea of 'revolution' lying in the turn to infant sexuality – rendering the masses confused and intellectually impotent.
I don't know much about Marcuse, but from the quote above, I can't agree that he is calling for a simple return to "infant sexuality", nor is he seeking to "render the masses confused and intellectually impotent". Instead it appears that he is trying to recover true, natural human sexuality from layers of cultural repression.

I totally agree with Marcuse's call for a disintegration of the monogamic and patriarchal family. I have seen time and time again, that hyper-vigilant policing of monogamy violations is fatal to primary relationships. And that rigid patriarchal expectations are just as poisonous.

And you too, Jerry, no doubt see the startling paradox of Joe Atwill's podcasts in which he supports having family and children, despite his having overturned the very basis of Christianity – which of course itself claims to the be the fundamental basis of Western culture and family values! This traps not just Joe but all of us, not just in the West, in a terrible predicament!
Ridiculous!! Mankind and his ancestral species have successfully sexually mated and procreated since the Last Common Eukaryotic Ancestor. Certainly, Jesus (if indeed he existed) would have been stunned at the suggestion that all cultures before His religion was invented, were incapable of having family and children.

As a secular agnostic individual with a family and a child, I also have somehow managed to overcome this "terrible predicament". Indeed I feel that being a family without "Christian family values", is like being a fish without a bicycle.

I am heading to Sydney today and will return only on the 12th June.
Thanks for letting us know. We will continue your re-education when you get back...
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Yes, Jerry, so far, as usual, I am not seeing any cause for great alarm from the quotations. This is very similar to the claims made by Joe et al. about the psychedelic scene generally. With the latter it is certainly true that the evidence supports an organized effort to accomplish some result or results, but such as hallucinogenics creating large scale problems, at least, was not one of them. In fact this aspect back-fired to a major degree.

Where the CIA darkly succeeded was with the likes of cocaine, in relation to destroying minority communities, especially blacks. To this, one would think that the likes of Miss Kitty would be shouting Hallelujah!!!

If Joe and Claude feel that unvarnished Christianity is the Good basis of Good Western Culture and Good (Chrest) Family Values, then why complain about the millenniums of expansionist wars and conquests and literal and virtual slavery. Embrace it, as does Miss Kitty. Just blame the Jews, the Other White Chimpigs, for anything that seems amiss.

Ohhh, I get it.

It's like Pork being the Other White Meat.

Don't eat the Other White Meat, it's Soylent Green!!!

Soy? The Impossible Burger, Roundup?
 
Sorry for not getting back earlier but I have had computer breakdowns and am preparing to leave for the UK in two days - in addition to rereading Eros & Civilization and One Dimensional Man so as not to go off half-cocked. I will also be traveling back for a week in LA. If one or more you would like to meet up you could provide me with a contact phone number in the next 2 days (I will take no offence at no replies or offers here).

The source is here: Prisms by Adorno, page 34. The context is that Western traditional culture has become materialist, vulgar, pompous, and subject to ridicule by "hucksters of mass culture". Thus, participation in either Western traditional culture, or mass culture, is barbaric. Although the "infamous" quote refers to poetry, I don't think Adorno's condemnation is limited to poetry.

I feel it's ironic that much of Adorno & Horkheimer's cultural critique is not so different from Joe's or Claude's: bitter complaints about vulgarity and debasement.
True on the surface - and very important too in that I agree with Horkheimer and Adorno's antipathetic stance towards the Enlightenment!!!! The point however is that Adorno & Co. - especially Marcuse in Eros and Civilization - are merely claiming that they do not want such vulgarity and debasement. Yet their very words and ideas lead to such cultural debasement, against their alleged claims otherwise. As I wrote above.
The eventual result was The Authoritarian Personality (1950 – funded by the American Jewish Committee), which, as Joe showed from chapter 23 (esp. page 976), attacks and destroys anyone who will not submit to, nor be influenced and manipulated by simple-minded Leftist ideas.
I do not agree that Joe has demonstrated any such thing. The only specific program proposed by TAP (on p. 955) is that "All that is really essential is that children be generally loved and treated as individual humans." Beyond that, they suggest that techniques developed in individual psychotherapy, might be used on a mass scale to bring about cultural change.
I agree with you in as far as Joe has not fully developed the implications in this way. However, they were Marxists and were trying to manipulate the Left - the 'March Though The Institutions' - supposedly to institute Marxist rule in the West after the failure of Bolshevism to spread. When they hitched their wagon to the West the 'proletarian' merged with the 'democrat' hence I maintain that they uphold the domination of simple-minded Leftist ideas along with their PC Police.

The emphasized quote from TAP is inadequate for any society since it is merely covering up the big issues with "motherhood statements" which ultimately deny any basis for collective action - especially when the masses are exploring and fulfilling their infantile sexuality. Hence to Marcuse's words again:
Marcuse said:
This change in the value and scope of libidinal relations would lead to a disintegration of the institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been organized, particularly the monogamic and patriarchal family.

These prospects seem to confirm the expectation that intellectual liberation can lead only to a society of sex maniacs, that is, to no society. However, the process just outlined involves not simply a release but a transformation of the libido: from sexuality constrained under genital supremacy to erotization of the entire personality. … In this context, sexuality tends to its own sublimation: the libido would not simply reactivate precivilized and infantile stages, but would also transform the perverted content of these stages.
Jerry Russell said:
I don't know much about Marcuse, but from the quote above, I can't agree that he is calling for a simple return to "infant sexuality", nor is he seeking to "render the masses confused and intellectually impotent". Instead it appears that he is trying to recover true, natural human sexuality from layers of cultural repression.

I totally agree with Marcuse's call for a disintegration of the monogamic and patriarchal family. I have seen time and time again, that hyper-vigilant policing of monogamy violations is fatal to primary relationships. And that rigid patriarchal expectations are just as poisonous.
People have to have enough monogamy to raise children - as you demonstrate in your own words below. I have been in New Guinea where different tribes find different successful solutions within the tribe since parents often die and the tribe, embodying collectivity (a concept already much weakened in the West before the 20th century), rallies to the support of the sole parent and orphans almost instinctively. You however, despite living in modernity, have managed to overcome it because of your - perhaps instinctive - sobriety and clean-mindedness....
Claude said:
And you too, Jerry, no doubt see the startling paradox of Joe Atwill's podcasts in which he supports having family and children, despite his having overturned the very basis of Christianity – which of course itself claims to be the fundamental basis of Western culture and family values! This traps not just Joe but all of us, not just in the West, in a terrible predicament!
Jerry Russell said:
Ridiculous!! Mankind and his ancestral species have successfully sexually mated and procreated since the Last Common Eukaryotic Ancestor. Certainly, Jesus (if indeed he existed) would have been stunned at the suggestion that all cultures before His religion was invented, were incapable of having family and children.

As a secular agnostic individual with a family and a child, I also have somehow managed to overcome this "terrible predicament". Indeed I feel that being a family without "Christian family values", is like being a fish without a bicycle.
Who made that suggestion? I didn't. You didn't. But Judaeo-Christianity does, on the sly (e.g. through the Ten Commandments issued on Mount Sinai, as if people, not just Israelites or Egyptians before that era, had not already enacted laws when confronted by questions of morality) - and that particular religious mal-combination is undoubtedly a terrible predicament as not only Palestinians can attest to!

Most other religions, surviving religions, have encouraged family values - even polygamous family values too, like Moslems and Mormons - in the normal Western cases where the tribal system has utterly broken down, since tribal values clearly supported family collectively or the tribes would have died out. (Rich bankers' families are of course trying to re-establish themselves as secret tribes ruling over a fragmented mankind - so no guess required as to the backgrounds of so many in the Frankfurt School:eek:)

Now what you say is very true re "hypervigilant policing of monogamy violations" and also of the traditional and unwarranted suppression of homosexuality - but Marcuse & Co., though correctly identifying the problems here, think it has to be treated by teaching and encouraging the practice of the extreme opposite of traditional sexual mores. As if adolescents have to be encouraged to experiment as sex!

Thus via applying Marcusean principles, individualism, evolving ultimately into narcissism, is turned back upon ordinary people, weaponized against them to turn them into isolated individuals and poor single mothers - you and I don't need to quote Joe to realize that! We are trying to find some balance here, permitting sexual variety but without allowing it to become the encouraged norm, since unstable monogamy is horrific for children! And the kids come first as you and I know! (I haven't got children myself but their upbringing is obviously the prime focus for the future).

The main concern I have with your argument however is the implication of your Leftist presumption about the fundamental equality of human beings, here expressed narrowly as the 'true natural human sexuality' - which I disagree with above by underlining your phrase and my reply. Rather, people have radically different personalities - and so many are easily tipped over into sexual and other (e.g. drug-fuelled) dissipation by manipulative philosophies (quite apart from life's vicissitudes). One cannot presume, as so many Leftists think, that other people will essentially think and feel like oneself - especially the case when oneself is intelligent, restrained and perceptive!

Each person navigating through life finds a different type of sexual experience and behavior to satisfy them; in order to help them we had moral instructions and traditions (however crude or defective) to help people (or at least average people) find a balance. Marcuse & Co. instead seize upon the genuine problems not to help elucidate the issues but to replace the whole moral and cultural order with hyperindividualistic sexual (hyper-)indulgence. You just have to appreciate, Jerry, that a large percentage of the populace is NOT like you, and have instead 'expanded' their sexuality and other behaviors into destructive practices which have demoralized them and rendered them politically, economically and intellectually impotent.

Because you have good sense you read Adorno & Co. benignly to extract the good implications - but you have so far ignored the bad, that many young people and others have been hoodwinked by Sex'n'Drugs'n'R&R and have been encouraged to do so through Frankfurt School thinking. I can't ignore it - since my sister proved it to me by her burnt out sexual life and alcoholism. But you will rightly reply that this is but one person! So here is a better proof below, involving an intelligent group that you and I both belong to.

As a good Georgist you may have noticed the same problem in the USA that we have here in Western Australia. The vast bulk of Georgists were born before the baby boom from 1945 so are dying off fast. In contrast people of my baby-boomer generation don't join the Georgists even when they hear about it. Why? In my opinion it is because of their hyperindividualist mindset, though things seem to be changing for those born after 1980, as the younger ones have lived through not the opulent 1960-70s but the gradual cultural and economic erosion which hit primarily the poor, having accelerated from 2008.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
Indeed, Joe was unfortunate to have to live right in the centre, both spatially and temporally....
Yes, Jerry, so far, as usual, I am not seeing any cause for great alarm from the quotations. This is very similar to the claims made by Joe et al. about the psychedelic scene generally. With the latter it is certainly true that the evidence supports an organized effort to accomplish some result or results, but such as hallucinogenics creating large scale problems, at least, was not one of them. In fact this aspect back-fired to a major degree.
*

If Joe and Claude feel that unvarnished Christianity is the Good basis of Good Western Culture and Good (Chrest) Family Values, then why complain about the millenniums of expansionist wars and conquests and literal and virtual slavery. Embrace it, as does Miss Kitty. Just blame the Jews, the Other White Chimpigs, for anything that seems amiss.

Ohhh, I get it.

It's like Pork being the Other White Meat.

Don't eat the Other White Meat, it's Soylent Green!!!

Soy? The Impossible Burger, Roundup?
...of the psychedelic scene. And so you are right to state that the situation has abated somewhat, since LSD etc. were useless at mind control but rather caused more problems for the victims. However the cultural damage persists, any post 1970s stabilization now overturned by the worsening economic situation (e.g. the persistently high divorce rate) - aided and abetted by readily available pornography, so much more watchable than boring stuff like Joe's podcasts and our website discussion!:( In Western Australia today, divorce occurs less because of drugs or even unemployment with poverty, but because of maltreatment of workers, notably the fly-in fly-out mining practices where the victims have one week of 12 hour shifts (proven detrimental to health decades ago) at work and one week off at home to recuperate:eek:. Their wives hardly see them and breakups are now the norm for married mineworkers suffering despite nominally adequate wages.

This was not the case in the 1960s-70s when miners and their families lived in towns at their place of mining! These mines are mainly in the Pilbara of north-west Western Australia - and Bali is a cheaper and nearly as short a flight as Perth for weary workers who have suddenly discovered that their partner has taken up with someone else!

So while I am no Christian I have to admit that some sort of family values as exhibited by major religions and all tribespeople are of major value for human health and collectivity - but this does not mean that I accept every religion's "package deal" of crazy bigotry which, as in Christianity, lead to the hypocrisy, the wars and slavery!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
As a good Georgist you may have noticed the same problem in the USA that we have here in Western Australia. The vast bulk of Georgists were born before the baby boom from 1945 so are dying off fast. In contrast people of my baby-boomer generation don't join the Georgists even when they hear about it. Why? In my opinion it is because of their hyperindividualist mindset, though things seem to be changing for those born after 1980, as the younger ones have lived through not the opulent 1960-70s but the gradual cultural and economic erosion which hit primarily the poor, having accelerated from 2008.
Ha, the American notion of the Rugged Individualist was born long before the Frankfurt School. And I don't think that Jerry and I, like most other American Boomers and before, knew anything about George, before we serendipitously happened upon him.

And .... in my recent re-reading of Ellis's Cleopatra to Christ and King Jesus, it is clear to see that we are merely in a replay of the prior millennial script. That which Ellis has fleshed out in his parallel comparisons of Josephus, Act's and the Pauline Epistles, the Talmud and more. See: https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/from-cleopatra-to-christ.2515/

So, maybe, if you are correct about intent, then the Frankfurt School was "just following orders", as Eichmann said.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
So while I am no Christian I have to admit that some sort of family values as exhibited by major religions and all tribespeople are of major value for human health and collectivity - but this does not mean that I accept every religion's "package deal" of crazy bigotry which, as in Christianity, lead to the hypocrisy, the wars and slavery!
"Some sort" of family values?

This seems to be an admission that there might be an optimal sort, or several more optimal sorts of family values than the binary options we are generally presented with. Christian on the one hand and Satanic debauchery on the other. The old Levirate system seems premised upon the long term protective value provided to the woman and her spawn, but doesn't seem too well supporting of the needs of the younger brothers -- as redundant husbands. Hmmm, but I'm guessing that this system was in play only for the nobles and such of the day. While waiting for their older brother(s) to die, they had carnal access to concubines and prostitutes for satisfying their manly needs.

And of course, even with the JudaeoChristian monogamy, the elites that imposed this system were the first to ignore it, from the beginning till Trump. And oddly the Christians never complain about such exceptions, e.g. the Catholic Madonna and Whore complex.

Hillary said that "It takes a village", and interestingly, the nobles and such seem to have performed the best at projecting their spawn to success, generation after generation, despite usually having less personal contact with their spawn. They have wet nurses, nannies, tutors, boarding schools, and .... resources of the village that others usually don't.

OK, just to be clear Mr. Badley, which specific Christian Family Values are you talking about?

So now you see why I was asking you before about those evil troubadours, guiding the human automatons away from their prime directive as spawn shapers towards finding their romantic 'soul mates'.

So, just as we now have the evil Frankfurter School, back in the day these troubadours came out of the pentecostal Hamburgler School (long before the McDonalds franchise).
 
Top